deunking post-election spin
In the aftermath of Barack Obama's historic victory, many conservatives have been trying to console themselves with the following self-deceiving argument (from Bill Kristol's op-ed in today's New York Times):
"What’s more, this year’s exit polls suggested a partisan shift but no ideological realignment. In 2008, self-described Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent, in contrast with a 37-37 split in 2004.
But there was virtually no change in the voters’ ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country."
IN OTHER WORDS
yes we may have lost but it was really only because people are mad at Bush, since there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with our ideology, which all Americans agree with, since they say they're conservative.
OK, let's make something clear. There are two sets of numbers in that argument:
1) Party self-identification percentages
2) Ideological self-identification percentages
The first has value in this context. It is largely quantitative, not really open to a lot of misinterpretation. The categories are discrete and universally understood. Self-identified democrats vote democratic and vice versa. So a shift from 37-37 to 39-32 is significant. Assuming independents split straight down the middle, that takes the country from 50-50 to 62-45, which is pretty damned close to the actual popular vote result of 62-46.
Now, for the second number, the one that the GOP keeps spouting as proof that it isn't out of touch. It is dubious AT BEST, for one major reason: ideological self-identification is highly subjective. Ask 10 self-described liberals what it means to be liberal and you'll get 10 different answers, with the same for conservatives.
Further, the right has done such an effective job of demonizing the word liberal that many people who are in fact liberals don't identify as such. However, once you get into specific policies, many of those same "moderates" realise that they are in fact liberals in disguise.
In many ways, this is like asking Americans what socio-economic class they belong to. Put 100 random Americans in a room and I can pretty much guarantee you that 95+ of them will claim to be middle class, whether they are university professors, lawyers, air-conditioning technicians or shoe salesmen (or women). People's self-identification of their socio-economic status has little relation to their ACTUAL socio-economic status. All Americans want to feel that they are part of the middle class, so they tell themselves that they are.
So I am very sorry Bill (and all your mates), but you don't get to explain away two consecutive massive defeats by blaming it all on partisanship. You dragged the country much further to the right than the majority wanted to go, and now the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. I'm not saying we're entering an age of permanent democratic majority or anything like that, but with recent events reigniting people's belief in the need for government involvement in sorting out society's probems, maybe we can hope for a country of the centre-left. And that wouldn't be so bad.
"What’s more, this year’s exit polls suggested a partisan shift but no ideological realignment. In 2008, self-described Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent, in contrast with a 37-37 split in 2004.
But there was virtually no change in the voters’ ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country."
IN OTHER WORDS
yes we may have lost but it was really only because people are mad at Bush, since there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with our ideology, which all Americans agree with, since they say they're conservative.
OK, let's make something clear. There are two sets of numbers in that argument:
1) Party self-identification percentages
2) Ideological self-identification percentages
The first has value in this context. It is largely quantitative, not really open to a lot of misinterpretation. The categories are discrete and universally understood. Self-identified democrats vote democratic and vice versa. So a shift from 37-37 to 39-32 is significant. Assuming independents split straight down the middle, that takes the country from 50-50 to 62-45, which is pretty damned close to the actual popular vote result of 62-46.
Now, for the second number, the one that the GOP keeps spouting as proof that it isn't out of touch. It is dubious AT BEST, for one major reason: ideological self-identification is highly subjective. Ask 10 self-described liberals what it means to be liberal and you'll get 10 different answers, with the same for conservatives.
Further, the right has done such an effective job of demonizing the word liberal that many people who are in fact liberals don't identify as such. However, once you get into specific policies, many of those same "moderates" realise that they are in fact liberals in disguise.
In many ways, this is like asking Americans what socio-economic class they belong to. Put 100 random Americans in a room and I can pretty much guarantee you that 95+ of them will claim to be middle class, whether they are university professors, lawyers, air-conditioning technicians or shoe salesmen (or women). People's self-identification of their socio-economic status has little relation to their ACTUAL socio-economic status. All Americans want to feel that they are part of the middle class, so they tell themselves that they are.
So I am very sorry Bill (and all your mates), but you don't get to explain away two consecutive massive defeats by blaming it all on partisanship. You dragged the country much further to the right than the majority wanted to go, and now the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. I'm not saying we're entering an age of permanent democratic majority or anything like that, but with recent events reigniting people's belief in the need for government involvement in sorting out society's probems, maybe we can hope for a country of the centre-left. And that wouldn't be so bad.