comments for topic:

Center? WHAT CENTER?

(click here to view original posting in a separate window)

CENTER? WHAT CENTER?
The center is never a fixed position to move toward.

By James G. Gimpel

November 13, 2008

In the battle to shape the future of the Republican party, many have suggested a move to the center. In a recent interview, for example, John McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, said, “The Republican party wants to, needs to, be able to represent . . . not only conservatives, but centrists as well. And the party that controls the center is the party that controls the American electorate.”

Also, David Frum wrote that the GOP must move away from its traditional positions on issues such as abortion and the environment, and adopt a style and tone that is “less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin — but the only hope for a Republican recovery.”

The critical assumption here is what political scientists call the “spatial model.” According to the spatial model, there is a continuum running from left to middle to right. Along this horizontal axis are policy preferences with conservative positions anchoring the right, liberal positions anchoring the left, and “moderate” or “centrist” positions in the center. Public opinion is distributed on this continuum such that there is a bulge in the middle, reflecting where most voters are located, with the number of voters shrinking as one moves toward the right- and left-hand sides.

If this is true, adopting policy positions in the middle is the only way to victory — after all, that’s where the bulge is. If we move too far to the right, there are too few voters there, and we wind up with the Goldwater landslide. John McCain’s defeat has also been attributed to his running too far to the right, compared with his opponent.

This seems to make sense. But what if the spatial model is wrong?

For 50 years now, survey research has suggested just that: It is, in fact, wrong, because there is no coherent center. There are no fixed, well-considered policy positions in the center to which voters there adhere.

The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are inconsistent in their policy views, and therefore, centrist voters cannot typically be characterized by some specific set of policy positions. Consequently, a campaign doesn’t move toward them, but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.

Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates. We know from several volumes of political-science research that less-informed voters commonly substitute someone else’s judgment for their own. That someone else is often a spouse, workmate, or neighbor knowledgeable and enthusiastic about one of the candidates. Support for a candidate spreads through social influence processes.

It is therefore no accident that Sarah Palin’s nomination gave John McCain the only lead that he had during the fall campaign. She was Senator McCain's only hope for closing the enthusiasm gap, but then economic crisis stalled the gains. Polls will show that Barack Obama had social contagion working in his favor to pull the incoherent center in a leftward direction.

A candidate with Sarah Palin’s views is not the only way to generate enthusiasm and move the incoherent center. But the path to victory is to find a candidate who will pull the center in their direction, not to modify policy stances in hopes of making ambivalent voters pay heed. Junk the spatial model. Maybe it ought to be right, but it isn’t.

— James G. Gimpel is a professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park.

National Review

Dream on.

The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are inconsistent in their policy views, and therefore, centrist voters cannot typically be characterized by some specific set of policy positions. Consequently, a campaign doesn’t move toward them, but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction.

According to Einstein, motion is relative. Whether the party moves towards the center or inspires the center to move towards it is a moot point.

The Republicans will never inspire the center, coherent or incoherent, to move towards them by:

1. Having no new ideas to present and running on 99% negative campaigning, pigs, lipstick, Bill Ayers and the like.

2. Appearing to be dominated by an evangelical right that wants to impose its values on everybody else.

3. Appearing to be the party of stupidity, anti-intellectualism, and Joe Sixpack.

4. Engaging in Stalinist purges of anybody who doesn't toe the strict party line, even vilifying THEIR OWN candidate (did I hear some dear Republican friend recently call McCain a "piece of shit"?)

5. Acting like abortion is the one single issue that should dominate everything else, including the economy.

6. Retarding this country's progress by pushing Creationism, prayer in the schools, and the halting of stem cell research.

My natural affinity is with the Republicans, but I am sick to my stomach of what the party has become by catering to its religious right base, and more importantly, so is most of the country.

Gimpel can spin his theories all he wants in his academic ivory tower. The Republicans got BLOWN OUT by a greater than 2-1 edge in electoral votes. That is not just a defeat, it's a humiliation. Gimpel can snicker and sneer at the "incoherent center" all he likes - his party will never see power again if it follows his advice.

Get mad at me if you like. You will only be shooting the messenger. If Republicans don't learn a lesson from this election, they are as stupid as the Democrats from McGovern to Kerry (except when they nominated Clinton, who knew how to appeal to the center). In fact they will be even dumber than the Democrats, because they had the Democrats' mistake to learn from and they didn't. You can have as much contempt for the center as you like. If you don't "inspire" them, you lose. Just like the Democrats used to lose until they wised up and the Republicans didn't.

#2
I do agree that the Republican Party can never again capture the center (or the country) if it cannot inspire with real IDEAS and leadership this nation can believe and adhere to. As for the "negative" campaigning (about things that are all too true), that's still legitimate but insufficient to move masses unless butressed by real solutions and the inspiration of real ideas.

This election year, while the Dems offered CHANGE & HOPE and Pie in the Sky, the tired, tarnished Republicans offered less: ugly truths about Barry & CO that no-one cared to check out (not even Carlos the Jackal, if memory serves) and in particular an old, white standard bearer with little left and nothing new to offer the People--only the past and a lot of hot air.

I appreciate you're saying that the Republicans appear to be dominated by the "evangelical right" & appear to be stupid & anti-intellectual. While appearances can count for everything (as Obama & CO have proven), there remains the underlying implication that appearances may not be true. And if not true, those that go in the other direction follow a lie.

However, I must take issue with your concept of a Republican Party "dominated" by an Evangelical right. The Right encompasses much that is not Evangelical, but very much conservative, capitalistic and traditional. The Evangelicals are a big part of this, but they are far from all of it!

Ronald Reagan was not Evangelical--but he was of the conservative, capitalistic Right. The same is true now of Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal and many others in the Republican Party. You seem incapable of making any distinction whatsoever, Carlos. So great is your antipathy for the Evangelicals among them! I would hope this hatred comes from specific, personal experience that I could neither judge nor refute, or from factual, documented proof of their betrayal of the Constitution, the Rule of Law or the democratic process.

You see, Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dorn (who launched Obama's political career in their living room) really are domestic terrorists, killers and a menace to this society--and they're only the tip of the iceberg! Yet, if Republicans sound the alarm, you deem it "99% negative" for "Bill Ayers and the like" Why such cool complacency in the face of this?

So, when you speak of "Engaging in Stalinist purges of anybody who doesn't toe the strict party line," the last time I looked it was McCain who was the standard bearer for the Republican Party and Joe Lieberman who was kicked off the Dem ballot when HE literally did not "toe the strict party line," remember?

May I suggest that what truly disturbs you about the Republicans is that within the party there is a powerful difference of opinion and ideas that keeps getting aired? This is healthy, and it is democratic not to have to think (and act) in lockstep as Dems do. What is not healthy is a lack of true leadership: John McCain! Remember? Sorry, Carlos, he had his shot (by fair means or foul) and he blew it!

You say that your "natural affinity is with the Republicans," and I appreciate the sentiment but I must question if you really know what you're saying. The Party does not "cater" to its "Religious right base." If it did, it would have frozen out McCain instead of Giuliani (deader than a mackerel) who was endorsed by Pat Robertson! I've said this to you before, merely for your consideration--but it's like talking to a granite wall. WHY?

You are sick to your stomach of what the Republican Party has become "by catering to its religious right base," but you're blasé to what the Marxist Left/former Democratic Party has already achieved and is now ready to do. WHY?

RE: "Get mad at me if you like."
I am not the least bit mad at you, but I am frustrated and bewildered by so ONE-SIDED an anger within your belief system.

#3
Correction: I wish to modify one particular paragraph so badly written it not only failed to make my point, it made no sense!

I appreciate your saying that the Republicans appear to be dominated by the "evangelical right" & appear to be stupid & anti-intellectual. While appearances can count for everything (as Obama & CO have proven), there remains the underlying implication that appearances may not be true. And if not true, those that go in the other direction follow a lie.

To clarify: While appearances can count for everything (as Obama & CO have proven), there remains the underlying implication that they may NOT be true. Therefore, those who react purely on the basis of appearance (whether negative as in the case of Senator McCain or positive as in the case of Obama) may actually be following a lie.

I hope that HELPS???

Just a couple of points:

1. I am not blasé about the Democrats. They are scary. For example, take a look at this. It will chill you.

2. The religious right would certainly veto divorced, secular Giuliani. Whether or not they are the heart of the party (and in a previous message you said they ARE the party, so I'm glad you have changed your view), they do exercise veto power. Only stupid religious boobs like Bush need apply. That is why I am so mad at them. It has nothing to do with my childhood.

3. Agreed, McCain had a chance and he blew it. How? By catering to the religious crazies. And he used to be a strong critic of theirs. Too bad. He was right the first time.

#5
Re: "it will chill you."
My goodness, Carlos! What chills me is that you could think I'd be surprised by any of this--and why should you be surprised? Virtually every point covered in this very "scary" news item you offer has already been mentioned by me ad nauseum either on this blog or directly to you! Voter fraud; oligarchy via the Courts; citizens rights and benefits bestowed on tidal waves of illegals; the "fairness in broadcasting doctrine" muzzling talk radio...WHAT have I been telling you & Gargle for years? If you truly are concerned, then I'm glad. No one else (not that there's anyone left) Shives a Git!

As for your 2nd point, you can have your opinion (and obviously it's deeply felt) but really it is far from perfect.

Re: "The religious right would certainly veto divorced, secular Giuliani."
Pat Robertson personally endorsed divorced, secular Giuliani and the Repbulcian Party nominated divorced, secular John McCain.

Re: "McCain had a chance and he blew it. How? By catering to the religious crazies."
If that is all you can see, you're missing a lot. For years before his nomination and during his presidential campaign, John McCain did exactly what Colin Powell did and is now doing. He caters to THE LEFT where the power and the money and the future have gone! Now, that's the real "scary" story, so if its depth disturbs, DON'T LOOK!

Braclet watch
casio mens
Chronograph Watch
Constellation
dial
Diamond Watch
dress watch
fossil men
fossil watch
fossil women
Gold-Tone
guess guess jewelry
guess ladies
guess men
ladies watch
ladies watches
Leather Strap
Men's watch
men watch
men watches
Omega Constellation
Omega Watch
oyster perpetual
pulsar watches
rolex oyster
seiko men
seiko watch
SEIKO Watches

Shop for Digital Cameras and Camcorders Digiltal Camera Accessories , High Density Memory Cards Camera Adapters, Batteries and Battery Chargers All at one Place.

Super Deals available on Digital Frames, Film Cameras, Flashes, Lenses, Projectors




Accessories



Adapters

Batteries

Battery Chargers

Power supplies

Binocular Accessories

Blank Media

Cables - Cords

Case-Bag Accessories

Cases - Bags

Cleaners

Darkroom Supplies

Film

Filters

Flash Accessories

Lens Accessories

Light Boxes - Loupes

Light Meters-Accessories

Lighting

Memory Cards

Photo Studio

Professional Video Accessories

Projection Accessories

Telescope Accessories

Tripod Accessories

Binoculars-Telescope - Optics

Camcorders

Digital Cameras

Digital Frames

Film Cameras

Flashes

Lenses

Photo Viewers

Printers - Scanners

projectors

Surveillance Cameras

Tripods

Underwater Photography