Studies and articles that start with a political bias, commonly end up with a bias. I don't think that Mr. Bartels has a clue about what a liberal looks like. The reality is that Barack is pretty middle of the road, Hillary slightly to the left. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that just run of the mill liberalism looks radical.
6
The main problem is that both parties are ignoring the problems which affect people the most. Wages of the majority of Americans have stagnated for nearly 40 years. Life expectancy of white blue collar workers is actually dropping.
Both parties have ignored the will of the people on the critical matters of free trade and Social Security. Obama proposed cutting the Social Security cost of living adjustment as recently as his 2014 budget. Marco Rubio said we need an "adult conversation" about cutting Social Security in the Republican debates and no one called him on it.
People hate free trade. Ross Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 by opposing NAFTA. NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton after it was passed largely with Republican support. If anything, the feeling against free trade has grown and yet Obama talks of still passing the TPP.
Both parties are on the wrong side of the most important issues leaving them to argue about social issues which are far less important to most people, but of critical importance to a few.
While Donald Trump is perhaps the most dangerous candidate of modern times, he gets it when it comes to free trade and other economic issues that are critical with the American people.
Both parties have ignored the will of the people on the critical matters of free trade and Social Security. Obama proposed cutting the Social Security cost of living adjustment as recently as his 2014 budget. Marco Rubio said we need an "adult conversation" about cutting Social Security in the Republican debates and no one called him on it.
People hate free trade. Ross Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 by opposing NAFTA. NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton after it was passed largely with Republican support. If anything, the feeling against free trade has grown and yet Obama talks of still passing the TPP.
Both parties are on the wrong side of the most important issues leaving them to argue about social issues which are far less important to most people, but of critical importance to a few.
While Donald Trump is perhaps the most dangerous candidate of modern times, he gets it when it comes to free trade and other economic issues that are critical with the American people.
5
As soon as I saw the photo of Hillary Clinton directly under the Headline, "The Rise of Presidential Extremists" I could guess the gist of the article. Hillary has faults but being an "extremist" is not one of them. I smell false equivalency.
21
How can I even read this when in the second paragraph you make grossly inaccurate statements. Hillary Clinton is clearly not "well to the left" on abortion, affirmative action or government spending. You've tainted this article with gross overstatements of equality between Democrats and Republicans. No credibility here.
21
The fact is that, what today is considered "far left" positions of Democrats were once mainstream. In fact, it is only the extreme shift of the Republican party to the reactionary right that makes what have long been traditional Democratic values seem further left. Is the movement of the goal posts to the right, more than anything else, that has created the appearance of centrist Democrats like the DLC (formed in the early nineties by the Clintons, among others) appearing to be moving left. It's like sitting in a train in a station and having the illusion you are moving in one direction when the train on the next track begins to move in the opposite direction. It is all perspective - and almost everybody's perspective has been subtly and not-so-subtly to the right ever since Reagan brought an end to the Keynesian growth and success that created a prosperous America from FDR through LBJ.
For example, there are a number of actual leftist intellectuals in this country who have never even been given media time, while Rockefeller Republicrats like Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and so many other moderates define the party. When did you last see Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, or the recently departed Howard Zinn on mainstream media? Hillary Clinton is a hawk who solicits campaign money from corporations and Wall Street (throwing trade unions under the bus to cater to her corporate donors), turning her back on the dying union movement that built our middle and working classes.
For example, there are a number of actual leftist intellectuals in this country who have never even been given media time, while Rockefeller Republicrats like Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and so many other moderates define the party. When did you last see Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, or the recently departed Howard Zinn on mainstream media? Hillary Clinton is a hawk who solicits campaign money from corporations and Wall Street (throwing trade unions under the bus to cater to her corporate donors), turning her back on the dying union movement that built our middle and working classes.
6
Hillary and democrats are now extremists because the GOP has moved more to the right? This is pretzel logic sugared with false equivalencies.
22
Once a topic is delved deeper, it tends to offer a dizzying array, and a macedoine of meticulously arranged set of facts. Any writer, who is secretly desirous of capturing a reader's heart and holding his or her attention to the last, will have to traverse backwards into a multitude of historic arenas, to muster accurate data. Veracity then finds its place.
And then comes the style of presentation. A few authors, having a penchant for tinseled treatment in writing, may on a few occasions, fumble into a fallacious world with meretricious melange of descriptive writing. That, when read, may receive, more often than not, merciless mauling by a clique of critics, who are quite fastidious. Commoners simply pooh pooh them.
On the contrary, if the facts are interspersed with right dash of delectably descriptive medium of communication, the writing might stand one in a million chance of cornering a favorable review. Tautology or pleonasm almost always is met with disastrously dire consequences.
In today's politics, with Hillary's and Trump's peregrinations in different directions, many of which are accusatory, the whole gamut of their ground games may offer a plethora of opportunities for a generous medley of facts and flowery styles, in order to make them piquant. By the same token if Hillary's and Trump's perambulations are presented in a monochromatic manner, ennui might be an end result.
And then comes the style of presentation. A few authors, having a penchant for tinseled treatment in writing, may on a few occasions, fumble into a fallacious world with meretricious melange of descriptive writing. That, when read, may receive, more often than not, merciless mauling by a clique of critics, who are quite fastidious. Commoners simply pooh pooh them.
On the contrary, if the facts are interspersed with right dash of delectably descriptive medium of communication, the writing might stand one in a million chance of cornering a favorable review. Tautology or pleonasm almost always is met with disastrously dire consequences.
In today's politics, with Hillary's and Trump's peregrinations in different directions, many of which are accusatory, the whole gamut of their ground games may offer a plethora of opportunities for a generous medley of facts and flowery styles, in order to make them piquant. By the same token if Hillary's and Trump's perambulations are presented in a monochromatic manner, ennui might be an end result.
2
"Mr. Trump is trailing despite having moderated some of his party’s conservative stands on issues like social spending and gay rights. "
Where in Trump's platform...what there is of it...are gay rights even mentioned? How can a candidate who has completely embraced massive tax cuts for the wealthy be considered to have any position on social spending other than eliminating it altogether?
Where in Trump's platform...what there is of it...are gay rights even mentioned? How can a candidate who has completely embraced massive tax cuts for the wealthy be considered to have any position on social spending other than eliminating it altogether?
14
Categorizing Hillary as an extremist is hallucinatory and preposterous. Nice try with the false equivalence to the very real extremism of Trump and the Republican party, but not many educated and informed folks here will have any of your false characterizations.
37
Where oh where did the moderate compromising republican politicians disappear to in the past 40 years - people like Nelson Rockefeller? They have been replaced by Pence, McConnell, and Ryan. Let's get back to moderation, please AND forget social issues, keep religion out of politics (who says the Christian Taliban is any good), and work towards the common good. The past 40 years has seen the "commons" and what should be non-profit (health care, education, prisons and recently, emergency services) sold off to corporations and private equity. The latter (corporations and private equity) benefit greatly from our safe environment and infrastructure, yet feel they deserve to not pay taxes. When will greed be leashed again?
13
The author writes "yet the striking fact is that presidential candidates are frequently even more extreme than their own party’s core supporters".
In this post Citizens United world there are no "core supporters", there is just a billionaire or two.
In this post Citizens United world there are no "core supporters", there is just a billionaire or two.
