Adios, Stockholm
By Mitch Berg
One of the Democrats’ most irritating memes is the idea that there’s some “Moderate Republican” out there that, if the GOP would just send ’em to office, would unite with Democrats and, well, fix everything!
There’s a complementary meme, of course; that conservatism – government that favors the utterly Jeffersonian ideals of lower taxes and free markets and security – is “Extremist”.
Of course, this is never accompanied by the equal-but-opposite idea – that nationalizing a sixth of the economy, taxing achievement and subsidizing failure is equally “extreme”, as opposed to being just what people (wrongly, in this case) believe and how they differ from you.
In so doing, Democrats pine for the days before 1980 (2002, in Minnesota) when the GOP did nothing more than try to bring a little restraint to the statist fantasies of the far left that has been the mainstream of the Democratic Party, with a six-year break from 1994 to 2000, ever since 1972.
And after last night, as The Obama Dream staggers off to Wisconsin with a black eye, expect Dems to start pining for those days again – the days when Republicans had Stockholm Syndrome.
Jeff “Don’t Call Me Joel” Rosenberg of MNPublius gives the meme voice:
Once upon a time in American politics, there was a character known as a Moderate Republican. The defining characteristic of the Moderate Republican was his or her tendency to occasionally Compromise on Things. Very young political observers may not understand what I’m talking about, but there was a time when the occasional Republican would actually vote for a bill sponsored by a Democrat.
They’d have to be very young “political observers” indeed. John McCain was one of them.
So, for that matter, was George W. Bush; except for foreign policy and that whole “God” thing, he wasn’t far to the right of Jim Ramstad. He presided over a domestic policy that only a moderate-to-lefty could love; prescription drug subsidies, co-sponsoring an Education bill with Ted Kennedy, racking up a spending record to the left of Bill Clinton.
The problem is, once a “Moderate” Republican is in a position to threaten Democrat power, he/she is instantly labelled an “extremist”; see John McCain, whose lifetime ACU voting record of two points to the right of Jim Ramstad and “Maverick” label and history notwithstanding got branded by the Dems attack-PR machine and the media that basically spent the last two years working as their adjuncts as “an extreme conservative”.
The lesson all Republicans (and smart Democrats) should learn is that, when the chips are down, “the Moderate Republican” does not exist.
Today, however, Republicans fit into a much narrower band of ideologies. In fact, Newt Gingrich, a onetime leader of the conservative wing of the party, is now on the moderate side of his party.
{{facepalm}}
Now, Jeff is not by a long stretch a dumb guy. Indeed, in a Twin Cities leftyblogosphere dominated by the stupid and the depraved, he’s near the top of the curve. But this is just absurd.
Gingrich, in his capacity as both an intellectual and party leader, threw some institutional love to the party apparatus in a generally-insignificant, backwater upstate district. That apparatus hand-picked Dede Scozzafava, who is a textbook example of a RINO – a woman who ran to the left of the Democrats’ endorsed candidate. The endorsement is a sign that Gingrich didn’t think the race through, and that Palin and Pawlenty saw an opportunity and ran with it. Not that Newt turned into a hamster on us.
Anyone to the left of Gingrich is considered an America-hating communist
Oh, good lord, Jeff. Give it a rest.
It’s all well and good that conservative activists want to elect politicians who reflect their beliefs. What they’ve created, though, is a monster — a Republican party that votes en masse against any bill sponsored by a Democrat,
I’m sure Rosenberg is aware that the GOP controls neither house of Congress.
that’s more interested in fire-breathing political gamesmanship than participating in the legislative process.
Jeff: If you and I play a game of chess, and I actually move my pieces to try to put your king in check, it doesn’t mean I”m “not particpating in the chess process”. It means I’m doing what I set out to do at the beginning of the chess game; enact my agenda (by beating you).
The left’s meme (for Republicans) would have it that agreement is the end. It is not – or rather, it is not the end that any given elected official should seek as of election night. It is a means to the end.
