A Center-Right Nation Forever
James Joyner, surveying some data about the demographic shifts threatening conservative politics, concludes “We’ll always have a strong “conservative” movement. It’s just that Ronald Reagan and Alex P. Keaton wouldn’t quite recognize it.”
I would go stronger than that, actually, and posit that American politics in the future will mostly be dominated by a center-right political coalition just as it always has. This is just how things work. A political coalition grounded in the social mores of the ethno-sectarian majority and the ideas of the business class has overwhelming intrinsic advantages against contrary movements grounded in the complaints of minority groups and the economic claims of the lower orders. It’s a little bit hard to even know what a permanent progressive governing majority would mean, and harder to know how you would sustain it. When you think about how different countries wind up where they are, it’s never because the political left secures some kind of decisive victory over the political right. Instead, things the left puts in place during moments of victory manage to secure mainstream acceptance and survive periods of center-right electoral victory. That’s the National Health Service under Thatcher, Social Security under Eisenhower, the Civil Rights Act under Nixon, or Medicare under Reagan. The dominant position of the Democratic Party for much of the 20th Century was achieved through the strange method of the Democratic Party containing a lot of very very very very conservative politicians. The actual periods of major progressive legislation were brief—but they had lasting impact.
If we succeed in achieving major progressive reforms in 2009 and 2010, we’re going to create a situation in which the existence of a workable national health care system deprives the Democrats of a winning electoral issue. A certain number of voters who have conservative views on some other topics but who liked progressive ideas on health care will vote for more Republicans. If progressives succeed in increasing economic mobility and decreasing inequality, that will probably increase the number of middle- and upper-class Hispanics who decide they want tax cuts. The goal, however, is to achieve the goal of a more just society, not to win a bunch of elections.
45 Responses to “A Center-Right Nation Forever”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“The lower orders”?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“When you think about how different countries wind up where they are, it’s never [emphasis mine] because the political left secures some kind of decisive victory over the political right.”
Er, what about Sweden?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
It’s just that Ronald Reagan and Alex P. Keaton wouldn’t quite recognize it.
Of course they wouldn’t. Ronald Reagan and Alex P. Keaton are fictional characters.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
A well-summarized sensible view.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
It’s kind of hard to believe that a column like this is written in a nation whose Congress has been controlled by Democrats for, oh, 50 of the past 55 years (or something like that).
But of course, your terms (”center-right”) are so vague as to be meaningless. Saying that a country is always going to be right of center makes about as much sense as saying that all of the children in your town are above average. That’s nice if you’re in Lake Woebegone, but in reality, the terms “center” would appear to be defined to mean something like “mean” or “median”, as in “the middle”.
Saying that the country is intrinsically biased to be right of its own center is idiotic.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
However, Matt, I would remind you that the last period of stable center-left government was over 40 years ago.
And the period before that, domestically under FDR and Truman wasn’t exactly short – it was two decades.
The big problem we have is that, since Nixon figured out that the socially liberal Republicans could shed that social liberalism to win the South but keep their pro-business orientation, there has not been a stable center-left government.
Carter was a disaster, and Clinton was beaten into accepting a third way that, in turn, routed the too-crazy Gingrich.
Until we have such a government, we’re not going to experience any major progressive programs.
Every one of those things you mentioned was completed by 1965
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@2
Not to mention China.
Really, Matt’s blinders are quite astonishing sometimes, aren’t they?!
March 18th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I think your sarcasm meters may be broken…
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Without the former, the latter will just be a fantasy.
Although your structural analysis is valid, I think, what you miss is the opportunity to change the conventional wisdom to one that is more skeptical of the all-wise business class and more aware of what we all are owed by the government that is ours.
I am old enough to remember what that looks like, even if Matt isn’t.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@5:
You’re taking it way too literally. The “center” doesn’t necessarily refer to the mean position, it could be construed as the middle of the range of mainstream political views. What’s generally meant by “a center-right country” is that the country on average prefers a small government, low taxes, a free market, etc etc. That is, closer to Republican views than Democratic views. Whether this is actually true or not is highly debatable, of course.
