Heads They Win, Tails You Lose: For the Beltway Media, Even Democratic Victories Prove the Country is Conservative

We usually have to wait until after the Democrats emerge victorious at the polls for the Beltway finger-waggers to begin warning them not to be too ambitious, not to do too much, not to actually follow through on the proposals they presented to the voters. But this year, it's starting early: Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, penned a 3,300-word cover story warning that, as the subtitle says, "America remains a center-right nation -- a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril." Because, God forbid, a progressive candidate who wins an election should actually keep the promises he made to the American people.

It's an interesting contrast to what happens when Republicans win. While Democratic victories are seen as signifying nothing about the electorate's fundamental beliefs, Republican victories are inevitably described as revealing profound sea changes in American ideology. When the GOP took over both houses of Congress in 1994, The New York Times wrote the next day, "[T]he country has unmistakably moved to the right." The Washington Post agreed, saying, "The huge Republican gains also marked a clear shift to the right in the country."

And after Election Day 2004, the Times intoned, "[I]t is impossible to read President Bush's re-election with larger Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as anything other than the clearest confirmation yet that this is a center-right country -- divided yes, but with an undisputed majority united behind his leadership." The article was headlined, "An Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values." The Los Angeles Times agreed that the election proved voters "don't believe that the Democrats share their values." Chris Matthews wondered, "Can the Democrats ever connect with the country's cultural majority?"

Yet we heard nothing of the sort from elite media outlets in 2006, when Democrats retook both houses of Congress -- no grand proclamations that the country had moved left, no ruminations on whether conservatism was an electorally bankrupt ideology. Instead, the news media focused on a few conservative Democratic candidates who won seats in Republican areas, despite the fact that they were far outnumbered by the new Democratic members who held traditionally progressive positions.

In other words, when Republicans win, we're told that Democrats need to move to the center, because the country is too conservative for them. When Democrats win, on the other hand, we're told that... Democrats need to move to the center. Their victory must have been some kind of accident -- it couldn't have been because the public actually agreed with what they want to do.

So what kind of evidence does Meacham offer for his oh-so-familiar thesis? First off, he says, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton didn't accomplish everything they wanted to. Interesting -- but last time I checked, liberal programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit remain pretty popular. And remind me how George Bush's 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security -- a longstanding conservative goal -- went.

Then Meacham gives us the oft-noted fact that when asked by pollsters, more people will call themselves "conservative" than "liberal." The problem with this is that people who know a lot about politics -- like journalists -- assume that ordinary people have the same interpretation of those terms as political junkies have. But the truth, as nearly a half-century of political science research has made clear, is that a significant portion of the public has little or no idea of what these terms mean in the political world. A third of the public can't even tell you which of the two major parties is the "conservative" one.

Meacham also argues that America is "center-right" because we're more conservative than most Western European countries, which is kind of like arguing that Kevin Garnett is a mediocre basketball player, because Kobe Bryant scores more points than he does. The American public is much more liberal than publics in almost every region of the world other than Western Europe. Does that tell us that we're fundamentally liberal, or does it tell us not much of anything?

Comparisons to our friends in Sweden aside, a look at the issue terrain at the moment shows a public firmly in the progressive camp. On foreign policy, on economic policy, on social policy, on just about everything, it's the progressive position that is more popular. The median voter in 2008 is pro-choice, supports civil unions for gay Americans (a position that seemed insanely radical only a decade ago), rejects the Bush foreign policy, supported the recent increase in the minimum wage, wants strong environmental protections, favors reasonable restrictions on gun sales, thinks the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, and wants the government to guarantee universal health coverage. Does that sound conservative to you? And younger generations are more progressive than their elders -- in fact, it is the pre-baby-boom generation that is the most conservative on most issues. And they will only be around for so long.

There is another reason the country is likely to become more progressive over time: The presidency of George W. Bush has discredited conservatism for years to come.

