Newsweek asserted as fact that America "remains right of center," but a former Wash. Times editor disagrees
SUMMARY: Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe repeated the assertion previously made by Newsweek colleague Jon Meacham that the country "remains right of center." Thomas and Wolffe cited as evidence exit polling that showed more respondents identifying themselves as "conservative" than as "liberal." But political scientists dispute the reliability of voters' identification with political ideologies, and the former editor of The Washington Times' editorial page asserted "the only problem" with conservatives claiming America is a "center-right" country is that "[i]t isn't true. Or at least, not anymore."
In a November 15 article, Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe repeated as fact an assertion previously made by their Newsweek colleague Jon Meacham that notwithstanding sweeping Democratic victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the country "remains right of center." Like several media conservatives, Thomas and Wolffe cited as evidence exit polling that showed more respondents identifying themselves as "conservative" than as "liberal." However, as Media Matters for America has documented, political scientists dispute the reliability of voters' identification with political ideologies, and Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling group, recently released a poll that showed strong support for the progressive positions that President-elect Barack Obama advocated, including the repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy and near-universal health-care coverage. Indeed, Tod Lindberg, the former editor of The Washington Times' editorial page, asserted that "the only problem" with conservatives claiming America is a "center-right" country is that "[i]t isn't true. Or at least, not anymore."
In Newsweek, Thomas and Wolffe wrote:
If there was any one message that defined the Obama campaign from the beginning, it was his promise to rise above the petty politics of division and unite the country. But now comes reality. The newly elected Congress will be left of center, particularly the old liberal bulls that chair committees and form much of the leadership of the House and Senate. The country, on the other hand, remains right of center (exit polls on Election Day show that 22 percent of voters identify themselves as liberal, 33 percent as conservative and 46 percent as moderate). Especially in the Senate, where the Democrats will be perhaps two or three votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster and pass a bill, compromise and coalition-building will be the order of the day. If Obama is to accomplish much of anything, he is going to need all the leadership skills of a Lincoln.
However, as Media Matters noted, in the 2005 edition of American Public Opinion*, Robert S. Erikson and Kent L. Tedin, political science professors at Columbia University and the University of Houston, respectively, questioned the reliability of poll questions that ask voters to self-identify with a political ideology. Erikson and Tedin argued that "the most politically sophisticated segment of the public" can more accurately identify as conservative or liberal based on traditional ideologies. They continued: "But when less sophisticated people respond to the ideological identification question with a response of liberal, moderate, or conservative, we can be less sure of what the response means. At worst, the response represents some idiosyncratic meaning known only to the respondent, or perhaps a doorstop opinion made up on the spot. ... One test is whether the individual can both identify the Republican as the more conservative party and offer a plausible definition of the term conservative. Roughly half the public passes this test of understanding of ideological labels."
In a November 16 Washington Post op-ed, former Washington Times editorial page editor Tod Lindberg also rebutted the claim that self-identification polling proves that the U.S. is a center-right nation, writing that the 2008 election results are "just the latest sign that the country's political center of gravity is shifting from center-right to center-left." Of self-identification exit polls, Lindberg wrote:
True, the percentage of voters describing themselves as "liberal" and "conservative" has held relatively constant over many election cycles, with self-described liberals checking in at 22 percent this time around (up one percentage point over 2004) and self-described conservatives at 34 percent (unchanged from 2004). The numbers may not have changed, but the views behind those labels certainly have. Nowadays, it's a fair bet that most of those calling themselves "liberal" support gay marriage. In 1980, those same liberals were, no doubt, cutting-edge supporters of gay rights, but the notion of same-sex marriage would have occurred only to the most avant-garde. In 1980, having a teenage daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock would have ruled you out for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket. This year, it turned out to be a humanizing addition to the conservative vice presidential nominee's résumé.
Lindberg was identified by the Post as "a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and the editor of Policy Review. He was an informal foreign policy adviser to the McCain campaign."
Additionally, in a November 10 column published on the conservative website American Thinker, frequent contributor and attorney Steven M. Warshawsky criticized the use of self-identification polling by Fox News contributor Karl Rove and Democratic strategist Doug Schoen:
One problem with the analysis offered by Rove and Schoen is that it assumes that voters who identify themselves as "liberal" or "moderate" or "conservative" interpret those labels the same way that Rove and Schoen do. And Rove and Schoen obviously believe that the "moderate" label implies that a person is right-leaning instead of left-leaning. But is this correct? Again, I'm skeptical. Until someone explains why supposedly right-leaning voters flocked to Barack Obama, it seems to me that the notion that such voters are "conservative" should be taken with more than a grain of salt.
