The Myth of the RINO?

posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Two weeks ago, I directed readers to an analysis by Keith Poole of UC San Diego on the relative ideological positioning of the three main candidates for President. Poole provides an excellent analysis of Congressional voting patterns called the Poole Report, which provides the broadest basis used for rating members of both the House and the Senate. The Poole Reports use roll call votes that have at least 0.5% of members voting in the minority. For example, the 2007 session of the Senate had 388 data points, as opposed to the ACU’s 25 and 107 for the National Journal, which gives a much more complete look at the partisan nature of voting for both Republicans and Democrats.

Poole’s analysis shows a fascinating and perhaps disturbing trend. Despite the perceptions of many in and out of the blogosphere and punditry, the parties have moved away from compromise, not towards it. Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:

Note the progression of the voting pattern, and where today’s candidates would have scored on this timeline with their 2008 positioning. In 1968, McCain would have been on the right wing of the Republican Party, and both Obama and Clinton would have been significantly on the left side of the Democrats. By 1988, McCain exists squarely in the GOP’s mainstream, and both Obama and Clinton remain on the left wing of the Democrats. Now, McCain’s fixed 2008 position puts him on the moderate side of the party, while the mainstream of Democrats have just barely reached Obama and Clinton’s position.

Now re-run the animation and look at what happened to the center in American politics. Forty years ago, members in both parties routinely overlapped, and their mainstreams existed closer to the center. The crossover point came just to the right of center and about halfway to the peak of both parties. In 1988, the crossover point hit about the same spot but much lower on the density scale, and the overlaps of both parties extended much less into the density of the opposition. Now, there is almost no density at the crossover point and the overlap has all but disappeared entirely.

What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology. Congress has become a place where party-line votes prevail on an almost-exclusive basis. Those who believe that we lose elections because of a lack of party discipline and loyalty in the legislature have targeted the wrong culprit. Neither party has a lack of discipline, but both may have allowed a critical gap to open with the American electorate that could threaten the two-party system.

Much has been made of independent runs from Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, but this shows that they also miss the point. The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties. That opportunity will not be realized at the presidential level, but rather in the House and Senate.

This gap does have meaning in the presidential race. Even though Republicans have many structural problems in this election, they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties. Not only does McCain occupy a spot on the spectrum closer to the center than anyone else, he’s also perceived to be more centrist. He has a track record of independence in his voting record that frankly is almost nonexistent in today’s politics. While that certainly (and legitimately) frustrates conservatives, it speaks to a wide range of American voters who find themselves lost in a deepening and widening valley between two peaks.

If McCain can capitalize on that and can find messages that resonate with those voters — and especially if he can demonstrate the hard-Left credentials of his opponents — he may find a treasure trove of support in a year where Republicans elsewhere are likely to take a beating.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

Time for reasonable majority perhaps ?

Gaurav on May 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Having a little difficulty understanding what’s being shown here, so not sure if my question is reasonable. Is the “center” now much further to the left than it once was, and if so, what’s the virtue of playing to it?

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Here’s an opportunity for the McCain-haters to dominate this thread & claim that he, as a moderate/conservative, is no different than Obamarxist the extreme leftist. So let’s stay home & let the Dems completely take over.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Do you mean from the point of view that he sides with his own party as often as the Dems do, and has occupied a left side position in his party?

If so, I think that’s not a good argument, because nobody is talking about what those positions are. McCain, and any other candidate should be judged not on how loyal they are to a party, or where they sit on the left/right spectrum within their party, but whether their philosophy is consistent with the voter who’s judging.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM

It would be interesting to see how Reagan would have charted in all of this.

.

GT on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM

My take on the chart is that the party moved right, not left. Maybe it is my bifocals.

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:22 AM

It’s an interesting premise, but is assumes that there still exists a political center. If the elected Republicans and Democrats are moving away from the center, then it stands to reason the populations electing them are moving in similar directions.

Nethicus on May 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Well, without a parallel survey of the voters to compare, it’s a little hard to tell what has changed here. I’m not sure there’s a lot of room for many voters to compromise in principle on Iraq, gay marriage legalization, and Supreme Court appointees.
.
OT, but is anybody home over at the The Boss’ place? Last posting was the 16th. Not much going on over here either, except your stuff, Ed. Just a slow news weekend?….

Click on May 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:22 AM

I think I better be quiet. I think I don’t get something here.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM

First post after years of sitting on the sidelines.
The last time the Dems & Rinos were together was on Sept.11 when,if I remember correctly,they were running hand in hand towards their fallout shelters!And this graph looks like it evolves into….well two tits on a bull,if you know what I mean.

Neal4007 on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Bush may be somewhat on the conservative side for social issues, but he is at best a moderate on fiscal issues (especially spending and bigger government programs) I question what they call conservative issues and liberal issues. I tried to find it on their web page but it was under construction. I think that the standard (0 point) has moved to the left along with the rest of the country and has skewed the numbers a bit, making it seem like the right has gone further to the right instead of the opposite.

Corsair on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM

I’m not quite as interested in a numerical score as his actions like pushing through amensty while having his South Carolina Poodle tell us “bigots” to shut up.

