Ezra Klein: Everything Is Going According To Plan

« Ending Poverty in America | Main | A Review, In Which Your Guest Blogger Reads Sick So That You Might Too »

April 30, 2007

Everything Is Going According To Plan

Perceptions_2 There's lots of good stuff in the latest Pew Poll, but one of the neatest bits is this survey of where people think the candidates stand. Higher numbers mean that people think the candidate is more liberal; lower numbers mean that people think the candidate is more conservative.

Despite being the most progressive of the three major candidates, with his perfect pro-choice voting record as a Senator from North Carolina, his opposition to funding the war, and his hard-core economic liberalism on health care and poverty, Edwards is still seen as more moderate than any other Democrat.

Which is exactly how I like it. He's the kind of candidate who not only wins a general election, but moves the country left without people realizing what's happening. Tell all your liberal friends about him, but tell them quietly.

April 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

don't want it to get out what the man believes...it's embarrassing! i mean, liberalism is unpopular.

Posted by: shhh | Apr 30, 2007 2:49:19 PM

Which is exactly how I like it. He's the kind of candidate who not only wins a general election, but moves the country left without people realizing what's happening.

Not an approach I would endorse. It leaves the dominant meme of the governing elites intact, to whit: "liberalism" is out of the mainstream which remains thoroughly "conservative" in a profoundly "conservative" US. What Edwards' numbers indicate is that the type of economic "leftism" that he espouses is actually mainstream everywhere outside the bastions of power, privilege and elite opinion.

A more cogent question is what definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism are at play here? I think it might profit us to ask why the poll includes Bill Clinton and Bush. Neither are candidates but they seem to occupy the position of opposite poles defining, the extremes of Liberalism and Conservatism respectively. What kind of criteria are the respondents using to arrive at this conclusion?

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 30, 2007 2:51:37 PM

Edwards' disingenuousness seems less interesting to me than several other things just in those poll questions. First of all, the "yourself" line. I note with some amusement that Republicans tend to think they are more centrist than Democrats do. And yet, the nationwide average is apparently, if I'm reading that poll correctly, left of center. Occam's razor suggests that current events account for this, but I found it funny to imagine that the Republican result is skewed by people who have been told so often that they are "great Americans" and Democrats are just an out-of-touch, unrepresentative minority so often that they begin to believe it.

Secondly, Republicans and Democrats give very nearly exactly the same rating to all the Republican candidates? Wha...? It seems like that has to mean something.

Where the Independents fell seems interesting too. They rated the Clintons, Obama, Gore, and Edwards as slightly more liberal than the Democrats did, but were closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. (Examining the subgroups of polls like this quickly gets into groups or differences in answers that are too small to be meaningful, but to hell with it, is there any other type of poll analysis? And that question is only half rhetorical.) On Pelosi and Guiliani they pretty much split the difference. Independents thought McCain, Romney and Gingrich were slightly more conservative than Republican-Democrats did, and they thought Bush was slightly more liberal. Thoughts?

Posted by: Cyrus | Apr 30, 2007 3:04:04 PM

Everything Is Going According To Plan

Isn't that a quote from the Evil Emperor in Star Wars?

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 30, 2007 3:08:40 PM

Posted by: shhh | Apr 30, 2007 11:49:19 AM

don't want it to get out what the man believes...it's embarrassing! i mean, liberalism is unpopular.

Not really. Its that he gets out what he believes in specific terms instead of in pigeon hole labels. "Do this to start fixing this system that is in crisis, do this to help restore America's standing in the world".

And in the end, its the content of the values that's important, not the labels. The radical right wing movement seems to grasp that, either intellectually or instictively, as they have moved from small government libertarianism to big government meddling always under the same brand name.

Posted by: BruceMcF | Apr 30, 2007 3:20:18 PM

I don't really think this proves anything other than the fact that Americans know very little about what their elected officals actually believe in, or else they know very little about what the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean. Everybody: Republican, Democrat, Independent, rated Bill Clinton as more liberal than either Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi. Republicans put Hillary Clinton as the most left-wing of the bunch, despite the fact that she's running to the right of Edwards and Edwards is running to the left of her. Meanwhile, our party pegs John McCain as being to the left of Rudy Giuliani, despite the latter having been at one point in favor of civil unions, gun control (I think) and abortion. Gahhh.

