Dean's World

Centerfield's Rick Heller looks at a piece on Clintonism and notes this:

Clinton was certain a politician who compromised, but to the extent he had a governing philosophy, it was based on that of the Democratic Leadership Council. In my view, a philosophy that promotes balance between public and private initiatives, personal and social reponsibility, is a real point of view and not just compromise. The need for balance, or a middle path, is recognized by many as a valuable method of solving problems. It just may not sit well with a political system designed for two parties.

That is a fascinating observation and does cast things in a different light. As does this:

There certainly is power in extremism. The notion that one direction is best makes things easy, and eliminates trade-offs. Our political system is set up to balance not though governance by centrists, but by alternating extremes, who produce a seesaw motion that keeps things in balance, but with a lot of wasted motion.

Food for thought..

(link)

Mark Noonan (mail) (www):

Not really; what we've got is one side (Democratic leftists) demanding that the majority kneel down before unpopular policies, while on the other side (center/right Republicans) we've got people who just want to do things largely supported by the political majority. We're not two scorpions in a bottle and if we'd all just get along and go a middle path all would be well...if this were true then we wouldn't find situations where one side is opposed to a ban on late-term abortions while 70% of the population favors such a ban; a ban on late-term abortions is a compromise position on abortion...but one side doesn't want to compromise.

It goes on and on with issue after issue: a compromise on SS reform would be, well, partial privatisation as a test plan to see if it works...but one side doesn't want any compromise at all; a compromise on judicial nominations would be, say, allowing 100 hours of debate on any particular nominee which allows the opposition plenty of opportunity to gin up genuine opposition...but one side doesn't want to compromise; a compromise in energy policy would allow exploration for oil in small slivers of untouched land likely to actually contain oil...but one side doesn't want to compromise.

The malfunction in our political system today is that for the first time we've got one side ruled by rigid ideologues who don't allow compromise...they wont take half a loaf; they demand all because they feel themselves the moral and intellectual superiors of all who oppose them in any way, shape or form...the fix for the system is that which I've prescribed for a couple decades now: the left has to be purged from the Democratic Party.

5.8.2005 6:02pm

jane m:

I wish the Dems would hurry up and purge those extremists. What I suspect is going to happen though is that people like me who used to vote Democrat get completely disgusted with the extreme leftist rule of the party and find another, more moderate political philosophy to align with. I see very little evidence that the Dems are poised to purge the party at this juncture. We'll see what the next couple of Presidential campaigns bring.

5.9.2005 12:39am

Robert B.:

According to Hendrick Herzberg of the New Yorker, if we distinguish economic policies from social policies, then there has been a dramatic shift to the left on social policies, and to the right on economics, over the last 30 years. Tolerance for gays, support for abortion rights (perhaps not late-term), etc have all gone left. On the economic front, "The Era of Big Government Is Over". Free markets, liberal international trade etc are considered the norm.

This has alienated social conservatives, and economic leftists, who feel disenfranchised, and hence mobilised. The activist wings of both parties are thus pursuing policies which alienate the center. Extremem social conservatives are pissing off moderates, just as extreme social liberals are pissing off moderates.

One other interesting aspect is the difference between the U.K. and the U.S. where issues such as abortion and gay rights are largely non-issues. Tony Blair has been able to capitalize on this by combining center-right economics with social leftism to gain huge majorities in consecutive elections. The Conservative Party in Britain is very similar to the U.S. Democratic Party, shut out of power, defining themselves by opposition to the ruling party on specific issues rather than having a coherent ideology, and alienating voters by taking extreme positions on hot button issues.

5.9.2005 12:12pm