Moderate Obama Most Liberal Senator
Filed under: 2008 elections — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 31, 2008 @ 8:28 pm CET
In 2007 the man who likes to present himself as a “moderate” was the most liberal Senator of all. He moved to the left in 2007 with 2006, as did Hillary Clinton (who moved to 16th place on the list of most liberal Senators). This reinforces my belief that Centrist and moderate bloggers are wise not to endorse Obama… as long as they care about actual policies and not just the tone of debate that is.
Yet, I’m sure that my critics will argue that it doesn’t matter. Why it doesn’t matter isn’t exactly clear because it certainly should matter.
Obama is the most liberal senator of all, yet moderates are rallying behind him. They have every right to do so, of course, but I would once again caution them to be critical and prudent.
These are facts. Facts, facts, facts.
The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns “composite” scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.
On a lot of issues they agreed, but on quite some they didn’t agree. And on the issues they didn’t agree, Obama did the liberal thing. “Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm’s way.”
Do with it what you will, but I think it’s time for people to realize that Obama is many things, but Centrist isn’t one of them, and neither is moderate.
1 Independent Liberal » Obama Must Be Stopped!
January 31, 2008 @ 8:34 pm CET[…] And if it takes a Dutchman, well so be it! […]
2 kreiz
January 31, 2008 @ 8:41 pm CETSo the real (and thus far unanswered) question, our Dutch friend, is to find out where Sen. John “McMaverick” McCain stands vis-a-vis his Democratic colleagues. Inquiring minds would like to know.
3 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 8:44 pm CETNot the msot conservative candidate. Last year… 80% if I’m not mistaken.
4 Tap
January 31, 2008 @ 8:56 pm CETMcCain’s Lifetime rating: 82%
McCain in 2005: 80%
McCain in 2006: 65%
His lifetime rating is boosted by his older numbers as he has been more liberal in recent years than in his earlier years.
http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm
5 Bob
January 31, 2008 @ 8:57 pm CETActually that article did talk about McCain.
Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories did not receive a composite score in NJ’s ratings. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59.
They also compare with some candidates that dropped out of the race. Conservative Ranking
6 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 8:59 pm CETI stand corrected. And Tap’s right: he has less conservative over the years.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering what moderates think about this.
7 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 9:09 pm CETApparently if Michael just keeps repeating the same post over and over again, I’ll just have to keep repeating the same rebuttal over and over again.
Moderate and centrist need not be the same thing.
And policy positions need not be the only thing that matters in defining who might produce relatively "moderate" political outcomes. A purist like Clinton might produce outcomes that are much more extreme than her stated positions (especially since her vaunted record indicates that her stated positions may be more opportunistic than real and that her confrontational and demonizing political style is a constant). A conciliator like Obama might have very liberal preferences, but have a governing style that is open to greater discourse and compromise resulting in more moderate actual outcomes.
I’ve explained this three times now, only to be blown off with hand-wavy dismissals of my point every time. It’s a bit frustrating.
Also, legislative records are very poor predictors of executive actions.
8 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:13 pm CETAm I the only one who find this reasoning weak at best? Jason, read the post again (it’s actually fresh info): he’s the most liberal Senator of 2007. The most liberal Senator. His votes were the most liberal of all. Most liberal. Lib.e.ral.
If he’s such a moderate in style, wouldn’t he have voted more often with Republicans? Wouldn’t he have reached out more? Of course he would have.
That’s because someone shows you that he’s the most liberal Senator of all and you answer with "I hope, if governing style… compromise…" That’s not exactly a strong reasoning Jason or at least I don’t find it strong. I find it more strong to show what his record is, and to draw conclusions from that. Centrists or or ‘moderates’ on the other hand seem to be determined to ignore the bloody obvious and use nice theories to explain why Obama would rule as a Centrist president, while his record shows that the man isn’t just not a centrist, but the most liberal senator of all.
You can’t dismiss that. Well, you can, but it’s odd.
9 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:17 pm CETLet me add, again, that pursuing far left policies while talking in a reasonable manner doesn’t make you a moderate. It makes you a liberal who talks nice.
And the theory sounds grant, but so do most other theories, the far majority of which don’t work out quite so well.
Jason: I’m not asking you to reconsider your support for Obama I’m asking you and people like you to be more critical when it comes to the most liberal senator of all.
And the idea that his votes don’t matter is more than awkward. It means that his work in the senate is useless then? Irrelevant? If so, you can’t use it for experience either.
I truly find this stuff mind bugling.
10 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 9:20 pm CETThat treats moderate and centrist as being exactly the same thing. And it continues to ignore the point I keep making about style interacting with policy preferences to produce actual outcomes.