4
I object strongly to the statement that Democrats have moved well to the left because we support a woman's right to choose, believe all people should be treated equally, and that funds should go to raise all Americans not just to the top 10% who have proved that they do not create jobs or we'd be swimming in jobs. Bartels spouts the code words of the right. My stance has not changed on these topics that have long been the center of Democratic beliefs and reflected in platforms for decades. Also, Republicans did not make these massive tax cuts that increased the debt hugely or take actions to stop abortions in such depth and so cynically until they discovered their appeal to the base. Yes, Trump is an extremist but Secretary Clinton reflects what have long been the core of the Democratic party.
25
The political scientists can teach whatever they want, because we are a mix crazy society..The elite universities are doing terrible jobs. They continue with the same nonsense, segregation, criminal Foreign policies,teaching capitalism to make more inequality around the globe. Everything is me,and my business first . I am old enough to be disgusted with America politics for the last 40 years. Most people here No nothing about history and care less. They totally ignore facts around the globe, and how other societies function well how . This happen when 50% or more of people are uneducate, and others totally ignorant about almost everything.We are so materialistic that now it is eating us alive. The quality of the media is absolutely terrible.The quality of candidates, specially from republican party is hard to believe. The world is watching this nonsense and laughing . How can our leaders demand respect from other nation, if here they are not respecting themselves, forget about their constituents. Lies, Racism, Xenophobia, arrogance, Stupidity ,Misogyny is the name of game. . I wish republican party disappear. We need urgently other parties like other normal nation have. I am tired of this two names Rep/Dem. I have zero respect fpr politicians right now.. The DNC, destroy my candidate " Bernie" together the NYT FOX,MSM. The whole world wants "Bernie. Now what? Trump? totally stupid , demagogue, loathsome. He really open the ugly gate.for racists.. you name. No apology.
3
Everyone should take Trump for what he appears, a businessman. He saw an opportunity and seized it. The GOP has been actively cultivating a racist, misogynistic base since Nixon. Trump saw a base that could easily be whipped up because they felt they have been left behind and that could be easily manipulated and apparently held beliefs that he had lived by for some time. For someone like Trump, a perfect storm. This racist misogynistic trait has been in the electorate for a long time, Trump has given them the permission to "come out".
All of this is a good thing. You cannot confront your problems until they are out in the open and everyone can see them for what they are. Of course it is still incumbent upon the American people to do something constructive about it.
All of this is a good thing. You cannot confront your problems until they are out in the open and everyone can see them for what they are. Of course it is still incumbent upon the American people to do something constructive about it.
1
It’s not about extremist positions. It’s about decency and accord with the constitution that recognizes us all as of equal value.
Has a Clinton supporter sucker-punched a protester? How about shouting "hang him?" And we've heard thousands of Trump supporters at a time chant "lock her up." That’s not policy.
When Ronald Reagan said "government is the problem" he dismissed the constitution as the basis of American government. When he chose to announce his candidacy, 1980, near the site of the murder of three civil rights workers, he allied himself with gross racism, especially since the topic of his speech was States’ Rights, code for white supremacy.
Gingrich urged his colleagues to demonize their opponents. Norquist celebrated the “bitter nastiness” he’d helped to bring to DC. Gingrich made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress. This is not about policy but about being unable to win a logical argument on policy. These people promoted and shepherded nastiness among conservative voters.
Trump gets away with it, yes, because he can. But he measured the temper of Americans with his birther attacks. That’s not policy. That’s process. If pundits miss this reality, they do the public a great disservice.
Has a Clinton supporter sucker-punched a protester? How about shouting "hang him?" And we've heard thousands of Trump supporters at a time chant "lock her up." That’s not policy.
When Ronald Reagan said "government is the problem" he dismissed the constitution as the basis of American government. When he chose to announce his candidacy, 1980, near the site of the murder of three civil rights workers, he allied himself with gross racism, especially since the topic of his speech was States’ Rights, code for white supremacy.
Gingrich urged his colleagues to demonize their opponents. Norquist celebrated the “bitter nastiness” he’d helped to bring to DC. Gingrich made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress. This is not about policy but about being unable to win a logical argument on policy. These people promoted and shepherded nastiness among conservative voters.
Trump gets away with it, yes, because he can. But he measured the temper of Americans with his birther attacks. That’s not policy. That’s process. If pundits miss this reality, they do the public a great disservice.
3
Swing voters are at the center of the left-right spectrum? See, that's where you go off the rails. You have no real idea where swing voters stand on anything - there could be as many swing voters who are pro-choice as there are anti-choice, and as many for the EPA as against it, and so on.
In other words, you've conducted this "analysis" as if swing voters were a monolithic bloc, and so you find yourself chasing this illusory "center" all over the place trying to pin it down. "Here is the center of American politics," you proudly proclaim. "Oops! Wait, HERE'S the center...no, it's over here...oops..."
Yeah. Oops!
In other words, you've conducted this "analysis" as if swing voters were a monolithic bloc, and so you find yourself chasing this illusory "center" all over the place trying to pin it down. "Here is the center of American politics," you proudly proclaim. "Oops! Wait, HERE'S the center...no, it's over here...oops..."
Yeah. Oops!
2
Voters are alienated by Trump's "political inexperience"???
I wish commentators and the media would stop reporting about Trump as if he were, say, Eisenhower. I'll speak for myself and hopefully many other voters. I'm terrified at the possibility of a Trump presidency. I don't know where to begin---he's a birther; he wants to pull out of NATO; he's open to, even intent on, a nuclear strike; he's encouraged a foreign power to hack his opponent's emails; I could go on and on. He's a possible narcissist, a possible near-sociopath, and he's dangerous. Please stop tip-toeing around who and what he is.
I wish commentators and the media would stop reporting about Trump as if he were, say, Eisenhower. I'll speak for myself and hopefully many other voters. I'm terrified at the possibility of a Trump presidency. I don't know where to begin---he's a birther; he wants to pull out of NATO; he's open to, even intent on, a nuclear strike; he's encouraged a foreign power to hack his opponent's emails; I could go on and on. He's a possible narcissist, a possible near-sociopath, and he's dangerous. Please stop tip-toeing around who and what he is.
3
One need not be a Sanders supporter to find laughable Bartels' characterization of establishment Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as extreme leftists. There is no left-wing counterpart to the insular right wing extremism that dominates today's Republican Party. The need of journalists to be objective and even-handed does not require that they engage in the practice of false equivalence.
2
Mr. Bartels' view is consistent with the atmosphere in which he works. Southern (bible belt) region, conservative, & populated by the less informed. What do you expect?
3
wow, the false equivalency just rolls right off the page. Dear professor, it would seem disingenuous at best, but more like out-right ridiculous to hold out Jason Greenblat,a Trump employee who writes for Breitbart (!), as a counter point to Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist. Sorry but that is just ridiculous
And while the nice charts you link to may demonstrate some kind of equity to those wearing propeller topped beanies to conclude that HRC is a far left liberal, it boggles the mind that they show Drumpf a moderate conservative for the values that you cite for him - Immigration, foreign policy and tax cuts for the wealthy. Worse, your charts don't support your contention contrasting the candidates. Pure cow patties.
And while the nice charts you link to may demonstrate some kind of equity to those wearing propeller topped beanies to conclude that HRC is a far left liberal, it boggles the mind that they show Drumpf a moderate conservative for the values that you cite for him - Immigration, foreign policy and tax cuts for the wealthy. Worse, your charts don't support your contention contrasting the candidates. Pure cow patties.
