WILLIAM GALSTON JULY 28, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In a recent post, Jonathan Chait rightly calls our attention to the Pew survey released July 16 that showed how voters rate political parties’ ideologies. While I agree with Chait’s interpretation of the data he cites, I want to underscore the significance of some other information in the survey—namely, where voters identify themselves in relation to the parties.
On the whole, 58 percent of voters see Democrats as liberal or very liberal, while 56 percent see Republicans as conservative or very conservative; no surprise there. But voters now place themselves much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party on this left-right continuum. Indeed, the ideological gap between the Democratic Party and the mean voter is about three times as large as the separation between that voter and the Republican Party. And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The Pew survey also shows that Democrats are far more ideologically diverse than Republicans. Twenty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 5 percent of Republicans call themselves liberal or very liberal. Conversely, 65 percent of Republicans think of themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 42 percent of Democrats self-identify as liberal or very liberal. This helps explain why 83 percent of Republicans see the Democratic Party as more liberal than they themselves are—while only 60 percent of Democrats place the Republican Party to the right of where they place themselves.
Shifts among Independents are especially notable. A Pew survey in June 2005 found that Independents considered the Republican Party to be twice as distant from them ideologically as the Democratic Party. Today, Independents see the Democratic Party as three times farther away than the Republican Party. In 2005, 51 percent of Independents thought that the Republican Party was more conservative than they themselves were, versus only 36 percent who thought that the Democratic Party was more liberal. Today, 56 percent of Independents see the Democratic Party as more liberal than they themselves are, compared to only 39 percent who see the Republican Party as more conservative.
In May 2009, after Obama had taken office and the broad political debate had shifted away from social issues and national security toward the economy and federal regulation, Pew found that Independents had begun to move toward the Republican Party. This month’s survey suggests a continuation of this trend in Obama’s second year.
Three politically relevant conclusions follow from these data. First, Democrats’ greater diversity means that party leaders are bound to have more trouble managing their coalition than the Republicans will theirs. Second, the Independents who helped Democrats score a notable success in the 2006 midterm elections may well do the same for Republicans in 2010.
The third conclusion to be drawn from the poll is that, whether Democrats lose control of the Congress or remain in power with much narrower majorities, Obama’s challenge will resemble the one Bill Clinton faced after 1994—namely, reestablishing his standing among those voters outside of the Democratic base whose support spells the difference between retaining and losing a national majority. I’m not necessarily suggesting that Obama should do that the way Clinton did, by championing small-bore issues—such as school uniforms—designed to send reassuring messages to the electorate. But I am suggesting that he should bring comparable focus and clarity to the task of broadening his appeal beyond his core supporters… and organize his White House to maximize the chances that he can accomplish that task.
9 comments
Please, most of the Democrats agenda has already been passed, and the last 2 elements; immigration and climate change, are not going to be changed anytime soon, and in fact Republican intransigence on these two issue will bite them in the ass severely in the future. As to the nonsense of these polls, it is all how people define Conservative to themselves. I consider myself a Conservative Democrat who is far, far, far away from a Conservative Republican in beliefs. The only reason Democrats might lose the House is because of the economy, and we all know the irony that it is because the Republicans so damaged the worlds economy, and were so obstructionistic in rebuilding it, that they have any chance.
- blackton
July 29, 2010 at 8:38am
This is a perfect example of pre-determined conclusions chasing after data rather than the other way around. Why were independents more willing to see Democrats as being closer to them in 2005 than they are today? Could it be that, in 2005, Republicans controlled every branch of government and the result was anemic wage growth, a disastrous war in Iraq, attempted Social Security privatization and an ineptly managed response to a natural disaster that nearly wiped out a major American city? Given those facts, why WOULDN'T independent voters identify with someone other than Republicans? Fast forward to 2010, when Democrats control the White House and Congress, and what do you get? An anemic economic recovery with 10% unemployment, an enervating war in Afghanistan, an unpopular health care law (albeit mostly unimplemented and widely misunderstood) and a poorly managed response to the nation's worst environmental calamity ever. Given those facts (or perceptions), is it hugely surprising that independents would now identify with those who are not Democrats? None of this means that we are a "center-right" nation or any other such nonsense. It means that, during troubled times, self-identified independent voters tend to place themselves on the other side of the scale from the party in power.