With the exception of a reduction in the size of government -- something Republicans always promise but never deliver (consider that no one since Roosevelt spent more as a percentage of GDP than Ronald Reagan) -- conservatives got pretty much everything they wanted from George W. Bush. They got tax breaks for the wealthy, huge increases in defense spending, a bellicose foreign policy, two Supreme Court justices ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, a mania for deregulation of business, a Justice Department devoted to advancing the electoral interests of the Republican Party, a consolidation of power in the executive branch, lackadaisical enforcement of environmental regulations, constant efforts to undermine labor unions, and the list goes on and on. This administration has been conservatism in action, and the country couldn't be more disgusted with the results.

Conservatives are increasingly sounding like they're stuck in the 1980s, as they warn against the creeping tide of socialism and denounce Obama's tax plan as "welfare." You almost expect to hear John McCain take the stage to a pulsing Richard Marx tune, then start reciting lines from "Red Dawn." It may have reached its apogee when, in her debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin quoted Reagan on the danger that if we're not careful, one day we'll be telling our children and grandchildren about a time when America was free. What was Reagan warning against in that quote? The passage of Medicare, one of the most successful and popular programs in U.S. history, brought to you courtesy of big-government liberals.

When conservatives take stands like these, so far from the American mainstream, the Beltway acolytes of the Church of Centrism never seem to mind. Will a GOP defeat be greeted with columns by Jon Meacham and his ilk instructing Republicans sternly that they need to abandon their ideology and move to the center, lest they permanently alienate themselves from the public?

Don't hold your breath.

Paul Waldman
Media Matters Action Network

Comments

[drkazmd65]

I am a fiscal conservative - in the sense that I believe in the forseeable near term, we (citizens) should be able to pay for the social programs, regulatory programs, military, education, infrastructure and environmental protections 'we' as a majority say we want. Short-term defecit spending is a necessary evil at times - but we need to have the revenue to run things the way they should be run.

I am a social conservative in the sense that I don't think Government has any business telling adult citizens of reasonable mental ability how they should live their lives. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a marriage conact - so be it. If an individual in the privacy of his/her home wants to sample some weed - so be it as long as they don't drive impaired or try sell it for a profit (then tax tem) or give it to minors.

But our Government should be a safety net for those that can't fend for themselves completely. Government should pool our collective resources to provide a sound (not aggressive) military, build good roads, operate good schools, and properly tax those that use the existing system, infrastructure, educated and healthy population to make that money.

So,.. does that make me a Liberal? You could argue I suppose,.. but it definately makes me to the left of center. Right were I suspect most Americans are.

[peloquin]

Sigh...

[LouisvilleLiberal]

I heard the idea that most Americans were "conservatives" on a cable news show the other day and it sounded strange to me.

To me the term conservative means different things to different people. Some people are fiscal conservatives, some people are social conservatives and some people are neocons. The Republican Party used to speak to ALL of these conservatives.

Today, it seems that the Republican Party is the party of the social conservatives and the neoconservatives who want war. The fiscal conservatives have to look to the Clinton Administration for the last President who seemed at all fiscally conservative -- not the Republican Party in the last 25+ years.

I suspect the center is more like me. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I don't want government to legislate morals to anyone and I want my tax dollars spent responsibly to support all of society - not a select few.

[GregJL]

"and I want my tax dollars spent responsibly to support all of society - not a select few."

I'm sorry, which part of conservatism is this progressive view of taxes a part of again? I assume you are saying this is a fiscally conservative viewpoint? Just because your view disagrees with Old Enlightenment liberals like the Clintons who try to achieve social and economic justice by targeting their policies to one or another underprivileged groups does not make it conservative. Conservatives actually believe it is THEIR money and that the government is unfair to take any of it for any reason and that the rest of society can just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Conservatives BELIEVE in the myth of the "self-made man", completely ignoring the use of the common infrastructure by those so-called "self-made men" in creating their fortunes. Looks to me more like you believe in that common infrastructure and using the common wealth to support and strengthen the tools necessary for all people to become prosperous. And that, my friend, is progressive.

