Sixteen years ago last August, I sat in the office of the Washington State Democratic Party Chairman. I tried to tell him that the Democrats were under assault by the far right and things were looking pretty grim for the 1994 mid-term elections. He assured me everything was under control. Four months later, the Republicans gained a majority in Congress and Tom Foley became the first Speaker of the House to lose an election since 1862. This year the exact same scenario played out identically. Can anyone on the losing side honestly say they did not see it coming?
For the last thirty years or so, the two major parties have been very consistent in the general strategies they each employ for mobilizing voters at elections. The Democrats pursue a Centrist strategy based on persuading the “marginal voter.” The Republicans pursue wedge issue voters under the rubric of the “Big Tent.”
Both of these strategies are a response to the massive and permanent change in voter demographics resulting from the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Civil rights were a real game changer in American politics. By 1980, the election of Ronald Reagan was the last act in the long, slow realignment and was marked by a massive migration across the aisles of politicians changing parties. By the late 1980s, the dust had pretty much settled down and the two major parties had settled into a new and uneasy homeostasis.
The Republicans have a strategy based on building a base of voters with shared conservative cultural values without any real reference to economic or foreign policy. Initially, when the “Reagan Revolution” was happening, this meant welcoming conservative voters who were leaving the Democratic party, often split off by “wedge issues” meant to divide conservative from liberal Democrats. The first instance was described as “Reagan Democrats,” which is to say the mostly blue-collar (and in many cases, union) voters who opted for Ronald Reagan in 1980.
The Reagan Democrats are essentially the same phenomenon as the “hardhats” who supported Richard Nixon, the white anti-bussing activists in South Boston who rallied around Louise Day Hicks, the gun control opponents who protested the passage of the Brady Bill, the anti-abortion zealots, the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, the people who were outraged by the passage of the Panama Canal treaty, the agitators for draconian immigration controls and most recently, the Tea Party activists who came to political prominence by opposing health care reform. All of these different issues play to the same core constituency: the Middle American Radicals (MARs) described by Donald I. Warren in his 1976 study, “The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation.”
MARs are middle and upper-middle class Americans who have profited from the power and privilege that accrues to mostly white, mostly Anglo-Saxon, mostly Protestant Americans who comprised the core demographic of “middle America” prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. They are reactionary, rather than radically transformative, in their politics. They are very susceptible to emotional appeals to their fears, even if the political actions based on these fears are ineffective as policy. They live an economic life that is slightly above-average, but their fear of economic insecurity is more pronounced than other Americans farther down the economy.
By creating a galaxy of wedge issues, the Republicans have also created a large number of special interest groups playing on those issues. The political strategy meant to bring all of these interests together has become known as “The Big Tent.” The initial rationale for the Big Tent strategy was the Republicans needed to accommodate the migration of MARs voters resulting from the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Once it had exhausted the pool of voters changing parties, the Big Tent strategy turned to the extreme right. So what was originally a means of rationalizing the electoral realignment of the Reagan presidency then became the means of moving the party itself further to the right.
During the transition following Reagan’s election, the Democrats were trying to hold together a coalition dating back to the New Deal while the Republicans were actively trying to anchor their party in their new-found voting strength in the South and among blue-collar whites. The dynamics of these efforts hinged on political philosophies tailored to cloak the interests that form the core of each party.
The Democrats, acting through the Democratic Leadership Council, ultimately opted for a philosophy of Centrism. The basic notion of Centrism is that political beliefs are expressed as a bell curve with a “vital center” and marginal extremes. Centrism is inherently bipartisan and assumes that the mass of Republicans is more similar to the mass of Democrats than they are to the margins of either party: the numbers out on the fringes are small enough to be without power or influence. It’s basically how they wished the long-vanished New Deal coalition had worked. The “marginal voters” Centrism seeks to recapture are the same demographic as the union members who deserted the party and then paid the ultimate price in the erosion of union strength. They are the same people the Republicans imagined as “Reagan Democrats.”
