Recent polling shows that Americans increasingly have no party identification. There are more Independent voters than those having allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. Here's a chart from Pew Research:
The above chart shows that Republican voter identification has plummeted since 2004. Democratic voter identification has remained relatively stable (though it has dropped since Obama became president), and Independent voter identification has risen steadily. It's not too difficult to figure out why the Republicans have lost ground. After 8 years of Bush, I can summarize it in three words – war, deficits, recession. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones. The Republican party has become marginalized.
Now for the twist. If you remove political parties from the equation and just ask the voters about their political ideology, you get a far different picture of America. The following chart comes from a recent Gallup poll:
Suddenly, conservatives rule, with moderates a close second. Liberals are marginalized. This gives credence to the idea that we are a center-right nation (75% conservative or moderate).
So, why the disconnect between the low poll numbers of Republicans and the high poll numbers of conservatives ? After all, aren't Republicans supposed to be the conservative party ?
My answer is, yes, they are SUPPOSED to be the conservative party, but that's not what they were during the Bush years. They were just the opposite, so it's not a surprise that lots of conservatives and many moderates abandoned them. That also explains the huge rise in Independent voters. The voters didn't change ideologically and become a lot more liberal. The voters remained pretty much the same. It was the Republicans who changed. It was the Republicans who abandoned conservatism.
Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I bet a lot of conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party these days.
To the deep thinkers in the Republican Party (if there are any left) – If you want to get back into power, the answer is staring you right in the face. Return to conservative principles. And then don't ABANDON them if you do acquire power.
To the deep thinkers in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) – If you want to stay in power, forget about the liberals (who else are the liberals going to vote for, anyway ?), and move to the middle, where America is. If you do that, the Democrats can remain in control for quite a while. If you don't, you'll be kicked to the curb just like the Republicans were. So far, it looks to me like the Dems want to be kicked to the curb.
My advice to the nation would be to kick both these corruptocratic parties to the curb, but that's probably not realistic. The corruptocrats have rigged the game heavily in their favor. A poor Libertarian or other third partier has a long, steep, uphill battle in front of them. One reason the Big Two parties are so corrupt is that they CAN BE. They're a duopoly.
And as I said in yesterday's post, FREE CHEERIOS FROM TYRANNY !
No justice, no peace.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
It's like I said. People vote against someone as often as they vote for. There's about 20% – maybe 40%, those more or less in the middle, who decide elections. People further to the right or left are too busy defending their party by trying to out yell the other side. The only really detached thinking occurs in the middle. The rest are all reacting emotionally.
The parties are increasingly controlled by their particular extremists, and don't care what the middle think. That's why the pendulum keeps swinging. People who voted Clinton in also voted him out. People who voted Bush in voted him out.
Nader said a few years ago that if voters continue to vote for the less objectionable of two mediocre hacks neither part will ever feel any necessity to offer anything but mediocre hacks. We need a third party.
For forty years, Republican hacks in media have successfully memed the word "liberal" so that, falsely, it has come to be understood as a bad thing.
If it weren't for liberals and progressive policies, this nation would today resemble Australia or Nazi Germany.
If Americans are, you know, conservative…why do 75% want a national health care plan? Or…..are socialized services now conservative policy?
It isn't that Bush was not conservative. He was. Militarism, tax giveaways for the richest, an active policy of hands-off corporate regulation, and anti-science approaches to nonsensical religious bigotry. Americans rejected all of those conservative policies last November.
Let me get this straight…….republicans abandoned conservative principles, moved towards the center and got kicked to the curb. The way democrats can stay in power is do what the republicans did and move toward the center.
is that supposed to make sense?
"75% want a national health care plan? " – Lib lie
The Rev's correct about the transformation of the word "liberal" into the Yugo of political labels. But the right has been aided in a way by the domination of the Democratic party by the Democratic Leadership Council/Council on Foreign Relations crowd. Although they are almost always identified as liberals, they are actually closer to what was once called the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. As such, they (and I include Obama) also betray the word "liberal" by being a pale, lesser version of their Republican counterparts. It's not surprising that the word holds so little appeal. What should be of most interest on Mr. King's charts is the size of the sample of those identifying themselves as independents. I read that as a widespread rejection of both parties.