[LiberalDemIda]

If the Obama Administration and Democratic­-controlle­d Congress do as Meachum "advises" then you can be sure Obama will lose a second term - something I'm sure Jon Meachum would like to see.

It would be tantamount to solidifying Democrats' perceived weaknesses, rather than strengths in the disillusioned eyes of American voters - and we will remember - as I'm sure the MSM are ready to press upon us come 2012.

No, Obama must keep his promises to his voters (and I believe he will) that has won him the Democratic primaries, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Progressives' support, and soon, the election to be our 44th President.

After all, as Repubs, the GOP and MSM have been decrying for over a year, Obama is "the most liberal member of Congress" and yet the people still stand behind him, so the illusion of America being "center-right" isn't supported by the vast numbers that tell a different story.

GObama/Biden '08/'12! - and ignore Meachum

[me again]

America appreciates a centrist government and we have watched Obama over the last 2 years fight for change, but move towards the center. Bush on the other hand sold America on compassionate conservatism and did not deliver. I agree, that if Congress and the Executive branch both become Democratic, especially with a fillibuster proof majority, need to act in a careful and thoughtful manner. The lessons of the four years where the Republicans were in control was that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Dems now have a chance to do great things for this Country, I'm not sure Nancy Pelosi is the right person to do that, but we will see in the course of time.

[ConcernedJoe]

We are NOT a right of center country. We are a lazy and apathetic country; that coupled with hardwired authoritarian must vote voters makes the Right look bigger than it is.

In any normal and fair circumstances:

We are 21% Hard Right and 21% Lean Right for max of about 42% Right of Center if 100% voted!!!

We are 9% Hard Left, 49% Lean Left for a 58% Left of Center Nation.

This Right of Center propaganda is just that -- propaganda to justify the Right's disproportionate power and influence - and to justify the MSM's RIGHT LEANING BENT that always has been there.

Look at how people REALLY live their lives!!! We talk a good game but we live more liberal than we admit.

We are actually scared to state we are more "liberal" than the MSM propagandizes. Note that about 41% of us REPORT that we attend church regularly (don't want to seem bad!) - BUT when actual studies of PERFORMANCE check this they find that ONLY 21% do (wow my 21% hardwired - and that is not by design!).

Through the MSM many have been lead to believe that Right is right... they are SCARED because they have been made SCARED by the MSM, This is a MSM that reports LIES like they are facts without batting an eye.

Stop the apathy and up the voting percent - and ignore the sound bites - and the "Right of Center" mantra of the MSM will be meaningless blabber

[RepugsOut08]

When Bush was elected in 2000, a Republican I worked with commented that it was the first time the Republicans had control of all three branches of government in 50 years. I warned him that in a few short years he'd see the reason why.
I hate being right. Deregulation of greed shouldn't have taken anyone with an ounce of sense about human nature by surprise. Please let this be the final nail in the coffin of supply-side economics.
Americans aren't necessarily either right or left. The average American just wants a fair shake, and the Democrats have been too cowed by the Republican smear machine to stand up and fight for their principles. Principles they've allowed the Republicans to define in negative terms.
Now is the time to redefine the term liberal, and take it back as the positive progressive tool America has always used to fix it's problems. Revolution wasn't a conservative idea! Fighting against slavery didn't evolve from the "don't rock the boat" crowd.
Women's suffrage and human rights were liberal ideas. Social Security is so hated by conservatives, that, even even with Wall Street in shambles, they still clamor for privatizing SS. Health care is a liberal idea who's time has come.
Yet conservatism has it's place. It can temper the overreaching aspects of liberalism, and bring change to a more realistic outcome. Let's hope that the better parts of both philosophies will be allowed expression, and that neither will be demonized in the future.

[feo]

Republicans gave us a "supply" of fraud, there has never been "demand" for fraud. No wonder the economy collapsed. Simple oversupply with no demand.

