Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 24, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Forums » The Woodshed
  • Chris Matthews Trashes 'Morning Joe' for Being 'Open to All People's Points of View'
  • Thursday Morning: Fox Gives 15 Minutes to Latest IRS Scandal Details; NBC and ABC Ignore
  • On Taxpayer-subsidized PBS, Liberal Reporters Lament Benghazi Won't Go Away
  • No Mention of IRS Scandal on NBC's 'Today,' But Plenty of Time for Obama Prom Photo
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Hypes ‘LGBT Injustice’ During Interview With 18-year Old Woman Charged With Sex With Minor
  • Lisa Myers: 'For a Year the IRS Essentially Knowingly Lied to Congress and No One Came Forward'
  • Network Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack
  • MSNBC’s Finney On IRS Scandal: ‘Why Didn't Romney Make More Of A Big Deal Of It?’

Location of the political center

  • Login to post comments
11 replies [Last post]
Wed, 05/30/2012 - 3:38pm
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008

Since I can't deal with threads once the comment section surpasses 300 entries, I moved this topic here. Hopefully it'll be easier to relocate and amend than the OT during which the subject was broached. To recap, I commented specifically to JER:

You know Jer,

Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/27/2012 - 9:10pm.

I wonder why you try to hard to defend your left flank. Obviously I don't know you as a person -only a series of anonymous comments on a conservative blog, so I could be completely off base- but it seems to me you spend an inordinate amount of capital trying to cover for the nutjobs that inhabit the progressive wing of your party.

You seem to me like a JFK-democrat. You embrace the ideals of safety nets, caring for the poor, general equality, and strong unions (I'm generalizing here, not trying to be specific) while not generally accepting the anti-capitalist, anti-war for any reason, radical environmentalism progressive platforms that sadly, are the dominant force behind today's liberal politics. In some ways I feel for you. You're being abandoned. Your a blue-dog democrat and you've been run over by the bus a few times too many. And a vote for your party is essentially a vote for these radical ideals that you don't seem to willingly embrace.

And yet there's some sort of pride keeping you left of center when in reality the center has moved so far left over the last 20 years that your politics actually fall to the right. You refuse not to vote, but you refuse to vote GOP. So you're forced to cast a vote in favor of policies you inherently know are destroying that thing the JFK and others tried so hard to build.

Now, I'm sure you'll deny all of this; either by ignoring it all together or stating publicly how wrong I am. But you're comments belie such a stance. Your party has been infiltrated and co-opted by a brand of progressivism that can only be described as Marxist-influenced. It began in the 60's and advanced in small increments by LBJ, Carter and Clinton; then given a violent shove by Obama.

Let it go Jer. It doesn't represent you any longer. We've got the big tent now. And big open arms. Let it go. Just. Let. It. Go.
 

I was fairly general is some instances, and a bit snarky at the end, but the point was basically that I find Jer to be what has often been called a "Blue Dog Democrat" and that Blue Dogs have been largely abandoned by the current Democrat Party.

Jer replied:

An astute polipsychoanalysis, bk...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/30/2012 - 1:56am.

worthy of my repeating a 'punny' aphorism I recently encountered: "You are wise beyond your ears." I can't, so I won't, deny all of your conclusions since even though a few may be off target, there are considerably more hits than misses.

I've never knowingly concealed or misrepresented the self-characterization of my political mindset, having mentioned several times over the years that I consider myself a centrist Democrat and therefore slightly left of the geometric midpoint on a linear ideological scale; and also one who is more inclined toward the pragmatic--what is fair? what is reasonable? what works?--rather than being locked in to formulaic positions currently in vogue with the Left.