4
HRC is the definition of a centrist
There is , however, an extreme extreme extremist in the race, and he's wearing a weird hat that looks like a faux fur of some kind
There is , however, an extreme extreme extremist in the race, and he's wearing a weird hat that looks like a faux fur of some kind
3
"Democrats well to the left (for example, see Hillary Clinton on abortion, affirmative action and government spending)"
Abortion is not a left-right issue. It's a woman's issue. If most women vote Democrat is not because they lean left, but because they vote on their best interest.
Affirmative action is also not a left-right issue, but an African-American and other minorities issue. Have you wondered why most African-Americans vote Democrat?
Abortion is not a left-right issue. It's a woman's issue. If most women vote Democrat is not because they lean left, but because they vote on their best interest.
Affirmative action is also not a left-right issue, but an African-American and other minorities issue. Have you wondered why most African-Americans vote Democrat?
3
"(Trump's) policy positions are probably closer to the “center” of the electorate than those of previous Republican presidential candidates have been.
Yes, but only if by "center" you mean those that cheer deporting 11,000,000 Mexicans, banning Muslims and applying religious tests to all visitors to the country, using nuclear weapons against terrorists, and cozying up to Putin.
Yes, but only if by "center" you mean those that cheer deporting 11,000,000 Mexicans, banning Muslims and applying religious tests to all visitors to the country, using nuclear weapons against terrorists, and cozying up to Putin.
4
Mrs. Clinton's and my opposition to making every woman's uterus into a piece of government-owned property over which the woman has no say is NOT an extremist position. You are a joke, Mr. Bartels, and it is sad that the NY Times gives you a forum for YOUR extremist positions.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, worships Putin, want to abandon Europe, and is a bigot, homophobe, misogynist, racist and xenophobe.
But according to you, those of us who are not are "extremists."
Donald Trump, on the other hand, worships Putin, want to abandon Europe, and is a bigot, homophobe, misogynist, racist and xenophobe.
But according to you, those of us who are not are "extremists."
10
Hillary Clinton is "well to the Left"?
That's news to me!
That's news to me!
9
All campaigning is rhetoric. And the positions of the candidates should always be considered for their rhetorical value before anything else.
Extremism has a lot of advantages in a rhetorical contest. It intimidates opponents. It signals allegiances without ambiguity. It is not susceptible to negotiation or interpretation. It doesn't have to contain any real meaning or insight, which require intelligence and patience to generate, and rarely win elections anyway.
Of course, it's also (almost) always wrong. But if there is an advantage to be had by being wrong...
Extremism has a lot of advantages in a rhetorical contest. It intimidates opponents. It signals allegiances without ambiguity. It is not susceptible to negotiation or interpretation. It doesn't have to contain any real meaning or insight, which require intelligence and patience to generate, and rarely win elections anyway.
Of course, it's also (almost) always wrong. But if there is an advantage to be had by being wrong...
I don't think there are any "swing voters". People are somewhere between engaged in politics on one side or the other, and not very interested. They seem to be swing because they haven't really thought about it much.
But the author's point about the importance of the picture and the caption is right on target. Elections aren't won on policy positions; they are won on emotional reactions to the candidates. Advertisers have known this for many years; so do people like Roger Ailes and that republican word-smith guy. Our only protection against complete idiots destroying the country is the checks and balances the founders put in place. Hope we don't weaken them.
But the author's point about the importance of the picture and the caption is right on target. Elections aren't won on policy positions; they are won on emotional reactions to the candidates. Advertisers have known this for many years; so do people like Roger Ailes and that republican word-smith guy. Our only protection against complete idiots destroying the country is the checks and balances the founders put in place. Hope we don't weaken them.
1
This article overlooks the fact that "swing" voters - considered the political "center" - are mostly no- or low-information voters, who really don't vote based on the candidates' positions, but more on vague feelings and impressions of their personalities.
This kind of "center" moves toward attractive and charismatic leaders, like Kennedy, Reagan, Obama, etc. They don't move from or toward the center.
This kind of "center" moves toward attractive and charismatic leaders, like Kennedy, Reagan, Obama, etc. They don't move from or toward the center.
3
With attention spans being reduced to 140 characters, many people decide their viewpoints from emotionally charged bumper sticker sized slogans. How can people read the New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Financial Times or any other intelligently written source and vote for a dangerous demagogue like Mr. Trump? Trick question: The vast majority of people don't read these sources.
Given our educational system, how many people have a library or even read a bit on their own? Better educational system would take care of this issue, but you get what you pay for and people mostly want stuff for free. Doesn't work that way, but that concept doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker either.
Given our educational system, how many people have a library or even read a bit on their own? Better educational system would take care of this issue, but you get what you pay for and people mostly want stuff for free. Doesn't work that way, but that concept doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker either.
2
I don't get how being squarely where most Americans are on abortion, around 50 % for, makes the Democratic Party on the left on this issue, other positions are equally inaccurate in the opinion piece. Extremism is a return to racism. Extremism is guns 24-7 for terrorists and the insane or suicidal.
4
Bad thinking is punishable. Good thinking will be as quickly rewarded.
So Republican candidates were 6.5 points to the right of their constituents, and Democratic candidates were 1.5 points to the left? Is that 1.5% a significant departure, or is it within a standard deviation or so of the mean? Either way, your study seems to bear out my sense that in fact, it's the GOP candidates that have swung far to the right, whereas the Dems have stayed about where they were over the past 40 years. Clinton's stands on abortion, affirmative action and government spending are essentially identical to what Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter stood for. They are classic moderate-liberal positions.
Portraying the Democrats as taking positions at the far left of the spectrum is a real distortion. More false equivalence.
Portraying the Democrats as taking positions at the far left of the spectrum is a real distortion. More false equivalence.
3
Presidential extremists were quite conspicuous in 1964 elections.
In the 2016 election cycle, really extreme conservatives were unimpressive candidates. They fell one by one by Donald Trump's onslaught on them.
They didn't consider Trump as a real conservative. They didn't oppose him solely because of his outrageous pronouncements but they thought he was a NY liberal & would change color once he starts his presidency. Real conservatives are Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush & Ted Cruz. Rand Paul is in a separate class with strange philosophy who promotes like his father "law of the jungle." In some sense he, cruz & Jindal are men without a heart. Jindal is a typical Indian capitalist absolutely unconcerned about the plight of the dispossessed.
(I know, I'm an Indian American. There are plenty of such heartless people in India who consider poor, low caste Hindus & poor Muslims as sub-human. They have no qualms about treating such people as animals. There are still 10 million bonded laborers in India who are just slaves!)
Back to the theme of this piece. Trump's attraction is his "magnetism," not his ideology. Bernie Sanders's attraction was his ideology & strong verbal skills, and a modicum of magnetism. Hillary Clinton's problem is first & foremost she's a she. Then her presence of mind is poor. She blurts out undiplomatic things to put it mildly. Then she's not likable plain & simple. In my view, Trump is the opposite in likability; He's a Reagan! But he's borderline insane.
In the 2016 election cycle, really extreme conservatives were unimpressive candidates. They fell one by one by Donald Trump's onslaught on them.
They didn't consider Trump as a real conservative. They didn't oppose him solely because of his outrageous pronouncements but they thought he was a NY liberal & would change color once he starts his presidency. Real conservatives are Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush & Ted Cruz. Rand Paul is in a separate class with strange philosophy who promotes like his father "law of the jungle." In some sense he, cruz & Jindal are men without a heart. Jindal is a typical Indian capitalist absolutely unconcerned about the plight of the dispossessed.