EJDolbow on May 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Ed states:
What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology

Not True Ed.

It shows that those lyin’ RINOs who campaign as CONSERVATIVE then get into congress and vote farther to the left. THEY JUST ALL DID IT TOGETHER!

And Further- It shows that it is the LEFT that does not COMPROMISE- as the RINO continue to progress toward BIG GOVERNMEMT Socialism themselves the Dem/Libs STILL AREN’T HAPPY and respond by gittin’ crazier every year. NEVER MOVIN’ RIGHT!

Ex-tex on May 18, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:

Ed, clarify the chart on screen, please.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Ed,

That animation would help explain why Reagan could say, he didn’t leave the party, but the party left me. Or why many Democrats from the center/moderate wing, are wondering why the far left has taken hold.

I posit that the reason for the spread goes back to 1968 and the polarization of Vietnam, where the left wing of the Democrats pushed harder to go left, while the GOP wanted to distance themselves from Nixon and moved even more to the right.

Instead of accommodation and moderation, you get polarization.

lawhawk on May 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Hope Rush didn’t read that Ed. Goes against what he says is true and we all know that’s not allowed.

AYNBLAND on May 18, 2008 at 9:35 AM

When it comes to Congress and the White House, here’s what matters to me most and what these cowards should do:

1 – Drill for oil anywhere in America.

2 – Stop outsourcing and start producing goods at home.

3 – Don’t mess with people’s life: If a man wants to marry his dog (like I do), he is free to do so. Polygamy is out of the question because we don’t want Muslims to multiply like rabbits, enough the government is distributing visas to them like candy.

4 – Stop immigration -legal and illegal (yes, I said “illegal” because our government is an accomplice)- completely until you can control the current uncontrollable invasion.

5 – Build maximum security fences on both borders.

6 – No Cubans sailing to Florida will be given an automatic residency. That’s bullshit. Enough of it. They should stay home and start a revolution.

7 – Any Senator who wants to run for president has to spend at least 12 years in the Senate. The Senate should not be a step to the presidency. A Representative should also spend at least 6 years in the House before running for president.

Of course number 7 will never be implemented as well 1 to 6.

But the most important point of all is number one. Drill and get rid of foreign oil, you will not have wars and slavery to Arabs and Venezuela, and prices will go down.

We have traitors in Washington D.C., you can’t expect them to work for America.

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

I wonder how this compares to say 1850. It appears that two large fractions of America is moving in opposite directions. The last time that happened in America we had a civil war.

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

This post is about Statistics.

I will say nothing more for i am afraid to be banned.

Aristotle on May 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

(Shush. Elephant in the room.)

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

How does the fancy chart change the fact that he supports a 3rd world invasion on my country?

DwnSouthJukin on May 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties

he’ll have to get one moderate to make up for my not voting for him

right4life on May 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM

How does the fancy chart change the fact that he supports a 3rd world invasion on my country?

DwnSouthJukin on May 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM
He wants VOTES!!

Neal4007 on May 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

The two parties decided to divide and conquer to retain power. I wonder what the rate of turnover in the Congress and Senate was before say 1968.

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM

hey may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties

speaks to his “electability” more than his desirability or suitability.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM

The study’s take seems a promo for progressivism.

Saying that polarization has occurred is the understatement of the year. That McCain is “able” to reach across the aisle sells well if that’s what people want to buy. This study is selling the story that Nixon’s “silent majority of Americans” want to be neither hot nor cold on any issue; further, to be hot or cold on any issue is to be self defeating.

I’m not buying that ad.

Compromise doesn’t buy the desired commodity. But that never stopped a propagandist from doing his job. Liberals HAVE corrupted the language we all understand to slant their way or no way. The Conservative backlash has taken a long time coming, but that only portends a bigger wave. If McCain presumes to know better than his core where to find support, he’s on his own and more’s the pity for what should have been a great leader for this moment in time. You can’t bite off your nose to spite your face and call it pretty.

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Growing up I was never a fan of the 2 party system. When I turned 18 I voted 3rd party in every race except the Presidential one (I live in Madison WI, so my congressional vote didn’t matter jack). I have significant overlap on some of my issues, so I consider myself to be center-right. I eventually came to recognize political reality and now vote almost straight Republican just because I’m closer to them on my key issues.

If Ed’s take is correct, it would be kind of cool to see some centrist 3rd party develop in the next few cycles. A 3 or 4% minority in the house could force the majority (dems) to move center to get pieces of legislation passed.

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

The two parties decided to divide and conquer to retain power. I wonder what the rate of turnover in the Congress and Senate was before say 1968.

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM

You do the math.

I’m an American, I can’t calculate.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Also the ‘shallowing’ of the crossover could be the generations. The 68 congress would have been made of WWII Dems/Reps who fought the ‘unconditional surrender’ war. They had differences on fiscal issues, but unity on security. The 08 congress is split between Ghandi and Rambo.

