Is the US inherently right-wing?

[Trek234]

Many people say that Kucinich can not be elected because he is "too liberal". Furthermore, many people say that we can not win unless we run a moderate who panders to the right-wing in at least some ways.

So this makes me wonder... We can't win if we run someone who is "too liberal" (i.e. Kucinich) yet the republicans can run radical right wingers and win. (or at least come close enough to make a "win" look legit enough for most people to buy)

Why is it that Americans will tolerate a radical right-wing president? (and if anyone wants to claim Bush is not radical right-wing I have ocean front property to sell you in Denver) We have an administration that is closer to fascism than any form of democracy.

So does this mean the US is inherently right-wing? Or that at least right-wingers are a sizeable majority? In order for liberals to win we must run a moderate, and be VERY careful regarding how far left that moderate goes... yet republicans can run radical right wingers with no problem.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Makes me wonder too Trek

[w13rd0]

2. It means that when a politician is an insufferable...

...extreme right-wing religious wingnut, people assume they are following the voice of god and acting out of their "convictions", but when someone is left-wing, they can't quite conceptualize what would drive them to actually have deep seated convictions about things like social and economic justice. They find it easier to believe in the sincerity of religiously insane jackasses than people driven by humanitarian concerns. That's just my guess anyway.

[dofus]

3. I don't believe that

this country is inherently right wing, but it's true that the prevailing attitude seems quite right wing at this point. The mainstream news media either is right wing or does not challenge right wing assumptions and assertions.

Jack Kennedy, when running for president in 1960, needed to persuade people that he was actually liberal enough to be president. How things have changed.

[LittleApple81]

4. Yes, in my opinion. It has been an insidious process but we are there.n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Not inherently right wing so much..

...as inherently resistant to change.

The less white, less straight, less native-born, less male-dominated, less Christian the country as a whole gets, the greater the resistance from those who stand to lose.

Ut tensio, sic vis, as Hooke said of springs, etc. As is the tension, so is the force.

This is a very tense country right now.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. The US is a neo-feudal state

It serves the interests of corporations, whose revenues would not be increased by implementation of policies that are generally considered "liberal."

Most voters are in the top 25 income tier, and most people in the bottom 75.

The short-term interests of the two groups are in direct conflict.

There is small chance that a political solution is realistic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. If your statistic is true

(and since about 50% vote in a presidential election, that implies that absolutely everyone in the top 25% of income votes), then the bottom 75% are losing out due to 2/3 of them being apathetic. Is it so unrealistic to expect them the vote some time?

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. I think it rich and poor look at the voting process differently

But before I get into that, you are probably aware that it is impractical for most low wage earners to vote: polls are open for 12 hours on a working day, low wage jobs are not located either near the dwindling supply of low income housing, or areas where the working homeless can avoid being attack and seizure by law enforcement, low income people are more likely to use public transportation, rendering the theoretical "2 hours off to vote" less than useful when a one way commute can exceed 3 hours, etc. There are absentee ballots, and the next time you are talking about voting with a single mom making $6 an hour cleaning hotel bathrooms, be sure you ask her if she has applied for her absentee ballot.

A great deal of thought and planning has gone into the disenfranchisement of the poor, and for obvious reasons.

If you suddenly had millions of poor people voting, the issues would be very different, and it is hard to see how such a measure would increase revenues to the corporations who make the campaigns possible.

In addition, I think you have to realize that the affluent and the poor have a different way of looking at things.

The low wage earner is under no illusion that any candidate is going to do anything that will make a perceptible difference in his life.

The average apartment is now almost 4 times the minimum wage, according to the government's own figures. As the gap between rich and poor widens, it is interestingly enough the affluent who debate the reasons, whys and wherefors of such a thing, just as it is the affluent who are more likely to have strong faith traditions regarding particular candidates, parties, and the voting process itself.

Affluent people are more likely to believe that votes are counted, that elections are decided by the people, that this or that candidate will do this or that.

And in all fairness, the candidates by and large are responsive to the issues of importance to their contributors, and it would be unrealistic to suppose that elected officials would seek to implement policies which would be in conflict with the interests of the very people who enabled them to purchase air time!

Although many may regard the poor as less sophisticated and more suggestible, in the matter of accurate assessment of the level of interest a politician takes in whether they can afford housing or not, the poor are in fact more realistic and knowledgeable, on the average, than the well-intentioned upscale couple smiling approvingly at all the impressive attendance at their fund-raiser for their progressive candidate represented by the satisfying number of Lexuses in the parking lot of their gated community.

[RichM]

36. I agree. The whole system is set up to lavishly benefit a tiny group at

the top, & to procure the cooperation of barely half of the next 50% or so of the population. This cooperation is secured by means of buying off some people, & handling the rest with propaganda & clever divisive hate-mongering. At least half the population doesn't vote, so their opinions "don't count."

The people at the top are very conservative, naturally. The political support comes mainly from people who are methodically brainwashed. The many who "don't count" might well not be so conservative -- but their lives are so difficult that they don't feel it's worthwhile to concern themselves with politics.

[DuctapeFatwa]

44. Yep, and to say it in a less polite way for the curious but uninformed

It does not really matter what the rich white folks with savings accounts and discretionary resources and carports think or believe, or whether they are right wing or left wing, or wingless.

They might as well go ahead and have their campaigns and their elections and get all the comfort and joy out of them while they can, because they are NOT this country, they neither represent it nor constitute anything more than a wealthy elite no different from the wealthy elite in Brazil, Venezuela or Rwanda, and there WILL be a solution, but it will not be a political one.

There have been many many chances to effect a political solution.

Those have passed, and do not let the quiet suburban bliss you see out of your window today deceive you.

You are living on borrowed time on a balloon payment contract, and the first collection letters have already gone out.

[Armstead]

7. No. It is inherently balanced

When you consider the wide variety of people -- and the contradictions within each individual -- it's probably a wash in terms of how liberal and conservative we are in general.

Right now the rioght wing has in its grips the domonant political party, it has the otehr major party cowed and it has the media on its side. So it would APPEAR to be right wing.

But I think if you break it all down,most people are moderate and open to ideas from both left and right.

[jiacinto]

8. The flaming embers of 1968 still smoke today

They don't smoke as much as they did in the 1970s and in the 1980s. But they still do.

Clinton was able to put a lot of water on those fires. I do think, however, that the US is currently in a centrist to right wing position. I do think that, as minority groups' population rise, it will swing to the left. But that probably won't fully happen until the early to mid 2010s.

[Touchdown]

9. Pick up "Dude Where's my Country"

Moore has a chapter in it, I think called "Liberal Paradise". In it, he goes on to show that Americans are very liberal when it's broken down to individual issues, and at times by a very wide margin.

It's the best chapter in the book.

It's the framing of the debate, the domainant political landscape, the lapdog press and the failure of us to get our message out as effectively as the Repugs that gives the impression that the country is conservative, but it really isn't.

[nini]

30. This is what I was going to post.. excellent points in that chapter.

and it's so true. I know alot of people who vote repuke because they buy the tax and spend crap of the dems. But they are pro-choice, pro environment, working class folks. it makes no sense.

We have to break that tax myth and educate people. That chapter has lots of ammo to use with these folks to make them see the truth

[leftofthedial]

10. I think Murka is overwhelmingly apathetic

Murkans respond to the loudest and most incessant voice they hear, which is almost invariably reactionary, fascist, and condemning of liberals and progressives.

Now, if you don't mind, I need to get back to the football game.

[KC21304]

11. I don't think the majority are right wing.

As Bernie Sanders said at Wisconisn's Fighting Bob Fest, ( Dennis was there too, by the way ) if someone took a poll and asked who wanted the top 1% of people and the corporations to get these gigantic tax breaks that would take money from the schools, Medicare and Social Securities etc, only 1% would say yes.

The Repugs would never win an election that way so they tell their folks in order to divide the other 99% they have to throw out issues that cause division, like abortion, prayer in the schools, pledge of allegiance, gay marriage, and scary Blacks like Willy Horton.

Most people do not realize that these issues do not and probably never will really effect their lives but the Repugs know which buttons to press.

With the media in their hands I don't know how we fight this but I think fight it we must.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. The media is the reason we are right wing. It isn't inherent

That is why Dean is so crafty. He has moderate credentials but he will dismantle their advantages over us in terms of lobbying and media exposure, and financing campaigns.

[mermaid]

33. Agree

And most of the sheeple are either too busy, or too apathetic or too lazy to go out and do their own research...they just take what they are spoon-fed by the RW media as Gospel truth.

They are fed crap by the RW media propaganda/spin/pabulum puking machine, and are either too lazy, apathetic, or stupid to do anything other than take it at face value. Or perhaps they feel powerless to affect change.

What we REALLLY need is a candidate that will empower the PEOPLE...and get the people excited. And in the current scheme of RW slanted media...this will be difficult to do.

[sweetheart]

13. the richer a country, the more conservative

That is a known thing... the issue is that america has not yet had a french revolution... and "kapital" is still perceived as separate from public obligation.

Kucinich is a really fine person and an outstanding example of what the future of american politics could yield if we are relentless in our committment to just government.

[Nobody]

14. That's what the right wing wants us to believe

This country is NOT inherently right wing. The mantra has been repeated over and over so many times that many people believe it to be true.

It's not inevitable that someone who has repeatedly lied to the nation about matters of national secutity, stolen an election, done stupid grandstanding tricks, insulted nearly every world leader he's visited, and whose polls are less than 50% is going to be elected in 2004.

People often will vote for the candidate they thing will win, especially if they're lazy voters. This is why polls exist, to show who's in front, and why campaigns are reported on as if they're horse races. And afterwards, the gloating from those who supported the winner.

We have to present ourselves as being the ones behind the winner. Our candidate is not only "electable" but is the next preseident of the USA. Inevitably. It will happen.

And if we repeat our OWN mantra, maybe we can reap the benefits of seeping into public consciousness.

[RainDog]

15. It seems that the western democracies

which actually have decent representation of their populations are also those which require their citizens to vote.

the repukes rely on digusting people and turning them off from voting, while they pander to the most disgusting segments of this society...i.e. the white supremacists and the bigots who no longer have a place in the democratic party since desegregation.

so, no, I do not believe that America is a right wing society.

rather, I believe America is a nation which is held captive by a extremist right wing majority.

that, btw, is not a definition of democracy, is it?

and it's gotten worse since Bush took office and legitimized radical fundamentalists in this country, too.

[Zorra]

16. Thom Hartmann explains probable causes

for this phenomenon with a great article on the deliberate right wing takeover of the media.

It's not that the liberal ideals are too old fashioned or that Democrats have disintegrated or self-destructed. It's that American public opinion has been steamrollered.

The 1980s saw massive funding of right-wing think tanks that have engaged in blitzkrieg campaigns to overwhelm the mainstream media with conservative viewpoints. The man whose followers claim he's Jesus Christ's reincarnation, Reverend Moon, started the Washington Times newspaper in 1982, and although it has lost money ever since, it has succeeded in pushing political discourse in Washington to the far right, presumably helping the good Reverend's other military/industrial investments and lent legitimacy to his religion. Republican operative and former Rush Limbaugh TV Show producer Roger Ailes, with access to Rupert Murdoch's billions, founded the Fox News Network to openly push the Republican agenda into America's living rooms.

But the goal wasn't just to provide an alternative media - it was to influence all media.

This aspect of the conservative strategy was outlined by former Republican Party chairman Rich Bond, who told the Washington Post (8/20/92) that their main goal was to convince Americans and, most important, journalists themselves - the referees of public discourse in America - that they should become hypersensitive to any story, writer, or source that may carry Democratic bias and thus only present the Republican side of the story. "If you watch any great coach," Bond explained, "what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

http://www.opednews.com/hartmann1003_New_Liberal_Media.htm

[KC21304]

23. Thanks for your comments. And glad to see there is hope.

Don't know if I can get Thomm Hartmann in central Wisconsin. Here we get to choose between Rush and Dr. Laura.

[gWbush is Mabus]

17. but the repugs did not run on a radical platform

they SAID they were compassionate conservatives

if only the media would expose them for the radical right-wing neo-con thugs that they are...

[mermaid]

35. Don't Hold Your Breath

waiting for the media to expose that...they have as much to lose by exposing it as the thugs do by having it exposed. One hand washes the other.

[Kamika]

18. Yes we are right wing

Face it, our two parties are right wing, the democratic party in europe would be a very rightwing, conservative one

[Cato1]

28. Depends on the issue

"Face it, our two parties are right wing, the democratic party in europe would be a very rightwing, conservative one."

On economic issues the Democratic party would be considered right-wing in Europe. On some cultural issues, for example immigration, its far to left of mainstream left-wing European parties.

[ComerPerro]

19. The right is more appealing

The right has more appealing platforms to campaign on (not to me or you, of course, but for most of white America).

The right is conservatives, the right is Christians.

So what do they do? They appeal to fear and insecurity.

"Remember a simpler time when... ?"
"Why do the big government fat cats think they have the right to take your hard earned money and give it to lazy homeless people?"

You know, stuff like that.

To be liberal, you have to be an activist, you have to think progressively and critically, and you have to push for change.

To be conservative, you have to sit on your ass with your eyes closed and ears plugged. You don't have to do anything.


What people don't realize is that if conservatives had their way, we would all be making $4 an hour and 60 hour weeks (no overtime) with no vacation. Also, Christianity would be the national religion, English would be our official language, and the only thing the government would fund would be roads, defense, and big business.


Republicans constantly scare Americans by threatening them with liberal platforms. "Did you know that liberals think that the war was a bad idea?" "Did you know that liberals think that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals?"

Also, by browsing FreeRepublic a while back I was shocked to find that these psychotics seem to think that the Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism are left wing!!!!

[gulliver]

20. Nope. Money swings it to a balance ...

... from an inherently left lean.

It's "common knowledge" that there is a balance. But then look who spends more money. It's the Republicans by 2 to 1. Without that money there would be no false "balance."

Don't even get me started on Bush using taxpayer money to prop up his floundering Iraq debacle...

Money changes everything.

[formactv]

21. a unified party

Republicans have been unified to resembling a military- or business- organization.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. We are absolutely conservative compared to...

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and many other countries. The fact is that they are all dominated by liberal parties, whereas in the US control is shifted between the two parties.

[Kellanved]

29. not true

Chirac is a Right Winger - so France is out.
Germany and the UK were both governed by conservatives for a very long time. All those countries have essentially a two party system (two big parties and some small change as possible coalition partners), and the voters in them tend to vote for the right-wing candidate(s).

[RichM]

31. Not true. Britain, France & Germany are all moving in a path very

parallel to our own. The ruling parties there are NOT liberal at all. Blair is just like Bush. Chirac is a corrupt rightwinger himself, who was simply seen as the only thinkable alternative to the overt fascist Le Pen. In Germany, the ruling SPD-Green coalition has embraced the SAME strategy as US Republicans: slashing social spending, building up the military, & giving away the store to corporations.

I'd agree that we are MORE conservative, but one is missing the big picture, if one fails to recognize that all big capitalist countries are basically following the same trajectory. (This also includes Australia.)

[Kellanved]

37. Nope

Schroeder's strategy is NOT like that of the republicans or the German conservatives. Neither was defense spending raised (the wish to do so was formulated), nor is social spending slashed.
The German social systems are extremely generous compared to others, and still will be after the reforms. The problem is that the current system is a) ill-prepared for the reunification b) is not able to cope with high unemployment and c) will fail due to the higher average age and the low birth rate in Germany.

Although many people think that Schröders reforms are not different from the ones the conservatives would enact, I have to say: they are.
Nobody can deny that the two proposals are similiar; the upper house is controlled by the conservatives so they can't be ignored.

The conservative proposal includes highlights as "flat-rate" social taxes, reduced services (no dental care) and so on. So I see a huge difference; especially as no change at all, under any circumstances, is not a liberal position.

[rasputin1952]

24. I believe the country is Progressive on Social issues...

and conservative on national defense and fiscal policy.

Nobody, except the neo-cons, accept the notions of 'supply side economics' or an increased national debt are favorable to the nation.
these are basically conservative issues, and the increase in the national debt, shows those that are in the conservative fold, the insanity of the situation.

As for national defense, virtually every citizen is for defending the nation, regardless of which side they are on. Over the years though, the conservatives have taken over the 'defense posture' of the nation. Far be it from them, to accept the fact that FDR led us through the worst war in the history of the world. Between he and Truman, the stage was set for a firm national defense. What went wrong, is when the defense contractors began robbing the Treaury of everything in there. Greed is the precursor for all the neo-cons do.

The majority of the American people realize that Social issues cannot be tackled by charities alone. that has been tried in the past, and there are NO glowing reports of it working on a grand scale. What these charities do exceptionally well, is deal with catastrophies,and giving immediate aid to those that are victims of various disasters.

Where charities are doomed to fail, is when we expect them to pick up all of the cases that are necessary to keep people alive. People are cheap, especially neo-cons, they will not fill the coffers of charities, and those chariites will be left to wither and die. One must remember that neo-cons want everything, but are completely against paying for it. Bottom line, they are skinflints. This is why Social programs exist at state and federal levels.

The pendulum is swinging back, and I see great social changes in the future. People are angry, and if they reach critical mass, the end is in sight for the neo-con movement.

:kick:

[Lindacooks]

25. Sorry to say

but I think that most people are conservative, because conservatism appeals to their greed, selfishness, cruelty, and stupidity. I have to be blunt, because when I see assholes like Arnold and the chimp elected, that's all I CAN believe.

Let's face it - most people need to feel superior to others. They NEED someone to hate. They want to get theirs, and damn everybody else.

[ForrestGump]

26. Yes, maybe not

at an individual level or at a community level, but nationally - yes. Certainly in comparison to many other countries (most that I am familiar with). The 'left' in the US would be firmly holding the center in most Western-style democracies today.

A combination of whatever forces - apathy (when half the US population voting during a presidential election makes everyone ecstatic over turnout, is the process really representative?), greed, self-interest, ignorance, whatever else - has led the US further and further to the Right. Whether that national polarization reflects a majority in terms of personal philosophy remains an open question, though. I think that there's still hope, within Americans themselves, but just about everything that has gone down (no pun intended) since 'MonicaGate' began causes me to wonder.

The United States of America was founded on liberal ideals and is at its best when it even attempts to live up to those ideals. The USA has not been at its best in quite a while now.

[kayell]

32. No, but we are easily manipulated and the rw propaganda is

extremely pervasive. It is difficult to do anything, go anywhere that some form of propaganda is not used on you. Not just the media, which has abandoned it's proper purpose in this country as a check on corporate & government corruption, and become the propaganda wing to an extent never before imaginable in a "free press".

There's the constant messages kid's get everyday in school, starting each morning with the 1954 RW addition to the pledge - under god. Every single day for 12 years, of course they think we're a "christian nation". Then the school kids day continues with dumbed down history, and other classes where they are rarely challenged to use critical thinking. School is also designed in this country to be horribly dull, and our tv culture tells them how unbearable and boring it is, rather than the message that education is desireable, interesting and necessary that other cultures recieve. Wouldn't want the proles to come out eagar to keep persuing knowledge, would you?

We are almost continuously subjected to advertising that tells us we must have the next thing, that only that will make us happy. Our desires are made so overwhelming that it is a rare person who can spare the thought for the people who slave-labor produced those things, the environmental costs. We MUST have those things, and not surprisingly, since we have been told that since we began to speak.

People do sometimes break through and think about issues if they are challenged to in a way that engages their minds, but much of the time we just follow our programming, never realizing that we are not thinking our own thoughts any more.

---------------------
Added: Another thread just had a great link to an article about the brainwashing of America - must read. http://www.opednews.com/hartmann1003_New_Liberal_Media.htm

In the last Democratic debate, one of the questioners pointed out that fewer Americans identify themselves as either liberals or Democrats than at any time since before Roosevelt's New Deal. The implicit question was, "What's so bad about you guys that Americans have decided 'liberal' is a curse word and people are embarrassed to call themselves Democrats?"

Richard Gephardt tried to bluster his way through an answer, pointing to a few Democratic victories, but the overall response left the impression that all the candidates (and most other Democrats) are clueless about what has happened in America over the past 20 years, why it happened, or how.

It's not that the liberal ideals are too old fashioned or that Democrats have disintegrated or self-destructed. It's that American public opinion has been steamrollered.

more

[The Commie]

39. Why our contry is ruled by crazy RWers.

1.$$$, Republucans get lots of funds from thier corporate masters.

2. Populism & Nationalism, righties call people who don't agree with them "unpatriotic" or "unamerican."

3. People believe the "work hard = success" and "American Dream" fallacies spewed the the corporate aristocracy to prevent socialism from getting a grip here

4. The Media is Conservative, like all corporations.

5. The Electoral College exaggerates the power of the less populous states, which are usually conservative.

[salin]

41. Read this article: The Other War Room

I am positive that many before bush (different think tanks, Roger Aisles (media advisor to Reagan, now head of Fox News) have followed this pattern.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html


The Other War Room
President Bush doesn't believe in polling---just ask his pollsters.

By Joshua Green

On a Friday afternoon late last year, press secretaries from every recent administration gathered in the Ward Room of the White House at the invitation of Ari Fleischer, press secretary to President Bush. There was no agenda. It was just one of those unexpectedly nice things that seemed to transpire during the brief period after September 11 when people thought of themselves as Americans first and Democrats and Republicans second. Over a lunch of crab cakes and steak, Republicans such as Fleischer and Marlin Fitzwater traded war stories with Joe Lockhart, Mike McCurry, and assorted other Democrats. Halfway through lunch, President Bush dropped by unexpectedly and launched into an impromptu briefing of his own, ticking off the items on his agenda until he arrived at the question of whether it was preferable to issue vague warnings of possible terrorist threats or to stay quietly vigilant so as not to alarm people. At this point, former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers piped up, "What do the poll numbers say?" All eyes turned to Bush. Without missing a beat, the famous Bush smirk crossed the president's face and he replied, "In this White House, Dee Dee, we don't poll on something as important as national security."

This wasn't a stray comment, but a glimpse of a larger strategy that has served Bush extremely well since he first launched his campaign for president---the myth that his administration doesn't use polling. As Bush endlessly insisted on the campaign trail, he governs "based upon principle and not polls and focus groups."

-------------------snip

But in fact, the Bush administration is a frequent consumer of polls, though it takes extraordinary measures to appear that it isn't. This administration, unlike Clinton's, rarely uses poll results to ply reporters or congressional leaders for support. "It's rare to even hear talk of it unless you give a Bush guy a couple of drinks," says one White House reporter. But Republican National Committee filings show that Bush actually uses polls much more than he lets on, in ways both similar and dissimilar to Clinton. Like Clinton, Bush is most inclined to use polls when he's struggling. It's no coincidence that the administration did its heaviest polling last summer, after the poorly received rollout of its energy plan, and amid much talk of the "smallness" of the presidency. A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year; but while Clinton used polling to craft popular policies, Bush uses polling to spin unpopular ones---arguably a much more cynical undertaking.

Read the whole article.

The rightwing uses market testing methods - to figure out how to package ideas that are NOT popular to the public. It is VERY intentional. And has been very successful.

My Response:

Free Your Mind...
And your *ss will follow... (or And the rest will follow...)

[mrgorth]

38. Here ya go

a) Bush wasn't elected.

b) He didn't run as a radical right winger. He pulled a switcharoo.

There are many other good posts in here. I agree that the US panders to corporations. Also, we are too geographically large and ethnically diverse for people to actually care about one another on a wide scale. A Kucinich could get elected in the US, just not now. I believe we need to "evolve" towards the place where we could vote in a Dennis Kucinich. I'm hoping things don't have to get worse (more wars) before they get better (Dean).

[library_max]

40. Bush didn't run as a right-winger.

Anyone remember "compassionate conservatism"?

And, for the most part, his record as Governor of Texas was mixed, bipartisan, and moderate-ish (for Texas). He let Bob Bullock, the Democratic LG, call most of the shots, and he made a point of being Hispanic-friendly and distancing himself from Pete Wilson and others of that ilk. There were danger signs, like his mocking Karla Faye Tucker in a TV interview, but mostly he looked fairly moderate when he ran in 2000. His successor has been a lot more right-wing.

Remember the slate of Republican candidates for 2000? Bush emerged as the moderate that was most acceptable to the right. Kind of like Howard Dean (not my first choice, BTW) may very well emerge as the Democratic moderate that is most acceptable to the left. Bush made a big ol' right turn once he got into office, facilitated by 9/11 and the rampant national paranoia that followed.

Of course, it also helps to recognize one's own place on the left-right sliding scale. If you believe that all the Republican presidential primary candidates in 2000 were "far right," then you are 'way out on the left and not looking for center where center really is. On a national scale of 0-100, where 0 is extreme right wing and 100 is extreme left wing, I'm about a 75 or 80, but on DU it often seems like I'm a 5 or 10. No harm in being lefty ("We're right, they're wrong," to quote James Carville), but you need to see where the center really is when you strategize for elections.

[Trek234]

45. If it is true Bush ran as a moderate

(I didn't see him as such...)

Why is he polling so high? If Americans were truly against radical right wingers he should be somewhere in the 10-20% range right now.

[library_max]

46. He's the incumbent.

He has whatever momentum is left from the patriotism binge after 9/11. That might turn out to be a lot. He has the money and the media behind him.

"Americans" include whole spectra of people with different agendas and different views. As the nation is getting more polarized, I don't suspect that even as many as 50% see Bush as a radical right winger, no matter how you and I see him.

[carpetbagger]

42. Yes, the U.S. inherently tilts towards the right.

Our political philosophy is based on agrarian libertarianism, and Horatio Alger is our cherished myth. So while most voters agree with our specifics, they will usually agree with the broad outline drawn by the right. This has been made worse in an age dominated by media, with the ability to buy exposure, and now to even buy the reporting.

I can't think of a single president who ran, and won, on a the type of platform of economic and social liberalism that Kucinich is running on. Andrew Jackson comes to mind, but his populism was measured with liberal doses of know-nothingness that are much more along the lines of GOP policy. Lincoln was a social and economic progressive, but his 1860 election was due to electoral college mathematics unlikely to be replicated in our lifetime, and the economic battles were more sectional than in prior or more recent times. FDR was probably the closest, but 1932 was a very unique case in American history, and it's not my impression that FDR ran on social liberalism, even though his opponent ran on red-baiting among other things.

[many a good man]

43. Perspective

The country is currently split 50-50 between Republicans and Dems. Gore/Nader won the majority in 2000. When a Democrat wins in 2004 that will make FOUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN A ROW that Republicans have lost.

<PAUSE while readers digest that last point>

No party has lost four in a row since FDR.

Of course, one must question whether Clinton/Gore were really all that left wing. The center in American politics today has certainly drifted to the right. Is this permanent?

The liberal revolution in domestic policy in the 60s/70s was too jarring for many white males. Civil rights, women's lib, welfare...Democrats have won the majority of the white male vote only once since FDR. "Values" and other wedge issues are inflated to goad this demographic to vote against their economic interests. After all, what have they gained from liberal politics in all this time?

Pretty much nothing, except a higher tax burden and less back in benefits from the government. The difference between the welfare state in the US compared to the EU is that over there welfare programs benefit almost everyone in society. Over here it only goes to the very poorest.

Democrats are afraid of being accused of playing the class card, despite the fact that lower income whites have more interests in common with lower income minorities than they do with upper income whites. Dems are afraid of scaring off the big money donors in a system everyone knows is corrupt. If both parties are going to stiff you, you're better off voting for the one that will pinch your pocket book less.

So they vote R or they just don't vote. Polls show Americans firmly support Medicare, Social Security, more health care, international cooperation. These are not right wing issues. Right wingers are leading politics today because...there isn't really a left wing that can articulate an agenda that is attractive to the country's biggest demographic.

Maybe things have to get worse before they get better (was that Nader's point?). I've been telling myself that for the last 20 years now. And things keep getting worse...