[GregJL]

What exactly would you consider to be the "better parts" of conservatism?

As far as I can tell, conservatism is just another word for absolutism, and it has no place in our modern society, if indeed it ever had a place.

[RepugsOut08]

Do you consider yourself perfect? Do you know of anyone or any group that is? I consider myself a liberal progressive, but I don't believe liberals can't make mistakes, or choose a path that might lead to an unforseen problem. Apparently you have never seen how the liberal factions of the Democratic party can fight with each other. If not, hold onto your hat.
Conservatism, when it isn't completely in control and stifling, can be the cautionary voice that keeps a good liberal idea from overreaching and failing. This country is in big trouble, and it's gonna take all of us working together to get it back on track. I'm all for pushing a strong liberal agenda for a change, and I never want to see the Repubs in total control again, but no one group has all the answers.

[BlueTongue]

Obama has been termed a socialist by the Republicans, and the most Liberal Senator in the Senate. Knowing this, the American people are electing him anyway. If he wins by wide margins, I guess it means the country wants a big step to the left. Nothing wrong with that!

[gerireig]

Amen!!!

[ManyColored]

The movement is toward the Left. The people who are digging in are dying off. Each generation will incrementally become more inclusive and more social justice oriented. Why? Because we are becoming more and more a multiracial society with at least some bridges being built between the groups. So let the bigots and the fundamentalists and the free market conservatives snort, they had their day. A new one is coming.

[AnotherTry]

Said the man who supports the guy who believes marriage is between a man and a woman. So new.

[tlgeiger62]

THAT one is coming!!

O/B '08

[CastleBravo1]

Interesting. I have come to support Obama (the first major party presidential candidate I have supported) despite numerous statements of his that would place him as a center-right candidate in any European country (not that there's anything wrong with *decent* center-right; I voted for Perot in '92, and I consider myself ultra-left). My support is based on confidence (which he has earned) that he will do the right thing, and that he will be pragmatic, not ideological.

It is true, however, that there is strong right/conservative dominating element in the U.S; where does it come from - the media? vocal fringe groups? a cultural pattern held over from the Puritans? Imagine evolution being debated, or social programs being controversial, in any other developed country.

I was reminded of something I observed a year or two ago. There was a controversy regarding legal scholar Erwin Chereminsky and his position at UC Irvine. In the LA Times, Chereminsky was routinely referred to as an "outspoken liberal", although the positions of his which were referred to were all mainstream positions. In roughly the same time period was the Murdoch purchase of the Wall Street Journal. In numerous articles about this, there was no mention of the WSJ's ultra-right-wing editorial page.

[mirza]

Meacham is what's wrong with the press

[tuttlemsm]

If and when Democrats have the presidency and both houses of congress, they must unapologetically assert themselves while governing and remind the electorate that they are there, after all, on the basis of policy preferences.

The majority of Americans want the things the Democrats stand for. The Democrats have been lost in the morass of the culture war for too long. That's why they're still to this day afraid to call themselves liberal. If this election goes their way it's time to break the spell of fear they've been under since losing in 1988 and the DLC takeover.

Wake up, Democrats. If you have the White House and both houses of congress, that's called mandate. The Republicans were certainly not shy about exercising their prerogatives when they had all three.

[RepugsOut08]

Amen!

[Cloud7Raymaker]

It certainly seems interesting to me when I hear how much many of these media opinion-shapers make (usually in the 6 figures and up). Of course they always want Democrats to move to the right... most of these talking heads stand to gain quite a bit from Republican's tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and 'trickle-down' economics.

[jkpcguru]

I think that if Obama runs his administration the right way, Democrats will have their own thirty year era. Govern in a pragmatic, problem solving, meet conservatives at the middle administration.

It took Reagan to create the Reagan Era. There could be an Obama Era with Obama Republicans becoming our new swing voters. wow.. thats like the twilight zone!

[robbie44]

More than anything Senator Obama appeals to the masses.