Yeah, because my post today pointing out Obama’s possible links to Nation of Islam is a mark of my continued uncritical support, right?
I have conceded many times that it is possible for someone to honorably disagree with my expectations that Obama might produce more moderate actual political outcomes. I’m just saying that should be a two-way street and that it’s not monumentally out of line for you to concede that my interpretation of how to perceive what is “moderate” is not presumptively unreasonable.
Yes, Obama’s liberal voting record might indicate a propensity to rigidly pursue those liberal preferences if elected President. But it seems equally possible that his moderate style might trump those enough to make for more moderate outcomes. I’m not saying he doesn’t have mostly liberal preferences, I am saying that actual outcomes are a function of those preferences PLUS political style and that your scope of analysis is too narrow.
11 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:25 pm CETThat treats moderate and centrist as being exactly the same thing. And it continues to ignore the point I keep making about style interacting with policy preferences to produce actual outcomes.
Jason. LEt me explain it very simple for you.
1. Centrist: someone who’s policies are, overall, in the middle.
2. Moderate: someone who’s policies are not per definition in the middle, but neither far to the left, nor far to the right.
It’s pretty safe to say that the most liberal senator of all isn’t a moderate. It’s truly very, very simple.
More critical isn’t the same as "continued uncritical support" Jason. Reread the comment. "More critical" I wrote. I think we would be wise not to exaggerate what people say. Straw men and all that.
But: yes, you can’t just ignore this. Your theory sounds nice and I know you believe in it, but you have to take this stuff into account and his votes do matter.
I’ll repeat my view of Obama: it’s a true liberal, who talks the moderate talk, but who’ll pursue liberal policies as he has done all his life. He’ll reach out when conservatives agree with him, not when they disagree. Or he’ll talk nice with them only to ignore them when push comes to shove.
12 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 9:29 pm CETCondescension is not going to keep me in this discussion, Michael. If you really wanted the reaction of moderates, you might consider exercising the principle of charity a bit.
Since I added this after you responded, I will repost it here:
I have conceded many times that it is possible for someone to honorably disagree with my expectations that Obama might produce more moderate actual political outcomes. I’m just saying that should be a two-way street and that it’s not monumentally out of line for you to concede that my interpretation of how to perceive what is “moderate” is not presumptively unreasonable.
Yes, Obama’s liberal voting record might indicate a propensity to rigidly pursue those liberal preferences if elected President. I am not the one in this discussion who is condemning the other side as just totally wacko. But it seems equally possible that his moderate style might trump those enough to make for more moderate outcomes. I’m not saying he doesn’t have mostly liberal preferences, I am saying that actual outcomes are a function of those preferences PLUS political style and that your scope of analysis is too narrow.
13 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 9:30 pm CETI think the only valid argument that Obama might be a more moderate/centrist executive than he has been as a senator would be that he is a senator from a liberal district. In an ideal world, it would make sense that a politician might be shifting his positions to reflect those of his constituents (in fact, Michael, I’d like to ask you why you don’t similarly criticize Romney for stating positions now that he’s running for POTUS which are considerably to the right of those of his record?)
Obama was voting in a way to not only reflect the wishes of his constituents, but also to earn their votes on reelection. As POTUS of course he’d have to consider wishes of the entire electorate if he wanted a chance at a second term. And he’d also have to consider how his policies would be able to gain enough support among moderate Dems in the Senate and House (just as, for example, Nancy Pelosi probably has to be more moderate as Speaker than she would if she were strictly representing her district- she’s forcing her other party members to give an up or down vote and she knows not to push the agenda too far to the left so that the reps from moderate districts don’t lose their seats.)
Now to me, this doesn’t go far enough and even more moderate Dem agendas are too liberal for me….but I do think it’s a valid argument.
14 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:40 pm CETDisagreed. It’s not. And he’s running on quite a liberal platform as well. Remember the "reaching out" comments? Nowhere did he truly reach out.
What’s more, as an executive you do have that excuse (had to work with, etc.) but he doesn’t. There’s no need for him to be so incredibly liberal if it’s against his will. Notice that he became more liberal in his second year compared to his first year (the year that he was elected).
This means that he got more liberal in the year that there was no election for him for his district, and that he was less liberal when running / coming to the Senate.
In other words: it doesn’t make sense.
And I’m saying you bring in completely unproven theories and that you have to judge a man on his record and preferences.
Well, people can do what they like, but I just disagree with them.
15 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:42 pm CETAgreed that I could’ve used different words. In turn I’d appreciate if you’d stop distorting my words then.
16 sashal
January 31, 2008 @ 9:42 pm CETso, is Obama liberal or far-left?
It is hard to understand from your position, Michael
17 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 9:54 pm CETWhy are his liberal policy preferences relevant but his moderate rhetorical preferences assumed to be utterly unimportant to actual outcomes, Michael?
