Americans Move Left, New York Times Misses It

The headline atop Saturday's op-ed page was a hallowed standby for the New York Times: "Americans Move to the Middle." Assembled by Times"visual columnist" Charles Blow, the text of the column was dwarfed by 15 graphs tracking recent movement in American public opinion, based on Gallup polls. There was one problem: the headline totally distorted the data.

An accurate headline would have been "American Opinion Moves Leftward" -- but accuracy was apparently trumped by centrist ideology. (Yes, there are ideologues of the center, as well as of Left or Right.)

It's a cherished myth of many in establishment punditry that most Americans perpetually and happily find their way to the safe center of American politics. This pleasant status quo consensus is marred, in Blow's text, by "party extremists sharpening their wedge issues" to rally their bases and caricature their opponents.

Here's the data presented by Blow and the Times (pdf): 15 public opinion graphs on various issues starting in 2001-2003 and ending in 2006-2008. Of the 15, about a dozen track issues on which there are recognizable positions associated with Right and Left. Of those dozen, the trend in opinion is unmistakenly leftward on virtually every one.

On foreign policy:
-- "The Iraq war has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism." 37% in 2003 and 49% four years later.

-- "The U.S. should not attack another country unless it has been attacked first." 51% in Oct. 2002 and 57% in 2006

-- "The government is spending too much for national defense and military purposes." 19% in Feb. 2001 and 44% in Feb. 2008.

On cultural issues:
-- "Organized religion should have less influence in this nation." 22% in Jan. 2001 and 34% in Jan. 2008.

Asked if the following were "morally acceptable," trend lines were leftward. "Gay relationships": 40% in May 2001 to 48% in May 2008. "Divorce": 59% to 70% in same time period. "Medical research using stem cells from human embryos": from 52% in May 2002 to 62% in May 2008.

Some might argue that there is one Times graph that trends rightward: "The state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting worse." It went from 67% in May 2002 to 81% in May 2008. Yet I'm no conservative and I'm absolutely part of the 81% -- given the declining morals that descend from corporate, government and religious elites.

So the Times presents Gallup data showing a clear trend toward the left, and calls it a "Move to the Middle." Is the assumption that we were mostly rightwingers a few years ago? Or is the "move to the middle" line simply more reassuring to an establishment newspaper?

The reality is that longterm trends in American opinion are generally leftward on issues, as documented in well-researched studies.

It's a reality that troubles those Beltway pundits who constantly goad Barack Obama toward "the center" on issues like Iraq and NAFTA -- when they mean away from the center of mass opinion and upwards toward the center of elite opinion.

A demagogue like Sean Hannity instinctively knows this reality, which is why his attacks on Obama emphasize WrightAyresBitterMichelle more than issues.

* *

Jeff Cohen is director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College. He founded the media watch group FAIR in 1986.

Comments

[skruff]

In general the US citizen is neither liberal nor conservative. The media doesn't get that this can not be translated to "centrist"

I'm an avid supporter of the Second ammendment, but radically opposed to the death penalty. I strongly favor a woman's right to choose. but lean 100% against the institutional charity the government calls "welfare" I hate the total idea of prisons (particularly privitized) but believe as long as we use this system, anyone sentenced to more than 10 years should stay in for life. I'm an athiest who often votes Republican. (Republicans in New England are a different breed, and are vanishing.)

Left or right? Depends on the issue, Republican or Democrat? in which election? Liberal of conservative? depends on the weather.

[Sciguy]

The "center" is really nothing more than a mathematical average. For example, if there are 2 people, one with no money and one with $100, they have - on the average - $50 each. This will be a surprise to the penniless one, and an unpleasant shock to the one who had $100, but hey - it's the center!

If I use words rather than numbers, I can say that if there are equally many people (make it 1 one on each side, just for purposes of argument) on either side of an issue like the war in Iraq. If half of them want to nuke Iraq right now (my redneck nephew-in-law), and the other half want to start bringing troops home right now (pick someone you know), then Voila! the center that results is that everyone wants to stay in Iraq, but not nuke them today. The "center" ends up like being slightly pregnant. It does not exist.

[ThePeacemakers]

They didn't miss it. The point of the corporate media is to make sure you always believe you are on the fringe if your beliefs don't represent the status quo.

[Rog49Thomas]

The simple fact is that political discourse in our country is deliberately kept in a fairly narrow bandwidth.

Candidates outside the tolerated range are marginalized by derision or get little media attention. Those further afield are non persons and not even named.