Here's one example: My staunch pro-civil rights, anti-segregationist advocacy during the '60's placed me firmly in the "liberal" camp--in direct opposition to many of my fellow southerners at the time. Those views easily met my tests for fairness and reasonableness. [Whether or how successfully they would "work" was more problematic.] Yet, for the very same reasons, I was never comfortable with affirmative action and the identity and group rights policies which it engendered. And the 'minority oppression' crusaders [a/k/a race hustlers] whose life blood requires a permanent search for (largely imaginary) racist dragons to slay are not simply indulging in harmless nostalgia for the glory days of freedom marches and triumphal "I have a dream" oratory but instead have created and perpetuated existential impediments to social harmony and racial progress. [I had hoped for and expected many more positive words and deeds by Obama in this area, and his failure has been immensely disappointing. But his detractors have also done their part in aiding and abetting that failure.]

"You seem to me like a JFK-democrat. You embrace the ideals of safety nets, caring for the poor, general equality, and strong unions (I'm generalizing here, not trying to be specific) while not generally accepting the anti-capitalist, anti-war for any reason, radical environmentalism progressive platforms that sadly, are the dominant force behind today's liberal politics..."

Close to a bulls eye. JFK was a centrist Democrat even by contemporaneous-i.e.1950's-60's--standards (even donating money to Richard Nixon's senatorial campaign against Helen Gehegan Douglas whom Kennedy regarded as too far left). And, yet, especially in the South, Kennedy was still reviled as a nigra-loving, communist-appeasing, northeastern liberal.

Your characterization of anti-capitalism, anti-war invariability, environmental radicalism I think borders on caricature in so far as it is deemed the dominant force driving liberal politics. My disagreement seems, and I suppose is, a relatively small one, but it is more than semantical. Change "the dominant" to "a prominent" or "liberal" to "progressive" and I would be more amenable to the wording and the argument. Despite what proponents of thoroughly unfettered and unrestrained markets may insist, a reasonably regulated economy is not per se anti-capitalist. Remember, Sherman Anti-Trust and related legislation was designed to promote competition rather than stifle it.

Bob, it would literally require many hours and several pages of commentary to really tear into this subject, issue by issue, point by point, so let me just close with a few random observations:

--Although I do generally support Democrats, it is not an inviolable rule, my having voted for quite a few Republicans at the state and local level.

--I agree with you about the political trajectories of LBJ and Carter, but not so much regarding Clinton. You can always point to particular policies lending credence to your argument, but, on balance, I think most objective presidential historians would resist putting him in the indisputably lib/progressive category. Even the description of Obama's presidency as a "violent shove" to the left is debatable. As troubling as the debt accumulation may be, stimulus spending to jolt the economy was the application of traditional Keynesian theory rather than the implementation of some insidious Marxist scheme. Universal health care, in one form or another, has been proposed by every Democratic president, and by at least one Republican president, since Harry Truman. Just as most of the criticism of George W. Bush from within his party came from the right which claimed he wasn't conservative enough, most of the criticism of Obama from within the party has come from the left which has claimed he wasn't liberal enough.

--Yes, to an extent, the center of liberal gravity has moved to the left in recent decades. However, by the same token, there has been a corresponding shift in the conservative center of gravity to the right. The political center has been hollowed out as both major ideologies have spun toward the edges. There are a number of reasons for the phenomenon, but I would suggest the proliferation of highly partisan political blogs is not an insignificant factor. I read articles and opinions published at this and other conservative websites and then visit "lefty" blogs, and it is if I am traveling through parallel universes, populated by inhabitants who have less and less in common with one other save absolute confidence in their own self-righteousness. Somewhere along the way the primacy of 'we are all Americans' became relegated to the status of quaint cliche`, if not an outright lie, and replaced by a 'we are, but they aren't' political provincialism. And I find that not only disturbing but dangerous.

I know this hasn't addressed and answered everything you raised in your post, but it will have to do for now. Perhaps more, later.

Jer
 

I welcome anyone's input, hopefully keeping in mind this isn't about attacking one person or another; rather, I'm more interested in discussing the radicalization of politics in America today.

Top
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:10pm
#1
GG_NB
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 12/03/2008
Jer~

I like BK's analysis of you as a JFK-er type. He articulated a lot of good points, and I have sensed some of the same things about you.

