If Republicans succeed in taking over the House and come even close to gaining a majority in the Senate, expect calls for the president to "move to the center." These will come not only from Republicans but also from conservative Democrats, other prominent Democrats who have been defeated, Fox Republican News, mainstream pundits, and White House political advisers.
After the 1994 midterm, when Democrats lost the House and Senate, Bill Clinton was told to "move to the center." He obliged by hiring the pollster Dick Morris, declaring the "era of big government is over," abandoning much of his original agenda, and making the 1996 general election about nothing more than V-chips in televisions and school uniforms.
It happened in the 1978 midterm when Democrats lost ground and Jimmy Carter was instructed to "move to the center." He obliged by firing his entire cabinet, apologizing for the errors of his ways, and making the 1980 general election about absolutely nothing.
Oddly, though, after Republicans suffer losses in the first midterms they pay no attention to voices telling them to move to the center. If anything, Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes moved further right.
Could it be that Republican presidents understand a few things Democrats don't? For example:
Why are Democratic presidents so much more easily intimidated by the "move to the center" rhetoric after midterm losses than Republican presidents?
Because Democrats think in terms of programs, policies, and particular pieces of legislation. It's easy to reverse course by compromising more and giving up on legislative goals. Bill Clinton never mentioned the words "health care reform" after the 1994 midterms.
Republicans think in terms of simple ideas, themes, and movements. It's far harder to reverse course on these (look what happened to the first George Bush when he raised taxes), and easier to keep them alive: Republican presidents just continue looking for opportunities to implement them.
Republicans are also more disciplined (ask yourself which party attracts authoritarian personalities and which attracts anti-authoritarians). This makes it easier for them to stay the course. Their base continues to organize and fulminate even after midterm defeats. Democrats, on the other hand, are less organized. Electoral defeats tend to fracture and dissipate whatever organization they have.
Republicans are cynical about politics from the jump. Political cynicism fuels them. Democrats are idealistic about politics. When they become cynical they tend to drop out.
Message to Obama: Whatever happens November 2, don't move to the center. Push even harder for what you believe in. Message to Democrats: Whatever happens, keep the courage of your conviction and get even more active.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
so what's going to happen on 11/2; btw o is already at the right of center - further move is to abyss
Funny that it is not about economics but about social science.
The biggest problem is that liberals and Democrats in turn more than earn the title "Goody Two Shoes". While those on the Right....do not.
The Republican party has known how to play the game called American Politics to it's extreme for many decades now, and they don't really care about little things like...morals, integrity, fairness...
They play to win, no matter what the costs may be, and no matter how dire the consequences to anyone they hurt on their way to the top.
Democrats and liberals on the other hand, always try to play fair and play nice.
Liberals may have an easier time getting into heaven then most Rethugs, but will they hold the reigns of this country for very long at any given time while they continue to play nice? Not likely.....
I want the kind of democrats that don't have to apologize for being right, dang it.
The continued insistence of the Left otherwise despite survey after poll after survey after poll showing otherwise is why they will always not "get it" and fail.
As Americans we ought to be ashamed that we let politics interfer with doing what's right for the citizens of this nation. As Boehner and others work for their corporate masters at the expensive of the working class, the working class seems to think he's on their side.
For decades, one side then the other has used fear and racism to cloud the fact that since the mid1960s very little has been done to support and secure the path toward fulfilling the "American Dream." Though a myth, it was a motivator because people could see the sometimes hard work, education, and the willingness to go above and beyond was rewarded.
That possiblity began in die under Reagan as those who had convinced those who didn't that it was their fault, all the while tipping the playing field until it was too steep to climb.
Until Americans of all parties throw off the blinders and really LISTEN not just hear what the politicians are saying (then doing) the U.S.A. will continues it's steep decline into a 3rd world nation.
And what exactly does Obama believe in? I have no clue.
So, Obama has gone out of his way to NOT exclude the minority party. That was a big mistake because they decided they could just stamp their feet and throw a tantrum anytime they didn't like some part of some bill ("No no no") because they new "daddy" wasn't going to come down hard on them.
If Obama figures out a way to get enough people back to work in the next two years, I think that will make it a lot easier for him to get re-elected.
Which is why BOTH extremes are so honked off at him.
...and there IS a political Center in this country. They are the fiscally-conservative-but-socially-progressive voters that swell the ranks of Independant voters. The very voters that Democrats need in order to maintain any sort of governing majority.
The idea that voters are split into ranks of Progressives and Conservatives---and nothing else---is a myth. The same sort of myth that caused Conservatives to over-reach and self-destruct under Karl Rove's drive to create a "Permanent Majority".
The President can BOTH stand up for what he believes in, AND forge a constructive relationship with Centrist voters. By simply RESPECTING the validity of THEIR point of view---even if he doesn't agree with it---and giving them a seat at the policy negotiating table.
But this notion that the "only" way forwards is to pursue a narrow, Liberal agenda is nothing but a recipie to ignite Independant voters stereotypical fears of "Big Goverment" and "Tax-and-Spend Liberalism"....and chase them right back into the arms of the Republicans.
Who will welcome their votes.
One other point I would include is that the progessive conservatives are more interested in the fical soundness of the candidate while a progressive liberal is more interested in social issues.
In my experience Centrist voters don't believe that goverment should be dictating morality, or deliberately holding certain groups down (like gays and minorities) like some elements on the Far Right clearly believe it should. But they don't think it is government's responsibility to solve everyone's problems for them....like some Progressives seem to feel.
They want a goverment that runs an orderly, healthy society...and does so in a financially responsible manner.
It is not a viewpoint that I agree with totally...but one that I can the see the value of in many respects. One I see as a necessary counter-balance to some of the excesses of Progressivism. (Like the notion that if you aren't actively at WAR with the business community, than you are slave to the "corporate agenda"...that there is no middle-ground between trying to beat corporations into submission...and letting them run amok.)
1. On the campaign trail, he promised to end the War in Iraq responsibly. Which means bringing our troops home at a pace where the Iraqi goverment can step in and fill the security vaccuum. He is doing that.
2. He said on the entire campaign, that he planned on escalating our involvement in Afpak to degrade Al-Qaeda and keep the Taliban from toppling the Pakistani government and acquirng that nation's nuclear aresenal. Apparently you either missed or ignored those repeated promises...that he has carried through on.
3. He has tried to close Gitmo...which he said he would do only when he could do so responsibly, and not put the nation's security at-risk. He has been thwarted by his own Congress (who refused to fund it) and state-and-local officials who are skittish about trying these people in civilian courts. Apparently, you seem to think the President should simply ignore the constitutional limits of his authority, when it gets in the way of what you want.