Limerick on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Here’s an opportunity for the McCain-haters to dominate this thread & claim that he, as a moderate/conservative, is no different than Obamarxist the extreme leftist. So let’s stay home & let the Dems completely take over.

jgapinoy on May 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Yep. As usual.

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

By all means, please do! Clearly America sucks too much for a great individual like you to tolerate it for even one second longer. I can’t imagine how you’ve managed to endure here in this awful place for so long, suffering so many offenses to your delicate sensibilities. Oh, the tragedy.

Pack your bags and leave today. Need help buying a one-way ticket? Assistance in rescinding your US citizenship in favor of permanent Mexican affiliation? Post your personal and bank account details and I’m sure many of us will be more than happy to help you shake the yoke of oppressive Americanism for good. You poor, poor thing.

Gilda on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

That whole post was satire, right?

If not, you should check out the John Birch Society. You will fit right in.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM

IT is really simple to win elections. Reagan showed how to do it. Bush, Clinton, Bush have gone the Nixion route of going to the left/right in the primaries then going to the center in the general then doing whatever the hell they wanted after the election. It might win elections but it does not give you a mandate and it destroyes your popularity as those that vote for you discover they had been lied too.

To win you concentrate on the issues that the majority of votes want. Then you repeat those and forget about the wedge issues. You build a vast majority over the things you agree on not a slim majority or a big minority of the little things people don’t agree on. the little things you leave to the states and cities.

Immigration. 80% agree to secure boraders. No amensty. Let the states decide how they treat the ones here.
Iraq war 80% want victory.
Economy 80% want different trade policies that protect our jobs and our workers.
Abortion ~80-90% don’t want late term abortion and a majority doesn’t want to make women crimnals either. Seems easy enough to solve.
Term Limits a majortiy would like term limits

List goes on and on. Most things the large majority agree with. Reagan went with those things the large majority agreed on and the lesser stuff he avoided if they were not central to his core beliefs.

unseen on May 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM

nethicus,
“If the elected Republicans and Democrats are moving away from the center, then it stands to reason the populations electing them are moving in similar directions.”

Not very often that there are viable candidates in the center.

exhelodrvr on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Revision: You poor, poor, little thing.

Details matter.

Gilda on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I’m still wishing for a funny Sunday morning cartoon array of RINOSTRICH photoshops. The question ‘how far will the MSM go to revise the record’ needs some illustrations for effect. There’s nothing like a good picture for a laugh.

BTW, who the heck has actually been labeled a DINO?

maverick muse on May 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM

In my small universe, people are highly partisan, like most, I presume, in Madison. If you’re not, you may be more rare than you realize. Does the info. above speak to whether there are many people left in the “center”? Maybe it’s largely empty.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

That whole post was satire, right?

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Maybe the last line was??

Why do I have to explain myself every time I post a comment?

Can’t people discern what is serious and what is not?

Yes, in this commentary I mixed humor with seriousness.

And I’m damn serious about all the points: 1 to 7, except marrying my dog, which I already did yesterday at the Humane Society.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

By all means, please do! Clearly America sucks too much for a great individual like you to tolerate it for even one second longer. I can’t imagine how you’ve managed to endure here in this awful place for so long, suffering so many offenses to your delicate sensibilities. Oh, the tragedy.

Pack your bags and leave today. Need help buying a one-way ticket? Assistance in rescinding your US citizenship in favor of permanent Mexican affiliation? Post your personal and bank account details and I’m sure many of us will be more than happy to help you shake the yoke of oppressive Americanism for good. You poor, poor thing.

Gilda on May 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Want some coffee?

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM

I liked it.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM

MMMMMM COFFEE!

Neal4007 on May 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM

I liked it.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM

It’s common sense….

Common sense??

It’s a weird expression in Washington D.C.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM

There’s another elephant in this room that isn’t easy or pleasant to talk about: the American electorate, taken as a whole, has been moving steadily leftward since the 1990s. There are still segments of the electorate that are strongly conservative, or deeply committed to individual conservative principles, but the crucial 20 or 30 percent of the voters who are truly “up for grabs” have been trending leftward. I think it’s partly due to the political clumsiness of the Bush administration, which has been content to vanish from the face of the Earth since 2004 and leave the field open to its enemies. It’s also partly due to the children victimized by socialist education through the 70s and 80s growing up and getting the vote.

The Republicans need to both espouse conservative principles, and explain them in a coherent and appealing way. I think a candidate like McCain is well positioned to do this, since he has considerable affection and respect from the moderate left, and the extreme left doesn’t see him as the kind of guy they’d crawl over broken glass to vote against. (They’ll bleat hatred and venom on the Daily Kos, of course, but they’d do that if the GOP nominee was Aslan, and he tapped Tony Stark to be his running mate.) Obama, on the other hand, has become just such a broken-glass candidate for many on the Right. It gives McCain a chance to address the center and explain why socialism is both morally wrong and practically disastrous. Will he do it? I’m not enthusiastic about the prospects, but if he can nudge the middle of the electorate away from their leftward tack, it would be a good reason to vote for him, combined with the absolute imperative of saving the world from an Obama presidency.

Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

How many people “from the center” vote though? I tend to think of the voting blocs as huge monolithic groups that “always” vote one way or the other. i.e. blacks and unions democratic, Evangelicals and gun owners republican.

Personally I think I’m centrist but maybe everyone thinks that no matter how far right or left they are :)

Dash on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Of interest re this topic is a commentary by Yuval Levin in a recent edition of The Weekly Standard, where he makes the point that the issue of this general election should not be “change” but instead “reform”. His point is that we have been inundated with rapid change since the last century and that many of our institutions do not meet well the complexity of those changes.

The Democrats are committed to expanding government to address such changes. The Republicans are more open to reforming government in order to do so.

Levin makes some valid points about how and why McCain might be the ideal candidate to transition us into better solutions and finesse the desires of both ends of the political spectrum without sacrificing conservatism.

A reform agenda would be especially well suited to John McCain, as he himself seemed to see in 1999. McCain’s conservatism is not fundamentally ideological. He is not especially interested in political “issues” or in abstract ideas about individual rights or the role of government. Rather, he is moved by large challenges and great exertions, and by the imperative of meeting America’s commitments. He is a conservative because he believes the right has a more responsible attitude toward meeting these commitments, and is more likely to keep Americans (as individuals and as a nation) strong enough to do great things.

This makes for an awkward marriage between McCain and the conservative movement, but it is a coupling with more opportunities for joint efforts than the two sides realize. Rather than pretend McCain is a traditional movement conservative or that conservatism is a nonideological honor code, the two should seize an opportunity to work together for their rather different ends, with McCain giving voice to the aims and the urgency of reforms, and conservatives offering him the means. They should seek to reform our governing institutions in ways that would turn them to the cause of America’s working families (which are the source of America’s strengths), and should understand that cause in terms of upwardly mobile aspiration, not bitter and angry desperation.

McCain should paint a picture for the public of the moment we are in: confronted on the one hand with a justified crisis of confidence in our institutions and on the other with proposals from the Democrats driven by a set of liberal ideological commitments that would exacerbate the problem by carelessly expanding government. The cure for what ails us is not change that is simply more of the same–more bureaucracy, a further takeover of the private and domestic spheres that in the name of offering relief steals away more and more of our independence and initiative. The cure, rather, is to plant in the architecture of our largest public institutions the conservative commitments to individual freedom and initiative, to the centrality of parenthood and the family, and to the cause of American strength in the world.

onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Sorry. The link didn’t pick up on the Levin commentary.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/118uvhoa.asp

onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Bush may be somewhat on the conservative side for social issues, but he is at best a moderate on fiscal issues (especially spending and bigger government programs) I question what they call conservative issues and liberal issues.

Corsair on May 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM

I think the overweighting of social conservatism in favor of fiscal conservatism over the past few years has harmed the GOP. Or maybe I should say overweighting of “religious” conservatism, as that can encompass Bush’s positions on abortion, stem cell research, and open southern border.

For a guy who isn’t Catholic, Bush governs very much like the Pope would, IMHO. No, that’s not a smear against Catholics or the RC Church, just an observation.

I’d hope the Pope would have vetoed some of the ridiculous ag and transpo bills that the GOP congress sent to Bush for a few years because of the obvious graft….and “Thou shalt not steal” is pretty clear, actually.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Each party never elects anyone. What they do is nominate and independents decide who gets elected. All we are constantly arguing about is what independents want. When repubs, as they have been doing, start losing seats/majority status the talk gravitates around “we have strayed from our beliefs” whereupon all manner of debate breaks out about what those beliefs are. Read HA comments for every possible scenario.

That said, I put it to you that our core beliefs are only two, fiscal restraint and small government bias. Everything stems from those. Further more that’s what independents want from repubs, first and foremost. The Contract of 1994 says as much.

Rather than get caught in minutiae arguments about each individual policy I ask a simple question: If all things/policy/war were the same, as they are, going into the 2006 and forward to the 2008 elections BUT the budget was balanced or near balanced with earmarks vetoed and held to public scorn do you think repubs would have lost seats.

I don’t think so. In fact I think its not a stretch to envision gains. Furthermore McCain has a chance in this election only because of his perceived fiscal restraint tendencies. That’s why I’m voting for him.

He certainly wasn’t my first choice.

patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Years from now, when our culture is finally free of the flower child generation that did everything it could to drag us leftward, our dormant principles will be renewed, and the isolated communities of character now living in red-state exile will be reunited.

Despair is a sin. Take the long view: if we could put a man on the moon, we have the ability to repair any and all damage inflicted on our culture by the Worst Generation.

jeff_from_mpls on May 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM

At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties.

The only problem is that it is hard to define the center. Does it involve a sampling of beliefs from the right and the left, or a compromised position on all issues? “The Reform Party” claimed this position, but their platform was a mess and they didn’t stand for anything.

Nosferightu on May 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Screw this country, I’m moving to Mexico.

Indy Conservative on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Nice, Evita. You were joking the same way you were joking the other day about how people from third world countries don’t want to come to America?

Hilarious.

misterpeasea on May 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM

The graph in the animation seems to show the Republican party is moving to the right. I wish.

If the graph was trying to show that, both parties should be moving to the left.

darwin-t on May 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Well, I’m glad somebody else figured this out.

Anyone want to start a centrist party?

indythinker on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM

I think there is truth in this. My Senator is Lugar. He has been in politics here in Indiana for years. Back in the 80s he was considered a conservative, now a lot of political pundits would probably call him a RINO. But the truth is, he is the same guy.

Back in those days you never even heard all this stuff about RINOs, that insult came about when some folks moved far right and not all of the party went with them. They were the ones who changed.

Someone said to me that McCAin is not the same guy that Ronald Reagan liked and respected. Not true, he is exactly the same guy. He is not the one who changed.

However, I find it hard to believe there will be a third party. I think it is more likely that the Blue Dog Democrats who are in fact more like the old fashioned Democrats will fill that void. If they do, this is bad for Republicans who insist that further right is the only way to go.

Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM

The Republicans need to both espouse conservative principles, and explain them in a coherent and appealing way. I think a candidate like McCain is well positioned to do this, since he has considerable affection and respect from the moderate left, and the extreme left doesn’t see him as the kind of guy they’d crawl over broken glass to vote against. (They’ll bleat hatred and venom on the Daily Kos, of course, but they’d do that if the GOP nominee was Aslan, and he tapped Tony Stark to be his running mate.) Obama, on the other hand, has become just such a broken-glass candidate for many on the Right. It gives McCain a chance to address the center and explain why socialism is both morally wrong and practically disastrous. Will he do it? I’m not enthusiastic about the prospects, but if he can nudge the middle of the electorate away from their leftward tack, it would be a good reason to vote for him, combined with the absolute imperative of saving the world from an Obama presidency.

Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Thoughtful analysis. I hope you’re right. William Bennett seems to feel this way also, and he’s a very bright guy and is certainly conservative, so hopefully he’ll be able to persuade sane conservative voters to go for McCain in the fall, even though the unginged voices on the right will work overtime to try to deliver the White House to Obama.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM

heee unhinged

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Ed, I find Keith Poole’s analysis interesting, however, charting votes in our congress really does not reflect accurately conservative or liberal values. Conservative values are conservative values. His chart of voting patterns speaks more to the types of Bills being introduced and voted on than actual conservative or liberal values.

My views focus more specifically on bills like McShamnesty, sun-setting tax cuts, defunding the War on Terror, blocking the President’s right nominate judges. McCain fails on all but one. To me he’s still a RINO.

Zorro on May 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Shorter Ed Morrisey – “I know McCain is from the Nixon/Rockefeller wing of the party. I think that’s a good thing.”

I notice that according to this chart, George W Bush is an extreme right-winger. That should be a tip off that there’s something fishy going on. I’m sure it’s true that there are more party line votes than their used to be. This is not incompatible with both parties moving to the left.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM

The Republicans need to both espouse conservative principles, and explain them in a coherent and appealing way. I think a candidate like McCain is well positioned to do this, since he has considerable affection and respect from the moderate left

Yes, but there is one slight problem to this theory – McCain hates conservatives as much as the left does. That’s why the left “respects” him and has “affection” for him, after all.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Okay McCain lovers, where’s the fence? You know, the “G-Dmn” fence?

davecatbone on May 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Rather than get caught in minutiae arguments about each individual policy I ask a simple question: If all things/policy/war were the same, as they are, going into the 2006 and forward to the 2008 elections BUT the budget was balanced or near balanced with earmarks vetoed and held to public scorn do you think repubs would have lost seats.

NO, they would have gained seats. Add in a decent commitment to an actual fence on those 700 miles of the southern border instead of cute political flimflammery, and expansion of the active duty military force and fiscal support for the military, and it would have been a GOP landslide.

But sadly, Bush wasn’t going to find his veto pen with a GOP congress. Many of those folks campaigned for him in 2000 based on his “Presidential temperament” which apparently meant that he would allow them to spend like drunken frat boys buying goodies for all their buddies, but not for Walter Reed, etc. Because we military families don’t have deep pockets and don’t wine and dine congressmen, our concerns went unheard, which hurt the GOP in the 2006 elections as well.

Oh well. Sorry I rambled.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM

The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center.

I’d love to see Morrissey expound on what he sees the “center” as being. What is the position of the “center” on Iraq, on entitlement reform, on taxes, on spending, on any issue you care to think of?

This whole left-center-right continuum has always struck me as next to useless. It has no useful descriptive power.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Yes, but there is one slight problem to this theory – McCain hates conservatives as much as the left does. That’s why the left “respects” him and has “affection” for him, after all.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM

That’s just idiocy of the highest order. I’ve seen it repeated lots, so it must come from Limbaugh or Michael Savage.

Yeah, McCain is a real Medea Benjamin. Or William Ayers.

You are a dupe of the radical left, who is cackling in glee that you will fall for shit like that and hand the White House to one of their own in 2008.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Indy, you can move any place you want, so long as you keep commenting here, because it sure is more interesting when you do. I know it’s an abstract for now, but should you move to Mexico, they need a huge revolution.

On the dog, we all thought it was the goat, and were very supportive, here, and here.

Your 1-7 points are good, except the “legal” immigration would have kept me out of the U.S., and I’d hold that against you.

Also, I can discern just fine when you’re serious, and when you go into Indy-tirade-land, or Indy-schtick.

It would be interesting to see how Reagan would have charted in all of this.

GT on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

I don’t know how he’d have charted it, but he would have said something like this “The conservative tent is very large, get in it and find a comphy place somewhere, and show some tolerance”. Then he would have won and changed the world, and America, in an impactful way, with lots of shlif, the yammering against him, domestic and global, notwithstanding.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM

BTW, who the heck has actually been labeled a DINO?

maverick

Leiberman, I think. I might have to Google something, and I don’t wanna.

Krydor on May 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM

The graph in the animation seems to show the Republican party is moving to the right. I wish.

If the graph was trying to show that, both parties should be moving to the left.

darwin-t on May 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM

The GOP has moved to the religious right…..which hurts with the general electorate. Bush supports teaching “intelligent design” in public schools, for instance. One could call that “conservative” but it’s not a winner for most of America.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Someone said to me that McCAin is not the same guy that Ronald Reagan liked and respected. Not true, he is exactly the same guy. He is not the one who changed.

Thanks for that political insight, Terrye, but it’s wrong as usual. McCain is close to being the opposite of a Reaganite Republican. His voting record has swung hard left over the years, as has already been documented. It’s impossible to even imagine Reagan pushing for amnesty, or this “global warming” hoax, or “campaign finance reform”, or gun control, or any of the other left-wing causes McCain has embraced.

Go back to the Democratic party, please.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM

The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them.

This analysis is wrong. Congressional representation is consistent with Americans’ viewpoints, and only demonstrats that most Americans are highly partisan. There is no huge voting bloc of Americans in the center. The “center” theory is bunk anyway. There is no “center.” Some issues will always be more important to some voters than others will. Right now the country is split into two halves – one half that is more attracted to a conservative, and one that is attracted to a liberal. A centrist candidate, if elected, tends to weaken his party, as Bush has done. Reagan did not weaken his party.

fossten on May 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM

flenser, what are you claiming? Reagan signed the largest amnesty of late, and was sorry later. Factchecking, please.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM

The GOP has moved to the religious right…..

Actually, it has not. Not compared to the Reagan years at least. Unless you want to go back to the pre-Reagan GOP.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Political affiliations tend to change glacially. What you saw starting in the late 1960s was a shifting of party alignments that, at their core, had been in place since the Civil War to fit the reality of the current times.

The main change in the first half of the 20th Century was the move of African-Americans from the Republican side to the Democratic side, in large part to the northern migration of blacks, the influence of the big-city Democratic machines to provide services in exchange for votes and the desire of the liberals in the Roosevelt Administration to nationalize that scheme, only to do it by government fiat via tax dollars. But that wasn’t the Democratic Party as it had been run in the South, and even the West, in the post-Civil War period, which was decidedly against big centralized government, with the racial factor also being a cause of divisiveness by the late 60s (only Louisiana under the Longs tried a southern version of the northern big government scheme, and we know how well that’s turned out).

On the other side, you had the patrician, northern Republicans like the Rockefellers whose positions on both domestic and foreign policy were, by the 1960s, more and more of a “go along to get along” thing with the Democrats — they saw New Deal policies as the Wave Of The Future, and never saw or appreciated the rise of the new conservative movement, led by Buckley and Reagan. Nelson Rockefeller turned into a hard-line law-and-order type in his final term, but people like him have been migrating towards the Democrats over the past 40 years, because that’s where they feel more at home, while small government Democrats have moved over to the GOP side, because that’s where they’ve felt more at home.

But the shift didn’t happen overnight, and that’s why you see the diverging lines in those graphs — in the 60s, you still had lot of Ds whose positions were to the right of a lot of Rs in Congress, and a lot of Rs whose positions were to the left of many on D side of the aisle. It looks like there was more compromise because in large part people were still clinging to party labels based on their positions from the 1860s. The past 40 years has been about updating the political realities of the two parties, and that’s why things seem so much more partisan today than they were in the pre-Vietnam era.

jon1979 on May 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM

The only question I have, and I’m not a statistician, is does this man weight each vote equally? To a voter, some issues are simply worth more than others, and that can change the perception of the candidate.

PattyJ on May 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM

flenser, what are you claiming? Reagan signed the largest amnesty of late, and was sorry later.

Entelechy, what are YOU claiming? I said that Reagan would never have pushed for amnesty the way McCain has done. If you think differently, explain why. Reagan opposed amnesty.

Factchecking, please.

I’m telling you the facts. Reagan was not an amnesty supporter. That is the fact.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM

How many people “from the center” vote though? I tend to think of the voting blocs as huge monolithic groups that “always” vote one way or the other. i.e. blacks and unions democratic, Evangelicals and gun owners republican.

Personally I think I’m centrist but maybe everyone thinks that no matter how far right or left they are :)

Dash on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

I believe there really is a sizable group of “swing voters,” who really can vote Republican in one year and Democrat in the other. They’re not all “centrists” as the political class usually means the term; they view themselves as loyal to neither party, and they are wholly ignorant of long-term trends. Topics such as judicial activism, or the tendency of government programs to bloat and swell over time, or the original intent of the Founders mean nothing to them.

They respond to each campaign’s superficial advertising and vote largely based on whatever they believe is the issue of the day. They bought into the idea that 1991 was the “worst economy of the last 50 years” and thought Clinton’s “politics of change” would solve that problem; then two years later, they liked the Contract With America, wrinkled their noses at Democrat corruption that was too widespread for them to ignore, and voted for Newt and his crew. There truly are individual people out there who will tell you they voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. They seem absurd to those of us who follow politics closely, and we seem like cultish fanatics to them.

I think the overweighting of social conservatism in favor of fiscal conservatism over the past few years has harmed the GOP. Or maybe I should say overweighting of “religious” conservatism, as that can encompass Bush’s positions on abortion, stem cell research, and open southern border.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I agree, and think the Religious Right can be kept within the Republican coalition by respecting their policy preferences, without adopting their language. Despite the silly caricature of the RR as a gang of theocrats who want to impose their own version of sharia law on the U.S., they actually have a very modest set of policies they believe strongly in, and these policies are both consistent with overall conservatism, and possible to “sell” to the electorate without using religious language.

For example, if a secular candidate gave a reasoned speech in favor of the pro-life position, without using any religious language, the Religious Right would, on the whole, be pleased to support that candidate, and many swing voters might be convinced as well. On the other hand, giving the same argument wrapped in Biblical verse really doesn’t make the RR any happier, but it drives off the swing voters in droves. The Religious Right sincerely cares about its issues, not flattery of its religious sensibilities. They sure won’t say “no” to a nice big helping of that flattery, but it’s the sugary dessert at the end of a three-course meal – they don’t really need it, and they can live without it.

Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM
onlineanalyst on May 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Two good comments, related. I hope Mav is listening.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM

It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology.

Only if that is the conclusion you want to draw. That nomenclature is mark the distinction between the constituents and the expectations of the constituents. So, yes it refers to party, but it’s really about expectations.

Also if you accept the metrics on which this is based, you are also accepting the metrics that conclude this: (Re: Clinton and Obama)

The two are by no means the most liberal Democrats in Congress. There are a total of 286 Democrats in the 110th House and Senate (counting replacements). There are 88 members to Obama’s left — 8 Senators and 80 Representatives.

According to these metrics, 88 to the left of Obama. If you say so. I didn’t read far enough in that study to see if McCain was one of them.

Spirit of 1776 on May 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Flenser, god love ya, but you have been full of shit as regards McCain for a long time. He’s the nominee. Get over it. Either vote for him or not, but for the love of god shut the F up about his not doing what you like.

You are basically a troll working for either Paul, Obama, Hillary or some delusional alter ego. Get over yourself we don’t care.

patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I read this great book in a polisci class called ‘Culture War?’ It was pretty much just a compilation of graphs and statistics over the past several decades. It showed that the average American is way closer to the center than either party that represents us.

But you never hear the center’s voice. Half the time they don’t vote, since no one represents them, and the rest of the time they’re being overshadowed by the very loud elements at the extremes of the political spectrum.

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

flenser, just for you, or especially for you

In 1986, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill, the first in 20 years, that legalized the status for 1.7-million people.

This amnesty bill was supposed to fix things for good, and instead ten-folded the illegal immigration number, at a minimum.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Yeah, McCain is a real Medea Benjamin. Or William Ayers.

You are the one who said that the left respects and loves McCain. Can’t you even keep up with your own spin?

Tell me why you think the left has such “respect” and “affection” for McCain. Tell me why you think he does not detest the right, given his long history of saying and doing things which show just that.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

William Bennett seems to feel this way also, and he’s a very bright guy and is certainly conservative, so hopefully he’ll be able to persuade sane conservative voters to go for McCain in the fall, even though the unginged voices on the right will work overtime to try to deliver the White House to Obama.

funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Bennett decided to get behind the candidate for the good of the party and to strengthen McCain’s chances. Plenty of people think those are damn good reasons. But I doubt it has very much to do with principle or philosophy.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Is the “center” now much further to the left than it once was…?

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Yes, I’d say when issues and ideology are added in perspective, the ‘center’ has moved left with the leftward shift of both parties. The leftward shift of the center is not apparent in the Poole analysis, as it’s not addressed to ideological positions.

petefrt on May 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Tks. badger. Interesting. Supports Ed’s thesis.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM

But you never hear the center’s voice. Half the time they don’t vote, since no one represents them, and the rest of the time they’re being overshadowed by the very loud elements at the extremes of the political spectrum.

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Spot on, along with this thread. There’s no leader yet, but it’s definitely time for a strong 3rd party. The yahoos from the far left and the far right, otherwise would destroy this wonderful country.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM

forgot to add that if the center is populated, I’d like to know who they are. It would help me determine if I should have respect for their views. Doc Zero above speculates that they’re largely uninformed voters who start from scratch at each election and then see who runs the best campaign or says the right magical words. As for me, I’m pretty much fixed in my views at my age:)

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM

flenser, just for you, or especially for you

Entelechy, you seem a little slow. I know Reagan signed an amnesty bill. That was not the issue in contention. The issue was whether he approved of amnesty and whether if he were in todays Senate he’d be by working his butt off to get a huge new amnety bill passed.

The answers – he did not approve of amnesty back in 1986, and went along with it as the price for (he thought)) securing the border. If he was in todays Senate he’d be lining up with DeMint and Sessions.

This amnesty bill was supposed to fix things for good, and instead ten-folded the illegal immigration number, at a minimum.

False. The bill was supposed to fix things for good. But it was not the bill which “ten-folded the illegal immigration number”. The blame for that goes to guys like Bush and McCain and the others who have gutted and failed to enforce the immigration laws. Reagan was a member of the “law and order” wing of the GOP. He’d walk away from the current GOP in disgust, seeing its open corruption.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble Patrick, but McCain will grow the size of government Big Time. His government will be huge. We have to pay for 30 million+ poor uneducated healthcare, werfare, their kids schooling, jailing, ect that comes from open border. He will also grow the size of government by his cap and trade global warming policy. McCain is not even close to being a small government guy. He wants the government to be huge.

BroncosRock on May 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM

jon1979 on May 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM

interesting analysis too.

JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Badger Hawk

I read this great book in a polisci class called ‘Culture War?’ It showed that the average American is way closer to the center than either party that represents us.

Then maybe you can explain exactly what this “center” believes.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM

When I was growing up I also wanted to eventually be the President (along with about 1 in 10 other kids I imagine). The way I envisioned it was planning to be a one term President who would use my 4 years to forge a viable 3rd party. At my 1st State of the Union I would announce I was leaving my party (along with a handful of other moderates from both sides) and forming a centrist 3rd party.

In my head it was awesome.

BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM

The problem with these kinds of analyses is that they don’t add weight to certain, crucial pieces of legislation. So when I hear how John McCain has a lifetime record from the ACU of 82, I’m thinking “how can this be?”

It’s because he votes Republican on the lesser known bills, but on the important votes (Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, amnesty, etc.) he votes leftist.

When you add the weight of importance, you’ll get a much clearer look at just how “conservative” McCain really is.

HYTEAndy on May 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Entelechy, others. Since you people regard yourselves as being part of this “center”, can you explain what it is that you believe, and how it differs from the “left” and “right”?

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM

flenser,

1. You may delight in your own phantasy view of anything.
2. I’m not for illegal immigration.
3. I like my speed perfectly. It has served me exceptionally well.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM

So when I hear how John McCain has a lifetime record from the ACU of 82, I’m thinking “how can this be?”

It’s because he’s been in the Senate for over twenty years. His recent ACU ratings put him squarely in RINO country.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM

flenser, if you don’t know by now what/how I believe, you never will. Google it – there are literally thousands of comments I made here on HA.

Given that you coined me as “slow” I could never explain it to your satisfaction anyway.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Thomas Jefferson was wrong and George Washington was right!
Political parties SUCK!
They are horrible for America for so many reasons, we don’t need a third party (hello Perot?) we need NO parties.

Time for elected officials to be short term and listen to their constituencies not party leaders.

Corruption, tyranny and gerrymandering thats the legacy of the political party system.

Speakup on May 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Entelechy

That was a very non-responsive response. If you think that Reagan was a McCain-style amnesty backer, then make arguments in support of that contention.

If you are admitting that Reagan was NOT such a person, then admit that.

Stop twisting and dodging.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Well, it isn’t a constant either. Back in 1968 the people registered Democrat + the people registered Republican made up a larger portion of the electorate. Back in ’68 each party made up about 50% of voters, now it is closer to 35%. Texas has more Independents now than it has either Republicans or Democrats, in ’68 Texas as decidedly Democrat (probably 70% of voters).

crosspatch on May 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM

flenser, you’re too challenging for my speed. I can’t keep up with your brilliance.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM

It would be interesting to see how Reagan would have charted in all of this.

GT on May 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM

I don’t know how he’d have charted it, but he would have said something like this “The conservative tent is very large, get in it and find a comphy place somewhere, and show some tolerance”. Then he would have won and changed the world, and America, in an impactful way, with lots of shlif, the yammering against him, domestic and global, notwithstanding.

Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Doubtful. It was Reagan who said, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”

Unfortunately, a lot of self-proclaimed Republicans say otherwise. Arnold Schwarzenegger “GOP re-branding” comment for example.

.

GT on May 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM

flenser, if you don’t know by now what/how I believe, you never will. Google it – there are literally thousands of comments I made here on HA.

You’re joking, right? I’m not googling some anonymous blog commenter with a hugly inflated sense of his own importance.

I asked you a simple and civil question. That you give me this evasive nonsense in response tells me all I need to know about your character, whatever about your politics.

flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7