Posted by: Mikey | Apr 30, 2007 3:20:34 PM

In the unlikely event Edwards is the candidate,expect teh following Drudge headline on a slow news day in October 08:

CAMPAIGN STAFFER REVEALED EDWARDS' SECRET PLAN

"He's the kind of candidate who not only wins a general election, but moves the country left without people realizing what's happening. Tell all your liberal friends about him, but tell them quietly."

Posted by: arthur | Apr 30, 2007 3:24:19 PM

actually its about redefining the "mainstream' not resuscitating liberalism.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 30, 2007 3:27:46 PM

actually its about redefining the "mainstream' not resuscitating liberalism

Hmmm... Expand?

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 30, 2007 3:34:21 PM

The key here is moving the country in the progressive direction, not just in policy terms, but the political center, which is what Edwards clearly wants to do. It's not clear if that's what Obama wants to do, or if he wants to fudge the differences. Hillary clearly couldn't do this even if she wanted to, because of her liberal image.

Posted by: AJ | Apr 30, 2007 3:40:27 PM

Which is exactly how I like it. He's the kind of candidate who not only wins a general election, but moves the country left without people realizing what's happening.

I'm with WBR here, although for slightly different reasons. What I find most baffling about Edwards supporters is exactly this subtext to their avowed populism-- the rubes won't figure out Edwards is a liberal until he's turned them into liberals too! I'm certainly not one to overestimate either the intelligence or the judgment of the electorate, but even by my standards this is an elitist, rather dishonest, and too-clever-by-half approach. At one point, in a fit of pique, I called this tendency 'smug cynicism,' and statements like the above seem to confirm that impression.

Posted by: latts | Apr 30, 2007 3:44:00 PM

This just in: Bill Clinton's not a candidate.

Posted by: jimmmm | Apr 30, 2007 3:47:17 PM

latts, I'm happy to be called any number of things, as long as "a guy who knows how to put progressive Democrats in control of America" is one of them.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 30, 2007 3:50:27 PM

I'd second latts, but also Neil, your response is so cheerleader that almost anything would prove your point - I get the sense it doesn't matter to you what Edwards rating is, whatever it is, it must be good. That's great in a fan, less useful in straight political analysis. I don't know what this poll really tells us, but that's my little bugaboo about putting one's faith entirely in poll driven analysis. If anything I think it's interesting that the GOP can't seem to find anyone to the right of George Bush. Whether people think the candidate is "liberal" or "conservative" won't tell us much in the end; the question is whether the candidate is saying things the electorate can relate to and agree with, the things that resonate. I don't know that Edwards has yet found the key to that challenge yet, but then I don't think a lot of the others have either, which is why I still think things are pretty fluid. And I think that's not a bad place to be.

Posted by: weboy | Apr 30, 2007 3:51:53 PM

"a guy who knows how to put progressive Democrats in control of America"

I would prefer "leadership" to "control".

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 30, 2007 3:52:42 PM

Neil, not to be rude, but you can say you 'know how to put progressive Democrats in control of America' when we have a President Edwards on 1/20/09... just as any of us could say that about our preferred candidates should they take office instead, and even then half of us enjoying the victory would almost certainly be dead wrong about how it happened. Elections are funny that way.

Posted by: latts | Apr 30, 2007 4:12:01 PM

Minor quibble:

It's fair to describe the platform Edwards is currently running on as more liberal than many others in the race.

It's a stretch to say that Edwards as a Senator (1998-2004) WAS anybody's idea of a liberal panacea. The obvious caveat is that he was a North Carolina Senator, but regardless, he does not have the progressive track record WHILE IN OFFICE of other candidates in the race. It's just not credible.

Posted by: rashomon | Apr 30, 2007 4:12:42 PM

I agree with Mikey. The American people are idiots if they actually believe the Clintons are the epitome of liberalism in America. And what's up with people thinking the Republicans, including Gingrich and McCain are centrists? Why are the Democrats all considered liberal while the Republicans are mostly center-right?

Posted by: Jenn | Apr 30, 2007 4:15:22 PM

I just took a look at RealClearPolitics.com and while I'm loathe to look at polls, Edwards is so far behind the rest of the pack it just doesn't make much sense to have Neil waste our time right now on his Edwards pipe dream.
And that is before the teaming up of Clinton/Obama which will handily take the Democrat nomination.