On the question of whether the U.S. is a "center-right" country, Warshawsky wrote:
We won't have a good handle on where the country stands ideologically until we see what actually happens over the next two years. Will the American people decide to impose higher taxes on the "rich" to pay for the smorgasbord of social and economic benefits that Obama and the Democrats are promising? If so, we are center-left. Will there be a 1994-style revolt against an overreaching liberal administration? If so, we are center-right. It is too early to say.
* Erikson, Robert S., and Kent L. Tedin. American Public Opinion. 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005.
Since american voters regularly vote against their own ideologies, their ideologies don't matter.
You know you can't trust anyone associated with that wingnut mouthpiece, the Times.
I say, go with what the people say they are, since you like that better than going with what the people are.
Let's see, what does a center right country look like?
* In a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin. The sign solicited $1 entries into "The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool," saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. "Let's hope we have a winner."
* In Idaho, the Secret Service is investigating a "public hanging" sign erected by a man upset with the election outcome, the Bonner County Daily Bee reported Thursday. A handmade sign posted on a tree reads "FREE PUBLIC HANGING" written in large letters beneath a noose fashioned from nylon rope. The most prominent name on the sign is "OBAMA," according to the Bee. "That's a political statement. They can call it whatever they want, a threat or whatever," the creator of the sign, Ken Germana, told the Bee.
* A popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line on Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received. One poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest."
* From the Orange County (Ca.) Register: "Two gang members pleaded not guilty Thursday to hate crime and attempted robbery charges in connection with the beating of a black man who was trying to buy cigarettes at a Fullerton liquor store." The two men shouted racial and anti-Obama epithets in the attack.
* From today's New York Times: "Two white Staten Island men face hate crimes charges after they were arrested on Friday in the beating of a black teenager on the night that Barack Obama was elected president, the police said on Saturday. The teenager, Alie Kamara, 17, was walking home on Pine Place in the Staten Island neighborhood of Stapleton when several men hit him on the head with a baseball bat and yelled 'Obama,' said Aliya Latif, the civil rights director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who was in contact with Alie's family since the attack and spoke to his mother on Saturday after the arrests were announced."
* In Mississippi alone, the American Civil Liberties Union has received more than 10 calls since the staff first reported anti-Obama incidents last Friday, according to the Jackson (Miss.) Free Press.
* In Midland, Mich., a man dressed in full Ku Klux Klan regalia walked around toting a handgun and waving an American flag. Initially denying it, the man eventually admitted to police that the display was a reaction to the Obama victory. "[The man] had a concealed weapon permit and was walking up and down the sidewalk in front of a vehicle dealership while some motorists shouted obscenities at him and others shouted accolades," police told The Saginaw News.
* Parents in Rexburg, Idaho, contacted school officials this week after they learned that 2nd and 3rd graders on a school bus were chanting, "Assasssinate Obama!"
* At the University of Texas in Austin, a racist post on Facebook has cost one student his place on the university football team, according to the Houston Chronicle. Buck Burnette, a sophomore offensive lineman for the fourth-ranked Texas Longhorns, was dismissed from the team on Nov. 5 after posting a racist remark about President-elect Obama as his "status" on the social networking Web site. Burnette posted: "All the hunters gather up, we have a [slur] in the White House," the Chronicle reported.
* AP reports: "While the world watched a Grant Park celebration heralding the election of the first black U.S. president, some white Chicago police officers committed hate crimes against black residents cheering Barack Obama's victory elsewhere in the city, attorneys alleged Thursday." Lawsuits have been filed.
* At Appalachian State University, the administration has expressed disappointment at the numerous times black students have expressed being harassed in residence halls since the election. The Appalachian, a student newspaper serving the university, also reported conversations suggesting Obama may not be alive in 2009 and a t-shirt seen around campus that reads "Obama '08, Biden '09."
* Mentioned in the same article, racist comments were discovered at North Carolina State University last week. Spray-painted in university's free expression tunnel after the election were the phrases, "Kill that n..." and "Shoot Obama," the Appalachian reported. The NAACP has called for the expulsion of the four students accused of the graffitti, the Associated Press reported Thursday.
* The Associated Press revealed on Wednesday, "Police on eastern Long Island are investigating reports that more than a dozen cars were spray painted with racist graffiti, reportedly including a message targeting President-elect Barack Obama. The graffiti included racist slurs and sexually graphic references. At least one resident in the quiet Mastic neighborhood told Newsday her son's car was scribbled with a message threatening to kill Obama."
* Employees at Hampel's Key and Lockshop in Traverse City, Michigan, flew an American flag upside down last Wednesday protesting of the new president-elect, the Traverse City Record-Eagle reported. One worker used a racial slur during an interview with the Record-Eagle: "(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n----- got in," said Hampel's employee Rod Nyland, who later apologized for the comment, according to the Record-Eagle.
* Authorities in Temecula, Calif., found spray-painted graffiti on a city sidewalk containing a swastika and anti-Obama slogan. And from the Los Angeles Times: "Vandals spray-painted swastikas and racial slurs on a house and several cars in Torrance that displayed campaign signs or bumper stickers for President-elect Barack Obama, authorities said Tuesday. The incidents occurred Saturday night in the Hollywood Riviera section of the city, said Sgt. Bernard Anderson. Four separate incidents were reported the next day, he said. No arrests have been made."
* And from Maine: "More than 75 people rallied Sunday against an incident last week in which black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island the day after Barack Obama won the presidential election," according to the Bangor Daily News.
What about the news reporter who was beaten to death? She had appeared in Oliver Stone's 'W' where she played a thinly veiled Anne Coulter clone. It's speculated that she was killed by a disgruntled Coulter fan who didn't appreciate her unflattering portrayal.
Yep, Snoop, there are disgusting idiots as noted above. These go below and beyond the norm, even further than some of the idiots in CA that protested the Prop 8 vote. There are racists, unfortunately, still in this country and I don't think we will ever totally be rid of them. But we can treat them with scorn they deserve. Take names and kick but$.
Interesting, though, that Erickson and Tedin (from the article) don't think people self identify correctly. Are these the same guys that thought the 2004 election was "stolen" because exit polls didn't agree with final results. Perhaps if people lie about their political leanings, they will lie about their vote, you think.
Kinda like the Barclay effect? (I think it was Barclay, where a white person says they will vote for the black candidate but then doesn't). But I think you are correct, there are definitely people who say one thing and do another. What's hard to figure out is how many, how often and how come? ;)
I can be a rather onery grouch when taking a poll, telephone or otherwise, and will answer many times in opposition to what I do. Why, just because I want to mess the pollsters up. Didn't realize there were so many that do so.
That explains the screen name... =p
Yep, missing the prune juice some morning will do that to a guy at times.
As noted elsewhere, some people do not lose well. There maybe racists who do so. Their voices amount to a f*rt in a hurricane.
Media racist enthusiast's and enabler's how much of tomorrow's blood can be laid on your doorsteps?
Hannity again stages another one of his famous propaganda charade.
At a time when the country needs answers to a crisis.. We have a pack of propaganda windbags spouting ego isms on national television.
I sympathise with his viewers since apparently he does'nt care for them.
Two thoughts...
First, there are no standardized criteria for determining what conservative is. The exit poll deals with self-identification. How many of those people might have explained their answer with, "I am conservative, but..."
Secondly, the term liberal has been so demonized by the right wing it does not surprise me that many people are reluctant to describe themselves as liberal.
Whenever I hear this assertion that America is a right of center nation I ask "Then why did the country elect a person who was described as its most liberal Senator?".
In both cases the standard labels have been demonized by the opposition. There is no standard criteria for either side (at least to me). I'm fiscally conservative, but on many social issues I'm more moderate than my conservative friends, even being to the left of some of my "liberal" friends on certain issues. I think many of us on both sides could say that we are more moderate than our public labels tend to make us. I don't know what percentage. I do know that the Ds have been given the opportunity to govern. If they do a good job in the eyes of the electorate, they will hold their jobs. If they don't, the pendulum will swing to the right again. On the whole, I would say the country is within 10 points of dead center, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right. To the forthcoming government, I say, "Good Luck"
I'd agree with that. I claim liberal, but certainly have moderate concerns when it comes to taxes and largess. Wanna know a snoopy conundrum? Imagine owning a diesel semi that I lease to trucking companies while I worry about the quality and quantity of clean burning gasoline. There's one to keep ya up at nights!
And how about that old Sopwith Camel you use to keep chasing the Red Baron over the skies of France? I'm sure you are buying carbon offsets for the Diesel truck, right?
