Let’s define it by example:
Name me some right-wing groups or people that are just barely inside or outside that line … NRA, Scalia, Limbaugh? In or out?
Same with the left … Move-On, Sheehan, NOW?
What are the ground rules? Should we say that any member of Congress is, by definition, not outside the mainstream?
No reason to exclude by definition.
Surely some Congress-people, who are elected by small sub-groups of the country, would qualify … perhaps Cynthia McKinney and the lady from Watts among quite a few others.
Senators who have to appeal to a whole state would be less likely to fall outside but there might be a dinosaur among them who would qualify … Kennedy would be close I think but I’m not sure I’d put him there.
I’d say “political mainstream” are people who do not adhere strictly to one side or the other but may adopt ideas from the other side of the aisle.
So, people like Limbaugh are way outside the mainstream as not only does he find all conservative ideas “good” and all liberal ideas “bad” he does so to the point of even being a conservative among conservatives (an even more extreme example would be Ann Coulter).
Most people I know rarely adhere exclusively to one political platform. They may by and large agree with one side’s platform more than the other but they will cherry pick what they consider good ideas from the other side as well. For instance, I know many conservatives (very conservative for that matter) who view the abortion issue from the pro-choice side of the fence.
As for groups such as the NRA or NARAL I am not sure it is ever correct to say they are political mainstream. These organizations are one trick ponies. That is, they have a single, narrowly defined agenda and promote that agenda with little to no regard for anything else. That is fine as it is their stated missions in life but I doubt you could call any of them “mainstream” as they hold their positions to the exclusion of all else and will rarely even moderate on their own positions.
Some “mainstream” politicians that come off the top of my head would be McCain or Biden.
I would say Strom Thurmond was within the mainstream when he first was elected to the Senate (1954) but drifted well outside it long before he died – without changing his own politics at any point.
Your stream is much narrower than I had in mind. By that definition the majority of the senate would be outside of the banks.
I was hoping for a “mainstream” in which only the truly extremist folks would be hitting the sides or clearly dry.
Being a scientist, I’d opt for a mathematical definition. Outside the mainstream would be someone or some organization with less than X% support from his/her/its constituency. Pick “X” to be as restrictive as you want (I’d probably use 10-15%), but surely it can’t be as high as 25%. And of course it depends on your consitutency. Kennedy isn’t outside the mainstream in MA, but he might be in Mississippi or Utah. Bush isn’t out of the mainstream in the US, but he might be out of the mainstream in San Francisco.
I think Whack-a-Mole has a very good suggestion. Could the mainstream not be defined as those who seek to attract votes from individuals or groups traditionally opposed to them? In other words, a position that does not seek to attract only “like-minded” voters, but also floating voters, and to appeal to others to move away from broader, entrenched allegiances.
How can you support someone you “traditionallly oppopse”? If you support them, you no longer oppose them, so what difference does it make? I think you are trying to place a value judgement on mainstream. “Mainstream” doesn’t have to be “good”.
Agreed … and let’s use the country as a whole as the constituency.
No value judgement intended at all; my suggestion is that “mainstream” is about broadening the appeal of one’s policy or policies. That doesn’t make them right, or moral, or any other value-laden term.
As for “traditionally oppose”, change that to “traditionally opposed”. That probably is closer to my point. I would never traditionally support the Conservatives over here, but as they broaden their appeal by moving to the centre I find it hard to see clear daylight between them and Labour.
But you’re only thinking about supporting them because they changed their position. So, you really aren’t supporting “conservatives”, you’re supporting “centrists”. I just don’t get it.
Changing part of their position. Besides, given their past record, I’m still not entirely convinced I could support them in the near future!
Maybe we’re talking past each other on this. Can you agree that someone can be in the mainstream and yet you don’t support them?
I suppose we could take the opposite approach I took in my first post-- define the mainstream as only those ides or people supported by a large majority of the population-- say 80%. But that exludes so many people that it seems to be contradictory to what “mainstream” implies.
He means the Conservative Party, the Tories, in other words.
This is a very hard question to ask. Before we say who’s out of the mainstream, we must first ask what is the mainstream, which is nearly impossible to answer by itself.
Do Americans want socialized health care? Do they want an expansion of government powers to combat terrorism? Do they support the war in Iraq or do they want an immediate withdraw of troops? Depending on when you ask and, more importantly, how, I’ve seen polls answer these quesions either way.
And federalism confuses the issue still more. Ted Kennedy is a decent representative of the political will of MA, but for the entire country? Not so much.
Oddly enough, the “mainstream” is defined by liberal Democrats who can’t win national elections.
Hence, Robert Bork (whose views are essentially those of landslide winner Ronald Reagan) is unacceptable as a Supreme Court nominee because he’s “out of the mainstream,” while Ruth Bader Ginsburg (whose views are essentially those of landslide losers George McGovern and Walter Mondale) is “in the mainstream.”
No problem at all, I think maybe we are talking past each other.
I was in fact looking for a definition that would be a de-facto “qualifier” for national office or approval by a body that would reasonably use that “qualifier”.
Shameless bump …
Methinks the lefter wing of the SDMB Great Debate Society is quite content to let Teddy, Howard and Harry define mainstream. 