And the truly amazing thing is, it’s going to get worse.
Where “worse” equals “present the left all of that scary cognitive dissonance that comes from having to defend your agenda, rather than get it for the asking”.
Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who upended the race in New York’s 23rd District, is just the tip of the iceberg. Right-wing extremists have big plans for replacing Republican to the left of Glenn Beck with “real” conservatives.
Notwithstanding Rosenberg’s invocation of boogeyman-du-jour Beck, as well as the absence of any commensurate move by the Dems to replace anyone to the left of Byron Dorgan with moderate Joe Lieberman clones to show the sincerity of their commitment to “compromise”, why would he care? I mean, if conservatism is truly “extreme”, and truly doesn’t reflect the electorate, then wouldn’t a good Democrat want the opposition to immolate itself?
Because, I suggest, Rosenberg (or the K-street spinmeisters he’s echoing, knowingly or not) knows it’s a bunch of baked wind.
When the Tea Parties can turn out millions of people in the shadow of the Obama Honeymoon, and when the best the left can do is call them naughty names in response, the left knows the “swing to the right” isn’t just a passing fad.
When the left has to demonize entertainers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, rather than just let them do the voodoo they do (which, you’d think, would only help the left, if any of them were so “extreme” that they really did marginalize themselves and their followers, you know they’re scared of something.
When the left has to try to impart a patina of illegitimacy, depravity and even criminality on simple cognitive dissonance – everything from Janet Napolitano’s “enemies list” to the recurring slurs about the Town Hall meeting dissenters to Barbara Boxer’s “Nazi” references – you know it’s not because they think dissent isn’t self-abnegating.
On the bright side, this internal battle is going to make a mess of the 2010 election cycle for Republicans, who could have had a pretty good year in 2010. On the not-so-bright side, it’s going to mean even less cooperation from Republicans in Congress over the next year, if that’s even possible.
Um, Jeff? If the GOP has a bad year in 2010, building on our almost-negligible position today, then why is our cooperation even an issue?
Republicans will remember what happened to Scozzafava, and toe the conservative line lest someone challenge them, too.
That is the idea.
I’m sure that will strike hardline conservatives as major progress. The funny thing, though, is that in the long run this scorched-earth strategy is likely to do major damage to the Republican party. That’s what Gingrich warned conservatives about after Scozzafava withdrew from the race:
If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election
And it’s there that Rosenberg gets close to a point, although he might not know it.
Gingrich was warning about the dangers of excessive purism, and of the Pat Buchanan approach of taking ones toys and leaving the sandbox. It’s a legitimate concern – ask Algore! – but should not be confused with what’s been his real message for 15 years now; selling conservatism to the middle, rather than running to the middle (the loathsome Scozzafava notwithstanding) like a $2 streetwalker to get some cheap votes.
And those are wise words indeed; which is why the left is working hard to try to portray all conservatism as “extremism”.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Democrats would like to go back to a time like when Milquetoast Bob Michel was the Minority Leader and the Republican’s were mainly concerned with keeping their tee times at Congressional. Then backbenchers like Gingrich and the other “bomb throwers” (as they were labeled by unbiased, mainstream media types at the time) started showing up on C-Span, the US had an opposition party. The Democrats have been struggling to keep the ‘uppity’ Republicans down ever since.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Heh. Yep. It’s hard to realize that the Reagan Revolution dissipated (in Congress) as quickly as it did after Reagan left office.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
anyone wondering about why they call us ‘teabaggers’ sometimes needs to look no further than a Ghandi quote…
“First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”
They are inbetween mocking us and fighting us. Soon we shall win! God I feel like a lib now quoting Ghandi…
November 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Don’t wanna feel like a lib? Mike Huckabee (not an especially conservative politician, outside of social issues) put it well also; “when you’re taking flak, you’re over the target”.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
But that is a great quote. I gotta use it. Thanks.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Now playing at a theater near you :”Attack of the Republican Straw Man.”