One example of this is in a sister article on HuffPo today in which Max Blumenthal recounts an interview with Carl Levin. If you read it closely, you'll see that on most major points re Iraq (maintenance of a post "victory" presence to fight imagined terrorists) and military spending (we need all those weapons we just have to be more cost conscious) there is less than the proverbial ten cents worth of difference.

[mike53]

Even if it were true that Americans somehow became leftists I doubt they would stay that way long, its to depressing. If democrats gain control of the executive along with both houses it won't be long before republicans are back in favor. Even liberal California couldn't tolerate democrats being in total control for long.

[UnbiasView]

The country moves left at least once a generation, when they find out it is a liberal like Jimmy Carter behind the curtain is ends quickly and sets up the next generation of people living in reality.

The country is not moving left, they are moving away from Bush.

[bigbingtheory]

Yeah, imagine if we had heeded that wild eyed liberal on matters of our energy independence. That's almost 30 years of research and development that would have us leading the world in renewable energies. Why don't you spend more time thinking and less time beating up on liberals? After all, we brought you a living wage, a social safety net, independence from British rule, a 40 hour work week, the greatest period of economic prosperity after WW2. And I hate to point out the obvious but any move away from Bush is a move to the left. It's a shame we had to let it get this bad before people realized the fallacy of conservatism.

[Marlyn]

"Even liberal California couldn't tolerate democrats being in total control for long." ???

That depends upon the Democrat. We've got BLUE DOGS in the party and they are NOT liberal.

[UnbiasView]

There is a big difference between Democrats and liberals . .. Democrats are sane, rational thinking people while liberals seem to think a utopian society is possible if only government can help more.

[Durango]

Yeah, probably like that 60 year period between Franklin Roosevelt and the time the Democrats lost Congress.

If the Dems play their cards right they should be able to keep the majority for the next 60 years.

Running against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

They will become like the Boogie man. Or Napolean.

Americans will use just their names to scare small children into behaving.

[darcy]

Those numbers scare me more than they reassure me. They indicate that most Americans are still dumb as sticks.

[krocklin]

Until a Democratic candidate can expose the Rightwing and Republican attack on sensible government regulation and programs, the gullible voters won't endorse these "left" positions.
When FDR initiated most of these programs and regulatory agencies and the Middle Class began to thrive, America didn't consider itself "liberal" at all. In fact the 50s was paradoxically the most conservative decade ever and quite prosperous as a result of progressive policies..
Unfortunately Reagan was very successful distorting the debate and getting the Middle Class to vote against its own interests, convincing them that these programs and regulation don't work when obviously they did.
And now, even though unregulated free markets have brought about gross inequities, the Right is still winning the debate because the media complicitely accepts their terms - "socialism", "government meddling" , not to mention war profiteering, which is the most pernicious legacy the Right has left us with. Exactly as Eisenhower warned.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "defense industry" was in great danger, so it had to manufacture wars in alliance with rapacious oil interests.
Still though, the electorate has not caught on that their wealth has been transferred into the pockets of a few and the oil producing nations and still cling to McCain's phony patriotism.
Therefore we haven't still haven't seen any significant shifting towards sanity, mislabelled as "The Left".

[UnbiasView]

"sensible government regulation and programs"

When have you seen that before? Every government program starts out with a good intention and then turns into a black whole where the productive citizens foot the bill for the lazy.

[dallashailee]

So are you under the impression that Social Security is one of those programs that are in a "black whole". Out of all of our social welfare programs...that takes up the most money. And if you do feel SS is one of those "black whole" programs...how do you feel about John McCain electing to get benefits?

[Rog49Thomas]

Right all those crazy governmental regulations relating to

food and drugs
safety in the workplace
working conditions including the 8 hour day

All they benefit is the lazy.

[bigbingtheory]

Only if the citizens are lazy themselves. Why do you have such little faith in humanity that you believe they will simply become lazy or dependent?

[wayoutleft]

glad i read your comment. americans are naifs who hate their government and think roads, clean water, pure food, and public order just drop out of the sky- and that their own personal efforts have virtually created the world. it's a fatal perceptual flaw of historic proportions:

[UnbiasView]

You are way out there, 99% of people understand the that government needs to provide basic things to their people . . . where the debate begins is when they try and control everything and fix everyone's problems.

If the government budget consisted of the basic you just listed, our income taxes would be about 5-10% , not 30-50%.

[Rog49Thomas]

I think there are three reasons for the decline of the DP.

First Civil Rights which fractured the old grand coalition in the DP – which was a very ideologically disparate group. From Scoop Jackson to Hubert Humphrey to Strom Thurmond. The first inkling of this was Brother Strom's Dixiecrat campaign. LBJ's legislative agenda on civil rights broke the final bond and the solid South (the foundation of many a presidential victory as well as significant senatorial and congressional seats) was lost. As well, many Northern working class and ethnic white Democrats broke ranks over integration and equal rights - when they found these concepts applied in their own back yards.

Second was the Vietnam war. When the DP embraced the antiwar movement with passion, the RP had the opportunity to paint the DP as unpatriotic -particularly given the excesses of some of the antiwar figures. The related opening of the DP to embrace other social causes - women's rights, gay rights, etc - alienated a lot of social conservatives and religious types – who had been reliable DP voters.

Third frankly after 60 years DP had succumbed to the usual self inflicted diseases of prolonged holding of power. And held an almost imperious belief in its entitlement to rule.

[Rog49Thomas]

Part 1

A bit more on the DP decline and the RP ascendancy.

The 60's were the key decade. They represented a period of great change.

A few tentative modest steps were made to give black Americans some long delayed rights.

The rules of the game were changing. There was a profound fear among those who had played by the old rules all their lives that all their hard earned gains would be swept away. And more unsettling: that new players in the game might be given an advantage.

Old values were being challenged and old certainties undermined. Women, gays and others began questioning their place in society and demanding rights. Rock, drugs, sex. Authority was being questioned and undermined.

There was profound disharmony at home. Some of it generational and driven by opposition to the Vietnam War. There were political assassinations, riots. The US lost a war.

[dallashailee]

I had to favorite your comment. I am constantly shocked by the news media's ability to jump on the conservative bandwagon..even when their points lack logic. Then it's reported that "Americans" are for (or against) xyz. I heard Tucker Carlson say "everybody knows affirmative action is unfair". True there are many of us who think affirmative actions is unfair...but obviously "everybody" doesn't feel that way. And I realize he is not a real journalist...in the traditional sense of the word...but you'll hear these same comments ( or the like) from ABC, CBS, and NBC. Are lets be real, a lot of American's are as free thinking as they should be.

[Rog49Thomas]

There are all sorts of affirmative action and preference programs.

I'd like to run three cases by you to see what you think.

In college one of my room mates was a "poor" kid from Harrisburg. The distinguished Ivy I attended saw fit to give him a full scholarship. I didn't get any financial assistance because the university believed that his parents couldn't afford tuition but mine could. He had lower SATs than I did and did not achieve the same grades I did. .

Another of my room mates (I had three) was a diversity choice - some kid from Montana who the school gave a place to in preference to someone I knew at prep school The university typically reserved places for kids from out of state and from overseas.

(Both kids were white if it's relevant).

My first employer a distinguished investment bank had a policy that returning veterans had an employment preference based on the assumption that military service provided certain leadership qualities. Often such candidates were preferred over candidates with MBAs or business degrees from top tier US universities.

The question: Are all these cases bad?

[Rog49Thomas]

Part 2

When there is profound and unsettling change, there's a natural tendency to look for scapegoats. People grab on to sacred talismans in the hopes of magically holding back the tides of change.
The flag and patriotism were grabbed onto with an almost religious fervor to expunge the defeat. Like post WW1 Germany, the canard of the Dolchstoss was used to explain defeat. The Army had been betrayed by unpatriotic defeatist politicians. Returning soldiers spat upon. ( The culprits? Democrats , liberals, hippies, and assorted other unsavory types so the story goes).

With challenges to previous social patterns and all sorts of “uppity folks” demanding rights, the imagined traditional nuclear family became an ideal. Morals of a distinctly pale hue would hold back the tide. And if they did not, would at least provide solace and proof of ultimate superiority. Again it was the liberal -this time Godless and and deviant- who betrayed the American way of life.

You'll notice this is precisely where the RP has targeted its electoral message with a good measure of that old American political staple seasoning – fear- thrown in.

[Unrepentantliberal]

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "There's something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. New York Times?"

[westwind]

I think they know exactly what is happening, but they are too scared to tell the unvarnished truth. If they did, they would open themselves up to another round of "liberal media" bashing. The talking points framers on the right have done an excellent job of cowing the media to reflect their ideological slant.

[Durango]

The Times problem is that they believe their own BS.