Both are preferences. Both impact on actual policy outcomes, as I explained. And both are clearly part of his record.
You keep disparaging rhetorical style as just “talking pretty” but that is not how governing works. HOW something is offered has a HUGE impact on WHAT eventually gets enacted. That’s not just “theory”, it is how politics works in the real world of governance. For example, Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care proposal was sunk more by the secretive and zero-compromise WAY in which it was offered than by its actual content (which mostly didn’t even enter into the public debate at the time). Had Hillary Clinton had a more compromising STYLE, she would have been capable of compromise and we might not be in an ever-worsening fix. We also would have had a much more MODERATE policy outcome than her original LIBERAL proposal.
18 Justin Gardner
January 31, 2008 @ 10:33 pm CETTo answer your question Michael, I think it’s fine. As I’ve stated before, I’m more interested in a moderate tone. However, I do think you can look at Obama’s other achievements and see where he could be an executive which favors more centrist policies since his constituency would be the entire nation. By the way, you still haven’t credibly defended your preference for Hillary based on her experience or policies. Because as the article you linked to mentions, Obama and Hillary only voted differently 10 out of 267 times, and "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter." So seriously Mike, you should just support McCain if he becomes the nominee and be done with it. He’s much more in line with your conservative ideology anyway.
19 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 10:38 pm CETI’ve endorsed two people on both sides and it’s up to me to decide who I’ll ’support’ in the general election. That’s, again,not your choice to make. As for Hillary: I’ve explained my case many times int he past. That you’re not willing to take the time to read it is, once again, your problem.
Read the posts, then get back at me.
20 Rich Horton
January 31, 2008 @ 10:47 pm CETIts a simple matter of logic. In a Senate controlled by Democrats (especially a narrowly held Senate) Obama had the most partisan voting record. Now, for any other politician this would be evidence of their strong liberal beleifs…but for Obama its proof he’s a centrist.
it seems to me that someone who wanted to show they wanted to govern in a centrist manner they wouldnt vote so strictly along party lines.
Who knew that Newt Gingrich was such a "centrist".
And Justin, how is you position any different than saying "Obama IS a centrist because he CLAIMS to be one." Particularly when any evidence to the contrary is treated as being OK because his "tone" will be centrist.
If two people come up and punch me in the nose I’m not gonna think one of them is better because they say "Excuse me" before they knowck me for a loop.
21 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 10:52 pm CETRich,
I have several times offered examples from Obama’s campaign site where he goes out of his way to modify the conventional liberal position with some conciliation towards the other side.
Every time I do it, Michael responds that "that’s just one example" and demands another one. Bit of an infinite cycle, that.
Also, no one seems willing to explain how Hillary Clinton is in any way more "centrist" or "moderate" than Obama. It is simply because she or the media says she is? And why assume that her very recent positioning of herself in policy space is more genuine than Obama’s conciliatory rhetoric, when BOTH of them "just happen" to coincide with presidential ambitions?
22 Rich Horton
January 31, 2008 @ 11:13 pm CETJason, Oh don’t get me wrong…both Obama and Clinton would disasters of a sort.
But if the question is who is the most centrist…then the top two choices in this Presidential season have to be Romney and McCain.
23 kranky kritter
January 31, 2008 @ 11:46 pm CETI’ve got a BIG problem with these ratings. Every time someone runs for President as a democratand becomes a serious candidate, they are suddenly at the very top of the list. And sure, this might be in part due to a need to sail left to get the base votes. But it also might be because the folks doing the ratings are cooking the books to make the dem nom look as much as possible like an evil godless liberal. Now that Kerry’s not a threat, his ranking slides back. Obama’s a threat now so he tops the list and curiously even manages to beat out Kucinich. If Obama had dropped out, Hillary would have somehow slid into the top 3-5 anways. It’s a pretty safe bet that every 4 years, one of the democratic candidates will rise to #1 with a bullet in the eyes of the liberal rankers. You can set your watch by it. Obama drew the short straw. Big whoop. No one credible is denying he’s liberal. The MOST liberal?Let’s not pretend we can know that with any degree of certitude remotely approaching Michael’s trumpeting.
24 It’s How You Go About It » Comments from Left Field
January 31, 2008 @ 11:53 pm CET[…] is some confusion out there, succinctly illustrated by, but not limited to, Michael van der Galien, as to the nature of the National Journal’s ranking Obama as the most liberal senator of […]
25 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 12:03 am CETBut he obviously hasn’t backed up what he says or tried to give the other side any verification of that with his actions. As Rich points out, in a Dem controlled Congress he had the most perfect record of voting along his own party line. If he was serious about reaching across the aisle, could he have not found any ground to do that during the Congressional votes?