(I know, I'm an Indian American. There are plenty of such heartless people in India who consider poor, low caste Hindus & poor Muslims as sub-human. They have no qualms about treating such people as animals. There are still 10 million bonded laborers in India who are just slaves!)
Back to the theme of this piece. Trump's attraction is his "magnetism," not his ideology. Bernie Sanders's attraction was his ideology & strong verbal skills, and a modicum of magnetism. Hillary Clinton's problem is first & foremost she's a she. Then her presence of mind is poor. She blurts out undiplomatic things to put it mildly. Then she's not likable plain & simple. In my view, Trump is the opposite in likability; He's a Reagan! But he's borderline insane.
2
We as a nation are polarized because so few people even understand the function of government and think its function should be up for debate every couple of years.
Government has become a show in which the rider on stage changes for reasons clearly unknown, often unwarranted and always apparently whimsical. Better the horse is left in the barn or pasture than trotted out in full dress and mounted by some preening overdressed captain who confuses left and right rein with port and starboard.
If we actually stopped and thought seriously about it, we do not have to or for that matter should ever want to change government. Government shouldn't and wouldn't ever break if we left it alone to function without the constant interference of those who want more from it than is warranted.
Government either follows and meets the needs of all the people, or it becomes a dictatorship for the few.
We've been at this game long enough to understand and know our needs and what works to fulfill them.
So why the debate?
Because politics is a gaming business which like all bets can bring great profit to those who study the odds and know how the game is played. The winning hand always brings great profit and the other hand never finishes out of money.
The original "win, win" concept
The only losers are the poor spectators who place an ongoing bet first unwittingly wagered and constantly anted up since birth.
Government has become a show in which the rider on stage changes for reasons clearly unknown, often unwarranted and always apparently whimsical. Better the horse is left in the barn or pasture than trotted out in full dress and mounted by some preening overdressed captain who confuses left and right rein with port and starboard.
If we actually stopped and thought seriously about it, we do not have to or for that matter should ever want to change government. Government shouldn't and wouldn't ever break if we left it alone to function without the constant interference of those who want more from it than is warranted.
Government either follows and meets the needs of all the people, or it becomes a dictatorship for the few.
We've been at this game long enough to understand and know our needs and what works to fulfill them.
So why the debate?
Because politics is a gaming business which like all bets can bring great profit to those who study the odds and know how the game is played. The winning hand always brings great profit and the other hand never finishes out of money.
The original "win, win" concept
The only losers are the poor spectators who place an ongoing bet first unwittingly wagered and constantly anted up since birth.
1
I don't know which/whom is worse,
the extremists or the existentialists.
(the existentialists)
the extremists or the existentialists.
(the existentialists)
1
"I'm not an extremist, but you are." 40 years ago, my Kansas family had similar political view as I had. Now, I see right-wing crazies, and they see a socialist wacko. I don't think I've changed. They don't think they've changed. Two totally different worlds. Then, I was proof of the American dream who patriotically served in the Army and worked at a national security lab. Now, I've become a traitor to the Real America who went off to a Left Coast university to get a Ph.D. at the expense of hardworking tax payers. I then spent 35 years eating at the government pig trough getting welfare for white collar elitists. I was an example of America's greatness. Now I'm proof that we need Trump to make America great again. For my family, Bartells deeply understates the extremism of Clinton and the Left. For me?
10
This piece should be the classic example held up while teaching a course in false equivalence in political journalism.
There were three things our founders were really skeptical about:
Standing armies and foreign intrigue.
Corporations.
The mob getting the reins of democracy.
It seems we are now worshiping at the altar of all three.
If all we want to do is allow a majority, arrived at by polling, to determine the direction of the Nation then we had better be prepared to fall off the cliff.
There were three things our founders were really skeptical about:
Standing armies and foreign intrigue.
Corporations.
The mob getting the reins of democracy.
It seems we are now worshiping at the altar of all three.
If all we want to do is allow a majority, arrived at by polling, to determine the direction of the Nation then we had better be prepared to fall off the cliff.
3
False equivalences and total nonsense.
3
Ms. Clinton, extreme? Only in how cautious she is towards progressive changes. I could list all the liberal ideas she has slowly moved towards but I teach government in high school and don't have time for debate rhetoric.
Other than that, the idea of Ms. Clinton bring "extreme" is enough to make a cat laugh.
Other than that, the idea of Ms. Clinton bring "extreme" is enough to make a cat laugh.
1
Tell ALL you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and the obstructionism, filibusters, bigotry racism corporate lackeys will be gone forever. As will the negative influences of Reagan, and both Bushes. More government not less. More socialism not less. More regulations not fewer. More and higher taxes not lower. More unions not fewer. Not extreme, just progressive and common sense. If it wasn't for liberals, you wouldn't have a country, safe food, clean air, safe vehicles, etc. You think that the corporations and Republican'ts and their ilk will give you these things?!
Don't be naive. Look at their unAmerican unpatriotic views and actions not words as well as their voting records.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong. Problem solved.
Don't be naive. Look at their unAmerican unpatriotic views and actions not words as well as their voting records.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong. Problem solved.
1
In what world is HRC a "hardcore liberal"?
Her policies and proposals have more in common with Richard Nixon than Bernie Sanders.
For hardcore liberals, Hillary is a "hold your nose and pull the lever" candidate to avoid electing the most extreme right-wing candidate of a major party in American history.
Hillary does not support single-payer healthcare. She does not support breaking up the banks. She does not support a ban on Fracking or a Carbon tax. She doesn't support legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana and an end to the destructive and costly Drug War. She does not support nuclear disarmament. She does not support massive cuts to Defense. She does not support clemency for Edward Snowden. She does not support a lot of what true hardcore liberals in the USA want to see in a President.
She is, however, qualified, dignified, and we can trust her not to randomly launch nukes at anyone who sneezes at us, unlike her orange clown-faced, tiny-handed opponent.
Her policies and proposals have more in common with Richard Nixon than Bernie Sanders.
For hardcore liberals, Hillary is a "hold your nose and pull the lever" candidate to avoid electing the most extreme right-wing candidate of a major party in American history.
Hillary does not support single-payer healthcare. She does not support breaking up the banks. She does not support a ban on Fracking or a Carbon tax. She doesn't support legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana and an end to the destructive and costly Drug War. She does not support nuclear disarmament. She does not support massive cuts to Defense. She does not support clemency for Edward Snowden. She does not support a lot of what true hardcore liberals in the USA want to see in a President.
She is, however, qualified, dignified, and we can trust her not to randomly launch nukes at anyone who sneezes at us, unlike her orange clown-faced, tiny-handed opponent.
1
One thing glaringly omitted in this is the disastrous effect of big money in politics. Extreme right wing positions have become even zanier since Citizens United.
11
Rather than judging candidates on a left-versus-right continuum, a more revealing index would be to locate them on the reality-versus-fantasy spectrum.
Hillary Clinton would be near one end, and Donald Trump would be at the very end of the other. It's probably fair to say that Trump has pushed the scale to 11---out of a possible 10. On the other hand, most of his opposition in the primaries would would have been located pretty near him on the spectrum.
Unfortunately, this describes the evolution of the Republican Party over the last couple of decades. The better their candidate is at denying reality, the more popular he/she is likely to be with their base.
Hillary Clinton would be near one end, and Donald Trump would be at the very end of the other. It's probably fair to say that Trump has pushed the scale to 11---out of a possible 10. On the other hand, most of his opposition in the primaries would would have been located pretty near him on the spectrum.
Unfortunately, this describes the evolution of the Republican Party over the last couple of decades. The better their candidate is at denying reality, the more popular he/she is likely to be with their base.
1
A poly sci prof should know better than to identify liberalism with far-left ideology this way; it's yet another case of chopping off a third of the political spectrum, and calling green infra-red.
Get your facts straight. The mere comarison of the two parties with extreme fringe elements is deceitful, untrue and part of the problem. The REpblicans marred a small fringe group of religious extremes called The Religious Right, under Reagan as a slight counter measure to the Democrats stronghold on the Black vote. Little did Reagan or any sensible Republican realize that small group would infect the entire party, turn the party into a conspiracists based, anti-science, anti-capitalist group of whack jobs. As if they weren't crazy enough, they splintered off into Tea Partyers, some of whom I believe are truly psychologically deranged. Michelle Bachman, Palin, to name a couple. Out of their mins, poisoning uneducated people with inflamatory, completely false charges that include, murder, budgets made up, citizenship of our President, coded language to assassinate Democrats, racists language they back away from. I didn't like Reagan, but he'd be aghast at these people. Abortion, Public Works Projects we need and would put the working class, back to work, healthcare, and btw, what affirmative action? These are extreme leftists positions?Check out Abortion rates, Divorce and Gun Violence, highest in the most conservative states. Bunch of whack jobs. I'd be thrilled to secede. They ruin our country with their anti-intellect, dumbed down way of life.
1
"But it is also worth asking whether policy “extremism” is such a bad thing, anyway."
One of those pesky (Right-leaning) Centrists myself, I'd say "policy extremism" has much to do with why the lost arts of Compromise & Diplomacy are...well, lost! And it's helping no one.
One of those pesky (Right-leaning) Centrists myself, I'd say "policy extremism" has much to do with why the lost arts of Compromise & Diplomacy are...well, lost! And it's helping no one.
Why does the NY Times feel obligated to publish opinion pieces that they must know are completely wrong? Do the editors really think it's valid to consider Hillary Clinton an extremist candidate? I doubt it.
2
The only reason Democratic positions are, as this author states, extreme on the Left side is because we have seen a continual redefinition of the "middle" that has moved it more and more to the hard right side. This has been a well-financed and long term campaign of the right wing and has been ably supported, often unthinkingly, by the mainstream media in its desperate attempt to look "fair and balanced" even when one side pushes for purely ideological viewpoints that have no basis in science, facts, or the Constitution (at least in the way any sane person would read it).
So those "extreme" Democratic positions are what used to be called normal liberal positions. And a normal pre-Nixon, pre-Lee Atwater Republican wouldn't stand a chance of being elected today.
You want to get rid of extremism? Then start by stopping with this ridiculous redefining of the "middle".
So those "extreme" Democratic positions are what used to be called normal liberal positions. And a normal pre-Nixon, pre-Lee Atwater Republican wouldn't stand a chance of being elected today.
You want to get rid of extremism? Then start by stopping with this ridiculous redefining of the "middle".
27
Another article on false equivalencies that makes no sense.
It is likely an attempt to discuss extremism and try to dodge being labeled partisan.
The problem with doing this is that it is dishonest and it drags down the candidate who is not extreme into the mire and makes the other ones behavior seem normal or acceptable
There is nothing normal about what Trump has said about banning all muslims, exporting all illegals and calling them rapists, and his saying that the issue of rape in the military is caused by the fact that women are there and that if his daughter were the victim of sexual harassment at work she should simply leave
He must be called out on this. We can't pretend it is OK to make these racist and sexist remarks
Hilary is simply running center left. She has not been extreme at all
Certainly not extreme in her comments and if you go to her website, her agenda is simply appeals to Democrats, and oddly enough, when Ivanka talked about childcare and sounded like a Democrat (and just like (HRC) at the RNC, she got more applause than anyone from the crowd. So Hillary is appealing to most
If you call Hillary's comment about the basket of deplorables extreme then you are doing a disservice.
Hillary did the right thing. We cannot stay silent and pretend that what Trump has said is acceptable and a normal part of politics. It isn't.
The false equivalency argument, saying his is "just politics" is condoning racism and sexism as normal.
It is not acceptable.
It is likely an attempt to discuss extremism and try to dodge being labeled partisan.
The problem with doing this is that it is dishonest and it drags down the candidate who is not extreme into the mire and makes the other ones behavior seem normal or acceptable
There is nothing normal about what Trump has said about banning all muslims, exporting all illegals and calling them rapists, and his saying that the issue of rape in the military is caused by the fact that women are there and that if his daughter were the victim of sexual harassment at work she should simply leave
He must be called out on this. We can't pretend it is OK to make these racist and sexist remarks
Hilary is simply running center left. She has not been extreme at all
Certainly not extreme in her comments and if you go to her website, her agenda is simply appeals to Democrats, and oddly enough, when Ivanka talked about childcare and sounded like a Democrat (and just like (HRC) at the RNC, she got more applause than anyone from the crowd. So Hillary is appealing to most
If you call Hillary's comment about the basket of deplorables extreme then you are doing a disservice.
Hillary did the right thing. We cannot stay silent and pretend that what Trump has said is acceptable and a normal part of politics. It isn't.
The false equivalency argument, saying his is "just politics" is condoning racism and sexism as normal.
It is not acceptable.
13
Mr. Bartel says, "Democrats well to the left (for example, see Hillary Clinton on abortion, affirmative action and government spending) and Republicans well to the right (for example, see Donald J. Trump on immigration, foreign policy and tax cuts for the wealthy)" Left and right of what? "Traditional" supposed christian male values?
The Don is for a ban on abortion and punishing women who have one. The Don wants to get rid of any man who is not white and keep women home barefoot and pregnant where they belong. The Don wants all the money for himself except the little bit he'll share with his buddies. The Don wants to play his toy soldier games with OUR very real military.
The Don is a repulsive, dangerous human being and belongs in the Middle Ages. Please time travel machine - whisk he and his supporters up and return them to their "glory" days. Perhaps the peasants have gotten smart and will draw and quarter them.
The Don is for a ban on abortion and punishing women who have one. The Don wants to get rid of any man who is not white and keep women home barefoot and pregnant where they belong. The Don wants all the money for himself except the little bit he'll share with his buddies. The Don wants to play his toy soldier games with OUR very real military.
The Don is a repulsive, dangerous human being and belongs in the Middle Ages. Please time travel machine - whisk he and his supporters up and return them to their "glory" days. Perhaps the peasants have gotten smart and will draw and quarter them.
14
You should take the same time machine into the future and see the post modern, liberal dystopia that America will become. A place where individual self indulgence is considered high art and the inconvenience of having children has all but depopulated the country. This will be the "glory" days that await you.
This article confuses what politicians say with what they do. There is little difference between the two major parties when it comes to the policies that affect Americans lives the most. For example, endless "wars" and world-wide policing, support for the domestic police/prison/prohibition industrial complex, and appeasing corporate and Wall Street masters, are the product of both parties. This tax dollar-consuming status quo comes at a great cost to society and is increasingly unacceptable to voters (as many recent NYT articles have suggested). Despite media propaganda designed to maintain the status quo, voters may eventually choose an "extremist" that better represents their values.
8
You "forgot" a century+ of "Progressive"-conservative support for big govt, starting, perhaps, with the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. You "forgot" that finance is one of the most govt-controlled industries. Both Trump and Hillary support big govt. Neither discusses individual rights.
Ultimately, where bribery of politicians is legal, it is inevitable policy is now always determined by those that pay the piper. The two parties have virtually shut out any alternative and even if someone really tries to offer that alternative, in a system that requires enormous sums of money just to get in to the game, it is probable that many quality candidates choose not to even bother resulting in the same old names being resurrected election after election. Trump was really the exception by pulling the wool over the idiotic eyes of the Republican Party and because he went against the grain, exposed the Republicans for what they REALLY stood for and still won, they really have no alternative, and, ultimately, are stuck with him.
If somehow, an alternative candidate still chooses to run but, not under a democratic or republican banner, they would be ignored by the media anyway. Pretty sad state of affairs for a country still calling itself a democracy.
If somehow, an alternative candidate still chooses to run but, not under a democratic or republican banner, they would be ignored by the media anyway. Pretty sad state of affairs for a country still calling itself a democracy.
When so few Americans vote, the extremists have more influence, but as candidates and as voters.
2
Bill Clinton was already further right than reagan. He made a point of completing reagan’s destruction of our regulatory system to prove this.
What I am getting in this run for the first time since reagan left office is that sick feeling of listening to patriotic rhetoric and hearing patriotic songs that I only get when the speaker and singer is not a patriot but a demagogue and worse. This is how I felt every time I heard reagan speak from the early 70’s. During his administration it was awful. That song, which became so iconic that made me feel shame about these fake patriot men and women being fellow citizens most of whom have no idea they are being lead down the garden path but should.
To get an idea of what I mean take a look at movies where the Nazi’s or Communists are constantly talking about how loyal and more fiercely patriotic they are and use that as a test and a cudgel. That is the GOP that reagan created and still exists today.
I support HRC because she is the nominee but I don’t like her style or her reticence to be open. I am starting to think she holds her boundaries so close because of the emotional damage Bill inflicted over the course of their marriage. She doesn’t seem to have the ability to be open, without giving herself away in ways that make her feel exposed and that I know is a mark of compensating for a deep betrayal that some perceive as the reticence created by dishonesty.
What I am getting in this run for the first time since reagan left office is that sick feeling of listening to patriotic rhetoric and hearing patriotic songs that I only get when the speaker and singer is not a patriot but a demagogue and worse. This is how I felt every time I heard reagan speak from the early 70’s. During his administration it was awful. That song, which became so iconic that made me feel shame about these fake patriot men and women being fellow citizens most of whom have no idea they are being lead down the garden path but should.
To get an idea of what I mean take a look at movies where the Nazi’s or Communists are constantly talking about how loyal and more fiercely patriotic they are and use that as a test and a cudgel. That is the GOP that reagan created and still exists today.
I support HRC because she is the nominee but I don’t like her style or her reticence to be open. I am starting to think she holds her boundaries so close because of the emotional damage Bill inflicted over the course of their marriage. She doesn’t seem to have the ability to be open, without giving herself away in ways that make her feel exposed and that I know is a mark of compensating for a deep betrayal that some perceive as the reticence created by dishonesty.
3
You can't blame the parties for Hillary and Donald. They are arrivistes, interlopers, especially the Donald.
Parties are supposed to be about a common message, but you can't control the message if you don't control the money. That's been the case now since the "reforms" of the 70's. The obvious answer is to ditch the reforms and let the parties get back in the driver's seat.
Parties are supposed to be about a common message, but you can't control the message if you don't control the money. That's been the case now since the "reforms" of the 70's. The obvious answer is to ditch the reforms and let the parties get back in the driver's seat.
2 parties limits your choice
as we now see
While I agree with most of this analysis, there are two another factors that have led to a deeper chasm between conservatives and liberals, and that is the rise of Fox News, et al, as the network of the RNC and Newt Gingrich's formula for effective propaganda; LANGUAGE: A Key Mechanism of Control. The formula is a recipe for demonizing one's political opponent in the minds of the public.
Donald Trump, for example, is using this tactic to the extreme and I think it is likely why he's done so well. Clinton, after years of such polarizing rhetoric from the right, is merely the old-line establishment Democrat who remains calculating, secretive, and triangulating for deals. No matter what she says on the campaign trail, I believe she will shift toward the center as did her husband.
Donald Trump, for example, is using this tactic to the extreme and I think it is likely why he's done so well. Clinton, after years of such polarizing rhetoric from the right, is merely the old-line establishment Democrat who remains calculating, secretive, and triangulating for deals. No matter what she says on the campaign trail, I believe she will shift toward the center as did her husband.
4
"... Hillary Clinton on abortion, affirmative action and government spending)..."
Bizarre. First, abortion is legal; extremism is trying to make this Constitutional right illegal. Second "affirmative action" is hardly a main plank in Hillary's platform; in fact, I've never heard her mention it.
Finally, citing "government spending" as if it were a plank is pandering to the right's falsehood that they are "against government spending". In fact, the right spends a lot, on things like military adventures, weaponry, corporate welfare, drug-testing welfare recipients, and policing people's bedrooms and bathrooms, Repub presidents—like St. Reagan and Bush II—have raised deficits/debt enormously while Dem presidents—like Clinton I and Obama—have cut deficits.
Most of what right-wingers call "extreme left" positions—such as sensible gun control and ensuring that citizens can afford health care—are mainstream positions, whether you look at the rest of the developed world or poll the average voter on what they want.
But climate change denial, the attempt to teach creationism in science class, and the assertion that a person without health insurance should be left to die, and many more Repub positions are extreme by any standards.
No, both sides do NOT do it.
Bizarre. First, abortion is legal; extremism is trying to make this Constitutional right illegal. Second "affirmative action" is hardly a main plank in Hillary's platform; in fact, I've never heard her mention it.
Finally, citing "government spending" as if it were a plank is pandering to the right's falsehood that they are "against government spending". In fact, the right spends a lot, on things like military adventures, weaponry, corporate welfare, drug-testing welfare recipients, and policing people's bedrooms and bathrooms, Repub presidents—like St. Reagan and Bush II—have raised deficits/debt enormously while Dem presidents—like Clinton I and Obama—have cut deficits.
Most of what right-wingers call "extreme left" positions—such as sensible gun control and ensuring that citizens can afford health care—are mainstream positions, whether you look at the rest of the developed world or poll the average voter on what they want.
But climate change denial, the attempt to teach creationism in science class, and the assertion that a person without health insurance should be left to die, and many more Repub positions are extreme by any standards.
No, both sides do NOT do it.
33
You are making the exact point of the author of the article. Left extremist argumentation with blinders on.
First, I am proChoice, but abortion is NOT a constitutional right! It is legal, but not everything that is legal is a constitutional right.
Second, 'sensible' gun control is of course something everyone agrees on, but the left simply labels anything not agreeing with its definition of 'sensible' as right wing.
Moreover, climate change denial, the attempt to teach creationism in science class, and the assertion that a person without health insurance should be left to die, are NOT Republican positions. Claiming so is a thinly veiled attempt of discrediting the moderate center using Trump tactics. Amazing how quickly the left has adopted those!
So, YES, both sides DO it.
