The quietest voice in America

In this post in the thread “How far away are Americans from the “breaking point”?” Agnostic Pagan makes a sage point which I find intriguing:

Is this true, even a truism of American politics?

It’s not true here in Australia. This may be because that with compulsory voting and preferential/proportional voting the middle is clearly enfranchised with the political power. If you like, the middle speaks softly but carries the big stick.

Conversely I don’t believe that applies in the UK where neither those two factors of psephology are in play.

Is American politics a shouting match between the Right and the Centre Right, and governed by compromises that neither protagonist finds satisfactory?

Our best hope is a moderate Republican as President who won’t set the far-righters foaming at the mouth and be tolerable to most Democrats while having the firm support of the centre.

cite?

More likely that a moderate Democrat would be better for the nation, since Republicans are ideologically devoted to the fantasy that tax cuts pay for themselves.

The strongly bipartisan administration of Nixon and even of Reagan (who did work with both parties).

I could go for a moderate Republican President if the Democrats held the Senate. The problem is that the number of moderate Republicans these days is about the same as the number of Yangtze River Dolphins. In my opinion, the only moderates running for office these days are running as Democrats.

Your best hope for what?

It isn’t Obama who refuses to be bipartisan.

For bipartisanship to set an example.

Sadly I agree.

That’s what I was going to say. The Democrats are the moderate conservatives. Obama is right about where Reagan and Poppy Bush were, arguably a little more fiscally conservative.

And socially still well to the left, indeed more than even Mondale and McGovern at least with regards to gay marriage. Plus neither Reagan or Bush Sr. called for UHC and why do you suppose political spectrums must always move to the left?

Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, Lincoln Chafee, Richard Lugar, Lisa Murkowski to give off rom the top of the list. And I’ve always thought that the Republicans make the best Executives while I can tolerate a Democratic Legislature better (ie as during the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan years).

Because that is both just and sensible.

Obama never supported UHC, he pushed what is essentially a handout to insurance companies (and is just a warmed over Republican plan). And Obama doesn’t support single sex marriage (or rights for homosexuals in general), he’s been at best indifferent to it.

He’s in the center on social issues

Neither has Obama.

Who said that? Morally, it SHOULD, but the center doesn’t always move where it should.

You’ve always thought that with all your 14 years of being a child with no responsibilities or life experience or education beyond junior High School, huh?

So do you believe all social liberal ideals are right without exception?

He’s opposed Prop 8 and has helped overturn DADT. Plus his gradualist strategy is actually working-several states have legalized gay marriage even after Prop 8 and even in the GOP, many of its younger members, such as Ms. McCain are supporters of gay marriage. Demographics will carry the day for gay marriage sooner or later-within our lifetimes I expect.

This is totally OT so feel free to ignore . . . but why do you use British spellings so often?

The word “liberal” doesn’t even mean anything.

DADT has nothing to do with same sex marriage, but, just fyi, support for gay rights is a conservative principle, not a liberal one.

Perhaps in theory but he has done much for social liberalism in America.

The bill that passed last year?

I meant in the moral sense, is the left morally right on every single issue.

I’ve read some histories and from what I’ve read a Republican executive-Democratic legislatures have made comboes than vice versa.

Not a fan of DOMA or welfare reform, huh? Me neither.