In terms of election strategy, Centrism assumes most of the political power resides in the “marginal voter” near the center of the political spectrum. These are supposed to be voters who drift back and forth between the two parties. According to Centrist theory about marginal voters, if Democrats pitch their appeal exactly halfway between the Republican and Democratic voters, they will harvest enough votes to win elections.
The marginal voter strategy essentially grants political initiative to the Republicans. The Republicans have everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving the political discourse ever farther from a national consensus. Indeed, they now appear to have no choice other than reaching farther and farther to the right. The essential difference between the two strategies is the Republicans are wooing voters who will vote Republican or not at all, and Democrats are wooing voters estranged from both parties. It’s a formula for rightward drift away from any sort of national consensus.
Neither party’s strategy—marginal voters nor Big Tent—has any recognizable policy initiatives attached to it other than a loose bipartisan consensus on upward wealth transfer and a centralized command economy for the military sector of the economy. Politics have become tactics devoid of strategy. This was sharply outlined by the political mailings we saw in the recent election: not an issue or a principle to be seen, just a generalized squirming for temporary advantage.
Forty years of wedge-issue politics have polarized Congress to levels not seen since the end of the Civil War. Ultimately, macroeconomics will decide the future of the nation, not the political agendas of charlatans playing musical chairs in the nation’s capital.
Marginal Voters and the Big Tent
While Democrats pursue a Centrist strategy trying to persuade the “marginal voter,” Republicans promote wedge issues under the rubric of the “Big Tent.”
While Democrats pursue a Centrist strategy trying to persuade the “marginal voter,” Republicans promote wedge issues under the rubric of the “Big Tent.”
To comment, please log in.
To comment, Log In or Register
Comments by Readers
Larry Horowitz
Nov 24, 2010Paul,
I believe your conclusion is spot on: ?Macroeconomics will decide the future of the nation, not the political agendas of charlatans playing musical chairs in the nation?s capital.?
So, the question becomes, ?Who controls the macroenomics??
And, do those who direct the macroeconomics also have ultimate control over the decision-making bodies of the US?
In your opinion, is there a real oligarchy or is that simply another conspiracy theory?
Ryan M. Ferris
Nov 24, 2010Paul:
Excellent article with good points. However, historically the Democrats have always been a centrist “big tent” and racist and often war hawks. (Think of Chomsky’s description of Wilsonian Democrats…) Civil rights has been a strong issue in this country since the founding of the country, and certainly since the Civil War. The problem always has been that the United States doesn’t have a a strong socialist/revolutionary party in the United States. There’s not enough “oomph” on the left to fight a reactionary movement from the right. Here’s who we are missing now:
John Brown
John Muir
Big Bill Haywood
Eugene V. Debs
Norman Thomas
Cesar Chavez
Harry Bridges
Huey P. Newton
Angela Davis
Paul Wellstone
(among many others)
We need to start having concrete, reasonable public discussions about
the redistribution of wealth
the nationalization of corporate industry
worker and state control of capital
Because the Democrats won’t touch these ideas, they are effectively setting our country up for radical backlash (e.g. Marxist revolution) and national bankruptcy. Cocooned in their ‘made in Langley’ directives of peace, coexistence, and conflict avoidance; emasculated by their own lack of expertise in economics, surveillance, counter-intelligence, revolutionary theory; American liberals are unable to do what every Chavista, Liberation Theologist, Bolivarian and Communist in Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, etc. are doing for their peoples now: reclaiming their nation for the poor and the working class. Even France and Greece have stronger socialist movements than America. But we still have time and hope. We must reclaim our country from the rich, the wealthy, the corporations. We can start here in Whatcom County as soon as possible. We don’t have time to waste worrying about “marginal voters” or “rightward drift”. Focusing on their energy diminishes a revolutionary movement. We just need to start thinking about the world we want and how we get there.
Some quotes:
“A liberal is the guy who leaves the room when a fight starts.”
- Big Bill Haywood
“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged [to do away with] away but with blood.”
John Brown’s last letter, the day he was hanged.
Who gets the risks? The risks are given to the consumer, the unsuspecting consumer and the poor work force. And who gets the benefits? The benefits are only for the corporations, for the money makers.
Cesar Chavez
We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. We must destroy both racism and capitalism.