Breck Girl is toast.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 30, 2007 4:17:23 PM

Well, latts, I take it to be true that we can make knowledge-attributions about future events. Even before they put a man on the moon, some NASA dudes knew how to put a man on the moon, and you could say that about them.

If Edwards loses the general election, I'll be really disappointed and have a lot to apologize for. But I've been following the polling data like a hawk for the last three-odd years, and it generally points in the same direction. Given what I'm seeing, there's no way I can keep my mouth shut about this.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 30, 2007 4:22:11 PM

latts, I'm happy to be called any number of things, as long as "a guy who knows how to put progressive Democrats in control of America" is one of them.

Neil, you'll have to learn how to make a bold case for liberalism before you get that title. As long as you're embarrassed by the term you'll always be fighting on the Republican's turf. Speak up for your ideas. That's the only way to win that battle.

Here's a recent example:

"Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's a dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11."

"The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was b...s.... Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "F... you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 30, 2007 4:22:26 PM

Given what I'm seeing, there's no way I can keep my mouth shut about this.

Perhaps... you're certainly hopeful. And dedicated to Edwards. But I'm not certain what purpose your speaking out is supposed to serve, either-- it's not likely to sway those who prefer other candidates, after all, and those are the people you want to be willing to actively work with you should Edwards get the nomination. Sales and general evangelizing aren't exactly liberal strengths, so one's messages may not always have their intended effect.

Posted by: latts | Apr 30, 2007 4:33:55 PM

I think it's a sad place we've come to when we have to refer to *any* of these candidates as liberal. We've been hoodwinked if we can believe that.

I don't see Edwards as electable at all. If we're going to be cynical and try to get someone non-Republican in office, the Democrats are going to have to turn up some new faces, ones to attract the moderate and undecided voters. I don't think Edwards is it, people identify him with the Democrat machine.

I would really like to see Richardson move up into the limelight for nomination. I think he's someone who's actually qualified for the job, and won't be identified with what has come to be seen as the "losing culture" of the Democrats.

Posted by: DigitalAutumn | Apr 30, 2007 4:57:27 PM

that last post was funny-ha-ha.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 30, 2007 5:07:25 PM

An interesting question is whether these numbers will change after Edwards spends the better part of the next year trying to run to the left of Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: ikl | Apr 30, 2007 5:11:07 PM

Fascinating that Dems and Inds track similarly on all candidates except Pelosi. And with Reps on GOP candidates. But Reps track way away from D and I on the Dem candidates. Looks like a Fox News bias to me.

Posted by: sidereal | Apr 30, 2007 5:12:26 PM

Look at the section of the poll called "Candidate Images - the Democrats." Clinton is doing very well.

And what's up with people thinking the Republicans, including Gingrich and McCain are centrists? Why are the Democrats all considered liberal while the Republicans are mostly center-right?

Gingrich isn't a centrist in these results. McCain and Giuliani are the exceptions here; the Democrats are seen as liberal, as expected; Bush and Gingrich as conservative. McCain has always presented himself as above partisanship. Giuliani is in fact more centrist than the others.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 30, 2007 5:20:35 PM

"Liberal," "conservative," and "moderate" are just labels. But they are important labels because of their psychological effect on the public and (crucially) the media. They are really synonyms for "far left," "far right," and "in between."

There are two ways in which it is in our interest to run a candidate who is substantively further to the left but who for whatever reason (with Edwards, it's probably his accent) is considered "moderate." First of all, it gives the Democratic candidate a wider base of potential votes in the general election, because there are a lot of people who substantively agree with someone like Edwards but will be very hesitant to vote for a candidate they perceive as straying too far from the middle. They will be extremely likely to vote for Edwards if this perception holds up.

It also shifts the parameters of the debate in a more permanent way. Clinton was considered to some degree a "liberal," but substantively he was not very far left at all. This sucked because "far left" got redefined to include anything to the left of Clinton, which isn't very far left.

If however Edwards were to get elected as a perceived moderate, his policy positions would now be considered "in the middle," and then "far right" would basically be anyone to the right of Edwards.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 30, 2007 6:02:22 PM

I would guess that this system suffers seriously from some sort of numbers bias(don't know this type of bias's name). The reason Republicans are viewed as closer to the average voter is probably that around 3 is viewed as moderate conservative and around 4 as moderatly liberal and people's tendency to go up not down in tenths digit. Better Poll would have 0-3 L and 0-3 conservatives scales, then take the negative of one of them.