November 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Once upon a time in American politics, there was a character known as a Conservative Democrat. The defining characteristic of the Conservative Democrat was his or her tendency to occasionally Compromise on Things. Very young political observers may not understand what I’m talking about, but there was a time when the occasional Democrat would actually vote for a bill sponsored by a Republican.”
I think the above is closer to the truth.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Once upon a time there were Democrats that shared the beliefs of our founders…
November 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Realistically, in this Congress, it would be bizarre for Democrats — moderate or not — to vote for any major Republican bills or amendments.
The Republicans are, finally, relearning the gamesmanship that they mastered during the Gingrich era (which ended with Gingrich becoming Speaker): back bench (metaphorical) bombthrowing. Since they’re not going to get real consideration of their proposals, putting in the kind of work (not the amount, but kind) to craft legislation that can garner sufficient support is pointless; much more useful to see bill writing as an insurgent act, not a work in progress.
And they’ve been effective. Whatever you think about Obamacare, with a filibuster-proof majority in their caucus, all they need to do to pass it — or a repeal of DADT, DOMA, or legislation requiring automakers to manufacture cars that will run on hope and change* — is keep their caucus in line on cloture. It would only take a simple majority in their own caucus to, say, condition committee chairmanships on a pledge to vote for cloture on all bills and enforce that pledge…
… but they haven’t done it, much to the frustation of the angry left.
Moderation is good, it seems, only when it’s the other side making concessions.
_________________________
* No, they can’t actually make manufacturers do that, but they can and do mandate a lot of stuff that can’t happen, either.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“Once upon a time, legislators in DC actually cared about what the Constitution said instead of using it as toliet paper.”
This goes for both for both sides.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Okay, a fair amount of my post ws hot air. I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m a blogger. Mitch, I’d be happy to measure my hot air up against yours any day.
So let me be (a bit) pithier. I’ve been a consistent supporter of conservative Democrats — they driver me crazy personally, but I think diversity in our party is a good thing. One of my biggest problems with the Republican party is that it increasingly demands strict ideological purity.
Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are necessary, because they make the compromises that allow Congress to create policy. And that’s really the important point — I am taking it as a given that the function of our politicians is to create policy, not just to spew hot air. The latter is our job, Mitch.
I’m upset about the mindset that says a single Republican vote for a Democratic bill is one vote too many — incidentally the same mindset that says Joe Lieberman is a no-good traitor. I wish there were more compromise in American politics today, but I see us moving in the exact opposite direction, and I think the GOP is more responsible that the Democratic party.
Now, is compromise necessary? Of course not. But it’s good. Do the Democrats need moderate Republicans with our numbers? No. I’ve written multiple times that we should use reconciliation to pass health reform. But I wish it wasn’t necessary.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“a fair amount of my post ws hot air.”
As was your SitD comment, just a lot of hot air, you moon-bat gas bag.
The Democrats using reconciliation is the opposite of compromise.
Jeff, why do you act like such a raving idiot?
I can spot that Liberal Fascism a mile away.
My Karma just ran over your Dogma
November 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Okay, a fair amount of my post ws hot air. I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m a blogger. Mitch, I’d be happy to measure my hot air up against yours any day.
Careful, Jeff. I play bagpipes and I broadcast. I have zen-monk breath control. I could bake pumpernickel with my hot air.
So let me be (a bit) pithier. I’ve been a consistent supporter of conservative Democrats — they driver me crazy personally, but I think diversity in our party is a good thing. One of my biggest problems with the Republican party is that it increasingly demands strict ideological purity.
With all due respect, I disagree. Even within “conservative” circles, you have libertarians who duke it out with socialcons, paleos who distrust neos, fiscalcons who distrust all the above…
If by “purity” you mean “some notional idea of some first principles that we ALL should agree on” – well, that’s called “being a party”, to some extent. The fact that the only thing these diverse groups agree on is something you disagree on merely gives us cognitive dissonance, not ‘extremism’.