Huey P. Newton
John Watts
Nov 25, 2010Paul,
This thoughtful piece has the ring of truth.
It is a fascinating exercise to re-trace our political history and the recurrent themes and issues underlying it, including the never-ending quest for power.
Since the revolutionary days our political landscape has constantly shifted -as was intended by our Founders.
Of course, our technology, standard of living and expectations have risen greatly over the last 234 years, but with the difference that we now seem to have become almost overly comfortable, complacent, and even lazy about remaining truly active, informed citizens.
Instead, we seem to prefer externalizing problems to ‘others’, like ‘the guvmint’, political parties, ‘special interest lobbyists’, the media, corporate entities, terrorists, the super rich, the poor, foreigners & their governments, criminals, minorities, immigrants, the UN, unions, environmentalists, religious groups, ‘the elites’, the unwashed masses, voters, non-voters, SCOTUS, & c.
It would be nice to have a little more unity and a little less division if we are to truly change things for the better again - and again - as necessary.
But, how do we recruit leaders with the integrity, intelligence, vision and courage needed to strengthen and sustain our uniquely principled, version of democracy?
And, how do we recruit willing, civic-minded followers to support these leaders?
Both are in such critical demand these days.
—————————
PS - Today’s Crosscut has an article that complements this article:
Political policies have turned America into ‘Richistan’
http://crosscut.com/2010/11/24/politics-government/20391/Political-policies-have-turned-America-into—Richistan-/#comments
David Camp
Nov 25, 2010I’m a “marginal voter” with a deep distrust of the two-party system and utter contempt for the corruption of federal politics.
The entire apparatus of corporate control of the federal government, which uses the most sophisticated brainwashing tools ever known to humans, has infected people with false ideologies, designed to divide people from one another, destroy normal human interactions, and destroy human social fabric in order to enrich and maintain the power of corporate interests.
North Koreans are forced to listen to government propaganda - Americans VOLUNTARILY watch 37 hours of tv per week, on average. A totalitarian can only imagine a population that believes it has a free press while actually delivering its minds to a media controlled by authoritarian, undemocratic entities that have allegiance only to profit.
What do these corporate entities encourage to maintain power and increase profits at our expense? DIVISION! Conservatives v. Liberals; Left v. RIght; and other unhealthy ideological concepts that divide us from ourselves.
The two-party system feeds this and the parties have become as corrupt as the system itself.
I don?t have many solutions other than not watching tv - it?s not called programming for nothing.
That and direct democracy. We are fortunate in Washington State to be able to bypass politicians, and put specific questions directly to the people. The political system we live in discourages leadership in favor of posturing and currying favor with the rich. We live in times that require leadership and creativity not just more of the same. The political system is not delivering - in fact, it is making things worse. Teh Tea partiers have legitimate issues - they are, however, very skillfully misdirected to work against their own interests. This is a failure of leadership. And a testament to the power of mind control systems.
Larry Horowitz
Nov 27, 2010Following up on my earlier post, as well as David Camp?s comment, I agree with writer Barry Ritholtz who believes that the ?Left vs. Right? paradigm is over. The new paradigm is ?You/Us vs. Corporations?. His observation that ?both Democrats & Republicans are just one body with two heads? rings true to me.
Here?s a link to a Nov 1 article:
http://usawatchdog.com/democrats-vs-republicans-its-you-vs-corporations/
Ritholtz asks, ?What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms??
Unfortunately, Ritholtz stops at the corporate exterior but fail to really peer inside. Unlike HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the corporate entity does not think for itself. Real people make corporate decisions. Who are the people who control the world?s most powerful corporations that, in return, control our lives?
I ask again: Is there a real oligarchy or is that simply another conspiracy theory?
Are the R?s & D?s simply shuffling chairs to no avail?
Paul?
David Camp
Nov 27, 2010Larry - yes there is an oligarchy and it controls the government through money. It costs about $10-20 million to buy a seat in the House and more than the $46 million Meg Whitman spent to buy a seat in the Senate. This is not democracy since people with money (that is, the rich) control electoral choices available.