Posted by: rtaycher1987 | Apr 30, 2007 6:05:41 PM

...there ought to be a word-not to mention, here and there, a political party-to stand for what liberalist used to mean. The idea, with its roots in English and Scottish political philosophy of the 18th century, speaks up for individual rights and freedoms, and challenges over-mighty government and other forms of power. In that sense, traditional English liberalism favored small government-but crucially, it viewed a government's efforts to legislate religion and personal morality as skeptically as it regarded the attempt to regulate trade (the favored economic intervention of the age)...

..When you understand that the tradition it springs from has changed the world so much for the better in the past two and a half centuries, you might have expected all sides to be claiming the label for their own exclusive use...

The Economist
November 6, 2004

Posted by: Just commenting | Apr 30, 2007 6:25:14 PM

Just commenting, we're talking about liberalism with a small "l", not liberalism with a big "L". We're not political novices here; we know the difference.

Posted by: Jenn | Apr 30, 2007 6:30:27 PM

If however Edwards were to get elected as a perceived moderate, his policy positions would now be considered "in the middle," and then "far right" would basically be anyone to the right of Edwards.

I don't see any evidence that Clinton affected much what was seen as liberal. NAFTA, for example, was never seen as liberal; the effort to allow gays to serve openly in the military was. Clinton himself was liberal overall, especially in contrast to the Republican Congress. Edwards is very unlikely to win as a perceived moderate without "liberal" attached, and will never be any kind of a marker for what counts as far right.

RTaycher, you could be right, but I don't see any reason to think so in the figures themselves. The middle would be 3.5, very close to the 3.4 that is the average.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 30, 2007 6:37:06 PM

Next, "Just commenting" will treat us to a pedantic hectoring about how we're a republic, not a democracy.

Posted by: Constantine | Apr 30, 2007 6:40:21 PM

I think what Neil is forgetting is that whoever the Democrats nominate for President, will be branded "The Most Liberal Candidate Ever".

Al Gore was originally selected as Clinton's running mate because he was a socially conservative, squeaky clean, southern, former religious studies student. He only became a left-wing wacko, after a concerted effort by the right wing noise machine.

He toyed with choosing Zell Miller as a running mate and finally picked out the even more socially conservative darling of Fox News, Joe Lieberman, trying to prove that he wasn't too liberal for the country at large.

The gun toting, fiscally conservative Howard Dean, became an "angry liberal" for his suggestion that the Iraq war was a distraction. (That effort helped along by his primary rivals, including Edwards and Kerry).

The devout Catholic, Vietnam vet and purple heart recipient Kerry, became "the most liberal Senator" simply by being from Massachusetts, and his selection of the more conservative, southern boy Edwards, didn't help him much, either.

Democrats have spent too many years trying to prove that they're not too liberal, striving to appeal to a southern base who won't vote for them anyway. Your "Edwards-as-moderate" strategy will be toast if he ever becomes a front-runner.

He'd better be ready to stand up for himself. And "liberal" better not be a curse word in 2008 if he wants to win.

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 30, 2007 7:41:28 PM

I don't see any evidence that Clinton affected much what was seen as liberal.

I intended but forgot to add that I was greatly oversimplifying for the sake of making a point - mainly, I was adopting for the sake of argument the fundamental assumptions of the original post. But I think the basic point is almost uncontroversially true - if Clinton = liberal, then how could that fail to define the parameters of right-left? If Clinton is defined as a liberal, someone who comes along who is obviously to Clinton's left is only naturally going to be seen as more extreme than he or she might otherwise be than, e.g., if Edwards = liberal.

Clinton himself was liberal overall, especially in contrast to the Republican Congress.

Well, that's kind of my point. Clinton wasn't much of a "liberal" in a broader sense - policy-wise, Clinton simply wasn't very far left. The examples you choose are telling, though - NAFTA was an infinitely more important issue than gays in the military, yet Clinton's "liberal" stand on the latter probably did more to shape impressions than his pro-business stand on the former.

Clinton was "liberal" in relation to the GOP Congress - since these terms are sort of inherently relative. That was one of the victories of the Gingrich Revolution - what used to be far-right was now just mainstream conservativism, and what used to be conservativism was now "moderate." Clinton's statement about the era of big government being over is proof of this (however erroneous that statement turned out to be).

Edwards is very unlikely to win as a perceived moderate without "liberal" attached, and will never be any kind of a marker for what counts as far right.