First, I am proChoice, but abortion is NOT a constitutional right! It is legal, but not everything that is legal is a constitutional right.
Second, 'sensible' gun control is of course something everyone agrees on, but the left simply labels anything not agreeing with its definition of 'sensible' as right wing.
Moreover, climate change denial, the attempt to teach creationism in science class, and the assertion that a person without health insurance should be left to die, are NOT Republican positions. Claiming so is a thinly veiled attempt of discrediting the moderate center using Trump tactics. Amazing how quickly the left has adopted those!
So, YES, both sides DO it.
The apparently reified poles of liberal and conservative are likely a nearly useless way of understanding the apparent "extremism" of the present candidates. Hillary is no extremist. She is the result of a long slog towards recognizing large groups of people who historically were not visible. The next and perhaps last dyad in the gender/race/class trinity of American historical struggle will be the later. Those arguing for the re-establishment of bright line misogyny or naked racism are frigging dinosaurs, necks craned to the sky. Economic injustice, which both parties presently support in various forms and execution, will either heat up the country and planet to the boiling point or we will finally face our carbon issue and get the rich polluters under control.
Either way both parties face an "extreme" reckoning.
Either way both parties face an "extreme" reckoning.
5
False equivalence, Dr. Bartels. For even a near-counterpart on the left to Donald Trump in this country, you would have to look at the the anarchist left, e.g. Ward Churchill, who considered the 9/11 attacks justifiable acts of pushback and their victims "little Eichmanns" (echoing Malcolm X's view that the JFK assassination was the chickens coming home to roost).
You can find the essay here:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Not even Bernie Sanders would say that.
You can find the essay here:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Not even Bernie Sanders would say that.
7
False equivalence, absolutely correct. There's a wacko left and a wacko right - the ragged ends of the former often crop up in these NYT comment strings, in fact. However, there is no major party catering to the wacko left - Bernie Sanders, whom I didn't support (I was for Martin O'Malley) was well within the bounds of reason, even if his proposed solutions to our problems were inadequately thought out and ultimately unworkable. (We can surely have a single-payer 'national health' like the UK's, Canada's, etc.; just not Sanders's plan. Same with 'free tuition at state colleges'.) To equate the wacko left and the wacko right is like putting a feather in one pan of the scale, a brick in the other, and saying the scale is balanced because there's something in the pan on both sides.
1
You have entirely ignored the role of big money and gerrymandering in shaping the political debate. You don't think that Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have a tiny role in encouraging extremism?
11
Of course, Buffet, Soros, all the Hamptonites, all the Martha Vineyarders, all the Hollywoodese are paragons of sanely centrism.
The following quote from this article tells me that the author, despite the right credentials foolishly believes in the integrity of politicians who seek power by any means and who have positions believed to get them power. Sure, some begin their careers with integrity but by the time they are running for president, they are manufactured product.
The quote: A more compelling explanation is that candidates take extreme stands because they can — the electoral incentive to moderate their positions is too weak to outweigh their own ideological convictions.
High up politicians have no convictions. I understand that Hillary is naturally more a lefty than, let's say, Ted Cruz, but both seek power more than idealism. Look at Bill C. on welfare, to cite an example.
The quote: A more compelling explanation is that candidates take extreme stands because they can — the electoral incentive to moderate their positions is too weak to outweigh their own ideological convictions.
High up politicians have no convictions. I understand that Hillary is naturally more a lefty than, let's say, Ted Cruz, but both seek power more than idealism. Look at Bill C. on welfare, to cite an example.
Trumpis a politcal extremist for certain. What is more disturbing about Trump however iare not his policy positions which are often hard to decipher. Trumps extreme narcissist personality disorder is of far greater concern. It is this disorder that allows hi to state that knowledge is not important because he has a big brain and can figure everything out by himself.
Trump's mental disorder allows him to make outrageous incomprehensible statements and claim he was "misunderstood". He accepts no responsibility for his horrendous acts, be it bribery of officials, numerous bankruptcies or swindling life savings from desperate students. Classic extreme narcissist behavior. His disorder makes his thinking so disjointed that in interviews, his interviewers have to complete his thoughts for him, be it Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, or his favorite fan, Matt Lauer.
Headlines should be screaming about the extreme mental disorder of Donald Trump and the danger he poses to our nation. Instead, his garbled "extremist" policies are presented as entertainment coming from a Reality TV comic. This is not journalism but the media is more interested in ratings and click bait than in informing the public.
This column is a classic example, it treats Trump as though he were a credible politician when Trump's own words make it clear that he is not. Just read his lips.
Trump's mental disorder allows him to make outrageous incomprehensible statements and claim he was "misunderstood". He accepts no responsibility for his horrendous acts, be it bribery of officials, numerous bankruptcies or swindling life savings from desperate students. Classic extreme narcissist behavior. His disorder makes his thinking so disjointed that in interviews, his interviewers have to complete his thoughts for him, be it Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, or his favorite fan, Matt Lauer.
Headlines should be screaming about the extreme mental disorder of Donald Trump and the danger he poses to our nation. Instead, his garbled "extremist" policies are presented as entertainment coming from a Reality TV comic. This is not journalism but the media is more interested in ratings and click bait than in informing the public.
This column is a classic example, it treats Trump as though he were a credible politician when Trump's own words make it clear that he is not. Just read his lips.
10
Ever since Obama's inauguration, the day when Republicans vowed to make popular centrist Obama a one-term president (and indeed, really, since Reagan and particularly the Supreme Court-elected Bush 2, who started a war of choice and told us to go out and shop, leaving us with trillions and a much more broken middle east), the goalposts have been moved to the right and obstruction has become the rule.
Legislation that would help all of us has been labeled and discarded, while tax cuts for the rich and government shutdowns (and threats of same) have bullied us into going ever further in favor of stiffing working stiffs and concentrating wealth at the top, hoarding, looting (Medicare and Social Security), privatizing schools and prisons for profit, and disabling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which protects the majority - little guys - against the immoral profiteers.
So top salaries have gone through the roof, and the Waltons (Walmart) are top billionaires, but their laborers need government assistance to get by, and they're happy to help their employees rather than paying a living wage?
This is polarization from Democrats? Give me a break!
Legislation that would help all of us has been labeled and discarded, while tax cuts for the rich and government shutdowns (and threats of same) have bullied us into going ever further in favor of stiffing working stiffs and concentrating wealth at the top, hoarding, looting (Medicare and Social Security), privatizing schools and prisons for profit, and disabling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which protects the majority - little guys - against the immoral profiteers.
So top salaries have gone through the roof, and the Waltons (Walmart) are top billionaires, but their laborers need government assistance to get by, and they're happy to help their employees rather than paying a living wage?
This is polarization from Democrats? Give me a break!
13
And putting no restrictions on the acquisition of high-powered killing machines, that's centrist? Arming the angry, that works ... see the Bundys, destroying public property for personal profit.
8
Climate change is real and it's here.
The Koch billionaire network, Adelson, Mercer, they're centrists?
Voter suppression, that's centrist?
The list goes on and on.
The Koch billionaire network, Adelson, Mercer, they're centrists?
Voter suppression, that's centrist?
The list goes on and on.
6
Are you denying that there are plenty of Democrats at the very top of the food chain? Are Gates and Buffet Republicans? Did your Candidate spend most of summer smoozing Republicans in the Hampton, Republicans on Martha's Vineyard, Republicans in the Hollywood Hills, Republicans on Wall Street? Don't knock WalMart, because lots of your liberals friends hold stock in the Waltons' Big Box. Who's exploiting whom?