SO we have a “free” choice - between paid-for candidate A and paid-for candidate B. Except at the finges of emotionally-charged well-cultivated divisive issues (abortion, gun rights, gay rights, and so on), there is no difference between the candidates on any substantive level. They serve Mammon, not us.
David Camp
Nov 27, 2010One more note on the nature of “corporations” and corporate power - this form of governence is the opposite of democracy. Corporations are hierarchical, otherwise known as dictatorial or or totalitarian in nature. Their only object is profit.
In what ethical system is desire for profit (aka greed) considered virtuous? Nary a one save the American State religion of capitalism. All the monotheistic religions consider greed to be a sin, to be regulated and limited.
We are ruled not by virtue but rather by its opposite.
Larry Horowitz
Nov 27, 2010David,
Let?s say I agree with you that there is an oligarchy. Referring to the oligarchy as ?it? makes it impossible to know ?who? we?re dealing with.
How small is the top of the pyramid and who resides there?
David Camp
Nov 28, 2010Larry,
That’s the 640 Billion dollar question (well - inflation has kicked in and the war budget in Salesman Obama’s press release for the complex is now $708 Billion, a 13.1% increase over the prior year - but what’s a few billion among friends, especially when your friends are guys like Karzai, Pinochet, Kissinger, and Chalabi?).
We could start with that club of millionaires and billionaires, the Senate. The Koch Brothers. Hank Greenberg (AIG). The one-percenters at the top of the economic food chain. You know, the only people in America whose fortunes have improved over the last twenty years. The people who think the solution to the deficit is to decrease taxes on themselves and increase them on everybody else. The guys Simpson-Bowles work for - here’s their preferred tax proposal’s effect on income tax rates by quintile:
bottom quintile: + 2.6%
second quintile: + 2.4%
third quintile: + 1.3%
fourth quintile: + 0.1%
top quintile: - 0.6%
(SOurce: Table T10-0247, Bowles Simpson Deficit Commisssion)
Does this tell you anything? President Obama’s hand-picked oligarchy improvement commission just gave you the finger, while picking your pocket.
Larry Horowitz
Nov 28, 2010I have a sense that most members of an elite oligarchy wouldn?t bother to run for public office, but would prefer to control those who do. What I?m really asking is: Who are the puppeteers and who are the puppets?
I also have a sense that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon.
Is there any truth to the claims of conspiracy theorists that the most impactful geopolitical and macroeconomic policy directives are imposed by the few who are members of the Bilderburg Group (BG), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the Round Table (RT) and/or the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?
Ryan M. Ferris
Nov 28, 2010G. William Domhoff just updated his article on “Who Rules America” In November(1) His nearly 50 year old classic book “Who Rules America”(2) was updated and revised in 2009.
In Washington State, the transparency of power is straightforward for me: the largest naval installation in the world is Puget Sound, arguably the largest collection of nuclear destruction in the United States sits at Kitsap/Bangor and here in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, four oil companies with 600K barrels of gasoline per day production capacity pay not a shred of corporate income taxes to the state of Washington, notwithstanding what the GOP believes B&O taxes amount to(3). BTW, Domhoff has a lot to say about “local power” and “network analysis” thereof (4)(5).
Most of us should all realize by this point that the amount of $$$ and wealth that flow through and around Whatcom County and the 2nd Congressional District is almost ludicrous in proportion to the size and wealth of local populations here. The 2nd Congressional District is functionally a weigh station for military power and oil refinery wealth, although I don’t think anybody really knows how much money flows to Boeing, BP, Chevron, etc., although some databases can help us understand that(6). The $$$ amounts of such income flows would significantly disproportionate to the length of the food bank line in Bellingham last Wednesday.(7)
“BELLINGHAM ? Despite bitterly cold weather and icy roads, a record number of hungry people turned to Bellingham Food Bank for help on Monday, Nov. 22.
“No one came yesterday who really didn’t need that food. I just can’t imagine who would be outside in that weather if they didn’t have a profound need,” said Mike Cohen, executive director for the food bank.”