Almost by definition, a candidate who wins the presidency is going to be considered a moderate. If Edwards wins, the whole political debate will shift to the left. I shouldn't have said that anyone to the right of Edwards would become "far right" because that's not true. Arlen Specter, e.g., would not become a far-right extremist. But the effect of things shifting to the left is that the outliers on the other side are now (in hypothetical President Edwards world) that much further from the center.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 30, 2007 8:27:23 PM

I think what Neil is forgetting is that whoever the Democrats nominate for President, will be branded "The Most Liberal Candidate Ever".

Which, by the way, speaks in favor of actually nominating the most liberal candidate ever.

Thus refuting the entire epistemological foundation of DLC/"New Democrat" types.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 30, 2007 8:31:41 PM

Jason's arguments has actually been widely discussed ad nauseum. The basic point is this: Clinton's chief strategy was triangulation. That strategy tries to map out a position that is to the left of wherever the opposition is (say a GOP Congress).

It presupposes as oft has beeen argued a fixed target on the right. This is why people will often say that Bush was the answer to Clinton's triangulation (because it was the strategy advocated and used by Donna Brazile in 2000 for Gore).

Does anyone remember Gore in the debates? Let me sum up his positions "me too, but only slightly further left." When one is busy trying to triangulate only slightly to the left of whatever position one's opponents has, one had better hope that one's opponents are not going too be extreme. Bush didn't run extreme, but he governed that way coopting the language that Clinton had created to redefine the middle through marketing ploys that are common on Madison Avenue.

Bush shows this faith that strategically one can hope for a static GOP is flawed. He redefined the middle according to an extreme agenda, but kept calling it the middle. In fact, the whole point is that none of these definitions are static. To believe that it is to believe in an absurdity- that language is static. Language is never static. I'm a lawyer. I manipulate language all the time to get what my clients want.

If you can't see any proof that Clinton wasn't liberal- it's because the manipulation that he was doing worked on you.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 30, 2007 8:52:58 PM

By the way, what's often interesting is the fact that no one I ever talk to seems to think they are capable of being manipulated by these things. Labeling something as "liberal" or putting a sexy girl on the car. Everyone thinks they are immune, and yet, these approaches sell cars and politicians.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 30, 2007 9:00:42 PM

He only became a left-wing wacko, after a concerted effort by the right wing noise machine.

Well, he did actually turn out to be more liberal overall than Clinton.

The devout Catholic, Vietnam vet and purple heart recipient Kerry, became "the most liberal Senator" simply by being from Massachusetts

No, he actually had a solid liberal voting record too. You give too much credit to the right wing.

And "liberal" better not be a curse word in 2008 if he wants to win.

What's that mean? You think liberals won't vote for him if he doesn't embrace the label, or that he'll lose because he'll be labeled liberal?

Jason, Clinton was never seen as the prototypical liberal, just a liberal. Clinton's a good marker for a moderate liberal, perhaps, in that he's well known, but no more than that. (He would have been more liberal in his policies if he had had a liberal Congress to back him, of course.) Again, that he favored NAFTA didn't make people think NAFTA was liberal; welfare reform wasn't perceived as liberal. Heath care reform, justice appointments, vetoing IDX bans, gays in the military, those were liberal. What's defined as "liberal" just isn't as simple as any person's policies.

That was one of the victories of the Gingrich Revolution - what used to be far-right was now just mainstream conservativism, and what used to be conservativism was now "moderate." Clinton's statement about the era of big government being over is proof of this (however erroneous that statement turned out to be).

I hear this all the time from liberals, but I don't see the evidence. Gingrich was recognized as from the Republican wing of the Republican Party, so to speak. He was known to be more conservative than the old guard. Clinton was trying to appeal to Reagan Democrats; he didn't actually redefine liberalism.

Almost by definition, a candidate who wins the presidency is going to be considered a moderate.

Now you're arguing against yourself, it seems. You said Clinton was regarded as a liberal. In any case, this isn't true. Reagan was never regarded as a moderate. I think this kind of Overton Window stuff is overrated.

Which, by the way, speaks in favor of actually nominating the most liberal candidate ever.

No. How well the label sticks depends on the candidate.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 30, 2007 9:12:39 PM

Now you're arguing against yourself, it seems. You said Clinton was regarded as a liberal.