[MSiddique]

This is typical wishful desperation, this idea that the country has moved to the left. It is only a notch below the views of many among the left identified by various ‘isms’, that the revolution is around the bend! Yes, people are tired of the war, but that does not imply that they have matured enough to think, for example, that hatred of the US policies around the world, some of which has been exploited by the Taliban has objectively rooted in decades of US policies around the world. Wasn’t there a shift to the left during the Vietnam War? What happened to it? That movement produced very little organized left, and only produced years of reaction leading to rise of neo-conservatives (neo-fascist thugs, really). More refuting of this so called tilt to the left is how many voters still support McCain, in spite of his pro-war policies, incompetence on economic issues and signs of senility! Note also how quickly Sen. Obama had to shift to the center! Let us see if we can get him elected; then we can talk about a shift to the left.

[UnbiasView]

"Wasn"t there a shift to the left during the Vietnam War? What happened to it?"

Jimmy Carter? High taxes and wasted government funds?

People don't want bigger government which is why Bush is getting crushed from every angle.

[Russycle]

I'm so glad all that wasting of government funds stopped after Carter left.

[FirstShirt]

"It's a cherished myth of many in establishment punditry that most Americans perpetually and happily find their way to the safe center of American politics"

This is only a myth if you attempt, as many pundits do, to marginalize the american voting public by making them one dimensional. My impression is that our people are more complex than that. They are all over the map in their likes, dislikes, prejudices, choices and politics. You can find racist democrats and liberal republicans. You can find right wingers against foreign intervention called "preemptive strikes" [a conservative position historically]. You can find liberals in favor of a more aggressive american presence overseas to enhance civil rights in an international arena.

It is safe to say we, as a racially, culturally and religiously diverse people, are generally middle of the road.

[daffey]

FirstShirt,

Well said. Very, very well said. How much could we accomplish if the first thing we stopped doing was trying to separate people into groups of those with stars on their bellies, and those without? Well said indeed.

[daffey]

Count me into that 81%. Of course I see that as a result of things like ‘more people are OK with divorce’ and other such fine moral stances. After all, I can benefit from that, and who cares if every study ever commissioned shows rampant divorce rates as damaging to society, families, and most of all, children. Blaming leaders, religious figures, and corporate moguls is a smokescreen. At their worst, they are merely acting the way we all apparently are acting. And that is they are focused on what matters...me. In a country with 300 million individuals who value their individual desires and goals above all other things, expect things to go south. And it won’t be our leaders taking us there. It will be us taking each other - and our leaders - there. After all, we are happy with our leaders who say ‘screw you!’ as long as they are saying it to the other guys. Problem is, those guys want their leaders to do the same. And act the same. And behave the same. Yep. I agree with the worse morals. Every time I explain to my boys what to do if a fellow student walks into their school and opens fire, I’m reminded that these things didn’t happen decades ago. It’s a moral rot. Not from the top down. Not really from the bottom up. But from side to side. We’re all to blame.

[arvay]

The terms "left" and "right" are themselves becoming useless.

They originate in the French revolution, and more recently applied to Marxist and anti-Marxist politics. Marxism turned out to be unworkable pseudoscience and the "right's" latest failure is the banking crisis brought on by absolutist adoption of Milton Friedman's ideas.

When one listens to self-styled "conservatives" like Limbaugh and Hannity, you hear them constantly applying a cookie-cutter definition of "conservatism" to any and all ideas. Insipid and for non-thinkers. On the "left" one sees hackneyed anti-capitalist drivel from innovators such as Hugo Chavez and Castro. Also insipid and comically useless.

The human race needs to evaluate ideas on the basis of real historical experience, advanced insight and science. People who believe in global warming because they are "leftist" are as intellectually lazy as "right wingers" who disbelieve because the think it's a left-wing plot.

Opposition to the patriot Act and preemptive war issue just as logically from the "right" as from the "left."
Bush's unpopularity crosses ideological boundaries.So does the conviction that the the US economy needs fixing.Or that the world needs new energy sources, etc. etc.

Whatever the metaphor -- scientific objectivity or Zen -- we humans nee to look at things as they actually are and devise solutions that we can agree upon, that work and which can be revised when they falter.

Left, right, blah! This isn't a game with two opposing teams, it's our species' attempt to survive and prosper.

[jmpurser]

Thank you. "Left", "Right", "Conservative", "Liberal" have all lost every vestige of their original meanings and now mean "just what I say they mean" and nothing more.

"Progressive" seems to hold up a little better though for a while it's been a dodge for people afraid to say they're liberal.

"Libertarian" has always been code for "loon".

[Marlyn]

""Progressive" seems to hold up a little better though for a while it's been a dodge for people afraid to say they're liberal."

For sure!

[squander123]

Hmm. Of course, where the 'left' is rather depends on where you're standing in the first place. From where I'm standing, the figures quoted in this article suggest that US public opinion is so far to the right that it can barely see the centre, let alone the left. When so many people still feel that organised religion's influence on society is not too great, that it's OK for the US to attack another country without having been attacked first, etc, then my reading of the recent polls is that the US is country of overwhelmingly right-wing opinions which haven't shifted in any significant way.

And given that it's also a country which elected the Bush administration in both 2000 and 2004, I think the NYT might have a pretty strong case in suggesting that the starting point for ANY shift in public opinion is the right-wing...

[knighthowl]

Your point is well taken apart from the statement that Bush was "elected" in both 2000 and 2004. I am certain he was not elected in 2000, and I have very serious doubts that he was elected in 2004.

[squander123]

Hi Knighthowl - yes, and I take your point about the 'elections' of 2000 and 2004! On the other hand, even allowing for the effective coup d'etat, a frightening number of people voted for the Republicans...

[bayside]

For 35 years liberals have been vilified and pushed out by cons. in media, education, and govt...This mess, this destruction of our country ,is the result of cons. rule. A lot of people remember when we were proud of country ..That would be when liberals were in charge . There is a fundimental difference between us. Cons. are mostly service to self whereas liberals are mostly service to others..Its time to be proud to be a liberal again. Its time for average joe to be represented in our govt. again..signed proud to be a liberal.....

[FirstShirt]

"Of course, where the 'left' is rather depends on where you're standing in the first place. "

Absolutely. Any american politician, "left or right" who suggested an european style socialism would find that to be the third rail of politics for that person. Our liberals are no where near the extremism of european liberals and would never be.

[squander123]

This is another example of my point, really. Few if any European nations regard themselves as 'socialist'. Extremism - of any stripe - also depends on where you stand, and the governments we have in Europe are, predictably, regarded as centrist in their belief in a mixed economy, and not as the 'extremism of european liberals'.

Of course, if it seems extreme to have free-at-po­int-of-use healthcare, free university education, extensive public transport and strong labour laws, all combined with a standard of living easily comparable to the US, then so be it...

[Rog49Thomas]

If you'll oblige, I'd like to explore just what you mean by "European style socialism"
and "the extremism of European liberals".

What is the particular European form of these two political theories and how does it differ from our home grown equivalents?

[Marlyn]

"the US is country of overwhelmingly right-wing opinions which haven't shifted in any significant way."

Agreed.

[UnbiasView]

Why wouldn't it be? America believes in personal property and the individual while the left believes in government . . . which shows us time and time again that they waste or ruin everything they touch.

[UnbiasView]

The reason Bush won in 2004 is because John Kerry was a weak candidate at best and by his last 4 years of comments he proved that.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

I'm sick & tired of CorporateMedia rags & bloviating-heads labelling me. According to Chatty Chrissy Matthews not so long ago we were 'All Neo-Cons now!'

[OldKnute]

Jef, It is sorta like this.

My Neo-Liberal movement has caught on.

The Armageddon Crusaders, Loyal Bushies are not winning.

Jesus would never carry an AK 47.

Our pregnant daughters are NOT going to be turned into CRIMINALS. WE will STILL love them.

Our Gay and Lesbian children are NOT going to burn in HELL.

Our National Dependency on OIL,, Bush “Adiction to oil.” does NOT mean more drilling anywhere, everywhere,, is the answer.

You don’t tell a junkie,, “The problem you face with your addiction, is just not enough heroin.”

Jews are not running the world, they actually are very kind, creative and intelligent HUMAN BEINGS and we would be in a heck of a fix without them and their science, arts, music, humanity and creativity.

Arabs do NOT want to kill all Westerners.

Diesel Fuel is a waste product of making gasoline, NOT a way to bleed Farmers and Truckers DRY, with distorted Pricing structures.

Osama bin Laden does NOT speak for Islam, OR all of the Arab or Muslim world.

Just because you say something Over and Over,,,, does NOT make it so.

The FAMILY of Abraham,, DOES include the Ishmaelite.

Pheeew!

Did I get them all????

All the best

Knute Neo-LIB

[Pupadup4oBama]

excellent - thank you.

[OldKnute]

You are very welcome. Pupadup.

Oh and another one.

America does not take kindly to LIES, distortions, manipulations of our emotions,,,, OR having our FAITH Hijacked to take us to war.

Neo-LIBs RULE

Hehehehe!!!!!

Just kidding.

All the best

Knute Neo-Lib