As such, walter is right. It makes no sense for the Democrats to move closer politically to the Republicans. What they are doing ranks them a distant third in a three way approval contest.
But Bush was no more a conservative than Obama a liberal. Ron Paul is a conservative. Recently Bob Barr has been talking like a conservative. Dennis Kuchinich is a liberal. If anything, politics has become more of a struggle for survival than an attempt to steer the nation according to a set of principles. Principals are baggage best discarded in politics.
Mr. Frye is right about the need for a third party. To get there, we must remove the impediments that exist. The biggest of these is money and advertising is the largest drain. We own the TV and radio airwaves and lease frequencies to corporations which make profit as an advertising medium. These leases should be amended to require participation in some sort of program to provide a free forum for candidates.
the republican party is simply the party of liars
take for example the firing of IG Walpin……….this from ABC news……….
President Obama Fires Controversial Inspector General
June 12, 2009 1:49 PM
With little public notice, President Obama Thursday fired the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin.
Saying he was “exercising my power as president,” Mr. Obama suspended Walpin with pay, saying his termination would be “effective 30 days from now.”
this was the 12th. King posted the republican misinformation that Walpin was fired illegally on the 17th. Up until the 21st he was still defending republican misinformation.
same way with the misinformation about Obama flying a pizza chef from St Louis to DC on the taxpayers dime. PRIOR to the trip Fox St. Louis did an interview with the pizza guy and the pizza guy said that he was picking up the expenses for the trip. That interview was PRIOR to the trip. Republicans misinformers are STILL pedalling the lie that the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Same with Iraq. Those lies cost us dearly.
Now, if you pedal republican lies and defend republican lies……I would have to say that pretty much makes you a republican.
Who changed the republican party from conservative to what it is today is the Christian Right.
I'm not voting for anybody from the Christian Right. Those people will do anything to make the US a theocracy…….even lie
That's the first I've seen Walpin was "suspended with pay" rather than fired, walter. I wonder how all the other news organizations seemed to get it wrong, but if that was the case you sure are right. The whole thing still looks like a political hit job and McCaskill's initial statements now seem odder, but oh well.
What were the lies about Iraq, again? I forget. They cost us dearly but it looks like Democracy's on the March in the Middle East. Have you heard about the civil unrest in Iran?
Interesting replies.
Frye, well said. I almost always find myself voting for the least objectionable candidate, rather than a candidate I actually support. Vive le third parties.
Rev, you are just the kind of extremist I believe Frye was talking about. You say "If it weren't for liberals and progressive policies, this nation would today resemble Australia or Nazi Germany." Wrong. You forget that liberals were largely the Nazi appeasers or that the Nazis were socialists, and I have no idea why you brought Australia into the mix. Australia is a country who has that free, socialized medicine you like, and also had free universities. Australia is now attempting to climb out of the mountain of entitlements that threaten to sink them. Not to mention that their health care industry has monstrously long waits for even the simplest medical procedures. Australia is a monument to liberal policies.
But other than getting everything completely wrong, good point.
walter,
On another thread you were trying to convince me that Bush was a Leftist, but now you are trying to take issue with my statement that Republicans abandoned conservative principles. I'm starting to think you just like to argue for no reason.
To Rev and walter,
I think you are making a mistake in conflating the terms 'Republican' and 'conservative.' The former does not always equate to the latter. I call myself conservative on most issues, but not Republican.
frank,
I believe the Dems will doom themselves by moving too far to the left, as the polls illustrate, but I agree with you that Ron Paul is one who actually represents a conservative. What I call a conservative only represents a small minority in the Republican party. Other Repubs only give lip service to the idea, and others yet are just your standard politicians who will say or do anything to be elected.
Mr. King,
Your first chart is valid. The second merely reflects the bias associated with the terms liberal and conservative. Those identified as liberals by the media are usually to the right of Richard Nixon. You have included Obama and Clinton among the liberals. Clinton spent his presidency co-opting Republican ideas, Obama has manned his administration with Clinton retreads and people who can be guaranteed to not challenge the status quo. If these are liberals, you can count me out also.
Your first chart illustrates widespread disaffection with both parties, especially the Republicans. It should be obvious that voters for at least the last five years have wanted major changes from the center-right governments we've had for the last forty years. Obama defeated Hillary Clinton and McCain by positioning himself to their left. The disappointment many feel with the Obama administration is based on his unwillingness to make the bold changes that are obviously needed.
But I'm concerned with your recent meme about Nazis being leftists. Someone has described the political continuum as a circle rather than a straight line. The left and right extremes of the continuum meet in fascism where everything is secondary to the state. You have recently even describe Chile's Pinochet a communist even though he led a coup against the socialist Allende, backed by Nixon and Kissinger on the right. My point is that when the individual is made secondary to the government it doesn't matter whether it comes from leftists or rightists.
When you say that Nazi appeasers came from the left, you have it bass ackwards. Opposition to the war, ended by Pearl Harbor, came from the right wing of the Republican Party. They were led by Bob Taft who was an isolationist. There were also Republicans, like Prescott Bush, the Dulles brothers, and the Harriman family who had direct business affairs with the Nazis. It was liberals led by Roosevelt who saw our entry into the war as inevitable, opposing the Nazis through Lend-Lease and other actions before the war started.
larry sez……. "I wonder how all the other news organizations seemed to get it wrong,……"
I wonder too……….no I don't. LOL
King sez….."On another thread you were trying to convince me that Bush was a Leftist, but now you are trying to take issue with my statement that Republicans abandoned conservative principles."
Bush and his neocon masters are leftists.
what I said about republicans and conservative principles was……"Who changed the republican party from conservative to what it is today is the Christian Right." How is that disputing your statement?
C'mon walter. Don't make me repeat myself. You said "Let me get this straight…….republicans abandoned conservative principles, moved towards the center and got kicked to the curb. The way democrats can stay in power is do what the republicans did and move toward the center. is that supposed to make sense?"
You say Bush was a leftist. That means he moved the country TO THE LEFT, which failed and marginalized the Republican party. If true, how can you then argue with my statement that Dems moving to the center (as Clinton did, successfully) instead of further to the left (as you say Bush did) doesn't make sense ? You can't have it both ways.
frank,
Any political bent that promotes totalitarian government (communism, socialism, fascism) is left-wing to me. Conservative principles call for limited government, as I recall.
Hitler was a socialist, regardless of how the writers of the history books like to claim otherwise. As far as liberals appeasing Hitler, all I have to say is…Neville Chamberlain. Liberals were quite taken with communism back in the day too.
More importantly, who are the appeasers of today's would-be Hitlers (jihadists, Iran, North Korea ) ???? It sure ain't the right-wingers.
Conservative principles call for a limited government.
Too late — that horse has left the barn. The question now it who big government should serve — the rich and the few or the unrich and the many.
But back to the survey results, I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on the results. Obviously a lot of us are having trouble defining conservatives and leftists. Is OB a leftist or a centrist? What about Bush? How much smarter must the people have been who responded to the survey? Lots of people call themselves middle-of-the-roaders and think of themselves that way. They never talk to or associate with any of 'those other guys', and truly believe themselves moderate. So the poll may or may not prove anything.
the only place Bush/Cheney/Boehner moved the country was downward into a huge financial and moral hole.
I was talking about the republican party…..I don't know what you're talking about. I never made an assertion like that.
Some thoughtful remarks being made…BUT…This is like being at a party with about five people standing in a circle – all talking but mostly not hearing or not understanding each other. Thus the responses veer increasingly away from any visible objective.
Is the GOP really "lost" or has it simply been hijacked by the religious right?
Eitherway, I'm with the guys who prefer to self label as right of center. "Conservative" has been so brutalized, abused and usurped – it's not worth risking being misunderstood.
I wish there were a viable third choice. THE COMMON SENSE PARTY!?!?
alchemist,
I see it like you do if you use the labels Democrat and Republican. They are both corrupt.
J.J. Paine,
Same here. I want a third party (or parties) to compete with the Big Two.