Well, I was trying not to get into splitting hairs too much. Clinton is a "moderate liberal." If Edwards wins, he'll probably be seen as a "moderate liberal." If McCain wins, he'll be seen as a "moderate conservative." Of course everybody is always going to be considered on one side or the other. But the prominent politicians in either party (Clinton and Gingrich in the Nineties) basically, roughly define mainstream conservativism and mainstream liberalism. It's always going to be one of those - any candidate who wins the general election is going to have been nominated by their party and then chosen by a majority of the electorate.

If you think about, hardly anybody actually is considered a straight "moderate" anymore. Maybe Lieberman, Specter, Harold Ford.

WHen a politician achieves some kind of prominent leadership role like Speaker of the House or President, the political spectrum is going to be judged on both sides in reference to them. It's inevitable. Is it really even credible to argue that say Nancy Pelosi represents the far left wing of the Democratic Party? Maybe in her substantive positions she does, but the fact is that the majority of House Democrats voted for her, so it's a bit odd to say she doesn't represent the mainstream of her party.

Likewise, if the GOP nominates Rudy, that will be taken as the standard for mainstream Republicanism.

Now, if the GOP nominated say Tancredo or Gingrich, I don't think they would turn into "moderate conservatives" overnight, but they'd also lose by twenty points. If somehow they DID manage to win, I think you'd see a quick adjustment to a country which (acc. to the media anyway) considers Newt Gingrich a mainstream Republican - a "moderate conservative." Reagan, for instance, was not regarded as a right-wing extremist at the time, because the media would not be able to get its head around the idea of any kind of extremist winning 49 states. (Makes sense.)

But policy-wise, Reagan was pretty far to the right with respect to the broad historical context here. Thus he managed to some degree to redefine the mainstream of political discourse, drawing it further to the right, with the result being (in part) the rise of the Blue Dog a.k.a. Reagan Democrat.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 30, 2007 10:45:37 PM

No. How well the label sticks depends on the candidate.

I don't see any evidence of this at all. Sure, if the Democrats nominate Zell Miller, that label wouldn't stick. But anybody they would realistically nominate would stand an equal chance of being stuck with the "liberal" label (remaining agnostic on whether that's such a terrible thing).

"Liberal" is just as likely to stick to Hillary as it is to Edwards or Obama, even though she is substantially further to the right than at least Edwards. Unless you're talking about real outliers like say Kucinich, liberal as slur will have about the same effect. Or, to the extent that it sticks better to some than others, it will have nothing to do with their substantive policy positions.

So in a way you're right that how well the label sticks has to do with the candidate, but it probably has mostly to do with the candidate's gender, voice, hair, etc.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 30, 2007 10:52:01 PM

Jason, do you think Bush has moved the idea of what's moderate or acceptable to the right? More the opposite. If Reagan moved anything to the right, it was by making a successful case for it, not merely by being elected. And people elect Presidents, not ideologies. Many who voted for Reagan recognized him to be more conservative than they, but they liked him and thought he'd be a better president than the alternatives despite that; they knew he was a conservative and never took him to be anything else. Just being elected doesn't much change how people view your politics, or politics in general.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 1, 2007 12:25:23 AM

I still remember the 1st cover of Time Magazine after Reagan's election. Emblazoned in huge type it read: "AMERICA TURNS RIGHT!". Next thing we knew, we were cutting social spending and bankrolling wars.

Akaison, Thanks for elaborating. Interesting stuff.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 1, 2007 2:23:34 AM

I love Neil's spin on Edwards: "he opposed funding on the war", as if that excuses the fact that he, well, supported the war in the first place. His apologies for the vote ring hollow- he supported the war because he felt it would be politically expedient.

What does Edwards really have under his belt? He's an effective orator on the subject of poverty, but he was a rather undistinguished Senator for a half-dozen years before becoming Kerry's running mate. I remember watching him debate Cheney and hearing the collective cringe of liberals across the country, who realized that our VP candidate was a vacant lightweight.

I'm looking for someone with:
-experience in relevant areas
-good judgment

It's pretty apparent, given his record on the war, that Edwards has neither. Let's hope for the sake of the Party he drops out.