Just a quick question...setting aside how far Left you feel O has gone thus far, you really don't feel he will push us as radically Left as he possibly can if he ever got a second term?

"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan

Top
  • Login to post comments
Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:27pm
#2
shawn.
shawn.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2006
I agree BK

The Democrat party is all feelings and tolerance nowadays. The double standards on what can be said by a black person or white person is ridiculous. Their failed economic policies are ruining us.

If the Republican party spent as much time appeasing libertarians instead of social conservatives, the GOP would win in a landslide.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:20am
#3
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008
That may be shawn-
the libertarian thing, that is. But personally, there are too many policy positions (some) libertarians hold (some social and almost all foreign policy) that I can't get behind, and wouldn't want my party to support. Some libertarians are dangerously close to progressives with only monetary policy separating them.
Top
  • Login to post comments
Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:30pm
#4
shawn.
shawn.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2006
pleasing libertarians
.......does not mean changing their policies. Just less focus on social conservatives that are rapidly losing their influence.
Top
  • Login to post comments
Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:57pm
#5
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008
Wait...?

After this disastrous debate over the supposed "war on women" and "free birth control"; Catholic Universities dropping health insurance and suing the administration, you think social conservatism on waning? I actually think it made a rather boisterous comeback. Follow that up with the release of the Live Action video of two Planned Parenthoods and the House Bill on sex-selective abortions, I think it may be more of an issue in the general election, much to the chagrin of democrats who thought they had the upper hand on this issue.

I'm not advocating we turn away libertarians; they actually make a nice check and balance on the party as a whole. But I certainly wouldn't abandon any rungs on the platform to kowtow to the extreme wing of the movement. Not that you were suggesting that.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:35am
#6
shawn.
shawn.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2006
independents

........ and people with common sense can see republicans don't want to take away birth control and Catholics suing is the right thing to do

The Obama administration is infringing on their religious rights. This has nothing to do with social conservatives

Edit

Evidence of social conservatives waning power is evident. Look at NB for example, when a thread about asking the republican party not focus on social issues the same folks chime in saying ignoring social issues would be like turning into democrats

Any libertarian views are drowned out. If NB represented all Republicans then social conservatism is king

However, in reality social conservatives like Santorum and Bachmann are now cheerleading for a moderate flip flopper on social issues

Top
  • Login to post comments
Sat, 06/02/2012 - 6:18pm
#7
shawn.
shawn.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2006
Abortion BK?

I am responding to my own post so we don't make this any skinnier than it is . Correct me if I am wrong, I thought that The Catholic Church is suing because some of their subsidiaries are forced to supply birth control in their health plans and this goes against their religion. I totally agree with this, because they are sticking up for themselves. Nowhere have I seen that abortion is any part of the mandate.

Also BK, I think you might be missing my point. Of course Santorum and Bachmann are going to support Romney. He is a much better choice than Obama is for the conservative movement. My point is these two decided to be very strong on social issues far outside of the abortion and gay marriage argument. They decided to sign pledges about doing what they can to stop infidelity, divorce, cohabitation, being gay., etc. Social conservatives love these two people, especially NB social conservatives, but look what happened, Bachmann sure did not last very long and even though Santorum was one of the last two standing, he was getting beat up pretty bad in the end. No social conservative wanted Romney to win except for almost 4 years ago, when he was the only choice to McCain. So again, I do not see why the GOP has to kiss the butts of a rapidly declining base.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Sat, 06/02/2012 - 6:18pm
#8
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008
Yes, abortion.

The issue for Democrats isn't birth control, it's abortion. Th HHS mandate also calls for coverage of Plan B and other abortion services. The media doesn't like to talk about that because they know it will outrage more than half the country. The Catholic Church is suing on the grounds that the HHS is mandating what constitutes religion in the US, not birth control.

