Is the electorate about to take a big lurch to the right?

[cali]

And I don't just mean in MA. I think the signs are there. The political movement with the most energy is the teabagger movement. It may be astroturf in its origins but it's clearly struck a real chord and its not an anti-corporate chord as some people want to think; it's a peculiar mixture: It's a xenophobic, racist, anti-government, anti-intellectual chord that's as old as U.S. history.

The Right is simpler. Anti-big government it may be but it's pro-authoritarian, and in an age of anxiety a lot of people look for simple linear "solutions" with a strong authoritarian streak.

Some part of the Progressive movement is clearly dispirited, though this doesn't account for the lurch to the right, it does feed into it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. For once cali, I agree.

We've been at the bottom of a rightward "pendulum shift" for some time now.

It's actually advanced after Bush got elected in 2000, not retreated.

The famous report on the political beliefs of the new Millenial Generation
now coming of age

(our very own McCarthy Generation)

was the warning shot across the bow.

The Millenials swarmed to Dems because they thought the Dems would become
the new majority party for a still-rightward-shifted nation,

i.e. that the Party ID would shift to accomodate disaffected Bush voters,
not that people's underlying ideology would shift to discredit the policies of Bush.

The reports people gave of why they voted for obama quoted in Chris Matthew's
MLK day town hall meeting on race and the first year of Obama's presidency was
another warning shot, college students saying they voted for Obama because he
was black as a "cool" and "hip" thing to do, without really agreeing with Dem
policies, aside from social liberalism of course the new generation is statistically
quite conservative on non-social issues. The social liberalism might actually
enhance this since they view any attempts to enact social justice as an affront
to moral relativism, pragmatism, and Horatio Alger economics that are the
traditional hallmarks of a blase urban pseudo-progressive mentality.
(pardon my pontificating, just my personal opinion)

If anything, the past year and a half has been a festival of Bush and
his notions being "rehabilitated" and "legitimated" in an effort to appeal
to former Bush voters who took a chance on Obama.

Just like Dems did in 93.

Unfortunately this makes them look weak. Why get a pseudo-Republican
when you can have the real thing?

[zbdent]

7. thank you, "liberal media" ...

[clear eye]

2. "The political movement with the most energy is the teabagger movement"

Um, no. The political movement w/ the most corporate press coverage is the teabaggers. The numbers in their pitiful demos never warrant the sort of press amplification they get. Anti-war demos are frequently larger and blacked out by the media. Of course the teabaggers never have to worry about their leaders being arrested as "terrorists" under the Patriot Act provisions, so are free to organize w/o interference. The peace group demos never seem to generate the same endless speculation by opinionators of the MSM about why are there so many opposed to the President's policies, or what will the gov't do in response, as happens when 20 or so Teabaggers come out.

What have you read lately about Cindy Sheehan's peace camp movement, Peace of the Action? Doesn't mean they aren't organizing large numbers of people.

[cali]

4. nope, I'm sorry. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not.

Certainly the MSM feeds the teabagger movement and empowers it, but it's a real political influence. According to more than one poll, the teabaggers are more popular than either dems or repubs. They're fielding candidates. Anti-war demonstrations do not a political movement make. And no, Cindy Sheehan is not organizing people anywhere close to the level that the far right in the form of teabaggers is.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and loudly hum but there's too much evidence for any reasonable person to play pretend.

[karynnj]

33. This might have been true in August, but not now

The fact is that most of the left protest movements are nowhere what they were in 2002/2003. The election of Obama took a huge amount of the energy away. This is not to say that Cindy Sheehan does not have activists, or there is no one protesting torture. There was a protest of the School of Americas and there have been people protesting the CIA/John Yoo etc on torture. I know people who did both. But, even here, on DU these things are barely covered.

I agree with you that the media has given the tea partiers better press than they deserved. Anger is explainable, but the fact is the type of rude disruption they encouraged at the town halls was despicable. The media playing for entertainment or agenda covered those where the disruption led to chaos or poor answers. How many, not in the DU JK group, even heard anything about the townhall Kerry did in Somerville? Likely no one, as Kerry asked the mostly positive crowd to politely let a right winger ask a question and stop booing - which they immediately did - Kerry then responded seriously to the question. I would assume that that was more typical than the town halls the media showed. (Daily Kos had a diary of what went right at a Northwestern Indiana town hall - where the mix was likely more typical than Kerry's. That town hall was not show either.)

The other thing is the media. Radio seems to belong almost totally to the right. Newspapers are using the conservative biased AP for more of their reporting as they cut staff. When even the NYT has people working on the issue of remaining profitable, a free press is in grave danger - and there is no way blogs replace that. With the exception of MSNBC evening programs, which are to the left - all three cable networks have been hostile to healthcare calling it dead at regular intervals. Except for MSNBC being better, this is nearly as bad as the media was in 2004 - and even with having the Presidency (filled by an engaging, charismatic President), we seem to be losing the PR battle. It is very hard to counter the mass media.

[wuvuj]

3. Wouldn't take much to turn this country....

...to deep fascism. People are polarized....jobs gone.


Reminds me of Dumb and Dumber out on a limb. The only way to change things is to go back in towards the tree. The limb has cracked and dropped down a few times and has been repaired over and over. Dumb and Dumber are still out on the limb doing even more of the same.

When the bough breaks....Dumb and Dumber done gonna get hurt.

[saigon68]

5. 10,000 people participated in this Outrage---Marion, Indiana 1930

15 years before I was born

Needless to say a lot of them prayed to Jayzeus the week before in their lily white churches.

Things in my opinion have not changed a whole lot since then,



Lynching 1930 (Life Magazine)

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm18.html

A mob of 10,000 whites took sledgehammers to the county jailhouse doors to get at these two young blacks accused of raping a white girl; the girl’s uncle saved the life of a third by proclaiming the man’s innocence. Although this was Marion, Ind., most of the nearly 5,000 lynchings documented between Reconstruction and the late 1960s were perpetrated in the South. (Hangings, beatings and mutilations were called the sentence of “Judge Lynch.”) Some lynching photos were made into postcards designed to boost white supremacy, but the tortured bodies and grotesquely happy crowds ended up revolting as many as they scared.

MY TAKE:

Note the smiling faces and the exuberance of the crowd, as the deed "Gets Done"

[zbdent]

8. come now ... those were upright "community organizers"!

of their day ...

(edited to change leaders to organizers)

[saigon68]

36. They certainly got the "Voters" out

Also the Christians too.

[zbdent]

37. early voter "intimidation" ...

in the days before the camcorders and the internet ...

[Juche]

6. Possibly

Thomas Frank and Bill Moyers were talking about this recently.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/transcript1.html


They were both kindof worried that after destroying the US on many many fronts (lying us into an unnecessary war, destroying our reputation, bankrupting the country, tons of corruption problems, ignoring major issues) they may be making a comeback after being out of power for 11 whole months.


Take California. They have tons of complex problems so they recall their elected governor and hire a celebrity. Now that celebrity is unpopular too. And California is a fairly liberal state.

So no idea what will happen in the US. I think part of it is anti-incumbency, and part of it is fear of one party rule. However I don't think personally that people are indulging the viewpoints and beliefs of the GOP wholesale.

The teabaggers are fear driven reactionaries who probably represent 20% of the electorate.

[KharmaTrain]

9. A Lot Of Anger & Confusion Out There...

As has been said many times, elections are won in the middle. It is that "soft" 20% who either call themselves independents or undeclared that generally make the difference in a close election. In '08, disgust with the rushpublicans...especially booosh as well as President Obama's positive message swung a lot of that middle to the Democrats...but that was then, this is now. In politics, it's what have you done for me lately.

We've been through a year of economic hardships with few answers that people can feel. While the economy didn't collapse, that's little solace for a family that has seen jobs vanish, prices continue to rise and banks stuffing their pockets. While there was focus on health reform it turned into insurance reform that appears to be a sell-out to the insurance companies. Perceptions play strong and this is where I see the political winds blowing. Compound this with a non-stop howl from the right, assisted by the corporate media and that perception has hardened. Sadly we've seen it take hold here on DU as well.

What is appearing to be a problem is Democratic candidates are being framed as inept and unfortunately, we've seen a string of poorly run campaigns that are also getting media attention. We don't hear about Hoffman's loss in NY...but Corzine's and Deeds. Again, the perception is what matters as it allows opponents to focus that attention on the Democrats who aren't prepared to counter or just can't match the fire and intensity.

Unfortunately I suspect we'll have a long night in Massetchussets as this frustration will push Brown's voters to the polls and keep Coakley's at home. It's whose voters are more motivated...Brown's feel the blood in the water, Coakley's are panicking...and the cushy middle has swung to the side with momentum...the one that can claim not to be the status quo. It's not being Progressive or Conservative...it's all about anger at where things are at as far as the economy and the ineptness of this government to address the problems.

[frogcycle]

10. They'll soon be shouting Guillotine! Guillotine!

[seabeckind]

11. Sadly, I'm afraid there's no other direction it can go

The idea of left/right, dem/repub, is a fallacy. Those with the power and money don't care about the label. All they care about is maintaining and expanding what they have. They use the labels much like a child changes the situation from the parents united against his behavior to arguing between each other as he walks away unscathed to continue his misbehavior.

As long as Aetna, Verizon, BofA, Exxon, etc, get what they want they don't care what the letter after the name is. Just a different name on the check for them.

While I think the tea folks are total morons and totally misinformed I think they are right -- just pointed wrong. They see gov't as the problem rather than the true problem, corporate interests controlling the gov't.

Until we get some true populist candidates we will continue on our rightward swing. The last one of those I saw was RFK.

Or we have a situation where the current occupant of the WH becomes a populist.

[howard112211]

12. The left is exhausted. It has put alot into getting Obama elected.

Large parts of the left are still "on hold" waiting for him to perform.

Furthermore, as you state yourself, criticism from the left often is seen as "undermining our guy". So why bother to hit the streets? Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.

The Teabagger movement is ideologically what the NSDAP was in 1930s Germany. As you say, they are anti-intellectual and also anti-communist,
looking for simple authoritarian solutions, blaming immigrants and foreigners for domestic problems and militaristic.

However, I doubt they will produce a right-wing populist leader. The same mechanisms that prevent progressive change will prevent them from
gaining immediate influence on a national level. The coorporations remain in charge.

[cali]

13. corporatism under the dems may be malignant

with repukes in charge it's malignant on steroids.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Then hell, let's go all the way down and "hit bottom?"

That's the only way we can RE-CONSTRUCT this hell hole of a Party as it is now? :shrug:

[cali]

24. huh? what on earth are you trying to say?:

[ShortnFiery]

26. Something that you can not fathom. I say, let it get REAL BAD, because until

the American People are truly hurting financially, we'll still SERVE the multi-national corporations.

I'm saying, straight up and IMO, the sooner the average American realizes that our Political System is an abject failure and corrupt, THE SOONER WE CAN ENACT CHANGES.

If we allow the corporate democrats serve the middle class up to the upper 1%, we'll still realize abject poverty. However, IF the GOP goes right-wing, we JUST MAY be able to wake up the American Middle Class before we succumb to full totalitarian rule. A small chance for correction.

It's a risk, but at this point I regret the the RESULT of either party rule will end up with the same result: Gutting the Middle Class into non-existence. :(

[cali]

29. your utter lack of compassion is not a progressive value.

so let things get really bad and let hundreds of thousand suffer and die? Well, you and yours might be some of those people who suffer terribly and perish in what you wish for. hope you're prepared to see your children dying in order to achieve the change you want.

sick shit from you.

[ShortnFiery]

31. No, I do not lack compassion. I'd suggest that you look in the mirror.

"sick shit from you." :eyes:

[cali]

32. your posts suggest that you care more about some rigid political dogma

than those who will suffer and die if what you wish for, comes to pass.

yeah, that's ugly sick shit.

[ShortnFiery]

34. The only "ugly sick shit" around here is your penchant for insults to those who don't

agree with you. ;)

[ShortnFiery]

22. Our Guy may not Bomb Iran but he's still enriching the upper 1% off the backs of the middle class.

Even with a Democratic President, we're still lurching toward fascism: Enriching the corporations of the MIC and Wall Street ahead of developing new manufacturing opportunities and jobs for the Middle class.

Fascism is FASCISM whether or not OUR President has a "D" or an "R" after his name.

[leveymg]

14. No. The GOP and MSM will try to spin it that way. The mood is anti-incumbent, anti-corporate, anti-

globalization. The Blue Dog Democratic leadership has failed to deliver, so the people are junking them. We'll see a split in both parties as the ideological activists move away from the multinational corporate-dominated center.

If both populist groups could form a strategic alliance, there is a possibility of a sort of political revolution in America overturning the current ruling elites. If they won't, expect something more like a civil war.

[cali]

15. really? what's the evidence for that?

are you suggesting that the people are dumping blue dogs in favor of right wing repukes because the people want more progressive legislation? And unfortunately, they really aren't anti-corporate on the right. they're far, far more anti-"big government".

There is no possibility of an alliance with racist, xenophobic, shrink the government, fuck social program teabagger types.


Anyone- and that include Hartmann- who thinks there is, is delusional.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Don't Think The Average American Thinks As "Globally" As You Do

He looks at his financial situation and those of his neighbors and punishes or rewards the party that is responsible for it.

[a kennedy]

16. I think you might be right, simple minds, think for simple solutions.....

D*mn. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Orsino]

18. President Obama is no longer the Next Big Thing.

Americans seem ready to return to obeying their televisions. Our flirtation with the trappings of progressivism may be over.

[AlinPA]

19. I think PA will have the same dynamic as MA with Specter against Toomey.

Toomey is a younger right-wing teabagger type and Specter is worn out. IMO, a lot people in PA are suspicious of Specter who switched to being a Democrat because he had no chance in the republican primary against Toomey. Unless we get Joe Sestak to win the Democratic primary we could very well be faced with the same situation as MA here in PA.

[cali]

21. ugh. I forgot about Toomey. He's like another Rick Santorum.

[Toots]

20. The Administration has assured us Liberals have no where else to go

They will be forced to vote Democratic no matter what obscenity is forced upon us..As the last two elections have shown, there are more Democrats than Republicans so no one needs to worry.. We have been told by the Administration this is true and we know they would NEVER Lie to us..

[depakid]

25. Only if the leadership fails to stand up to them and fight back

Bill Moyers and Thomas Frank (of what's the matter with Kansas) discuss this here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/145249/bill_moyers_%26_thomas_frank%3A_how_america%27s_demented_politics_let_the_gop_off_the_hook_for_their_giant_mess

Well worth the read.

[HughBeaumont]

27. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Let's move toward the direction . . .

. . . of the people who got us INTO this mess in the first place, and make things potentially WORSE! Maybe even completely beyond REPAIR if we're lucky!

I'd expect nothing less from the impatient "always go with a winner" people of this country. Keep electing Reagan-on-steroids Republicans or "corporations-need-everything-first" Democrats. Way easier than curing the disease itself.

[iceman66]

28. It will if our party doesn't get its act together ASAP.

The ball was very clearly in our court after the 2008 election, and our leaders messed up big time.

[karynnj]

30. The new "Know Nothings"?

The combination you mention of authoritarian and xenophobic, racist, anti-government, anti-intellectual is incredibly scary. I wonder if September 2008 was almost as big a threat to their economic sense of security as September 2001 was to their National Security. In reality, 2008 REALLY hit more people than 2001 did.

With the progressive movement, I think there are at least 2 factors. The first is that out of power, a movement or party has the "easy" task of generating outrage and fighting the "bad guys". Everything is simple, get rid of the bad guys and we can start making everything better.

The second is that the progressive movement essentially adopted Obama - mentally seeing him as really to the left of anything he specially said. There is also some revisionist history here as the furthest left mostly latched onto John Edwards and later were split between HRC and Obama. But as the GE started, he became the progressive savior, with few noting that the only 2 frontrunners in 2004, Dean and Kerry, were both more progressive and especially Kerry was more liberal. Obama was the superstar and everyone wanted to claim him as one of theirs. now, when he is governing, the disillusionment is that he appointed Geitner, Summers at al on the economy, Daschle and then Seblious to haed HHS, and a national security team where everyone was to what we perceived as his right.

On foreign policy, he sounded to me like he was more to the left than he really was, but I suspect that was because Kerry was his main surrogate on that. I very likely mentally attributed things Kerry said, even when not speaking for Obama, to Obama. Looking back, Obama himself really was pretty vague on many foreign policy issues. But, it also has been true that his background has given him an advantage speaking on cultural issues. Still, on foreign policy, I assumed someone like Kerry and got Clinton/Gates/McChrystal. But either choice could have fit Obama's own comments and record.

On domestic issues, there really was almost no difference between HRC and Obama - or for that matter Edwards. The biggest difference on HCR was on mandates - with Obama said to be LESS progressive because he did not have them. Here most of assumed Kennedy/Dean/Kerry/Durbin and got something more like Daschle/Reid/Baucus. Again, either choice would have fit Obama's words.

One interesting thing in the Halperin book is the Reid story that was pretty much conceded by Reid. With the brouhaha over the words, there has been little attention given the really big story. That is amazing as it means that the narrative all of us had for the election was wrong. From the outside, it looked like Obama's only Senate support before he opted to run was Durbin and Daschle who was out of the Senate- and only after Iowa and NH did John Kerry and then some lesser known Conservative Democrats and top liberals (Leahy) and later Kennedy endorse him. In reality, at least in early 2006, people like Reid and Schumer were pushing him to run. While many progressives want to see Obama as having come out of the left, it looks like he had the centrists support before he had the support of the liberal wing. (I was very persuaded by the Kerry/Kennedy endorsements, but had already leaned to Obama because I had ruled out the other two and saw no one on the second tier who didn't seem too weak. )

Part of the progressive disillusionment might be that we saw what we wanted to see and in the excitement of fall 2008 we mentally assumed Obama was what we wanted (or needed) him to be. That and the reality that words are much easier than governing and creating programs.

[Igel]

35. No.

The electorate moves slowly, and hasn't moved much in the last 5-6 years (with the usual caveats about sample size and whether or not definitions have shifted).

There are a couple of problems.

One is that they have a binary choice. That means it can look like they've swung. Votes against one party are viewed as votes for the other party, votes for a party are deemed to be comprehensive acceptance of the party's platform and the voters newly converted to the Church of Us. Whoever "us" is at the time.

The other is that the more vocal proponents of each party (the "patriots," if you will, firmly engaged in party-based exceptionalism and jingoism) pull each party to the extreme every chance they get, rebuking any that doesn't say "rah-rah!" at the right times to the dustbin of history, if not the dustbin of the other party. You're either for us or against us -- in spades.

It's not for nothing that Americans in the last 40 years have usually opted for divided government. It slows things down (horrendously evil if you're in power, a positive virtue if you're not). But it also drives both parties back towards the center. So it doesn't achieve anybody's idea of political and ideological purity. It makes the entire idea of the most important thing in politics being winning less tenable, and puts the focus away from theorists and ideologues and back towards the people that are the politician's bosses. Not just "we the people," narrowly defined to be "us" as opposed to the other 44 or 49% of the apparently non-peopld bipeds roaming the border between Mexico and Canada. (I've always loved one of the standard interpretations of that line, on right or left--one of the most exclusionary, ego-centric views I've possibly ever heard.)

[apocalypsehow]

38. I'll admit I'm waiting on pins and needles to hear the first returns from Mass. For better or worse,

I think it will set the pattern for November midterms.

Good OP, some points to contemplate. :thumbsup: