And I will define ‘unite us’ thusly: were no one is foaming at the mouth to have impeached and locked up.
Is there a candidate that one side of the aisle can sort of get behind and the other side can almost tolerate.
I have this belief that most Americans are neither hard core left nor hard core right. I believe most of us are somewhere near the center, leaning one way or the other.
Saw this a while back.
[Kasich: ‘I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me’](Kasich: ‘I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me’)
I wish he hadn’t stole the line from Ronald Reagan, but I like what he said:
Now, I have no idea if Kasich is full of shit or not. But can he, or someone else, carry a message of sensible policies, sensible taxes, sensible welfare, actual social justice…and could such a person survive in the primaries on either side.
John Kasich is a totally pathetic guy. I remember in one of the primary debates, he literally concluded by saying something like, “I’d really appreciate it if you’d vote for me.” My jaw was on the floor at how much of a…well, for lack of a better word, a dork he sounded like. “I’d really appreciate it?” His whole persona radiates negative charisma. Negative charisma. People talk about Al Gore being boring, and he was. He lacked charisma. But he still had bearing. He was, after all, an Army enlisted man and a professional journalist at one point. He may have been boring, but he had bearing. Kasich has negative charisma, meaning he actively looks like a hangdog sad-sack before he even opens his mouth, and when his mouth is open, his pronouncements all sound like the bleating of a pained goat.
Well, Obama tried. But the divide was already too wide.
The Republican Party is now 99.44% in the tank for Trump. Not much room for centrism from the right.
What used to be the center is now Obama/Hillary territory. And without Obama to sell it (and get enough black votes), it didn’t survive 2016. The Dems will move left - not ‘far left,’ but solidly liberal - in 2020.
The parties believe in totally different things. There’s no way to split the difference between being in favor of government that works, and wanting to tear it all down. You can only choose which side you’re on.
Democrats and Republicans used to argue over what color to paint the room, or even if the room needed painting. But they agreed on the existence of the room and what “paint” was.
I feel like if Democrats capitulated totally and completely on guns and nothing else, they could be in power forever. I realize there are many issues animating the folks on the right. No doubt abortion is a close second, as well as vague worries about the socialism. Some people would never be willing to barter on those issues, but I think a sufficient majority could be peeled off by assuring them unfettered access to gratify their fetish for these small chunks of tooled metal.
I am legitimately stunned by some of the things I’ve seen written about centrists lately. I am skeptical, since it is hard to classify who we are speaking of. Is the language changing or something? When I hear the word centrist I think of the types who are at least somewhat informed and not easily pliable. I am aware of some of these new faux centrists like Carl Benjamin who are really opportunists.
I think you are underestimating the extent to which many Republicans have taken refuge in a “political philosophy” that really doesn’t have any actual substance beyond opposing and demonizing Democrats.
Republican leaders have a number of specific policy aims, mostly for the economic advantage of wealthy elites. But they can’t really be candid about those to their non-wealthy rank and file. So they rely on fomenting anti-Democratic sentiment to keep the base loyal.
It’s not that ordinary voters are so irrevocably divided by their actual policy preferences. It’s that one party’s leadership has been doing its best to replace actual policy preferences with free-floating hostility towards the other party. Bipartisan unity would undermine rather than strengthen what they’re trying to achieve.
Since survey respondents select their own left/center/right alignment, might this be spurious? Politically active radicals might choose left or right, while disillusioned radicals might claim “center.”
Anyone know if the raw data from that survey is available? It would be fun and useful to run regressions and PCA on that data.
As I hear it negatively now, it means one of two things. The first is “I support the status quo.” And both sides have problems with that, both the conservatives trying to undo things, and the liberals/progressives pushing forward.
The other is someone who strictly remains in the center, who always thinks both sides must have equally valid ideas.
The term Moderate seems to be what I used to consider Centrist: someone who is for change, but wants to take it slowly, and make sure we won’t lose anything. But now that’s left of center–the moderate Left.
The American right has achieved near-majority by uniting groups with opposite goals and philosophy!
There are the kleptocrats, eager to make the super-rich even richer and to work for near-term corporate profits at the expense of the environment and humanity. Supporting this group are many professionals, especially in fields like finance but also medicine, law, etc., who feel that their personal interests are allied with rising economic inequality. Compromising with the kleptocrats no longer makes any sense. If profits were too low to encourage innovation, that would be a problem but we’ve moved well behind that. The kleptocrats are now sucking off wealth will great haste and agility. The American economy is setting records, but real laborers’ wages continue to decline.
Then there are “rednecks” and discouraged people from the Flyover states who are victims of the rising inequality, but have irrationally decided to blame their woes on blacks, immigrants, foreign countries and liberals. Compromise to assuage their irrational fears may be difficult. Deport half the DACA children instead of all or none? Shoot five bullets into a black reaching for his driver’s license instead of ten bullets?
No. The way forward is for Americans to be better informed. Many of us are wallowing in the lies of Trump, the lies of FoxNews, and the lies of the kleptocrats. While I strongly agree that Democrats should minimize their anti-gun rhetoric, I’m not sure this will be enough. The hate machine would just find something else for haters to hate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
We have to admire John Kasich, one of the very very few Republicans. to oppose the election of Donald J. Trump. But he did not endorse Hillary. And to characterize him as a “centrist” means the right-wing has already won.
John Kasich
[ul][li] worked for Fox News, hosting Heartland with John Kasich from 2001 to 2007 and was a fill-in host for The O’Reilly Factor;[/li][li] opposes women’s right to abortion, wants to destroy Planned Parenthood, etc.;[/li][li] required women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds;[/li][li] proposes selling Ohio’s state prisons to the for-profit prison industry;[/li][li] has cut Ohio’s income and estate taxes, while raising regressive taxes;[/li][li] opposes the right of public employees to collective bargaining;[/li][li] has reduced funding for Ohio’s public schools;[/li][li] supports teaching alternatives to evolution—such as intelligent design;[/li][li] was an enthusiastic supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (though he denies this now), and wanted to send ground troops to fight Da’esh;[/li][li] signed voter-suppression laws;[/li][li] supports repealing the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically its jus soli provision (" All persons born …in the United States … are citizens of the United States").[/li][/ul]
Taken together, Kasich’s views are not quite as right-wing as the above list implies; and his thinking has evolved on several issues. Nevertheless, any suggestion that centrists or liberals should rally around him just shows how far down the right-wing rabbit hole we’ve descended.
Finally, let us note that the 2016 Presidential election featured a contest between a candidate who was the very definition of centrism and a right-wing sociopathic buffoon. The buffoon won. Should the Democrats find a candidate who’s half-centrist, half-buffoon?
Even Hillary’s position on gun control was “centrist”, in the sense that it had majority support among Americans. In fact, a major accusation against Hillary was that she was too centrist — too eager to align her stances with the American majority.
How does it make sense to hope for a “centrist” when the political landscape is dominated by the Kleptocrats and Liars? (The 2008 election was an aberration: America was fatigued by Bush and unimpressed with McCainisms like the Palin choice. Smart Republicans probably hoped the D’s won, since inevitable economic and foreign problems were on the horizon and they wanted D’s to blame. Despite all this, McCain and Palin won nearly half the states.)
Kasich, Romney, the Bushes, several Senators all refused to support Trump’s election — but how many actually endorsed Hillary? Even Bricker, one of the Board’s most adamant reactionaries, voted for Hillary rather than the sociopath. All to no avail.
The American voters don’t seem to want a centrist, or even someone right-of-center. They want foaming-at-the-mouth sociopathy.
No. About 25% of voters are hard right and about 25% of voters are hard left, and both groups see the other side as a threat to their values and way of life. 25% doesn’t sound like a lot but that is 30-40 million on each side. So about 60-80 million Americans are really really divided and they tend to control the discourse and the primary system since they are the ones who actually vote (I’d wager in midterms, at least 60% of voters on each side are hard left or hard right).
I don’t see us coming together again anytime soon.
Honestly, Obama tried to be the kind of person the OP is looking for. A bipartisan, nonthreatening consensus builder. He was accused of being a pro-Al Qaeda dictator for it.
Candidates seeking office as Republicans seem to feel the need to define themselves as the most conservative candidate running and denounce their fellow Republicans as RINOs who have strayed from the true conservative path. Republicans try to distance themselves from the center as much as possible.
I disagree. Democrats don’t actually do anything on guns. And the right is still going to run ‘scary democrats want you to be defenseless in a dangerous world’ ad no matter what the official democratic policy is.
I really don’t know what’ll lead to long term democratic majorities. I would hope rebuilding the labor movement would clip off enough high school educated white men that it would give the dems majorities again. But even so, rural whites are a lost cause.
I have no idea how to make the dems more appealing to rural whites and/or whites w/o a college degree (especially men). More importantly, I’m not sure if the dems should appeal to them since a major reason they left the democratic party was cultural. The democrats are a party of egalitarianism and equality. If people leave the democrats because they prefer a social hierarchy that places christian white men on the top, then the democrats are better off without them (as a collective group, individual voters is fine).
Interesting survey. I’m not so much skeptical of the results as I am their interpretations. I could see centrists being less ‘democratic’. In the wake of Trump and Brexit, it’s not unreasonable to have doubts about democracy. But if one were to probe a little further, I suspect what most true centrists would tell you that they embrace democracy if there were some way to minimize the idiot factor. Centrists like democracy - their democracy. In that sense, maybe they’re no different than the far right or far left.
If those on the right wanted that, they would have voted for Kasich instead of Trump. As for the idea that people on the left are just as far to the left as people on the right at to the right, if that were true than Bernie would have beat Hillary.