Posted by: Matt Schiavenza | May 1, 2007 6:21:22 AM

I think people are missing the point--or at least, a point. Of course, the GOP is going to portray the Democratic nominee as a Scary Liberal! A Threat to Children and Decency! so the question is, which candidate best defies that charge? In other words, who best defeats the GOP's cultural populism, which says that the Democratic nominee is not "one of us," not a real, beer-drinking, down-to-earth, churchgoing person? As Pew, and common sense, show: it's Edwards, and it's not despite his progressivism, it's because of it. As Tom Frank and a hundred others have argued, the best way to defeat the Right's cultural populism is with economic populism. An in addition to his message, there's his down-to-earth personality and his accent and his humble background. The he's-not-one-of-us charge won't stick.

Posted by: david mizner | May 1, 2007 9:34:19 AM

Posted by: david mizner | May 1, 2007 9:34:37 AM

And here I thought the title referred to the fact that *every* Democratic candidate (and noncandidate) is considered more liberal by Republicans than they are by Democrats.

Somebody's plan is working, alright. But it's not ours.

Posted by: Chris | May 1, 2007 10:13:08 AM

Manipulating language isn't a GOP plan. It's the nature of politics. The left has forgotten that.

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 11:01:26 AM

The he's-not-one-of-us charge won't stick.

Don't be so sure. The down-to-earth style and the haircut/new house might get in a fight, and who knows which will win? Leno is doing jokes about this already. Most people don't know Edwards' proposals yet, so there's plenty of time for the polling on how liberal he is to change, along with the perception of whether he's forgotten his roots.

Edwards has some very good proposals, and maybe those are a better focus for his supporters for now. But really it's still very early.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 1, 2007 1:00:06 PM

The difference is that every Republican runs as a conservative. Not as a moderate. When they succeed, conservatism gets credited. When they fail, they get accused of betraying "true" conservatism.

Democrats, lately, have been running as centrists, which typically means embracing at least a few conservative ideas (like the flag burning amendment, or the Iraq war ). Few Americans actually think of them as centrists, so they get accused of having hidden agendas, which is exactly Neil's strategy.

I haven't heard any of the Democratic candidates proudly declare that they are liberal. If they do, they won't be on the defensive when the Republicans pin that label on them.

They'll be able to redefine the term from an insult to an ideology.

Posted by: Mikef | May 1, 2007 1:06:39 PM

The difference is that every Republican runs as a conservative. Not as a moderate.

Or a "compassionate conservative", which basically was a promise of moderation. Bush didn't keep it.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 1, 2007 1:23:43 PM

It's not a hidden agenda if liberalism is considered the moderate position. It's only hidden if you change your policies about what you believe or deny being liberal. What we are talking about here is how the audience perceive us, not how we projected ourselves. Gore, Kerry, etc changed their policies. Is anyone claiming that Edwards is changing his? Is anyone claiming he's running a centrist campaign? Don't become stuck in rhectoric that is mistaken for argument.

The problem with centrism is that it stood for nothing but trying to convince people that it wasn't liberal left only the definition of the right to fill the vacuum. Or as I said here before- define or be defined.

Edwards, from what I'm seeing, isn't doing that. Nor is it clear to me that saying I am the middle when one is liberal is a sign of one being centrist. It's a different approach altogether- it's saying liberal is the middle, not I am middle because I am to the left of crazy Republicans. Dave Sirota (I believe at working people or daily kos) had an excellent article on this very subject a few months back as well.

He talked about where the American people actually are in terms of moderate (which is mostly liberal (as the studies on their views on healthcare for example, show), especially on economic issues) versus the establishment's definition of centrism or moderate. I think if you are going to have any discussion you need to define your audience, and understand the tactic in different ways than simply one way. Conversations are as much about audience perceptions as they are about what you think you are saying. If Edwards benefits from the the natural position of where most Americans think they are- then I'm not sure why this is a problem? Are you trying to resusitate the word "liberal" or trying to elect someone who is going to create liberal policies that Americans see as moderate, even if they aren't? Which is more important to you? Transformative to me here means people begin to realize that liberals are the moderates, and that the conservatives are the ape shit extremists. In other words, if you move the whole scale (which is what transformation is about) then what are you arguing about?

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 2:12:40 PM

Mike, it just isn't true that all Republicans run as conservatives, while Democrats run as moderates. In addition to what Neil mentioned, both parties' candidates run to their base in the primaries and then to the center in the generals. I don't understand why Democratic candidates declaring themselves to be liberal would keep them from being tarred by the label. Democrats have tried for years and years to redefine "liberal" in the minds of swing voters, and just haven't succeeded well enough to make it all that smart to run as a "liberal."