And if not, then why should we take his word on it? As Rich also points out, would you give Newt the benefit of the doubt like that if he ran a campaign saying that he wanted to run for president as a uniter?
26 casualobserver
February 1, 2008 @ 12:25 am CETI’m not sure who’s right here, but just in case, guys, be sure to return the Senate to the Republicans. It’s called "insurance"….lol!
27 Justin Gardner
February 1, 2008 @ 12:27 am CETMichael, come on man…if you’re going to tell me to read something then link it. You know I already read your main post when you endorsed Hillary because my recent posts are specifically about your lack of tangible proof for your assertions about Hillary’s experience, hawkisheness, etc. So you know where I stand, and I’m pretty sure I know where you do too, but again…where are your facts or do you just have opinions?
I’ll have more later, as well as a response for Rich. Grabbing a bite to eat right now and then watching the debate.
28 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 3:16 am CETJason opined:
but have a governing style that is open to greater discourse and compromise resulting in more moderate actual outcomes.
So what I am gathering from this is that while Obama might be far left liberal he is going to have to compromise and as a result of using moderate language he will more likely get a moderate result.
Why are his liberal policy preferences relevant but his moderate rhetorical preferences assumed to be utterly unimportant to actual outcomes, Michael?
So if it becomes about policy matters then the fact is that a president actually has very little influence over domestic agendas and in fact will have his greatest impact over foreign policy matters.
Thus the question I have is how is Barak Obama going to be a better President then Hillary Clinton simply because of a moderate Centrist tone?
29 Cernig
February 1, 2008 @ 3:53 am CETSteve Benen explains why the National Journal’s rankings stink on ice.
But before anyone takes the National Journal rankings at face value, it’s worth noting how very flawed the methodology is. Indeed, it was misleading in 2004, and it’s equally misleading now.
Taking a closer look at this year’s results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings.Better yet, National Journal’s press release on the rankings noted the criteria was based on 99 key roll-call votes last year: “Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.” So, Clinton voted for the liberal position 77 times, Obama voted for it 65 times, which makes Obama the chamber’s single most liberal member. Got it.What’s more, Obama was the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, and the 10th most liberal in 2006, before racing to the front of the pack in 2007. National Journal suggests this has something to do with Obama moving to the left to curry favor with Democratic primary voters.But there’s a more logical explanation: Obama missed a whole lot of votes in 2007 — he’s been on the campaign trail — but was on the floor for many of the biggest, most consequential votes. In nearly every instance, he voted with the party. And with that, voila! The most liberal senator in America.Except that’s not much of a standard. The rankings use an amorphous meaning of the word “liberal,” and the percentage doesn’t take missed votes into account at all (which also helps explain why Kerry nabbed the top spot four years ago)
Michael has been taken in by the rightwing spin on this…mostly because, it seems to me, he wanted to be.
Regards, C
30 Cernig
February 1, 2008 @ 3:59 am CETMSNBC says much the same as Benen and adds:
As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn’t vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."
Regards, C
31 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 4:47 am CETThe National Journal is far from the only organization that compilies such rankings. They all show Obama to be on the far left. They all show Clinton to be more centrist. And they all show McCain to be centrist in recent years.
Well, I guess I shouldn’t assume to have seen them all…I should say all that I have seen seem to have the same general assessment of the three. But really, guys…are you seriously suggesting Obama’s voting record (in the Senate and in Illinois) is not well to the left??
32 PatHMV
February 1, 2008 @ 5:02 am CETJason, my problem with Obama is that I see a lot of the same old Democratic suggestions coming from him that Republicans are only for the rich, that George Bush is in the pocket of the rich, that the GOP is the party of divisiveness.
As I noted in <a href="http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/2008_election/obamas_response_to_the_state_of_the_union">this recent post on his response to the state of the union</a>, Obama spent the first part of his speech accusing George Bush of things like letting the banks "run amok," and said that the State of the Union address was full of "the same empty rhetoric the American people have come to expect from this President."
After thus condemning Bush and the Republicans, Obama says that "the failures of the last seven years," another specific reference to the Bush administration, "stem not from just a single policy, but from a broken politics in Washington. A politics that says it’s ok to demonize your political opponents when we should be coming together to solve problems." I don’t see how that can be interpreted as much else other than a fairly standard Democratic condemnation of the divisive President Bush.
He did make some very carefully phrased kind remarks about a safely dead Republican, Ronald Reagan. That was a brilliant bit of political theater, because it incensed Bill Clinton, causing the Clintons to overreact. It also was an early and subtle dig at the Republicans, because it reminded GOP voters, really, that none of our candidates come close to being Ronald Reagan.
But I have yet to see Sen. Obama make any kind of condemnation of any Democrats, other than those directly tied to the Clintons, for any divisiveness. He doesn’t use any examples of Democratic demonizations of Republicans, and he generally follows the same pattern of talking about President Bush, and then criticizing these past 7 years for being divisive. I just don’t see that even with his rhetoric he’s ACTUALLY being that moderate.
33 Justin Gardner
February 1, 2008 @ 5:12 am CETRich said, "And Justin, how is you[r] position any different than saying "Obama IS a centrist because he CLAIMS to be one." Particularly when any evidence to the contrary is treated as being OK because his "tone" will be centrist."
First, I think changing the tone of Washington is essential to getting the things we need done for America. That’s why I started Donklephant with the idea that there needed to be a place in the blogosphere where both sides can come together in a respectful forum, share ideas and possibly try to find some common ground. If you head over to my site, you’ll see just that sentiment expressed right below the masthead. So that’s very important to my personal political philosophy because without that first, the second thing (common ground policy) doesn’t happen.
Second, I’m not here to defend Obama against a magazine that says he’s the most liberal Senator, because I know his record and have cited numerous bipartisan bills, including a very tough ethics bill, he has passed in his brief time in the Senate. What I’m more interested in personally is his Presidential platform. And to Jason’s point about Michael holding Obama to a standard which he doesn’t seem to hold Hillary too, if you look at Obama’s Presidential platform he calls for a common sense universal healthcare plan that doesn’t mandate that everybody has to buy into it (Hillary’s does) and a foreign policy and military strategy that, for all intents and purposes, seems to me to be much more hawkish than Hillary’s. But Michael would rather find a magazine that says Obama had a more liberal voting record than Hillary (barely) to prove that his candidate is better. That’s his prerogative, but it’s just more thin gruel.
Meanwhile, Jason and I are still both waiting for Michael to answer how Hillary has more experience and is more in line with his definition of what a centrist is. He says she’s a hawk, yet she disowns her vote on Iraq. He says she passes more moderate policies, but even the very magazine he cites says that the policy differences between them are virtual nonexistent. So sorry Rich, but I’m waiting for Michael to answer the exact same question you asked me. I’ve been very consistent with my position on being moderate and Obama living up to that definition. And until Michael can actually explain his choice of Hillary over Obama on the grounds he has cited, there’s only one person in this debate who is claiming something and not backing it up and it isn’t me.
34 Simon
February 1, 2008 @ 5:34 am CETJustin, the tone isn’t going to be changed by Obama, so it’s a red herring to say that the tone needs to be changed. Obama says he’ll listen to alternative points of view. Guess what? As it turns out, Bush often meets with Pelosi and Reid. He listens. He may well even respect their different opinions. Then he does whatever he was going to do anyway. Which is exactly what Obama will do if his record is anything to go by, and I don’t believe that leopards change their spots on taking the oath of office.
As to Obama cooperating on the ethics bill, how is it uniting rather than dividing to support a bill whose only opposition came from avarice rather than principle? You can’t base a claim of bipartisanship on voting with the GOP on issues that command broad support among both Republicans and Democrats. You have to look at how he’s conducted himself on issues that are actually divisive.
35 Rich Horton
February 1, 2008 @ 6:01 am CETJustin: Just a quick question…what does the word "tone" entail for you exactly? (And I mean that question with no snark whatsoever.) I ask because I can remember 2000 pretty clearly when Bush went on and on about how he would be a "uniter".
I forget…how’d that work out?
36 Rich Horton
February 1, 2008 @ 6:04 am CETSimon: I think you have this dead on. If Obama had stood up and searched for common ground on, say, immigration, I’d have given him some kudos…but he ran and did the politically "safe" thing.
Does anyone know of a vote where Obama voted against his own party leadership? I dont.
37 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 6:25 am CET38 Ron Chusid
February 1, 2008 @ 7:01 am CETI see Cernig already debunked the claim above.
One problem with ranking Obama on a left right spectrum is that his views often transcend the narrow confines of this linear spectrum. To try to label Obama as a liberal or a moderate fails to understand his views.
An item posted at The Guardian is more accurate in arguing that Obama’s views are orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis. It concludes:
39 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 11:43 am CET. So that’s very important to my personal political philosophy because without that first, the second thing (common ground policy) doesn’t happen.
I do understand Jasons point of view that if you are a kinder, Gentler president then it will get you stuff. Those were the first George Bush’s sentiments. He was very meek mannered in public. Did not engage in volatile Rhettoric and he even went back on a pledge of "Read my Lips: No New Taxes" The result. The democrats got their increased taxes and the GOP gave GWB1 a long needed vacation.
They were incensed that he would break a promise and seek compromise long before the current political climate. The failure that Obamaites are making is in thinking that this type of atmosphere has not existed at the water fountains since the turn of the century and only with the Swearing in of the GOP and GWB did this country suddenly become politically polarized.
George Washington himself said that the country was making a huge mistake by having a party system because its result is going to be exactly what we see today. Thus Obama if he wants to seek consensus is going to have to consider that consensus means not abandoning Democratic principals to foster Republican principals.
I forget Can someone tell me how exactly that works. The GOP doesn’t want Gay marriage and the Dems do? How is that going to work? No Abortion. No hasty pull out of Iraq. No concessions to Iran. Hillary said taxes rolled back to pre Bush Levels and people will be okay. While I agree with that, how is the GOP going to give into that without being hammered by their own base?
The assumption is that because Obama asks in a nice manner that the GOP base is going to say…….Okay fellas give Obama Gay rights, Abortion rights, End the war, Surrender to Iran, Raise taxes. Tax corporations. Its okay even though they are are core values he asked nicely.
It is ALWAYS about policy differences that divide congress and this nation. There is no middle ground on these issues. You either have gay marriage or you dont. You either have abortion or you dont. So why are we all pretending that because Obama is a swell guy that there is going to be this sudden coming together and the GOP will surrender their Principals?
40 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 11:53 am CETBecause after all What Principals is Obama and Hillary wanting to surrender to have Moderate, Center ground?
Please someone tell me what Principals of his far left liberal voting record is Obama going to surrender to the GOP when he is president.
Will the far left base say "Obama because you are so nice its okay to give in on Gay Marriage to the GOP because your just a swell guy"
Please all you Obama Supporters tell me what part of his core values, and policies he is going to surrender or Moderate on to be this great centrist that he claims?
Once again I am a Hillary supporter. So I want to know which of my Liberal Beliefs I have to surrender to the GOP when Obama gets into office?
41 kreiz
February 1, 2008 @ 12:45 pm CETRight-leaning Tigerhawk sums up this thread using a phrase heretofore unspoken- cognative dissonance:
"I have more cognative dissonance over Obama than any candidate I can remember. I like listening to him enormously, even though he supports policies that I oppose. He is the most liberal member of the US Senate, but is not nearly as annoying as at least 80 other Senators from both parties. Whether he wins the nomination this time or not, Barack Obama is going to be a powerful force for the Democrats for a generation. Republicans had better get used to it."
His substantive policy views are quite liberal, his tone and rhetoric are moderate and pleasing- and not divisive. Ronald Reagan had the same cognative dissonance going on, only he came from the right. I believe voters have an intuitive emotional sense about our pols. Most pols are easily sized up. Obama’s a curveball emotionally. So he’s elusive.
But he’s still a liberal, just as Reagan was an undaunted conservative. It just didn’t feel that way.
42 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 1:30 pm CETEssential, yes, (well, a qualified yes- I’d prefer if it happens that way but good things can get done even if there’s rancor- just depends on which side’s rancor prevails and whether or not their policies are good ones). But even if we agree on the ‘essential’ part, it’s still FAR from sufficient. 9/11 produced the most unified spirit in the US that I’ve seen in my lifetime- and then what happened when people actually started debating policy issues?
43 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 1:36 pm CETBut he’s still a liberal, just as Reagan was an undaunted conservative. It just didn’t feel that way.
There is substance to what you said but I think that in the end people did want to go in another direction. I really don’t feel it was that they wanted to go in the conservative direction so much as Reagan made it cool to be a conservative hence the Reagan Democrats who have all but gone back home to roost with their family once again.
Obama is making it cool to be a liberal once again and after about 20 years of having the liberal word being a very ugly thing he is making it cool to be a liberal again.
Yet where I disagree with Obama supporters is that just as Reaganism fell apart once Reagan was gone, Obamaism does not even have a chance in the beginning because while Reagan asked that you be a conservative. Obama is saying we should abandon our liberal values and embrace our conservative brethren.
I wonder how many liberals really, really want to endorse GOP talking points for the sake of getting along. My guess is about zero. So what we have is a false message of hope offered in a moderate, centrist way.
44 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 1:41 pm CETLet me make a list. Can you all help me.
Which Liberal values Is Barak Obama asking me to give up on first? Which Conservative Values should I now adopt in order to make myself a moderate?
Hillary is saying these are our core vaules and this is what we are going to try to get accomplished for America.
Obama is saying give up your core values for the sake of moderation.
Okay……….where do we start? Whose first?
45 kreiz
February 1, 2008 @ 1:48 pm CETThat was going to be my other thought, Abrisaham- is he a compromiser? Bill Clinton was- he compromised on many issues, much to the chagrin of the left. I don’t know if we know the answer as to Barack.
As to your Reagan observation at #43, poll after poll revealed that a majority of voters did not share most of Reagan’s conservative views. Yet he remained very popular. It drove Dems mad.
46 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 2:15 pm CETI know Kreiz thats why I said he made it cool to be a conservative. Thats why democrats joinned his movement but were still democrats.
47 kreiz
February 1, 2008 @ 2:24 pm CETI’m not discounting the coolness factor- believe me. I just don’t know how cool higher taxes will be for suburbanites.
48 kreiz
February 1, 2008 @ 3:21 pm CETMy point is simply that Reagan’s tax cuts and monster deficit spending made it relatively painless for the middle class to endure an otherwise strongly conservative agenda. Obama’s tax hikes won’t have that luxury. We’ll find out how far coolness extends, I guess.
49 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 3:32 pm CETKreiz I am a Obama detractor because there is nothing cool about his message. He simply wants you to give up your values and for me to give up my values and to replace them with his values.
Once the progressives realize just what they are voting for their will be no coolness left in the Obama Factor. The question is will they realize it sooner……….or later.
As for me. I like my values. I sorta have spent a long time figuring them out and making them work for me in my life. Hillary wants to keep fighting for those values.
OBAMA wants me to surrender those values. Not only does he want to surrender on values and the good fight of our politics but he wants to surrender on Iraq, surrender on Iran and to make dovishness a "hip" thing.
There is nothing about his message I find appealing. Neither does about 70 percent of the rest of the nation despite the perverse media who is trying to say otherwise.
So I have to keep asking not you but all those Obama supporters. Which value should I surrender first? Gay rights, Abortion, Gun control, Iraq, Iran, taxes, welfare, health insurance? Which one?
50 Simon
February 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm CETAbrisaham: he doesn’t want you to surrender your values. That’s one thing we can be sure about. Evaluating his rhetoric in light of his record, there are two possibilities. Either he really believes it (a horrific prospect for the lack of self-awareness it connotes), and thinks that the standard liberal tropes are sensible, pragmatic compromises. Or it’s a façade, a lie: he just wants to sound enough like he’s willing to compromise to con enough people into thinking he’s a moderate, a compromiser, a uniter not a divider. But one way or another, I guarantee you he will attempt to govern more-or-less exactly as Hillary will, except perhaps with more icing sugar sprinkled on top of the cake, and perhaps not as competently as she would. As Alan has aptly put it (characterizing the view of Obama’s critics), "Obama is a fraud, nothing more than a generic liberal with rhetorical chops. He won’t actually unify anybody."
51 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 5:29 pm CETI know Simon but the great mantra from Obama is that we must all surrender a bit of ourselves to get along. Or at least thats what Im getting.
Now on the school yard when you are fighting over the swing the teachers says share and we all know what that means. When Obama says it………well great but what does that actually mean? I mean share what? Share values?
What I have is a set of values and the democratic party has a set of policies that enforce and support my core values. Obama wants us to compromise on those Values which in effect is to compromise on those policies.
I just want to know from the Obama Supporters that as a Supporter of Hillary and a liberal which one should I give up first. Second. Third.
Hillary makes no bones about it. She wants to fight for my beliefs. McCain and Romney want to fight for their beliefs but Obama wants me to surrender.
Okay Where do I start??
52 Alan Stewart Carl
February 1, 2008 @ 5:54 pm CETI’m late to this conversation, but I have a few things to say.
1) these ratings are more about who is more partisan than more liberal, although there is overlap
2) based on all evidence, Obama and Hillary would promote almost identical policies if elected … in that case, what does it matter if moderates/centrists prefer Obama over Hillary? The ONLY DIFFERENCE between them is rhetoric and Obama has the more moderate rhetoric
3) For those who want change (and a lot of moderates are more akin to independents seeking change), Obama represents a much greater degree of change than any other candidate. Some people don’t vote based on policy preferrences. They vote based on gut feeling. That drives people like Michael crazy, but it’s actually not an invalid way to vote. After all, a lot of being president is about character rather than policy. If some moderates prefer Obama’s character, why act like they’re being irrational?
53 Simon
February 1, 2008 @ 5:59 pm CETAbrisaham:
But he’s not talking to people like you! He’s saying that people like me have to surrender a bit in order that we can all get along. Everything about him screams the achievement of consensus by the silencing and sublimation of dissenters from the liberal line.
54 Simon
February 1, 2008 @ 6:02 pm CETAlan, if these "ratings are more about who is more partisan than more liberal," how does that help your case? You really want to make the argument that these figures don’t prove Obama’s a liberal, only that he’s a democratic partisan? Really?
55 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 6:03 pm CETBy your own admission ("They vote based on gut feeling."), they’re being irrational- even if that word is a bit more prejorative than I would use. But still, a definition of irrational is:
And that fits with ‘vote based on gut feeling.’
56 Alan Stewart Carl
February 1, 2008 @ 6:32 pm CETSimon: best I can tell, they base the ratings on whether or not a congressman or woman votes for a Democratic generated or Republican generated bill. While Democratic bills are generally going to be more liberal, they don’t have to be radically liberal or even that far off center. Some people seem to be using this rating to claim Obama is a radical — all it shows is he’s a strong partisan. That’s not good for his uniter cred, but it doesn’t mean he’s necessarily outside the mainstream in his beliefs.
C — uh, yeah, bad word choice on my part. I shouldn’t have said gut feeling. I should have used something like "character traits." My main point is that many people can be inspired by a leader who doesn’t preach their gospel but is nonetheless a compelling person they can trust. I don’t think that’s irrational, although it’s not as pragmatic as voting based on issues.
57 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 6:42 pm CETI get that, Alan, and in private life and personal relationships I think it makes sense to trust intuition and base trust on general sense of character of a person. I can’t agree with doing that in politics though (at least, not doing it purposefully- I think everyone does it to some extent by reflex) because candidates are so packaged and focus group tested. Because I know that a candidate is being marketed to appeal to my gut instincts, I’m more wary of it and try to avoid making decisions on that basis unless the evidence is pretty supportive that my sense of the person’s character is correct.
58 PatHMV
February 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm CETHow the lists are generated depends on the organization, of course. But most of them are not just partisan mouthpieces. They may be strongly aligned to one party or the other (NARAL to the Democrats, for example), but the purpose of the groups is to put serious pressure on individual representatives to vote in line with the views of that organization.
The key to look at is the selection, in each voting scorecard, of which votes they track. Each organization picks the bills most important to IT, not to the party with which they may be aligned.
In fact, if you look through most lists, the Members of Congress who are most generally considered moderate or centrist show up in the middle of the rankings. In the aggregate, they demonstrate pretty well how tightly a politician’s voting records line are aligned with the "party line" on particular issues. Senators like Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson, well known as moderates, actually having voting scorecard records to back up that reputation.
I did an extensive post or comment once on which party had the most "moderates" in it which had some good data, but I can’t find it at the moment. You might take a look at some of the numbers Simon cited in one of his early posts on this topic, almost a year ago: <a href="http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/centrism/barak_obama_centrist">Barak Obama, "Centrist"</a>.
In short, those scorecards, taken in the aggregate, do a pretty good job of showing where a candidate stands in particular issue areas when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, actual VOTES in Congress. We can look at the overall history of the voting records and see that politicians who are widely perceived as centrist or moderate actually do have their moderation reflected in the scorecards. Obama’s votes, reflected in the scorecards, provide strong evidence that he’s not actually a centrist or moderate when it comes time to actually take action.
59 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 8:05 pm CETPat: quite true, that the various lists are generated by different criteria. One thing that I think is important to note is that sometimes the scorecard is based on ‘votes with party’ and other times it’s based on ‘votes with interest group’. Assuming that you could put together a conglomerate of all interest groups and define which ones really represent a ‘true north’ for conservatism or liberalism, you could then rank the candidates accordingly by those types of scorecards.
And then you could also find trends in whether a party is drifting rightward or leftward, based on the deviation between the ‘votes with party’ scorecards and the ‘votes with interest group’ ones (again, assuming those interest groups represented a pure core principle of the party’s reported ideology.)
In other words, if the GOP has drifted away from hard right, then the party scorecard would show people with high partisan rankings being lower on the interest group scorecard than they were when the party was more conservative. Those people would reliably be voting with party, but that position wouldn’t match up as neatly with the ‘true conservative’ position.
What I find interesting about that, too, though, is that it seems to me that this leaves an opportunity to exploit (and I think some special interests have done so), to define themselves as the true conservatives so that people within the party who don’t tow their line become heretics.
60 abrisaham
February 1, 2008 @ 10:26 pm CETIm still wondering which values I have to surrender. An email to the Barak Obama camp nets no response.
All I hear here is our conservative brethren saying no your missing it. Its the conservatives who have to surrender their values.
So now Im confused who has to give up what when Obama is elected president?
61 Nancy O Dell
February 7, 2008 @ 10:39 pm CETNancy O Dell…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
62 Black Shards, In Your Eyes, Blinding » Switching Sides
February 13, 2008 @ 8:29 pm CET[…] Obama has been recognized as the most liberal senator in the U.S., including […]
63 obama most liberal senator
June 11, 2008 @ 9:01 pm CEST[…] […]