Also, the Democratic domination of Congress was almost entirely due to the monolithic South. Many Democrats then were in no way progressive or really held any left-wing views, but rather just a legacy of Democratic rule of the South since Reconstruction, and many of them switched parties in the 90s to their more natural home.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Uggh. And who sets the zero-point, from which we move left and right?
40 years ago, living together outside of wedlock was socially acceptable. Now, most folks do it before (or in place of) marriage. At the same time, the notion that much of the worlds ills stemmed from overpopulation were commonplace. Now, we hardly ever mention the word for fear of stirring up the christianistas.
Just an example to show that what’s acceptable changes, and the ideas of center, right, and left are mores of the political day, not fixed goal posts.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.”
March 18th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“…if we succeed in achieving major progressive reforms in 2009 and 2010…”
Maybe a good place for “progressives” to begin their reforms would be doing something about this kind of thing:
FROM:
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
“Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are – Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.”
Obama’s AIG $$$ are a bit of a surprise but not Chris Dodd’s. There is no Wall Street firm that hasn’t help stuff this overfed pig.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
But, what about the Revolution? I’m pretty sure we were promised a Revolution that would solve all our problems and bring peace and prosperity to all. Was there a message on the other mailing list I missed?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Collectively, people are conservative by simple inertia. It takes some sort of major trauma to change people’s minds and motivate them to fix things.
George W. Bush tried really, really hard to answer the question, “How bad do things have to get?” The progressive challenge now is to undo as much damage as possible before people grow complacent again.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Also, I would add Canada to the list of nations dominated by a Centre-Left party. The Liberals controlled Canada for most of the 20th century by finding a niche between the NPD (socialists) and Conservatives that was pro-business while also being pro-safety net.
That said, if Matt were to amend his original hypothesis to say that states and voting publics are inherently conservative as in resistant to change rather than conservative as in wanting a small government, he might be onto something. Going back to Canada, the Liberals have been the party of the status quo, while the NDP wanted further governmental intervention in the economy and the Conservatives wanted less.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
And this post reads like the last words of person on death row.
So, let me get this straight. After raking me over the coals over the reality that this is a center-right nation (not crazy right, just the “leave me alone to live my life” center right) we’re saying that in fact…as a result of the eventual successes of left-wing policies, that that will make this nation a center-right nation.
Is this a joke? Look at the polls…people are not saying, “more spending.” Or even, “this is working so well that we need to stop.” What they’re saying is…”hold on a second, I didn’t sign up for this shit.”
They thought that Obama would be a centrist. So far, he’s not.
You guys, predictably, went to far, and now people are predictably recognizing that. Trillions of dollars that we’ll never be able to pay off? People are understandably very skeptical.
And then there’s this line of, “If we succeed in achieving major progressive reforms in 2009 and 2010, we’re going to create a situation in which the existence of a workable national health care system deprives the Democrats of a winning electoral issue. A certain number of voters who have conservative views on some other topics but who liked progressive ideas on health care will vote for more Republicans.”
Are you kidding? What if the health care program gets stalled? It’s not going to be because of some mysterious force…It’s because your moderates are feeling the heat from their constituents. Have you read the news lately? Too much, too fast is what they’re telling Pelosi and Obama.
Boy oh boy. This post is the definition of rationalization. Because of our success (assuming we succeed), we will immediately fail. And then it will all be worth it when we get tossed out of office.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Since the U.S. is headed toward becoming a one party state, it makes sense that it would be considered right of center. All of the former Republicans will eventually start voting in the Democratic Party primary and produce even more blue dog conservative Democrats. And if the elite, white progressives try to create their own, progressive party, it will be as white as the current Republican Party.
The politics of the future will be much more about ethnic groups and economic classes trying to get as much out of the government while trying the limit the damage the government does to them. It only takes one political party to fight over government hand outs and pork (See Chicago).
March 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
DTM,
I don’t think that there’s any evidence that people (today) are willing to accept brief blurs of radicalism. What they were willing to accept was someone different that GWB. They got that. Then they discovered that the guy who replaced the guy that they grew to hate is doing things that they don’t like. Personally, I think that people didn’t really think about the policy details and were more interested in the “change” dynamic.
Per my previous posts, what were seeing now is an electorate that doesn’t particularly care about specific policies, but rather who isn’t screwing up the country. I warned you guys about that, and you told me that the election dictated that people wanted this progressive agenda. I was right. And now we may very well be back to square one, with a Republican party that has no principles (or morals) coming back into power because you guys got greedy.
That’s why I’m here…To keep this place from becoming an echo chamber. I failed.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I think Matt is doing a poor job of expressing himself. Allow me to join him in doing so.
Assume there is an absolute scale of left and right.
Assume “the center” is the dividing line such that half of Americans support a set of beliefs to one side of the line and the other half support beliefs on the other side.
For the majority of the time, most power structures will be to the right of that “center” line. The process by which we get our government is not purely democratic. The non-democratic elements of the electoral process favor the right. In addition, government is not the only entity with power. Those non-governmental institutions which wield power tend to be to the right of the people as a whole.
During these times of right-side rule, the line doesn’t move much. Sometimes, like under Reagan, the line will move a little to the right. Other times, it will drift to the left despite the conservative governmment. However, when the governement is significantly to the left of the line, people change their beliefs and the line jumps to the left, sometimes dramatically.
The people are, of course, at the center on average. The country – a convolution of people and power (governmental, economic, cultural), is generally to the right of that center.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Vocabulary FAIL.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Re “If progressives succeed in increasing economic mobility and decreasing inequality, that will probably increase the number of middle- and upper-class Hispanics who decide they want tax cuts.”
————-
Never happen — the Democratic Caucus will have sold itself three times over to the Superrich before then.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It’s cute how Matt’s appraisal of the political situation fits in so well with how he characterizes the weakness of the progressive position (a “contrary movement”). So be it!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
A political coalition grounded in the social mores of the ethno-sectarian majority and the ideas of the business class has overwhelming intrinsic advantages against contrary movements grounded in the complaints of minority groups and the economic claims of the lower orders.
But basically all of politics deals with the shifting coalitions among interest groups. There’s no reason to expect the “social mores of the ethno-sectarian majority” and the business class to remain aligned over the long term. Indeed you don’t have to look too far back (or ahead, in my opinion) where they will conflict pretty dramatically.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Njorl,
A center right nation, in my mind, is a nation where the majority of the folks just want to be left alone to live their lives.
They don’t want to pay too much in taxes, and they don’t believe that its a particularly good idea to give massive amounts of their money to the government to solve social ills.
I’m not a libertarian, but it’s basically a libertarian mindset.
That’s not to say that they are against government programs, or against government spending. Its just to say that they want to be left alone.
That hasn’t really changed since the founding of this nation (save the 60’s).
We live in a center-right nation. But living in a center-right nation doesn’t mean that left-wing folks don’t have some good ideas about the role of government. That’s how a guy like Obama wins.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
No, they do like the things he’s doing. They just don’t like his policies as much as they like him. That’s to be expected. People more popular than their policies run for office. When they win, they appoint people less popular than their policies.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
To reiterate,
Matt is playing off the canard put forward regularly by right wing bloggers and pundits that no matter what happens politically, this is a “center-right” nation. Admittedly, the snark is buried in this particular post a bit, but if you’ve been around the internets a bit, you’ll pick it up. See Digby for details ad infinitum. Similar analysis holds for “America has always been a Christian nation”.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Ed, you are entitled to your perfectly useless definition. Just don’t expect to be able to have a meaningful discussion with anyone who isn’t living inside your own head.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Wrong, Matt. Enacting healthcare will cement a Democratic majority (which right now, given the demogs of the next few decades, probably doesn’t need the cement.)
Aside from the D’s already in the bag, there is a large uncommitted swath of the electorate that is open to the idea the government can do some good things….they just want to *see* it.
It has become clear that Republicans will not to anything good with government to improve the lives of regular people; these voters are looking for an alternative.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Njorl,
Testy, testy. I realize that the string of bad news for you guys is absolutely along the lines of what I’ve been trying to get into your heads. But that’s no reason to get nasty.
You just confirmed what I said. They like the guy but they don’t like his (yours) hair-brained ideas. What does that say about the American people’s attitudes towards progressivism?
Perhaps you should reexamine your thinking. Apparently I understand the American people (and you seem to support that notion). It is you that’s having trouble facing reality, or as you put it, living inside your head.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
C’mon, this is obviously a long form dry-wit spin on the old “if you want to live like a republican, vote for democrats” saying.
The ones above saying “no Matt, this isn’t a center-right country” are missing the point — he’s saying he doesn’t care what the right-wing thinks it is, because the occasional major changes that liberals put in place have endured & will endure despite the best efforts of the opposition.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Since you live in your own head, you’re going to see that a lot. Since you think this country has changed since its founding (except for the 60’s), it’s clear you don’t know anything about this country.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Re Ed Smithe at 30: “A center right nation, in my mind, is a nation where the majority of the folks just want to be left alone to live their lives.
They don’t want to pay too much in taxes, and they don’t believe that its a particularly good idea to give massive amounts of their money to the government to solve social ills.”
—————-
Then those STUPID fucks should not have elected three Republicans Presidents who personally ran up $9 Trillion in federal debt. Who the hell do you think is on the hook to pay off George W’s bar bill — the baby Jesus?
Do NOT complain to me about taxes when you did not do a single fucking thing to halt George W’s $2 Trillion unnecessary war in Iraq. Taxes are needed to provide medical care to all those thousands of cripple soldiers in San Antonio.
The only issue is who pays the Republican bills — the richest motherfuckers in the country who elected the Republicans or the working people who fight this country’s wars and whose sweat creates this country’s wealth.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Ed,
To paraphrase Pauli, you’re not even wrong.
Look for facts upon which to base an argument. Try to use logical consequences from those facts to lead to a conclusion. Read other people’s responses to your argument using the accepted meanings of words in the Enfglish language.
Repeat as necessary.
Instead, you use the typical right-wing approach:
Hear talking point.
Repeat as necessary.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@11
The Congress dominated by “the South” as you put it was the same one that put LBJ’s Great Society legislation in place, yes?
The history of left-of-center domination of government from 1932 through 1968 really did happen. Lots of things changed.
Suggest some people read some history books.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Ed,
A libertarian mindset is not simply center-right. It is, economically, very far right. And since you’re talking about the reaction of Americans to Obama’s economic policies, not his social policies, it’s very relevant that your “center-right” libertarian mindset is actually very conservative on that question.
This ought to be clear to you. People who resent all the tax money they spend and want to minimize in most or every case the role of government in providing goods and services, preferring the market to manage those issues — they do not have “center right” economic views. They may even have center-left social views, but that’s not really what you’re discussing. You’re saying there’s a rebellion against non-centrist economic policy from center-right people who were fooled.
And you know, I’m not going to insult you even though I think you’re wrong, because your opinion gets voiced here and there — but I think it’s wrong or disingenuous in any case. People saying they thought Obama would be a centrist, but now he’s a left-winger — are they taking into account that the stimulus included 36% in tax relief, more than left-wing economists recommended? Are they taking into account that the marginal rate hike is actually just a decision to let the Bush cuts expire — not an imposition of new, unique tax rates? Are they taking into account his apparently categorical refusal to nationalize the banks due to the “traditions in this country?” Are they, most important, taking into account that his plans in the bugdet, while I consider them progressive, were all also talked about in the election — and that, on healthcare, for example, Hillary’s own plans were more liberal and more ambitous, as they included mandates?
In other words, the appraisal that Obama looked like a centrist and now acts like a liberal isn’t really grounded in good information, but bad information, or impressions formed without the benefit of fact.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Why, that’s just crazy talk.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The history of left-of-center domination of government from 1932 through 1968 really did happen. Lots of things changed.
Except that almost all the liberal reforms happened either in Roosevelt’s first term or in the immediate aftermath of LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964. Roosevelt’s second term was derailed by the Court packing fight, and then in the 1938 elections Republicans recovered enough to make a coalition with conservative southern Democrats (which, it should be noted, was not all southern Democrats) to prevent any further changes. Then the war came, and put domestic politics on the backburner. After the war, Truman almost immedately lost control of Congress, and the Republican/conservative Southern Democratic congress of 1947-48 managed to push through a pretty serious reactionary measure on labor law (Taft-Hartley). The Dems won back congress in 48, but without enough of a majority to prevail over the Republican/Southern Democratic coalition on issues where those two groups agreed. There were no liberal domestic policy achievements of the Truman era, except the desegregation of the military, accomplished by executive order.
Then you’ve got Eisenhower, whose era was not particularly useful for any kind of liberal reforms – Brown v. Board and the early Warren court decisions were made by, well, the Supreme Court, not Congress, and the Civil Rights Acts of 57 and 60 were toothless. The only notable project was the massive public works project of the interstate highway system.
Then Kennedy came in, and proved, like Truman, unable to get any particularl liberal reforms through Congress. Johnson succeeds him, manages to push through Civil Rights, and then wins a massive landslide over Goldwater, which allows him to push through the Great Society programs in 65-66. The increasing unpopularity of Johnson’s management of the Vietnam War and urban racial politics lead to a republican resurgence in the 66 midterms, and nothing much further is accomplished, save the Civil Rights Act of 68, which passes in the wake of MLK’s murder.
So, with a couple of exceptions, in the midst of those 36 years of general Democratic domination, we have only 6 (1933-6, 1965-6) when any significant amount of liberal reforms are passed.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The Liberals controlled Canada for most of the 20th century by finding a niche between the NPD (socialists) and Conservatives that was pro-business while also being pro-safety net.
Well, you can’t exactly have an anti-business government and expect it to have any sort of longevity, can you? What does an anti-business government look like? Venezuela? Does anyone really expect silly angry little monkey-boy Hugo Chavez, or his party (which is essentially a personality cult) to last forever, like the Colorados in Paraguay or whatever the Mexican party was called?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
And as a close friend of Canadian corporate lawyers, I can tell you right off the bat that the Liberals were a lot more corporate-friendly than the Tories for just about the entire time, even during the Martin Government. The meme of tax cuts and minimalist government among the larger Canadian corporations, which tend to be monolithic, monopolistic, family-controlled, and very globalised; i.e., the perfect home of a large, active corporatist government pursuing mercantilist policies, which was exactly but the Liberals did.
Mind you, the majority of the operations of Canadian miners (Canada has the biggest mining capital markets in the world) aren’t even in Canada, but rather in third-rate republics like Peru. And low taxes and lax regulation (which apply only within Canada in any case) do the mining multinationals no good, but stick-and-carrot policies when it comes to international development aid (give us mining concessions, and you get the money) works great. I love it actually. Same goes for the Canadian banks who are everywhere in Latin America and follow the miners wherever they go. Canada simply doesn’t work the way the U.S. does; without government intervention and backing there would be no large companies in Canada (all taken over by the US). And Bombardier definitely would not be selling any planes (do you know how much export financing they get? Billions).
March 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Well, you can’t exactly have an anti-business government and expect it to have any sort of longevity, can you?
Precisely. Which is why it’s so absurd to see New Deal-style governance, which controlled American politics for forty years, described as “anti-business.”
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Buy Viagra Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
March 24th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Excuse me. A man is too apt to forget that in this world he cannot have everything. A choice is all that is left him.
I am from Portugal and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap airline tickets,online airline tickets booking,fly to bulgaria, tickets to bulgaria,fly to bulgaria airline,airfare, tickets,cheap tickets online.”
With respect
, Edeline.