The Radical Obama

The Radical Obama

How radical is Obama? Asked a different way, which side of the political spectrum is pulling away from the median? There are at least two dynamics at play in this conversation; what is the trend of political thought in America today? Are the majority of American’s becoming more “progressive,” more conservative or is the ‘mushy middle’ static? A second question to ask is if the left party is moving further to the left or is the right moving away from the middle. As we all learned in High School Physic’s class, movement is relative to your position. Please bear in mind that these two movements (the parties and the majority of Americans) can be simultaneous. For example, the majority of American voters may be adopting a more progressive voting posture while the party on the right is moving away from the median American political position.

Suppose there is a line. In the precise middle of the line is the number ’50.’ To the right of the number fifty we begin to count down to the number one; 50, 49, 48… To the left of the number fifty we also begin to count down to the number one. If we allow that number 50 to represent the median political position of the average American voter’s self-identified political skew, the number 50 not only represents a politically moderate position but, in simple statistical theory (or the bell curve), the majority of voters are found “on” the number 50 (or right in the middle).

According to author and noted political scientist John Alrich, the historical tendency of our political spectrum is candidates “run to their fringe” (far-right, far-left) in the Primary and veer back toward the middle for the General Election. (In 2012 we watch as political moderate Mitt Romney was unable to veer back to the middle abdicating the voting bloc which ultimately chooses the President). Thus, according to Alrich, empirical studies tell us the nature of our political system is that it moderates both parties towards the middle. Political thought suggests that the candidate whose position most reflects the position of the median (or middle) voters wins the election: this is the Median Voter Theory. Recall, if you dare, Bill Clinton’s successful commandeering of the GOP’s agenda. This tendency towards moderation results in the common impression that there has been no significant difference between the two parties. IE: Republicans spent money as easily as Democrats.

In this ideal model, as the candidate veered back to capture the moderate bloc of voters, a Republican will try to land on the “50 marker” while his Democrat rival does the same. Suppose that the Conservative ‘lands’ on the number 47 whereas the Democrat lands on the number 48. What is the outcome? The result is probably a closely contested race; depending on numerous other factors; history, agenda, money, support, economy…

Now, apply this logic to the GOP today.

In the GOP today there are those within the party that clearly want to move away from the center. There are those that cleave towards ideology over the pragmatic necessity of winning elections. For example, this sort of fixation with losing is exemplified when reality tv personality, children’s author, tabloid subject and failed politician Sarah Palin is invited to C-Pac whereas the highly electable New Jersey Governor Christie is not. This ideological political stance is moving away from the number 50 or middle of the road towards the fringes. In this fictitious example, let’s suppose that leadership leads the party to adopt a political stance that ‘lands’ this sectional bloc of voters on the number 30 (40% away from the median voter). If the opposition party agenda “lands” at the number 40, (a sum movement of 20% towards the left), the opposition has moved the national agenda towards the left AND captured the majority of the median voters. Said slightly differently, moving too far from the ‘mushy middle’ abdicates a majority of the voters to the ‘less radical’ candidate who is none-the-less pulling the center of the voting majority further AWAY from a conservative position?

Now, I know there are some numbers in this example, and that this is nothing more than a simple model designed to help the Party understand that we need our moderate conservatives. The premises is relatively obvious; the more radical either party becomes, the opposition simple needs to be less radical in order to find victory at the polls.

If this model is a relatively good reflection that is worthy of your consideration, how then do we ‘win’ without compromise? The very nature of politics is compromise. If one is unwilling to compromise, then one must provide better ideas AND be able to discuss them at a level that most voters can comprehend. For example, regarding the run-away national debt, I would argue that asking unborn generations of Americans to pay the debt for money spent today is morally repugnant. How selfish can our society really be? And as Paul Ryan finally demonstrated with his idealistic budget proposal, American can neither tax, nor cut, our way out of this dismal fiscal mess. The sooner we belly up to the table with real, pragmatic solutions, the sooner your kids and grandkids to their share of the American dream.

In the end, E.E. Shattschneider suggests that political parties must solve problems in order to win elections. Once a party is no longer able to solve problems it is quickly shoved out of the way by ‘political realignment.’ When fully a third of registered Republican voters view the national party as “too radical” and “out of touch” we are engaged in a losing philosophy wresting match. Said succinctly, at the national level our ideas are not framed as winning positions. The movement of the Republican Party to the right will not ‘save the nation’ but rather abdicate the nation to an opposing political philosophy which, I suspect, most Republicans fear.

Once abdicated, the median voter moves further towards the left of the median 50, thus making it harder to earn their vote without stepping across that magic number 50 and into the ‘left spectrum’ of political ideas. We, the party faithful, must engage in passionate debate armed with better ideas which embrace moderate yet adhering to fundamental Conservative philosophies.

Comments welcome…