More on this below.
Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are necessary, because they make the compromises that allow Congress to create policy. And that’s really the important point — I am taking it as a given that the function of our politicians is to create policy, not just to spew hot air.
Right – but you seem to be demanding that Republicans – especialy conservatives – start with the compromise at nomination time, to say nothing of during elections.
Compromise is a product of the deliberative process, when you gather your legislature together to start getting things done. Which isn’t to say that a candidate can’t make “reaching across the aisle” a key part of his/her campaign – but it’s not the kind of thing that’s going to get most people exercised.
I’m upset about the mindset that says a single Republican vote for a Democratic bill is one vote too many
Well, that makes an infuriating generality – but it begs for specifics. Which Democratic bill? Socialized Healthcare? No Republican should vote for it in its present (or any foreseeably derivative) form!
On the other hand, what about Bush’s domestic agenda, especially when it came to entitlement spending, from 2000 to 2008 could a moderate Democrat not get behind?
I wish there were more compromise in American politics today, but I see us moving in the exact opposite direction, and I think the GOP is more responsible that the Democratic party.
I suggest to you that the GOP compromised to the point of distending itself beyond recognition from 2002 to 2008; it’s only Bush hysteria that allowed Democrats to miss it; Bush spent more, and more aggressively, than Clinton!
At any rate – I’ll say it again for impact; compromise is the last part of the negotiatingn process. Not the first.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Krod,
Down boy! There are plenty of Twin Cities leftybloggers that are idiots and who deserve restraining orders and ostracism.
Jeff’s not one of them.
Carry on.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
mITCH, he is a left winger that wants to ram nationalized medicine down our throats; obviously I was spot on.
And another thing, mITCH / jeff, the Dubya years were a huge compromise for true conservatives and libertarians.
Compromise so the Liberal Fascists can ruin America is not a compromise, it is a betrayal to the principles of the founders of our country.
.
In you heart you know I am right.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“At any rate – I’ll say it again for impact; compromise is the last part of the negotiation process. Not the first.”
I disagree. Without compromise there is no negotiation. If I offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $100 and you say you’ll buy it for $20 we’re not bartering until someone changes their price. So the first compromise startes the negotiations. The final compromise ends it.
Political progress is precepitated by a confluence of ideology. But sometimes it seems that the Republicans are ideologically opposed to compromise which means nothing gets done. Whether its fair or not, its natural for the Democrats to blame the Republicans for not bringing anything to the table.
BTW, props to the GOP for drafting their own health care legislation. Once there’s a compromise from one side the negotiations can begin.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
It’s pretty hard to compromise through a closed door.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Pffft
Here is a better example:
Conservatives support the principles and ideas of the founders, change is not needed and government creates problems and seldom solves problems.
Change ~0% (but more like -50%)
Libs want to drastically change what our founders created.
Change ~100% (but more like 200%)
The negotiation process starts with:
Conservative proposal of 30% change
Liberal proposal of 95%
Then the left wingers like Jeff claim the Rethuglicans don’t compromise unless the final change is 80% in one swoop!!!
mITCH, conservatives need to start with the position of reducing government and compromise to as little government growth as possible; not starting with a small increase and compromising to larger government control. Otherwise you lose before you even start. Yes, I understand the peoples’ dependence on the largess from government makes our job so damn difficult, but if it were easy everyone would be doing it. 😉
November 4th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
My favorite politician that represented me was Krinkie. I miss having Phil as MY representative.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
k-rod is mocking and attacking you, Jeff. That means you’re about to win!
November 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
If I offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $100 and you say you’ll buy it for $20 we’re not bartering until someone changes their price
And if I run for office saying that I’ll pay $100 bucks right off the bat in the interest of compromise, my constituents are going to wonder what they’re getting for that extra 80.
. So the first compromise startes the negotiations. The final compromise ends it.
But if my constituents wanna spend less for bridges, then it’s in my interest to say “I’m gonna keep it as close to $20 as I can”. So I win the election. Only then, once we are both elected and meet at our legislative mbody, do we start bargaining.
Not before I get the Cheep Bridges Party endorsement.
Political progress is precepitated by a confluence of ideology. But sometimes it seems that the Republicans are ideologically opposed to compromise which means nothing gets done
And we believe the same about Democrats, and just as justifably!
. Whether its fair or not, its natural for the Democrats to blame the Republicans for not bringing anything to the table.
As Joel “Don’t Call Me Jeff” Rosenberg pointed out above, the only option a superminority has is to fight like hell. At this, we’ve done a good job.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Krinkie was one of the greats. I wish he were still in office.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
We don`t “compromise” he says, after we nominated John McCain to run for president? WTF?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
mITCH,
Do us a favor and spell my name the normal way. OK?
he is a left winger that wants to ram nationalized medicine down our throats; obviously I was spot on.
Attack the policy, not the person.
Conservatives can never be louder than liberals; they control the media. We can never be louder than liberals; the media will just portray the loudess as “violence” and “hatred”.
We have to be smarter than them. Better debaters, better thinkers, better people. We largely do pretty well – but it’s an ongoing project.
We can disagree without being disagreeable. Save the ire and anger for the ones that are assnozzles. There are plenty out there. Jeff isn’t one of them.
And my mother’s a liberal who wants to ram national healthcare down our throats – and I won’t tolerate disrespect for her, either.
And another thing, mITCH / jeff, the Dubya years were a huge compromise for true conservatives and libertarians.
If you read my post again – or read it thoroughly for the first time – you’ll note that I said exactly that.
Compromise so the Liberal Fascists can ruin America is not a compromise, it is a betrayal to the principles of the founders of our country.
Nobody said “don’t be as tough as nails at negotiating”. As, btw, the GOP in DC largely is, these days (now that we’re outnumbered. Impeccable timing, guys).
In you heart you know I am right.
On the parts where you agree with me completely? Yes, generally.
Otherwise, we consider things on a case by case basis. 🙂
November 4th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Jeff Rosenberg, whom do you consider to be a moderate Democratic Senator? Do you consider any Democratic Senator to be far left?
Snowe and Collins don’t qualify as “Moderates”?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
To follow up on what JP asked:
What does it take to be a “moderate” to a Democrat?
They call Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty and John McCain “conservative extremists”, while people just barely to my right call them all “RINOs”.
I once heard a lefty call Jim Ramstad a doctrinaire conservative – during a race, naturally.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
JP, I think Vladimir Lenin might be slightly far left. *snort* Give me a break. Of course there are far left Democrats — which is not to say that I don’t often agree with them, but I don’t make the mistake of thinking my positions are the “moderate” ones. As far as moderate Democrats, how about Evan Bayh, or Joe Lieberman, who I think still largely counts as a Democratic Senator, despite technically being an independent.
Snowe and Collins are certainly moderates — and the Republican party hates them. Tim Pawlenty wouldn’t even say he was glad to have Snowe in the party. They will not be replaced with Senators of a similar mold.
Mitch, what does it take to be moderate to a Democrat? How about a history of working across the aisle, regardless of the party in power, and a commitment to helping shape legislation rather than fulminating against it from the start? I don’t expect moderate Republicans to always — or even frequently — vote with the Democrats, but I expect them to do so at least occasionally.
John McCain is an interesting case. He was very much a moderate, and he ran to the right to win the GOP endorsement. As a result, nobody liked him — conservatives knew his moderate history and deemed him too far to the left, while liberals saw his new platform and deemed him too far to the right. I don’t think compromise has to mean compromising your principles like McCain did; it means finding common ground to accomplish everyone’s goals, like McCain used to do.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Right-wing extremists have big plans for replacing Republican to the left of Glenn Beck with “real” conservatives.
I guess Jeff R. must have voted for moderate GOP’r Coleman over fire-breathing hate-radio jock Al Franken. ‘Cuz if he didn’t he’d be a hypocrite.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Dems love moderates on both sides of the aisle. Just look at their loving treatment of Lieberman last week…
Never mind.
Moderates are only good when they are moderating towards the left.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
[…] wrote a post about what appears to me to be an increasingly polarized and extreme Republican party. Mitch Berg objects with his standard argument: When Democrats talk about “moderate Republicans,” […]
November 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
What does it take to be considered a Moderate? Voting like one.
Conservative and liberal organizations rate legislators votes all the time. Typically, a guy with 100% rating by Americans for Democratic Action will have a 0% rating by the opposition, the American Conservative Union.
For example, both outfits agree that Barak Obama was The Most Liberal Senator before his assumption to the Rose Garden. And both outfits agree that Jim DeMint (R-SC) is one of the most Conservative (100% ACU, 0% ADA).
So . . . what’s it mean to be a Moderate? It means voting in a way that both sides of the aisle view as moderate. Having a rating very close to 50% from BOTH the ACU and the ADA. Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania fits that bill. He’s rated 45% conservative by the conservatives, and 45% liberal by the liberals. That’s as close to the middle as imaginable.
And that’s precisely why neither party is happy with him. If Nate’s Party is a group of people working together to achieve a common goal through agreed-upon means; and you only vote with us 45% of the time; that means you’re mostly AGAINST us. Naturally, we’d prefer somebody who’s mostly WITH us.
Since you’ve demonstrated by your voting record that you are mostly AGAINST us, then recruiting, grooming and nominating candidates who would vote with us 60% of the time instead of only 45% of the time isn’t wrong, evil, stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic [insert insult here]; it is the purpose of having a political party in the first place, the entire reason why parties exist, the exact method needed to win so we can enact our programs.
Democrats know this and quietly do a good job of it. They also do a good job of snowing people who don’t think too hard about it into believing that Democrat candidates just appear, rising out of the throngs of Commen Men to take up the yoke of office, without ever having spent a fortune of special interest money and thousands of volunteer-hours setting up the victory.
Reaching across the aisle isn’t all its cracked up to be. If Cain wants Able dead, suicide isn’t compromise, it’s capitulation. Sometimes you need to stand up for your principles and refuse to compromise. I wish Republicans would do it more often.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Right back at ya, Mitch. 😉
“Do us a favor and spell my name the normal way. OK?”
OK?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“…he ran to the right to win the GOP endorsement.”
Jeff, can you substantiate that with real policy or issue flip flops by McCain? If not, then I suggest you refrain from repeating those talking points.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Jeff,
What K-Rod said. Please be specific; what did McCain supposedly race to the right on?
One might be immigration – sort of. What else?
November 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
(continuing the day late/dollar short trend)
There’s a complementary meme, of course; that conservatism – government that favors the utterly Jeffersonian ideals of lower taxes and free markets and security – is “Extremist”.
To battery acid with a pH of 1, even Milk of Magnesia (pH 11) can seem pretty extremist.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Thanks for your response Jeff. Hubert Humphrey was once considered a liberal. Was Mayor of Minneapolis and Senator from MN. Today I don’t think he would have a place within the Democratic Party. Let alone win a primary for either Minneapolis Mayor or MN Senator within the DFL.
HHH would probably be far to the right of Snowe and Collins.
On the other hand I don’t see anyone taking up the mantle of a Barry Goldwater. Goldwater would get creamed by todays press on a daily basis as an extremist.
My contention here is that both parties have shifted leftward and considerably so. The right wing is where the center once was and our left wing is happily running towards all out socialism/tyranny.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“Jeff,
What K-Rod said. Please be specific; what did McCain supposedly race to the right on?
One might be immigration – sort of. What else?”
*crickets*