Posted by: Sanpete | May 1, 2007 2:22:16 PM

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, not a moderate. keyword choice difference, and even during the debates he was given red meat to his base through selected use of bible quotes that he knew had a certain meaning for them. gore did not. so when people say conservatives run moderate- give examples that are better than that one. and again what people perceived of bush- which is the press and the public isn't how he really was trying to appeal. rove's basic strategy was turn out the base during the general in 2000 and 2004. thats why they thought he was a genius.

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 2:40:23 PM

Are you trying to resuscitate the word "liberal" or trying to elect someone who is going to create liberal policies that Americans see as moderate, even if they aren't?

"Democrats are liberals, Republicans are conservatives". That's the fundamental, ingrained belief of the majority of the country, including the media. It's the first thought most voters will have when asked the difference between the two parties. And that's not going to change, no matter how much candidates try.

So the Democrats would be wise to resuscitate it. It should be pretty easy to do, now that Bush has nearly redefined conservative to mean "fiscally reckless, corrupt and incompetent."

Republicans are beginning to push the argument that Bush and his advisors betrayed "conservativism". They know the power of the word and they want people to identify with it.

Democrats need to remind voters that they've seen what a catastrophe "conservative" government is. And remind them how prosperous and strong the country was under the likes of liberals like Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton.

Posted by: Mikef | May 1, 2007 2:40:55 PM

oh- and coming up with a singular example is hardly a trend made. bush sr ran on reagan.

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 2:41:34 PM

one final ps and then i will respond to mike. i cant repeat enough how much I find the lack of talk about specific audiences, speakers etc here frustrating.

as for mike, this is the key passage of what I wrote "
Edwards, from what I'm seeing, isn't doing that. Nor is it clear to me that saying I am the middle when one is liberal is a sign of one being centrist. It's a different approach altogether- it's saying liberal is the middle, not I am middle because I am to the left of crazy Republicans. Dave Sirota (I believe at working people or daily kos) had an excellent article on this very subject a few months back as well. "

It's a question of how you resusitate liberalism. Do you do it by presenting someone who is liberal, and Americans can't help but find themselves agreeing with so they themselves redefine the scale by reference to an actual example. Or do you make rhectorical statements like "i am liberal" without providing any leadership by example of what liberal means. there are mulitple ways to approach this- you seem to suggest there is only one.

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 2:52:57 PM

In other words, if you move the whole scale (which is what transformation is about) then what are you arguing about?

An excellent question. I can't answer for Mikef. I would say that my only concern with Neil's post is that it ignores the key point you raised, that conversations, particularly in public forums, are as much about what the audience perceives as anything else. Loose modes of expression that play into right wing memes are to be avoided. They tend to reinforce the existing scale rather than transforming it.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | May 1, 2007 3:12:43 PM

"Compassionate conservtive" was a good ploy because it answered the fear that conservatives don't care. Liberals don't need to worry so much about that; they need to worry about appearing weak.

I suspect the liberal label will hurt Hillary less than it did Kerry. Clinton is perceived as strong even by those who don't like her. She has some of that Iron Lady thing, like Thatcher. Obama and Edwards have more to prove in that area, though still plenty of time to do it. Edwards may have an advantage in appearing moderate (let's say, based on the numbers in this poll), but he will probably have more difficulty with the appearance of strength than the other top candidates, based on what I've seen of them so far, and the poll.

Of course, I thought the same thing about Bush, but enough people thought he was strong, or as strong as Gore (who was taking lessons), to get him into office.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 1, 2007 3:22:43 PM

Do you do it by presenting someone who is liberal, and Americans can't help but find themselves agreeing with so they themselves redefine the scale by reference to an actual example.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here, akaison. I'm not actually criticizing Edwards or any other campaign. My comments were more in response to Neil's apparent wish for a liberal to sneak into office, undetected.

At some point in the campaign, possibly in a debate with the Republican nominee, the Democrat will be accused of trying "the same old failed liberal policies ..." or something similar. The Democrat can't cringe from that and they can't hide behind the word "moderate" at that point, either. That's when they'll need to demonstrate what liberal means and why its better than the alternative.

Posted by: Mikef | May 1, 2007 3:34:46 PM

on that we are in agreement

Posted by: akaison | May 1, 2007 4:02:39 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour