Take Back The Middle
All the world's a liberal, or at least it seems that way. For a country supposedly divided right down the middle, the Left sure does seem to be front and center in the news lately. From the oh-so-principled liberal Senators attempting to save us from the poor- and woman-hating John Roberts to the 100,000 plus moonbats marching in DC, the silent majority is awfully, uh, silent these days.
Fewer and fewer people approve of the President's performance. Of course, it's not all about Iraq or even about any inadequate federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. More than a few conservatives, myself included, are fed up with the new breed of spend and spend Republicans, as epitomized by George W. Bush.
But every time I flirt with throwing my support behind a can't-win Independent or even making a protest vote to punish the party, the Left does something to pull me back into the fold. This weekend it was the every-cause-under-the-sun socialist America-hatingathon in DC. I look at those people and I know I can never stand on the same side of the aisle as them. In fact, I'll vote Republican just to spite them.
But why should my choice be between socially conservative/fiscally liberal Republicans and a bunch of crackpots? I call on rational Democrats to condemn them. Seriously. Where are the Dems saying that they don't support those who claim that 9/11 was an inside job? Or that capitalism is the root of all evil? Or even those who would deny Israel's right to exist? Do principled Democrats really want to share the tent with those folks? I hope they don't anymore than I want to be associated with the likes of freaks like Fred Phelps and blood and guts Pro-lifers.
I originally started this post intending to bitch about the knee-jerk demonization of Republicans I routinely find even at non-political websites like Television Without Pity. I found this post about a contestant, James (not our James of course ;-), in a forum about Big Brother:
Ugh. I know, but I choose to block that from my mind. How could someone so snarky and fun be such a .... Republican?Seriously. I try to selectively block out that retarded, annoying, and ignorant picture he has of G.W. on his MySpace profile -- the very MySpace profile that got him picked to be on the show. His profile does bug me in general though, Republican weirdness aside.
It ticked me off that people make comments like that in a non-political arena and just assume that everyone is like them and agrees with their political viewpoint. All the world's a liberal. But then, honestly, I realized I'd probably have the same reaction to someone who was all gung-ho about Howard Dean. Mind you, I wouldn't be so rude as to post about it on some TV forum, but I'd think it.
And that's the problem. For every rude liberal who thinks all Republican are evil there's a conservative who thinks all Democrats are like Cindy Sheehan or Ward Churchill.
I feel like debates in America are taking place on the absolute fringes now (Is Bush Hitler? Is Hillary, indeed, the Devil?). We're so busy mocking and getting into shouting matches with the wingnuts and the moonbats respectively that we're forgetting that the vast middle of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, want a country where they can raise a family in peace, make an honest wage and mind their own business. Wouldn't our time be better spent figuring out how to best make that happen?
Campus women want to "take back the night". 9/11 families want to "take back the Memorial". Maybe the rational Democrats and Republicans need to band together and rally to take back the middle.
Update: Eric the Viking Pundit has a great post on kind of the same subject:
Here’s NY Times columnist David Brooks on “Meet the Press”:You look across the party and you see some Democrats who really are working on policy ideas. I think of John Edwards, Steny Hoyer, one of the House leaders who had a foreign policy document come out this week. But most Democrats seem to be acting as if the main problem with the country is that the country doesn't hate George Bush enough. And if we only shout louder, they'll hate him more like tourists in Paris who think they'll understand us if we scream a little louder. And to me, it's led to the brain death of the Democratic Party. I don't know where the party stands on Iraq. I don't know where it stands on entitlement spending. On issue after issue, I really don't know where that party stands.
Posted by at September 26, 2005 08:26 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1103
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # September 27th, 2005 12:46 PM BVBigBro |
| As you can see from the comments, the silent majority continues their silence. Maybe its' just not close enough to a national election yet. |
| # September 27th, 2005 12:51 PM kris |
| I think it's because the vast majority of readers of political blogs want to just sling mud back and forth. It's more fun and takes less thought. |
| # September 27th, 2005 1:03 PM BVBigBro |
| I think its' maybe more that the solutions one arrives at based on rational thought are far more difficult to implement than the solutions one arrives at that are based on emotion, rhetoric and anecdotes. |
| # September 27th, 2005 5:27 PM mbrlr |
| Calling the anti-war rally "socialist" is dragging us back to the days of my youth. Those folks oppose the war and they have a right to do that.
I do agree with you that we tend to discuss things in this country on the fringes, but...and here's where we differ...I think that's largely the fault of the post-1964 Republican Party largely driven by adherence to an ideology that allows very little dissent. The administration used 9/11 to take us into a war that had nothing to do with it. On the home front, the administration's placing its buddies and pals in positions of authority that they weren't qualified for proved to be disastrous. Those issues are legitimate; one of the virtues of our nation is that we allow those sorts of things to be raised and protest is one of the ways allowed. Most of the quite impolite rhetoric hereabouts is usually aimed at the cluelessness of those on the left, so suddenly asking "can't we all just get along?" is a bit disingenuous. |
| # September 27th, 2005 5:34 PM kris |
| 1) Who is saying they don't have a right to protest? No one here. Are you implying I don't have a right to disagree with them?
2. Have you looked at some of the signs these people were carrying? They had nothing to DO with the war. This was a general leftist protest wrapped up in a nice anti-war package. 3. Most of the quite impolite rhetoric hereabouts is usually aimed at the cluelessness of those on the left, so suddenly asking "can't we all just get along?" is a bit disingenuous. I'm not asking to get along with the clueless on the left. Screw them. I'm wondering where the moderates are and how we can work with them. |
| # September 27th, 2005 5:51 PM mbrlr |
| I didn't say you said they had no right to protest. I'm just saying that they do, even if you disagree with some of the specifics of their disagreement or any other issues they chose to use the opportunity to bring forward. You certainly have the right to disagree with them and I don't believe I suggested you don't. If that query was based on my "little dissent" statement, that statement was in reference to the view on intra-party dissent that seems to be held by many within the Republican Party.
This war has to do with this administration. Utilizing the opportunity to push a view on an issue while protesting another issue doesn't mean that you aren't sincere in your protest --- the folks (I haven't looked at the picture) may believe one thing about an issue they brought a sign about, but it doesn't mean they also don't believe the war is wrong. Define "the middle" or "moderate". The definition of those terms often depends on which side is doing the defining. "I'm wondering where the moderates are and how we can work with them." The us/them language is telling; that, along with you using "the clueless on the left" seems to indicate you might not make the moderate cut...at least in my definition. |
| # September 27th, 2005 8:04 PM BVBigBro |
| But that's one of the points. You don't get to define moderate, the voters do. The elements that now control, or are at least the most vocal, in the democratic party are fringe dwellers. It would be far easier for the republican party to draw 70% in a national election than for the democrats to draw 55%. What you consider the extreme element of the republicans has power only because of the democrats unwillingness to see how far left they have gone. The result of this is the ability of the republican party to draw a majority without having to veer left in the slightest, or without having to cater to the more libertarian elements that traditionally make up the republican party.
The reality of the situation is that the current minority party is beyond useless. They continue to offer only a vision of socialism, pacifism and unlimited government unwilling to compromise that vision even in the interests of the country or in the face of constant defeat. In short, a message tailored to keep them in the minority. Do the country a favor and draw the democrats back in from the fringe and at least become an effective check on the republicans. |
| # September 27th, 2005 11:23 PM TheUnabrewer |
| Minor picky point, but didn't Fred Phelps run for office as a Democrat?
Either way, no, I wouldn't associate the mainstream of either party with him. The man is evil. |
| # September 30th, 2005 9:56 PM Ambrose |
| As a faithful Catholic, and conservative Republican, I get a double dose of the verbal slappage from people who have little or no idea of what they are talking about.
It is amazing how easy it is for some to harvest a crop of half truths, process them into lies, package them as slogans, and market them to people who question the content less than they do that of a pack of hot dogs. Scott |
| # December 1st, 2005 10:16 AM mbrlr |
| As a faithful Catholic and a liberal Democrat, I get to ask this of the last post --- are the "some" you're talking about liberals or the Catholic hierarchy? |