(1) http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
(2) http://www.amazon.com/Rules-America-Challenges-Corporate-Dominance/dp/0078111560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290918815&sr=8-1
(3) http://www.whatcomgop.com/Issues/Refinery-Economic-Benefits.aspx
(4)http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/growth_coalition_theory.html
(5)http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/four_networks.html
(6)http://www.fedspending.org , http://www.usaspending.gov
(7)http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/24/104268/despite-icy-weather-bellingham.html
David Camp
Nov 29, 2010Larry,
I’m not going to speculate whether the puppet-masters are the Bilderbergers, the trilateral commission, the Freemasons, or the secret offspring of some mythical persona.
It does seem plain to me, however, that the people for whom the US government works mostly are the wealthiest people in America. How they accomplish this is also clear to me - by concentrating power in an executive with near-monarchical powers, run by people who are appointed, not elected, supported by a corrupt supreme court (consider the abuse of the interstate commerce clause in Gonzalez v. Raich, or the affirmation of governmental takings of private property for private profit in Kelo v. City of New London), and supported by a legislature where seats must be purchased and therefore also controlled by wealthy interests.
We used to have a republic. Now we have an imperial oligarchy, masquerading as a democracy, where elections are shows on a controlled media.
And why? GW Bush said it - “America is addicted to oil”. And our elite is pimping us out to the oil dealers. WHy else would we have invaded Iraq but that the Saudis wanted it? Why else would we be threatening Iran but that the Saudis want it?
If we had an actual leader in the White House instead of a slick salesman, he might set a huge national goal (like Kennedy managed (before he was taken out) to do for space exploration). My nomination for a supreme goal would be to 100% replace oil as the energy source for our economy by 4th generation nuclear power.
WIndmills and solar are nice and clean but they won;t replace our current energy use. Nuclear is the only answer that transitions without the chaos of enforced poverty. 4th gen nuclear can reprocess existing nuclear waste and the waste produced has a half life in tens of years, not thousands.
Larry Horowitz
Nov 29, 2010David,
Thank you for this dialogue. I agree with all you have said.
Not only are Americans addicted to oil but we are also addicted to debt, which brings the entire story full circle, a long and complicated story involving the Federal Reserve, Nikola Tesla, and the Morgans, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
We the Sheeple have always been easy to manipulate, haven?t we?
David, besides implementing 4th gen nuclear or re-examining Tesla?s work, what can we do to fix this mess? How do the puppets cut the cord?
Campaign finance reform?
Breakthrough Energy Technologies? (1)
???
(1) http://www.theorionproject.org/Energy.pdf
David Camp
Dec 01, 2010Larry,
First, many thanks for the invitation to soapbox. You asked for my prescription - it can be summed up as “don’t buy their crap”. I just don’t see any way of influencing a federal government that is out of control (consider Hamid Karzai’s brother who was found on his way to Dubai with $60 million in cash which he was bribed with by the US military - why should anyone pay into a corrupt federal government so disrespectful of its citizens as to commit an atrocity like that? And that’s merely a jot or a tittle of the orgy of corruption our government is spreading around WITH OUR MONEY AND WITHOUT OUR CONSENT!) except by de-funding it. So my prescription is basically personal:
1) avoid tv and don’t buy anything advertised there;
2) reduce your income below the level that attracts federal tax. (I mean legally - work more as a volunteer for causes you love and work less for money. Volunteers created this great Republic and only volunteers will restore it);
3) barter services and goods with your friends and neighbors - a good trade leaves everyone smiling;
4) Reduce your gas usage. Ride a bike - we live in a climate where bike riding all year is practical (wet weather gear required) - we need some more help from the City and the County to make it easier to get around town on a bike but they’re working on it - just recently they completed crosswalks on Ohio that link York and lettered streets bikeways);
5) Be active - Make stuff, build stuff, grow stuff, do stuff creatively. TV is passive and too much time on the laptop is not good for the body.
And here’s the big one: Direct Democracy. We can pass initiatives at the local and State level that roll back the feds’ abuse of the Constitution, one breach at a time.
We’re very lucky to live in this great State and in this great country. We just seem to have a federal government hell-bent on destroying everything that makes America great.