- wildboy
July 29, 2010 at 9:57am
A couple of thoughts: First, if you give any credence to the Pew data or Galston's take on it, you should find it entertaining that it looks like the Democrats' campaign plan is to energize their liberal base. Sounds like Carl Rove's plan, only his base was larger. Second, I am interested by Blackton's observation that he, as a Conservative Democrat, is far, far, far away from a Conservative Republican. I see myself as a Conservative Republican and have many acquaintances who answer to that description. None of us have any use for Sarah Palin, Sherron Angle, Rand Paul or some composite of them. All of us are pro-life (albeit not opposed to any and all restrictions; none of us are opposed to gay rights; there isn't a racist in the lot (indeed, most have supported affirmative action, at least in its initial incarnation). Most of us had doubts about Iraq and have doubts about Afghanistan (though, in candor, we have even greater doubts about deadlines to leave either on a deadline); all of us have about as much doubt about Laffer as we do about Keynes (we like cost-conscious government more than cheap government); all of us are opposed to "card check" and, indeed, take a dim view of most of modern unionism. I could go on and on and no doubt you would find a number of reasons why you are in one party and I am in another. But, taken as a whole, are we really far, far, far away? All of us?
- lsernoff
July 29, 2010 at 2:19pm
isernoff. You do not understand Keynes. What is your alternate economic theory? Monetarism?? Hoovarian?? None fit the economic data. It's like saying I'm What is your economic theory as opposed to a set of ideological statements?
- drofnats1
July 29, 2010 at 7:59pm
isernoff. You do not understand Keynes. What is your alternate economic theory? Monetarism?? Hoovarian?? None fit the economic data. It's like saying I'm not a flat-earther or geo-centric believer, but I also have no use for Einstein's Universe. What is your economic theory as opposed to a set of ideological statements?
- drofnats1
July 29, 2010 at 8:00pm
lsernoff, I am what used to be called a Scoop Jackson Democrat. Hardline FP, Liberal as to Government, moderate as to Social policy (though I have come around as to gay marriage). But you are different, you are at TNR, the people I feel far, far away from seem to represent the majority of Conservatives these days, the clowns at Fox News, the rubbish that comes out of the mouths of nearly all major Conservatives these days (did you see Sessions and Kyl on TV? It was disgraceful) What, really, do Republicans believe nowadays outside of Tax cuts and killing bad Muslims (and even there they are going soft)? I go to Frumforum because that is the only Conservative website where there is at least a discussion and not just "Obama is a Socialist" crap, but he has been labeled pretty much an apostate because of it.
- blackton
July 29, 2010 at 9:26pm
Isernoff fails today's definition of Conservative Republican - he is describing an Eisenhower Republican. I am more like Isernoff, though not so different than Blackton. Still a registered Democrat who is rejected by both Obama's base and today's GOP; both are hostage to their extremes, and that is reflected in the media and the blogosphere. It is so schizophrenic, like the Pennsylvania Senate race. I guess that is why neither party can depend on my vote anymore. What is going to happen in November is that voters like me will try to undo one-party federal government, whether it is DeLay/Frist/Bush43 or Pelosi/Reid/Obama. There is a need for checks and balances even if it means gridlock while America awaits reality in the two parties (could be a long wait). The Democrats understood that in retaking Congress 2004-2008, by broadening their tent, but too many old-style liberals got the chairs, and Obama has so far failed to regain the trust that the federal government can be effective and not politicized. With this photo of him here in comment preview, I say goodbye.
- K2K
July 30, 2010 at 2:01pm
"And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties." Mr. Galston, "major shifts from five years ago" don't create a new national ideology. The state of public opinion today is broadly the same as it has been for the last 30 years: U.S. voters are operational liberals and symbolic conservatives. They agree with just about every liberal policy position, but they label their politics according to which side succeeds best at libelling the opposition. The Republican Party has realized that it's difficult to underestimate the average voter's political IQ. Framing, not accuracy or consistency, is their strong point. Their policies have no coherence or rationality, but they know they can avoid taking responsibility for them by ignoring our real problems and repeating the same buzzwords ad nauseam : socialism, reverse discrimination, taxes, conspiracies, liberal media bias. Unfortunately, the voters are easily distracted. But the process works in reverse, too. Check the polls again five years from now; you'll see another "startling major shift" in the opposite direction.
- zimnycalif
July 30, 2010 at 6:19pm
blackton: You warm the heart of this old fool who also used to identify himself as a Scoop Jackson Democrat. What may separate us is your perception that I am a very untypical Republican conservative and my belief that there are many more of us than you think. Somewhere along the trail we lost control of our party to the pro lifers and the McMansioners. Unhappily, the Scoop Jackson contingent in the Democratic party also lost a lot of ground to the more "advanced" progressives. In toto, a lot of people in both parties are stuck with causes they don't support or support with a considerable dose of caution. drofnats1: Begging your pardon, I think I do understand Keynes, at least insofar as his views are cited in support of fiscal stimulus in the face of a deflationary crisis. I supported a huge stimulus in early 2009, though leaving David Obey to fill in the details ensured that it would be as ineffective as possible. What do you think Keynes would have to say about this Administration's apparent inability to identify "shovel-ready" projects almost a year and a half later? My guess is that he might suggest asking business people what government expenditures would encourage them to start investing in job creation again.
- lsernoff
July 31, 2010 at 11:49am