Another example of the intellectually dishonest false equivalency paradigm that plagues the NYT, and political discussion, these days. "Democratic candidates compete to see who “can genuflect lower before the radical, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel fringe of the Democratic Party.”" Who? Where?
And please give me one "extreme" position taken by Sect. Clinton.
And the author is an editor and a professor? Amazing.
And please give me one "extreme" position taken by Sect. Clinton.
And the author is an editor and a professor? Amazing.
9
Exactly. While living in the UK my boss, a reliable conservative, described Hillary as the kind of centrist that the right and left there could agree on. When I was in university, the radical (and not so radical) liberal students protested outside when Clinton came to speak due to her unquestioning support for Israel.
This is yet another reason for abandoning plurality voting...which is pretty much intentionally used to protect the duopoly of the two-party system...and move toward some kind of majority voting, either Approval or Ranked-choice.
Plurality voting basically forces rational voters into an either-or choice, and reinforces mindless party loyalty. The reason 3rd parties are always fringe crazies is that you have to be fringe & crazy to challenge the comfy position the two parties have engineered for themselves. With majority voting (which, at its core, allows voters to choose more than one candidate and thus makes split votes, the threat of which is the glue that holds together the two parties, non-existent) we would have parties in the center, appealing to the vast center of the bell curve. We could conceivably have candidates winning elections with super-majorities of the vote. Never again would we call 52% of the vote a "landslide" or a "mandate".
Plurality voting basically forces rational voters into an either-or choice, and reinforces mindless party loyalty. The reason 3rd parties are always fringe crazies is that you have to be fringe & crazy to challenge the comfy position the two parties have engineered for themselves. With majority voting (which, at its core, allows voters to choose more than one candidate and thus makes split votes, the threat of which is the glue that holds together the two parties, non-existent) we would have parties in the center, appealing to the vast center of the bell curve. We could conceivably have candidates winning elections with super-majorities of the vote. Never again would we call 52% of the vote a "landslide" or a "mandate".
"America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything “noble and just,” and heroic, and great, and unprecedented in human history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle. The first consequence was the principle of political freedom, i.e., an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by the government. The next was the economic implementation of political freedom: the system of capitalism."
Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand
1
It's time to put this bizarre election cycle nonsense to rest. We have not witnessed this kind of unscripted craziness before. We expected the usual several month pre-election period to take a familiar form. Predictable candidates, mundane arguments, debates that were semi-scripted with anticipated "zingers", and an election that left half the country moderately disappointed but accepting of the outcome. If this country didn't explode after the Bush-Gore debacle, then likely it never would.
This year, however, we have turned a corner on tone, extreme positioning, outrageous comments that portend violence, and an awakening of a segment of our population that, ironically, has sided with the former mainstream members of one party, and has seized the reins, while endorsing the least qualified individual that this country has brought forward in its history.
So, who wants this rabid situation to continue? Just about every quarter has an agenda that is manifest by keeping the hyperbole loud and omni-present.
The Press, with newly anointed fresh faces, moves from one shiny object to another, keeping their new 24 hour news cycles replete with mountains out of mole hills.
The DNC is cleaning up financially by scaring the bejeebies out of us despite having better and earlier polls than we see. Frighten us and milk us should be their mantra.
The Trump folks, seeing opportunity in a new right media play, are corralling the their hardcare base for future profit.
Shame all around.
This year, however, we have turned a corner on tone, extreme positioning, outrageous comments that portend violence, and an awakening of a segment of our population that, ironically, has sided with the former mainstream members of one party, and has seized the reins, while endorsing the least qualified individual that this country has brought forward in its history.
So, who wants this rabid situation to continue? Just about every quarter has an agenda that is manifest by keeping the hyperbole loud and omni-present.
The Press, with newly anointed fresh faces, moves from one shiny object to another, keeping their new 24 hour news cycles replete with mountains out of mole hills.
The DNC is cleaning up financially by scaring the bejeebies out of us despite having better and earlier polls than we see. Frighten us and milk us should be their mantra.
The Trump folks, seeing opportunity in a new right media play, are corralling the their hardcare base for future profit.
Shame all around.
1
This piece is shockingly poorly reasoned and is the perfect example of false equivalence. Trump is not anything like a typical Republican but expresses the worst of the Republican base. He is so repelling that many Republicans have declared their support for Clinton. She and Kaine have a long record of working across the isle because they are centrists and most definitely do not represent the extreme left. Democrats strongly preferred her over Sanders because the party and its voters have drifted toward the center, not left.
I am also appalled that this piece is written by a fellow academic. Sir, don't you realize that we take a lot of criticism for speaking from the ivory tower in ways that have little connection to reality? Please get out of your personal frame of reference and comment on the real world and this very atypical campaign.
I am also appalled that this piece is written by a fellow academic. Sir, don't you realize that we take a lot of criticism for speaking from the ivory tower in ways that have little connection to reality? Please get out of your personal frame of reference and comment on the real world and this very atypical campaign.
5
Hillary is far more of an interventionist than Trump. Her foreign policy positions are to the right of Trump's.
3
Bartels: "the Democratic base moved 1.5 points further to the left... while the Republican base moved 6.5 points further to the right." So, since 1980, 81% (=6.5/8) of the gap that has opened up between the two parties is due to Republicans falling off the deep end of radical conservatism. What does Mr Bartels suggest the DNC do about this issue? Simple: the left needs to fall off the same cliff the Right has fallen off of: "the political center… shifted to the right.. Democrats… say… that is a… center they want no part of… that is just the sort of thinking… that accounts for why our politics often seem so polarized" I have a two word rebuttal to Mr Bartels: "Donald Trump" The evidence that one of these two parties has fallen off the deep end and become fundamentally radicalized is encapsulated in those two words.
3
article on 5 nebulous points
Mr Bartels polls from 1980 to know extremely vague:
1. Government spending (? how is that a policy)
2. Aid to African Americans ( those poor suckers)
3 Military spending (what does that mean?)
4. jobs (Id like to keep mine. Can my daughter also have one?)
5. Liberal-Conservative Ideology (?)
What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. This is the broad, poorly defined research that means squat. He uses it to make his own point. Trump is still a loose cannon, with a free-floating policy, reckless off-the-cuff remarks, who will find ways to pay himself well at the expense of everyone. This article thinks there are "swing voters". I haven't met one, with the exception of Republicans who realize Trump is a leaky vessel.
Republicans use their ideology to poke holes in the safety net. Their grandparents got an education on the GI Bill. Their parents get Medicare and Medicaid, they receive Social Security, and its them other poor people that want
"handouts".
Mr Bartels polls from 1980 to know extremely vague:
1. Government spending (? how is that a policy)
2. Aid to African Americans ( those poor suckers)
3 Military spending (what does that mean?)
4. jobs (Id like to keep mine. Can my daughter also have one?)
5. Liberal-Conservative Ideology (?)
What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. This is the broad, poorly defined research that means squat. He uses it to make his own point. Trump is still a loose cannon, with a free-floating policy, reckless off-the-cuff remarks, who will find ways to pay himself well at the expense of everyone. This article thinks there are "swing voters". I haven't met one, with the exception of Republicans who realize Trump is a leaky vessel.
Republicans use their ideology to poke holes in the safety net. