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

[hangdogit]

McCain is trying to run in 2008 on a 1980 Reagan ideology (tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down economics, business deregulation, phony Populism) and 1968 Nixon tactics (divisiveness, us against them, McCarthyism, Southern Strategy, incompetent VP).

Let's just hope that this is the last hurrah -- for both that failed ideology (check the current economy) and those now-backfiring tactics. If and when Obama wins (and hopefully in a landslide) we can finally bury these two dark ghosts of Reagan and Nixon.

[anachoret]

It's just more evidence that "Conservative" is losing so badly that it doesn't have any meaning. It's whatever "Wingnutia" says it is today, which is differenct from what it was yesterday.

They were already co-opted by a group called "Neo-Conservative." What's next? Nuevo-conservative? Conservative-relativists? The new paleo-conservatives?

It's meaningless.
"Conservative" is just clinging to "the good ole days."

[Snowball]

The "good ole days" that never were.

[zanzig]

Given all we've heard from the media during this campaign, do you think anyone gives a shite about their opinions now? All we need to know is that President Obama will have been given a mandate to do all he promises, by a majority OF THE PEOPLE.

[ellwood]

This year represents a perfect storm for progressives. The conservatives have had their day, and proven to be not only on the wrong side of history but incredibly incompetent & corrupt at governing. No surprise as to the latter.. it never has made sense how anti-government based government would actually work.

Too many things have changed this year. The internet as a fundamental tool for fact-checking, dissemination of information, fundraising, etc, is a major game-changer. Previously disaffected segments of the population are registering and voting. The country's demographics are changing. And attempts to suppress votes will only have short-term effect, while in the long term be damaging to the perpetrators.

So much of the coming change has been held in check by sleazy tactics by the right wing for so long, that it's like a dam about to break. 2008 is just the beginning.

[PT6]

To paraphrase, "If your LOSING then LOSING is WINNING!"

Meacham is right he is "OFF-CENTER" and he should no longer try to shape the Future!

Meacham had 8 years to help shape the Future and we see how that TURNED OUT!

So now that Meacham has lost he should be a GOOD LOSER!

If he does not want to get ON BOARD the Obama Train, then he should go sit in the Corner and Watch for 8 Years!

He should feel free to Jump on Board when he wants to CONTRIBUTE Something Useful!

[freshnotbitter]

Weird moment of the day for me: Reading Brook's column in NY Times in which he concludes that democrats are winning elections across the board because they are the conservative party.

He can' quite put exactly in those words but he comes very, very close:

read for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[VikingQuest]

"democrats are winning elections across the board because they are the conservative party."

Really?

The leaders sure aren't and after Frank's comments today . . .

"At this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending"

We have these people at all levels of government.

[liberalrebuttal]

For the last time.

This nation is not "conservative"

There are two generations of Americans that continually are being "left" out of this debate and that's Gen X and Millenials.

We are PROGRESSIVES! And we out number the "conservative boomers"

[VikingQuest]

What does a progressive mean?

More government?

[hangdogit]

It means progress -- sometimes more government, sometimes less, always better government.

[CastleBravo1]

Sorry, it's not the 1890s, this isn't the Wild West, and you're not in a covered wagon.

Government is society.

[lecanardroti]

Amen, brother / sister.

I view Obama's imminent victory as a coup for the post-Baby Boom generations. To heck with class war; this is generation war all the way, baby.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

Now we understand why Newsweek's readers are far fewer than Time's.

[FearlessFreep]

Of course, TIME responded to the Democratic victory of 2006 with the cover headline "Why the center is the new place to be."

[legalclubs]

I agree with kasv. The country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is why Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was so popular - he cut taxes, limited welfare, declared the "end to big government" but was pro-choice, pro-gay (mixed reviews on this, but better then the Repubs), a promoted/protected freedoms of the american people.

Obama appears to fit this same mold -- health care for all (socially liberal), pro-gay (socially liberal), but tax cuts for 95% of us (fiscally conservative), and is for using a "scapal" to cut government spending (fiscally conservative). I have serious doubts that Obama will really cut spending (I don't believe this has ever happened in the last 40 years under Dems or Repubs despite promises from both) and I'm a bit concerned that he may get into office and claim that more than just the top 5% will have to have increased taxes due to the recent economic mess, however, hopefully he will keep his promises (however, he still is a politician, so I won't be surprised if he breaks his word).

Whatever the case, when Obama wins can you imagine the 2012 election when the question will be "are you better off then 4 years ago"? How can we not be? He may very well go down as one of the greats, he just needs to keep his promises.

[kasv]

Meacham is a theocratic right winger - anyone who has observed him during his punditry appearances can't deny it. Newsweek needs to lose him if they want to retain any modicum of journalistic respect. This country is not center right - if it were the pro-choice polls would reflect that. This country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And Meacham doesn't like that.

[veracity]

Excellent comment, Paul. The DC (and "national", and corporate) media have become a plague, a pestilence on America these past two dozen years.

This week on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin is bitchin' about... "SOCIALISM"... a mere two or three weeks after Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke authored the TRILLION DOLLAR taxpayer SUBSIDY BAILOUTS for Wall St. billion-dollar banks!

AND NO ONE on the national media circuit is calling her on it!

It really is true - the (w)horrific, entitled, millionaire talking heads of the DC media REALLY EXPECT US American workin' stiff wage-earning taxpayers to SHUT UP and WORK FOR FREE, like the chattel slaves or segregation-terrorized sharecroppers of days past.

I mean, George Will blathering on about "socialized" - he LOVES public TAXPAYER MILLIONS to subsidize, nay, underwrite his millionaires' "PRIVATE PROPERTY!" baseball stadium!

[Hawkeye17]

I disagree with his premise that America is primarily a "center Right" nation. Immigration is up and young people are trending Democrat, both of which means that the core of the Right, old/rich, are falling by the wayside as new generations of center Left Americans emerges.

[demfriend]

The country has been so divided for so long that it is hard to remember a time when we were together. We had the overwhelming feelings of love and affection from the world post 9/11 but Bush had an agenda which had no place for those feelings and he squashed them as he went about war making and lying to everyone. After his first lies about Saddam and Iraq and then the world saw much clearer as we were still deeply hurt and fearful of another attack at any time. Bush used the fears for his and his friend's gains. They have made a whole lotta money off of us and the cost of having Bush has long past just money and our reputation. The blood of too many soldiers and Iraqis is on the hands of Bush/Cheney and their cronies in and out of Congress. There hasn't been a good feeling of togetherness for some time and I hope and pray daily that from this election we can find some kind of balance and not continued hatred we see from the GOP right now.

[jimmyjones22]

I wouldn't worry about that cover story.

In a time when the "most liberal senator in the senate" is the leading candidate for POTUS, and the only question is weather he will win by a large margin or by OMGWTF landslide, a cover like that only serves to promote controversy to get you to buy the magazine.

And by reading your post, I'm guessing it succeeded.

[icemilkcoffee]

Great post! The left is waking up again. All the things which were 'off-limit' for the last ten years need to come right back to the nightly newscast. Like Universal Healthcare, nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from Iraq, closing Guantanamo, limits on CEO pay, etc, etc. It's time the right wing take a hike and go on their next 40 year exile in the wilderness.