And I think you're exagerating Bachmann and Santorum's stance based on what you want to hear. I know you're strongly anti-social conservatism. That's fine. But in being so, I think you're adding emphasis to statements by social conservatives that isn't there. No one is trying to ban gays, or divorce, or infidelity or cohabitation; instead, they're trying to educate people on these societal ills. There certainly are some on the fringe who would take things to extremes if given the chance, but no one running for president was that far right.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:32am
#9
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008
Right, shawn.

No one is trying to take away birth control. But people also understand that this argument isn't really over birth control- it's about "women's health", which is code for "abortion". That's THE social issue for progressives. It's profitable, social engineering/population control.

And as far as Romney goes: I don't know much of anything about Mormonism; I'm not one, nor do I plan to be one, so who gives a crap if they're socialists. (Ooops. My inner Ferris Bueller coming out there.) The fact that Romney is, is of no import to me either. But, from what I do know about him and his church, he's fairly active in it and it's not exactly "unitarian" in their beliefs. They're pretty damned conservative.

Romney's also a politician and chose to run for Governor in Massachusetts, of all places. And he won. Like Gov. Ehrlich was here in Maryland, if you want to be red and win in a decidedly blue state, you have to run considerably to the left of what your political designator might otherwise suggest. Both men had to deal with almost entirely democratic state houses, and both men had vetoes overturned. I have no doubt that Romney "flip-flopped" on some public positions, but what was in his heart is only known to him. Fundamentally; it's dishonest. But it's also politics and for the most part, inescapable.

And what would Santorum and Bachmann do? Support the devil incarnate? Don't forget that both Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton ran against Obama in '08. That's just politics.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Wed, 05/30/2012 - 4:04pm
#10
bkeyser
bkeyser's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/12/2008
Political center

It's funny, this country has historically been described as "center-right", which, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is left and 10 is right, I'd guess the traditional mean would be around 6 or 6.5. Religion probably plays the largest role in that traditional location.

But I'd put forth that in the last two or three decades, with the help of the media and the rise of alternate media, the center has drifted considerably left. I'd say social issues now put the center at around 4 or even in the 3's. The Gulf War briefly stalled the leftward drift, and 9/11 probably moved it back to the right for a couple of years, but good economic times in the mid 90's and 2000's tend to liberalize both people's view on government and to some extent, social issues. You can probably add a full point to the leftward drift to the media.

Your perspective on this "center point" will form the basis for your opinion on the current state of politics and the political direction. My center point at 3.75-4 is what prompted my initial comment to Jer.

Obama is trying to move the country further left -certainly no one can deny this- so a vote for Obama is a vote for more leftward movement. I think that's a fair assessment. (Conversely, a vote for Romney is a vote to move the center to the right.) It seems to me this is why more and more people are speaking out against the leftward movement. Blue Dogs in Congress are retiring en masse. Others are switching parties:

"Jo Ann Nardelli, a state committeewoman and founding president of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, has switched her political affiliation to the GOP, citing her Catholic faith and President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage as reasons."

And,

"[o]n his personal website, former congressman Artur Davis confirmed at least some of the recent rumors surrounding him—that the lifelong Democrat, the man who endorsed Barack Obama for president early in 2007 and seconded his nomination at the Democratic party convention in 2008, now considers himself a Republican."

It must put people like Jer in a difficult position; Blue Dogs are uncomfortable with the center moving as far left as it has, and are concerned about it moving even further, so they're having to face a sort of "Come to Jesus moment". Do they vote along the party line and against their basic tenets? Or do they vote for the other side -their tradtional enemy- and the hope that some of the principles they believe in aren't left on the cutting room floor?

I would hope that they would educate themselves enough to instead look at what each side wants to do to our country and votes his or her heart.

Top
  • Login to post comments
Sun, 08/19/2012 - 7:32pm
#11
shawn.
shawn.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/10/2006
Some comments are pretty devisive

Sort of like this comment from a GOP hopeful

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare…If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Top
  • Login to post comments
  • Login to post comments
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use