Nope, but I did sleep at a holiday inn - oops, I mean created a sub chapter S corp.! And my wife and daughter have the honda hybrids, and we only use the energy efficient light bulbs, and I really, really want to put in solar power now that I found a solar panel worth buying...
http://www.uni-solar.com/uploadedFiles/0.4.1_pvl_136_tech_data_sheet.pdf
Thanks for the link! Any idea of cost?
You could spend up to $15,000 easily if you want battery backup, but I have another link I need to dig up about state by state sponsored rebates if you go solar. In texas you can get up to $14,000 back based on cost, equipment and provider for instance. Last time I calculated I could get the system I wanted down to around $9,000 which is about 5% of the cost of my house. If I installed and were to sell later common sense says I could likely recover most if not all of the installation costs. Ping me tomorrow and I will look up that other link. (I'm drinking tonight! tee hee!)
That figure included the texas and federal rebates, BTW.
(root) Beer, I assume. I'll have to look into state credits, probably will email the vendor for local installers (or it may be a business opportunity.)
Oscar, I'm home now! ;)
Here's the link I mentioned, gives all state and federal incentives for green solutions. Includes expiration dates, but might need some updates. A real good start. Hope this helps, sounds like you have a business plan in the works!
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/maphomeowner.cfm?State=TX&CurrentPageId=1&RE=1&EE=1
Very good post Oscar!! I'm in your camp I have voted Democrat and Republican. This Administration will need luck and foresight. So far by what the media is reporting it looks very much like the Clinton administration. I wanted change I did not want a rehash of a administration of 8 years ago. Keeping in mind and the lesson's ;earned from the rehash of a administration the Jr. borrowed from Sr.!!
Excellent points Oscar. I agree wholeheartedly. As a fervent Obama supporter I can attest to the fact that there is at least one moderate/possibly right of center/possibly left of center who voted for Obama. Politically I can be all over the place but on a whole I consider myself left of center. But when compared to some of the guys here I am close to Reagan:-) Anyway, before anyone can loudly proclaim that America is now Leftcenter, we must remember a couple of things Obama campaigned on. One thing he routinely talked about was how government can't solve everything. He also was very vocal about personal responsibility. He was very outspoken about the irresponsibility of fathers especially in poor black neighorboods. He talked about parents being more responsible in monitoring what their children watch on t.v., he indicated that parenst must play a more responsible role in their childrens education, etc., etc.. Now I know such stances are not exclusive to conservatives but I think it is certainly debatable as to whether those specific things are perceived as being "conservative" or right of center by the public. Whether this is caused by misconceptions about liberals is not the point. The point is that conservatives have taken the idea of "personal responsibility" and made it their own. So when Obama spoke of these things it certainly grabbed my attention and I would submit that it appealed to many independent voters as well.
My guess is that in the end Obama is going to govern more in line with the "third way" espoused by Clinton. I think we will all be the better because of that. If he tries to govern from too far left I do indeed think the pendulum will swing right. I guess I really think that America is more dead center than center left or center right.
"Whether this is caused by misconceptions about liberals is not the point. The point is that conservatives have taken the idea of "personal responsibility" and made it their own."
That doesn't follow. Remember, you were talking about whether America is actually "leftcenter" or not. If there's nothing inconsistent between preaching responsibility and being liberal, then Obama's comments and the way people reacted to them say nothing about America being right of center in general. In other words, if it's all based on a misconception, then that doesn't reflect the reality that you started off talking about.
I shudder to think how eager you were to pour over my post in a search of flawed logic. Of course that is predictable since that is always your line of attack. I guess you feel you must do that since you seem to have self appointed yourself "logic monitor." Why you insist on taking others people thoughts and twisting them into this philosophical pretzel is beyond me. I guess you are just way too deep for me man.
That being said, it is quite obvious that you have misconstrued my post in your ever present effort to satisfy some kind of belief that you are somehow intellectually superior to others who post here. Here's the thing Brab, you conveniently left out the sentence before the one you quoted me on,in which I wrote:" Now I know such stances are not exclusive to conservatives but I think it is certainly debatable as to whether those specific things are perceived as being "conservative" or right of center by the public." I would submit to you that overall the American people do in fact perceive the issues Obama spoke of as being a "right of center" line of thinking. More importantly, from a social values standpoint, I would submit that Americans remain right of center. Prop 8 in California is a good snapshot of this. If you disagree with my opinion then fine, but I challenge you to point to another Democratic candidate (other than Bill Clinton i.e. Sista Souljah moment) who has openly campaigned on personal responsibility and social values. Tell me of another Democratic leader who has openly discussed our soical problems as being caused in part by lack of personal respnsibility and then openly declaring that government can't solve everything. Tell me of one Democratic leader who has had the courage to stand up and say this: ""We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one." Why do you think Jesse Jackson was so angered at Obama? Was it because Obama ran around preaching "left of center" ideology? Could it be that Obama openly took to task black fathers who lacked personal responsibility? Perhaps it was Obama's open support of Bush's "Faith Based Inititatives." Were those specific things perceived as being "left of center" ideologies by the public or "right of center" ideolgies by the public? My contention is that the American public does in fact perceive these things to be "right of center" which in turn assisted Obama in appealing to independents as more moderate on social issues.
The basis in this instance was that it is my belief that the American public does in fact perceive personal responsibility to be more of a right center ideology than a left center ideology. So again, whether this is caused by misconseption is not the point. The point is that conservatives have taken the idea of personal responsibility and made it their own. If you disagree with that, then let's hear it, but if all you got is some kind of sophmoric philosophical meandering about what "I" really meant then take that $h!t elsewhere.
There's nothing in my post to warrant your hostility. I was perfectly calm and civil to you, I just happened to read your post and that jumped out at me, so I responded. It's not like I saw your name and I put on a pair of glasses and hunched over the keyboard drooling over some possible way of attacking you. I also have no idea where I misconstrued what you 'really meant", other than saying you were talking about the country being truly right of center. You supported that interpretation explicitly here.
I didn't conveniently leave out anything. I viewed it as redundant to the quote I posted. If that attitude is not exclusive to Republicans, then "personal responsibility" is something that will appeal to people across the spectrum, and so it can't be used as evidence of a "rightcenter" national view. Whether conservatives "claimed it as their own" or not, that doesn't change the persepective of individual liberal or Democratic voters who share his sentiments. It's not like they're going to think "hmm, I agree with that, yet it's an inherently conservative view because conservatives say so". And saying that Obama did things that appeal to Republicans isn't suggestive of anything anyway. The nation can be leaning left and have a candidate appeal to the right at the same time. It's also entirely possible for a candidate to be genuinely more conservative in some aspects and still win in a centerleft country. Certain specific things don't make him more conservative overall, he can still be on the left side of the spectrum.
What if Obama hadn't done the things you talked about and still won just because people are unhappy with Republicans? I wouldn't take that as evidence of any general political leaning. It's important to note that personalities and politics interfere with an honest reading of the public's view of the issues. People aren't necessarily voting for someone considering every position they hold, and you basically have a choice of two people anyway. Polls are a better indicator. Look at the national trends on the issues. Those show what people believe, completely independent of any actions taken by any candidate. People can support gay rights in general while gay marriage is banned in California. People could lean left on the issues while McCain got elected (if Bush did a good job, of course).
If you want to say that people might perceive America to be more right-center because of these things, that's one thing. Using them as evidence of the actual political mindset of the country is another. That's just my humble opinion, if I am allowed to express it. Thank you kindly.
Chris,
You make perfect sense. The point is the whole "left" or "right" of center argument is largely based on perception anyway. It's not a measureable concept in any specific way and is perceived by many differently depending on their definition of the terms.
It is an arguable point that will be debated until the next "wave" of ideology sweeps the country, for some to try and narrow it down to some reality based argument is essentially meaningless.
You're right. Wolfe, Thomas, Meecham, and apparently many others, perceive the country to be slightly right-of-center. MMFA has a different perception, and so cleverly retorts that Wolfe and co. are wrong. There's so many different ways to measure a person's ideology that it's ridiculous for anyone to categorically make generalizations on the matter, one way or the other. In any event, what's deemed "conservative" or "liberal" seems constantly to be shifting . . .
And most of the time around here The Washington Times is dismissed as some Moonie rag worthy of a puppy's squat, but not this time.
The point would be that even a conservative paper admits we're not right-of-center. They don't have much of a reason to be dishonest about that.
So you only give credence to publications when you agree with their opinion, and when you don't, they're dirt. Got it.
No. If Olbermann says something negative about Palin, many conservatives would just brush it off as bias. If he says something negative about Obama, that perceived bias would give him credence in their eyes, since what he is saying goes against it. Not to equate their respective behavior, of course, just to show that it's not about whether I personally agree with something or not.
You either have journalistic credibility, or you don't. It shouldn't change when there is evidence of bias or not. Either you hold up The Washington Times as a credible source whether you agree or not. Same with Olbermann.
The Times doesn't need to have journalistic credibility in order to make this argument, though. That's not what this is about. The bias (and record of behavior) that makes them a questionable source of information also gives their declarations against their own interests more weight.
"The bias (and record of behavior) that makes them a questionable source of information also gives their declarations against their own interests more weight"
That is ridiculous, and a complete contradiction.
Why is that? What is the contradiction?
I already explained it to you. You either are credible or you are not. Period. If you can't see the contradiction in what you wrote, then I can't help you.
Besides, this is off topic. I am sorry if I introduced it, but the topic is left or right center, not this.
I explicitly said that the Times doesn't need credibility for this. Your point was addressed, and you didn't respond to that.
Just out of curiosity, who do you think is a credible journalist?
I'm really curious--since I'm asking an opinion, there isn't a right or wrong answer here. I just want to know who you think provides the most accurate information.
Democrats control both houses of Congress, now by confortable margins, and have made gains in each of the last two elections.
Democratic Governors outnumber Republican Governors 28-22.
The Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections.
Younger voters trend both Democratic and more Liberal.
Without serious changes, or a major screw-up on the part of President Obama, Center-Right is over and the Republicans as we know them are dead. They will either move to the Center, fundamentally changing in order to survive OR move to the Right at the behest of the Funny-Mentalists and continue to represent a diminsihing voter base.
Or they will redefine what the right is as they have done in the past. The just-right-of-center conservative of today wouldn't have been considered a conservative at all 30 years ago.
Dead for 8 years at least. Looking back over recent history, one Party has held the White House at the most for 20 consecutive years (FDR/Truman). The next closest is 12 years (Reagan/BushI). Other than that the pendulum has swung every 4 or 8 years, depending on the performance of the Party in control. Call us center left or center right, but you have to emphasize the "center".
True, but you are giving PARTY examples, not IDEOLOGY.
Look at: Civil Rights, Roe v Wade, Women's equality, Social Welfare, Stem Cell Research, Environmental Protection, Gay Rights, etc...
In so many ways we are continuing to become more "progrssive" and the "conservative" position continues to evolve to keep up. (The old position dies and a new, more progressive position replaces it as waht they are trying to 'conserve.') You can say center-right or center-left or what ever, but you cannot deny that the policies that are supported by all are continually becoming more progressive.
Social Progress is inevitable. FIghting it is a losing proposition, it's only a question of when. (Makes you wonder why anyone really wants to fight it anyway!)
We WILL have universal gay marriage at some point. It's inevitable. We WILL have universal health care. That's also inevitable. Conservatives try to fight change, but change is inevitable. progress is inevitable. We, as a species, a people and a country, cannot go back. Not in any meanigful or lasting way. The next Republican president will not be able to change this. W. tried, and he brought down his party in flames.
We will absolutely vote republican again at some point, but that candidate will be more accepting of the "new center" than the current one, and that "new center" is bound to be to the left of where we are now. That's how it goes.
(BTW - The Democrats did manage to hold the WH for 24 years, though you're right in that it wasn't "recently" - Jefferson (8), Madison (8) and Monroe (8). That ended because John Q. (a "National Republican") stole the next ellection from Jackson who went on, 4 years later, to serve two terms himself, followed by Van Buren who also served 4. That 36 out of Forty Years! So it can happen, esp. when a party implodes the way the Federalists (and later the Whigs) did.)
"Younger voters trend both Democratic and more Liberal."
You've put your finger on it here, Ed. In 1980 and '84, 60 % of younger voters went for Reagon, and the country was arguably center-right for the next two-plus decades. (People who study these things say that the first two votes in a national election tend to solidify party identity.) In the past few years the implications of conservative rule have become more apparent, and we don't like it. The young voters went Democratic in 2006, and they went 66 % for Obama. This would indicate that the country is moving inexorably to the Left. As far as actually policy preferences go, the country has been to the left of where it actually thinks it is for a long time. We can thank Frank Luntz and the packagers of language for the demonization of "Left and Liberal." Actually, you can go back through McCarthy to Adolph for said demonization.
It's all about the language, and we on the left have allowed the right-wing to demonize the word 'liberal' and canonize 'conservative.'
So, now the word of choice for our particular worldview is 'progressive.'
I suspect if you give voters a chance to identify as either 'progressive' or 'conservative' you will get 'poll-ar' opposites to what the current exit polling found.
My apologies, scootman. If I'd read more carefully I wouldn't have included my last two sentences, which echoed what you'd said more elegantly.