Clinton, for all her shortcomings, doesn't hail from the surrender-at-all-costs wing of the Democratic party.Thanks Fred. Also it's nice to see some on the left and on the right joined in this notion that there is "center-right" in the Democratic party. I could even go with "the conservative wing" of the Democratic Party. But "center-right?" It's just stupid phraseology to paper over real differences. Who thinks Hillary Clinton would be Secretary of State if McCain had won? Again, my handle on economics is wobbly. But I'm pretty sure Tim Geithner isn't Phil Gramm.
« At once weird and yet oddly interesting | Main | How did I miss this? » The ever crucial Fred Barnes seal of approval01 Dec 2008 02:46 pm
Obama couldn't function without it:
Comments (29)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Coates
The funny part is nobody ever asks them to quantify what center right means. Hell Hillary is ALL about keeping roe V wade and she is ALL about that socialistic universal health care. I am pretty sure she is a proponent of gay rights as well. But somehow in the last 4 weeks she has been transformed into "center right" by the media. What a joke.
"Center-right" is a favorite term of Hugh Hewitt. It's supposed to imply that the extreme wingnuts like Hewitt are somehow in a coalition with all the folks in the center, you know, the same independents who keep voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.
It's a total joke. Hillary was (is?) considered by many on the netroots to be far more liberal than Obama. These people just don't know WTF they're talking about. I like to liberalism/progressism in this country to hip hop. There are a lot of folks out there who spout a lot stuff about both but in the end don't really have any depth of knowledge about either. Cosby, Oprah & Crouch on Hip Hop for instance & the whole right-wing & the traditional media on liberalism/progressism.
Also it's nice to see some on the left and on the right joined in this notion that there is "center-right" in the Democratic party
it's just a tie-in with their baseless idea that this is a "center-right nation". it's branding.
Can we now put to rest this meme that anyone who is againsts the Iraq war belongs to a group of "surrender-at-all-costs" people? I've seen similar descriptions all over the news and blogs - Hillary doesn't belong to the reflexive pacifist wing of the party etc etc. Being against the Iraq war does not make anyone a reflexive pacifist, or a surrender-at-all-cost, or a coward. For the love of god, when will this end??
Can we now put to rest this meme that anyone who is againsts the Iraq war belongs to a group of "surrender-at-all-costs" people?
you can't if you're a wingnut blowhard like Barnes. you need to be able to sustain a minimum level of outrage in your listeners at all time, lest they stop seething at your evil caricatures and figure out that you're really just a pathetic lying demagogue.
if Barnes et al stop shaking their pudgy little fists for even a second, their careers could be over.
But I'm pretty sure Tim Geithner isn't Phil Gramm.
No, he isn't, but some on the left seem pretty close to making a claim that they are not that far apart.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/18939
"Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers were central figures in the bubble-driven growth and deregulation mania of the last decade."
Heh, it takes the hateful, incompentent John Bolton to burst the "OMG Hillary Clinton is soo one of us right wingers" bubble:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7383b582-aaf3-4b35-a042-9b3c10c562fd
"Bolton suggests that perhaps Obama is appointing someone with such a different worldview in order to "keep all his options open." But at the end of the day, he's not convinced the two will diverge dramatically. "I knew her in law school--the two Clintons were the year ahead of me," Bolton says. "If you go back to what I saw as her formative principles while she was in law school, then she's very consistent with early Obama campaign."
But I'm pretty sure Tim Geithner isn't Phil Gramm.
Could someone who understands economics explain how they're significantly different? Because I can't tell.
It all depends on the scale in which you are determining these things. In view of most European nations or Canada, the Democratic Party is definitely center-right, with some center and center-left elements. The Republican Party is right with very few right-center members and a fair number of far right members. There are no real left-center or far left politicians in this country, no matter what they say about Nader, Kucinich, etc.
That said, if you base it all just on American norms, then everything shifts. The Republican Party is suddenly right-center with some centrist members, etc. But that is really being dishonest. It is like saying that Justice Kennedy is a centrist solely because he is at the ideological center of the current Supreme Court, never mind that Republicans appointed seven of the current justices and Clinton purposely appointed moderates for the two other slots.
So, yeah - this country really is a center-right in comparison to the rest of the developed world. It is demonstrably true. That said, I think things may actually be shifting leftward now, but we won't really know until we see what happens with healthcare, etc.
@ Charles
I agree we are center-right in comparison to other countries. But that's not the reason Republicans keep hammering on to this point. They don't mean center-right in the way you explained them. They mean center-right as in most of the country believe in the positions held by the Republican party, and reject the positions held by the Democratic party.
It's a way of repudiating the principles of the left - even if people vote for you, they still agree with our positions and our take on the issues, so don't you dare do anything that upholds your positions, you leftie you, the country is center-right and they are with us.
That's what they mean when they go on and on about center-right. They don't care about where we stand with respect to Canada or France of wherever.
To be honest I'm quite fine with them labeling her center-right....if supporting universal health care, gay rights, etc, all her progressive views is the new center right, hell yeah, looks like progress to me. Leaves more room to push on the left now. I realize they are trying to box her in, but really the only thing that even tacitly supports her center rightedness is her iraq war vote, and now she gets to help end the damn thing.
Charles, you have a good point, but if you look beyond western Europe and Canada the spectrum shifts again. We're only center-right re the world if you take a very select portion of the world.
I think it's magic - 'say it enough and it'll come true!'
In fairness I did try to surrender to the Starbucks barista this morning. And over the weekend I tried to surrender to a Gilbert Arenas Fathead. You sure do have my number, Fred Barnes!
On the other hand I never wrote a book calling W an executive who combines "F.D.R.'s cool optimism" and Teddy Roosevelt's "pugnacity and determination." Advantage me, I think.
Center-right: "People didn't vote for what they just voted for. Even though we lost the election, we won the election."
The whole thing is nonsense. Elections have consequences, of course. I would hope that one of them is that pundits stop getting to claim that the Democratic party has a "surrender-at-all-costs" wing. The Mighty Wurlitzer still plays on, though, even if everybody's tired of this song.
For the last few years everything has been mostly defined on how you view the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Clinton's record is a bit more conservative on that than Obama's. Also the Clinton name/brand carries certain connotations of centrism.
I'm not defending that because I think it's totally loopy and puts blinders on reality. Hillary Clinton's actual politics are, mostly, identical to Obama's. By measures I know both of them had records that are to the Left-of-average for Democratic Senators. This idea that the "War on Terror" is the only thing defining you as conservative or not is obnoxious to me as a conservative-type person.
A big misconception in modern punditry is the idea that there's a big, agreed-upon space in the middle of the parties, and a bunch of appointees drawn from there. From this is drawn the fallacy that Obama's cabinet isn't essentially distinct from McCain's cabinet.
But the problem is: that's not how modern politics works. The most liberal Republican in the last twenty years, Lincoln Chafee, barely voted to the left of the most conservative Democrats -- EVEN counting Zell Miller. Anyone in the Democratic party is, by definition, left of centre, simply because there's no real 'mesh' between the parties. They're only right of centre in terms of the Democratic Party, not America as a whole, simply because right of centre Democrats are, these days, Republicans.
Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a very conservative Republican pretending to be a centrist Democrat. I'm amazed that anyone is fooled by either of them. Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me thousands of times; put me away.
"Again, my handle on economics is wobbly. But I'm pretty sure Tim Geithner isn't Phil Gramm."
Maybe not, but you may be interested in Ben Stein's take on Tim Geithner from his NY Times column yesterday:
"Center-right: "People didn't vote for what they just voted for. Even though we lost the election, we won the election.""
Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner! It's not helpful that well-meaning people keeps agreeing with the center-right meme because they think it means center-right compared to other countries. Wake up, people! That's not what Republicans want us to believe. Don't be fooled by this center-right argument.
I understand that, but people didn't necessarily vote for Obama's ideology. Many voted for his "temperament and intelligence" and others voted against Republicans. The average Obama voter did indicate that they are, personally, more conservative than him.
Although it's kind of confusing as we're rarely clear what they mean by that. Americans distrust big business more than many European populaces let alone more than an average Republican. A 41% plurality believe "money and wealth should be more evenly distributed and that the government should do so with heavy taxes on the rich." Americans generally support universal healthcare and environmental restrictions even if they cost jobs. The "Right" element comes in that Americans generally favor the death penalty, gun-rights, a strong defense, restrictions on late-term abortion, and the "war on drugs." Also a third of them believe homosexuality should be illegal and a plurality tend to say the schools should teach "evolution and creationism."
"Many voted for his "temperament and intelligence" and others voted against Republicans."
Sure, but are these the majority of those who voted for Obama? Would you say that most of the people who voted for Obama does not support any of his agenda?
Look, I'm not a complete idiot. I understand that Obama needs to respect and take into account the positions of people who voted for him despite disagreeing with most of Obama's positions. After all, these are the voters who would probably determine whether he can win reelection or not.
But for people like me who voted for him because we actually agree with most of his positions, it rankles to read so many articles "advising" him not to do this or do that because he might incur the wrath of people who voted for him but don't agree with his positions. "Don't overreach", "You must show toughness by screwing the left-wing of the Democratic party on at least one issue", "People don't vote for his positions, only his temperament, so he shouldn't take winning as a mandate to implement his policies", etc etc. Seriously, it's like we can't win at all. Even when we win, we lose.
I understand a potential unfairness to it, but there might also just be an understanding of one of the biggest faults of the last 8 years. (Particularly in the first 6 years of Bush) The Republican side overreached and claimed ideological mandates they didn't really have. I think there's understandable concern of the "new guys" doing the same thing just in the other direction.
Granted calling it "center-right" might be a tad vexing. It might be more useful to say America is simply moderate and resists going too far in either direction. The problem with that is Americans are fairly immoderate on certain issues. (Even now a majority of Americans apparently approve of Guantananamo and limited use of torture) Another description I read, that might be a bit better, is that America is an ambivalent nation. They're full of the kind of contradictions and uncertaintities you might expect in a large diverse nation. Therefore clear and unblinking direction Left or Right may, in time anyway, upset them very much.
Ah yes, the 'surrender-at-all-costs' Democratic party that not only surrendered during WWII but destroyed the nation's economy in the process. And let's not forget Truman who wouldn't stand up for Greece against the Soviets, Kennedy who couldn't stand up to Russia moving missiles into Cuba, or Carter who wouldn't defend our interests in the middle east. Yes, Democrats have been nothing but a constant stream of surrender in the face of adversity.
Republicans, now there's a group of people that not only can stand up to our enemies, but create new enemies in order to stand up to them under our own terms.
"I think there's understandable concern of the "new guys" doing the same thing just in the other direction."
Definitely a legitimate concern. And rationally, I understand this. It's just hard for me to reconcile sometimes. My politically conscious life consists of 2 presidents. One of them, while definitely a better president compared to the current one, spends so much time in office worrying about the people who didn't vote for him that I got sick of the term "triangulation". The other president, on the other hand, despite coming into office in an ambiguous way, decided he had a mandate to basically say "screw you" to the people who didn't vote for him.
So, yes, there's a level of frustration that is not entirely rational. Part of me wants Democrats to be as "tough" and confident as Republicans - when we win, we earn the right to implement our policies, even if that means incurring the wrath of the other side. I know this can be a self-defeating strategy, look at where Republicans are now - but at least for that 6 years, they got to implement things they believe in, even though most of those things infuriates me.
I also know this can be disastrous for the country, as the last 8 years has shown, but I guess people never really believe that their side can be worse than the other side, right? I'm delusional enough to believe that even if Obama slightly "overreach" to the left, he won't screw the country up as bad as Bush did.
"Ah yes, the 'surrender-at-all-costs' Democratic party that not only surrendered during WWII but destroyed the nation's economy in the process."
You may have noticed a change that occurred in the Democratic Party around 1968 or so. There aren't many hawks along the lines of Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, etc. in the Democratic Party anymore. The most Truman-like recent politician has in fact been George W. Bush. Like Truman -- and unlike most of today's Democrats -- Bush refused to give up when a war turned difficult and unpopular.
The paucity of Democrats with credibility on defense these days is why Obama decided to retain Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates.
"The paucity of Democrats with credibility on defense these days is why Obama decided to retain Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates."
Ah yes, I have been waiting for someone to come along and make this argument. Who cares about all the real reasons for retaining Gates, right? Democrats hiring Republicans Defense Secretary "proves" beyond a doubt that Democrats are weak on defense. Fred, this ain't 1992 anymore, and Obama isn't Clinton feeling defensive about his Vietnam war history. Start living in the present and find new cudgels to beat Democratic presidents with. I know it's been a while since we have one, but hey, you guys are creative, right?
Actually, Geithner would have been a fairly probable appointment under McCain, as he's been the head of the NY Fed since 2003. It's actually turning out that McCain and Obama would have had fairly similar economic policies - McCain's never been a serious fiscal conservative and doesn't care much about economics in general, so he probably would have gone with safe establishment picks like Obama has.
Clinton wouldn't have been appointed Secretary of State under McCain, although Joe Lieberman would have been pretty likely.