Another fallacy of 'appealing to the middle': the middle isn't static.

[Telly Savalas]

What constitutes the political center is constantly changing. Sometimes this change can happen pretty fast. For instance, shortly after 9/11, Bush had nearly a 90% approval rating, so clearly the position of the middle then was to back the president. His sagging numbers now indicate that the centrist position is to regard him with skepticism. Likewise with the Iraq War, a couple of years ago the centrist position was that it was a good idea, now polls suggest the majority thinks it was a bad idea.

In the longer term, examples are clearer and more numerous. (e.g. the center now clearly recognizes "separate but equal" to be a disgusting approach to race relations, in contrast to 80 years ago when it was the widely approved norm.)

The consequence of this is that rather than "chasing the middle", perhaps the Democratic Party needs to be more aggressive in defining what the middle really is. Policies which are considered left-wing in the U.S., like say a single-payer universal healthcare system, are regarded as the common sense way of doing things in most other industrialized nations. If the Democratic Party were to show some real leadership, we could create a similar political climate in the United States.

[Maple]

1. That's the whole point of being the middle

The middle doesn't depend on ideology...it goes with the flow. What the people want.

Only occasionally does a party or it's leader have to push or pull a country in a different direction...and you do it by persuading people.

[TwilightZone]

2. I somewhat disagree.

I don't think that the middle - or the left or right, for that matter - move much at all in the short term.

Bush's post-9/11 90% rating, for example, was nothing more than a reaction by the public to the shock of 9/11. It did not indicate a significant shift in the political landscape, contrary to what the media and the Republicans would like us to believe. Americans rallied behind Bush immediately after 9/11 because they felt that the US was under attack. That boost was quite short-lived.

We need to be careful not to accept polls, particularly polls based on an event or one specific issue, as proof of significant changes in the political landscape. The post-9/11 support, for example, does not equate to wholesale voter changes in positions elsewhere in social or economic arenas.

And, obviously, we aren't "most other industrialized nations", and Americans tend to rail against the "everyone else does it" rationale.

[Jade Fox]

3. The difference between Bush's approval rating....

now and 6 months ago is astounding!

Not only is the middle not static, it's downright unstable. It would seem to
indicate that many Americans are mostly confused and don't know what
to think. Of course, the Right has done quite a bit to foster that confusion.
But the Democrats should take that as an indication it is time for clarity.

[xray s]

4. Democrats have to move the middle

Good post.

I am sick of being told we can't bring up issues like expanding Medicare to cover all citizens of criticizing Bush' war for oil and defense industry profits, because the public "in the middle" isn't ready for it.

It's the job of the Democratic party to move the middle. Not just be Republican lite.

[welshTerrier2]

5. the common enemy remains constant

I see a country that aspires to democracy but is moving further and further away from it every day ... "one man (or woman), one vote" has been replaced by a government that is sold to the highest bidder ... foreign policy is about protecting multi-nationals from global political and market instabilities ... who do you think is spending billions to whisper in your Congressman's ear?

we are losing our democracy ... for me, all the other issues are "pretend" ... they are "pretend" not because they are unimportant but because we are too weak to bring about the changes we seek ... you either have a voice or you don't ...

and domestic policy? the recent Medicare debacle was written by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists ... does anyone really believe the corporate profit motive didn't define the terms of the new law? do you think HMO's might have made a buck or two when the law was passed?

both foreign and domestic policies are being written for and by corporate interests ...

this is not a left/right divide ... the average citizen has virtually no power to shape the direction of the country ... the values that average citizens hold, be they left, center or moderate, are subjugated to the will of the greediest, wealthiest and most powerful ... to have a relatively equal voice is THE ISSUE ...

with this understanding, and understanding that we are all sinking in the same little boat, there is only one battle, only one issue ... viewing the world through the very narrow but exacting lens of a loss of democracy, we are all brothers and sisters in the same struggle ... to see and hear the petty bickering with so much at stake is a most distressing business ...

the bottom line is, a house divided cannot stand ... our goal should not be unity for the sake of unity ... our goal should be to lose the labels and get down to ironing out the details ... in the end, we may have disagreements ... many of these disagreements are likely to be more of degree than of direction ... our differences are small compared to the really big issues on which we all agree ...

[applegrove]

6. Yes it changes. That is why you want some of your candidates policies

to appeal to the middle. Some to the grass roots.

In a good democracy people know they don't always get what they want - but they'll get some of the things they need.

Remember Reagam Democrats? I bet you they are some of the ones rejected Bush in the polls these last few months.