Moderates

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bruce Bartlett, who has a habit of writing brilliant emails that get published elsewhere, shared some very interesting thoughts with David Frum the other day on why he no longer wants anything to do with the Republican Party. I intend to talk the piece in more detail later, but something James Joyner said in response to the item caught my eye. Bartlett argued, persuasively, that the modern GOP no longer welcomes moderates into positions of party leadership. Joyner considers it a problem for both parties, not one.

It's true that moderates have largely been driven from the leadership ranks of the Republican Party. But they've also been driven from the leadership ranks of the Democratic Party. The combination of gerrymandered districts and the permanent campaign have incentivized polarization.

I disagree. The leadership ranks of the Democratic Party have plenty of moderates. Comparing the two, the centrist-count isn't even close.

In the Senate, the Majority Leader is Harry Reid, a pro-life moderate from a traditionally "red" state. While the Majority Whip is ####### Durbin, whom I consider to be a solid progressive, there are four Deputy Whips including two clear moderates: Tom Carper and Bill Nelson.

Elsewhere in the Senate, Max Baucus is the Senate Finance Committee chairman, and he's moderate. Kent Conrad is the Budget Committee Chairman, and he's a moderate. Hell, Dems made Joe Lieberman the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, even though he's not a Democrat and even after he spent the last couple of years attacking Barack Obama.

Admittedly, the House Democratic leadership is more reliably liberal, but it's worth emphasizing that when it came time to choose the House Majority Leader, the job went to Steny Hoyer, who is clearly not from the party's progressive wing.

For that matter, I'd argue that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden embrace a generally-progressive agenda, but neither are Dems I'd call "liberals."

I can appreciate the fact that a word like "moderate" is somewhat subjective. One person's centrist is another person's idea of American Fidel Castro.

But I think a fair assessment of the parties' leadership shows a qualitative difference. Is there any way in the world the Senate Republican caucus would make a pro-choice moderate from a traditionally "blue" state the Senate Majority Leader? Of course not; the idea is almost laughable.

One party not only tolerates moderates, it elevates them to leadership posts. One party doesn't.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Senators have larger constituencies, and tend to be more moderate, the same with the less populous states in the House. More populous states have more districts, so gerrymandering does produce more "safe" districts, and hence, more polarized House members. The majority of the so-called cross-over voters just don't vote, so that leaves the more determined members of the electorate, that tend to be polarized over issues, and do vote.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Senators have larger constituencies, and tend to be more moderate, the same with the less populous states in the House. More populous states have more districts, so gerrymandering does produce more "safe" districts, and hence, more polarized House members. The majority of the so-called cross-over voters just don't vote, so that leaves the more determined members of the electorate, that tend to be polarized over issues, and do vote.

As the OP pointed out though - we're not seeing Pro-choice Republicans in the House or Senate in leadership positions. There's is an ideological exclusiveness there that is obvious.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Senators have larger constituencies, and tend to be more moderate, the same with the less populous states in the House. More populous states have more districts, so gerrymandering does produce more "safe" districts, and hence, more polarized House members. The majority of the so-called cross-over voters just don't vote, so that leaves the more determined members of the electorate, that tend to be polarized over issues, and do vote.

As the OP pointed out though - we're not seeing Pro-choice Republicans in the House or Senate in leadership positions. There's is an ideological exclusiveness there that is obvious.

The author is grinding an ax. Senators are more pragmatic, even the recently deceased Senator, than you give them credit for.

To add, from the article:

I can appreciate the fact that a word like "moderate" is somewhat subjective. One person's centrist is another person's idea of American Fidel Castro.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[scandal 951]

Senators have larger constituencies, and tend to be more moderate, the same with the less populous states in the House. More populous states have more districts, so gerrymandering does produce more "safe" districts, and hence, more polarized House members. The majority of the so-called cross-over voters just don't vote, so that leaves the more determined members of the electorate, that tend to be polarized over issues, and do vote.

As the OP pointed out though - we're not seeing Pro-choice Republicans in the House or Senate in leadership positions. There's is an ideological exclusiveness there that is obvious.

As the OP also pointed out - "moderate" is in the eye of the beholder. Who's to say the Pro-choice/Pro-life ought to be the litmus test for deciding someone's moderate stance?

I do agree with the basic thrust of the article, namely that a pro-choice Republican has no chance in today's GOP for positions of *national* power - e.g. Tom Ridge was effectively ruled out as a McCain's running mate last year because of his abortion stance.

But I don't think that means every Republican is an extermist. There are Republican senators that are pro-life, and yet on other issues I would consider to be quite moderate. Olympia Snowe and perhaps even Chuck Grassley come to mind.

Dismissing the GOP as a collection of hopeless extremists is unfair to those within the party who are still trying to cling to a center. There are those in the party who can see beyond their base, and realize that the party has no choice in an increasingly Hispanic America but to move towards center on immigration and other issues. It's in the best interests of America that the GOP finds a broad footing, and in time I believe it will.