The other day a guy (who considers himself a liberal by the way) presented an interesting concept to me about why the left has a tough time in national elections. I believe most would agree that they should be running away with this one but… It's more easily drawn graphically but I'll try and put into text.
If you put what defines a "conservative" on a scale of say 1 to 10 and you have that person who is truly independent residing at 0, the breadth of that definition is much narrower than that of liberalism. A conservative may range from 1 who might have mixed views on fiscal policy, taxes and abortion to that 10 guy who might be a religious fanatic maybe? Someone who perhaps lives secluded in the woods, hunts, eats twigs, and has a bomb shelter, etc. That guy is relatively harmless to society. Of course there are exceptions but that's not the norm. The conservative scale passes through to the 10 guy and along the way you come across the semi-religious guy who sits at maybe 3, through the Sean Hannity type sitting at maybe 8 and the Farwell type at 8.5. On the other hand the scale defining liberalism is much broader ranging from that 1 guy who differs little from the conservative 1 guy. But the scale progresses to something beyond 10 on the liberal side; in its extreme lies the philosophy of socialism and even communism (no, I'm not calling anyone here a communist but it does reside on the very extreme liberal side of the scale). As you pass through 1 to 15 you come across that average American who considers himself liberal but lives their life with a low voice, then passes through the Rosie O'Donnels, Michael Moores, George Clooney types (at around 10), then on to the protestor wearing masks and burning stuff in the streets (the anarchist type at maybe 11 or 12). I would tend to believe the "average" American resides somewhere between the 4 on the conservative scale and the 4 on the liberal scale. However, the voice and power of liberalism in America comes from the elite; the Soros', the Hollywood and Manhattan types. Those people, while wielding the power, voice, and money, reside well beyond the 4 range. The Democratic Party knows they need that power on their side to get anywhere. That means they need to put up a candidate that resides much further out on the scale, a place where fewer and fewer average Americans reside. Once they put up the Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas who reside probably around the 9-10 range they start to lose more of the fours, even fives and sixes at that point. It's a matter of trying to please a much larger demographic, philosophy wise, not quantity wise. When they put up the guys hovering around the 4-5 range or so (Bill Clinton) they're successful. Now Obama may win this election but it sure is closer than it should be at this point. The scale of pleasure so to speak might be expanded this time due to the overwhelming displeasure of Bush. Saying that, as bad as it is in that light, there appears (right now anyway) that a lot of people would rather put up with what you guys call "more of the same" than Obama's pretty far-left ideals. I believe that's very telling and shows where Obama falls on the scale, and what voters feel about those that reside there. Especially moderates and swing voters. In general, the liberal left has a wider range of idealism to please, the folks way out there wield the biggest stick and "select" the Democratic candidate, and it alienates the scale-region where the "average" American resides. Of course the same thing happens on the conservative side but the folks residing on that scale are more closely packed across so less get alienated if in fact a further-right candidate is put up. Generally speaking though, conservatives don't put that guy up while the left does. And for the record, I would personally place my self on the conservative scale, probably around 2. I'm not necessarily religious, believe in reduced taxes, generally am in line with the conservative approach to national security, but am pro-choice. Somewhat of a mixed bag. Saying that, I certainly could vote for an Obama-like guy if he hung around the liberal 4 range. Like I said, there are exceptions; these are by no means rules. I know you can give me examples of conservative radicals bombing abortion clinics and the like. You can also suggest the right is overly influenced by the religious right but that still alienates fewer people. Religion is one of those things that transcends the scale. Of course it ends somewhere further out on the liberal scale but there are a lot of liberals going to church (those 4-5 and below folks). But at a top level, and as in a general concept, I believe it makes sense. I feel it's along this scale that elections are decided, not because someone said they can see Russia from Alaska or Reverend Wright was a buddy for 20 years. It was certainly not my intent to support either side here; just making an observation and discussion. Something different than the so and so lied here, republicans are stupid, Obama's a secret Muslim stuff. Sorry for the long post. Feel free to shoot holes in it.
Mike
If you put what defines a "conservative" on a scale of say 1 to 10 and you have that person who is truly independent residing at 0, the breadth of that definition is much narrower than that of liberalism. A conservative may range from 1 who might have mixed views on fiscal policy, taxes and abortion to that 10 guy who might be a religious fanatic maybe? Someone who perhaps lives secluded in the woods, hunts, eats twigs, and has a bomb shelter, etc. That guy is relatively harmless to society. Of course there are exceptions but that's not the norm. The conservative scale passes through to the 10 guy and along the way you come across the semi-religious guy who sits at maybe 3, through the Sean Hannity type sitting at maybe 8 and the Farwell type at 8.5. On the other hand the scale defining liberalism is much broader ranging from that 1 guy who differs little from the conservative 1 guy. But the scale progresses to something beyond 10 on the liberal side; in its extreme lies the philosophy of socialism and even communism (no, I'm not calling anyone here a communist but it does reside on the very extreme liberal side of the scale). As you pass through 1 to 15 you come across that average American who considers himself liberal but lives their life with a low voice, then passes through the Rosie O'Donnels, Michael Moores, George Clooney types (at around 10), then on to the protestor wearing masks and burning stuff in the streets (the anarchist type at maybe 11 or 12). I would tend to believe the "average" American resides somewhere between the 4 on the conservative scale and the 4 on the liberal scale. However, the voice and power of liberalism in America comes from the elite; the Soros', the Hollywood and Manhattan types. Those people, while wielding the power, voice, and money, reside well beyond the 4 range. The Democratic Party knows they need that power on their side to get anywhere. That means they need to put up a candidate that resides much further out on the scale, a place where fewer and fewer average Americans reside. Once they put up the Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas who reside probably around the 9-10 range they start to lose more of the fours, even fives and sixes at that point. It's a matter of trying to please a much larger demographic, philosophy wise, not quantity wise. When they put up the guys hovering around the 4-5 range or so (Bill Clinton) they're successful. Now Obama may win this election but it sure is closer than it should be at this point. The scale of pleasure so to speak might be expanded this time due to the overwhelming displeasure of Bush. Saying that, as bad as it is in that light, there appears (right now anyway) that a lot of people would rather put up with what you guys call "more of the same" than Obama's pretty far-left ideals. I believe that's very telling and shows where Obama falls on the scale, and what voters feel about those that reside there. Especially moderates and swing voters. In general, the liberal left has a wider range of idealism to please, the folks way out there wield the biggest stick and "select" the Democratic candidate, and it alienates the scale-region where the "average" American resides. Of course the same thing happens on the conservative side but the folks residing on that scale are more closely packed across so less get alienated if in fact a further-right candidate is put up. Generally speaking though, conservatives don't put that guy up while the left does. And for the record, I would personally place my self on the conservative scale, probably around 2. I'm not necessarily religious, believe in reduced taxes, generally am in line with the conservative approach to national security, but am pro-choice. Somewhat of a mixed bag. Saying that, I certainly could vote for an Obama-like guy if he hung around the liberal 4 range. Like I said, there are exceptions; these are by no means rules. I know you can give me examples of conservative radicals bombing abortion clinics and the like. You can also suggest the right is overly influenced by the religious right but that still alienates fewer people. Religion is one of those things that transcends the scale. Of course it ends somewhere further out on the liberal scale but there are a lot of liberals going to church (those 4-5 and below folks). But at a top level, and as in a general concept, I believe it makes sense. I feel it's along this scale that elections are decided, not because someone said they can see Russia from Alaska or Reverend Wright was a buddy for 20 years. It was certainly not my intent to support either side here; just making an observation and discussion. Something different than the so and so lied here, republicans are stupid, Obama's a secret Muslim stuff. Sorry for the long post. Feel free to shoot holes in it.
Mike
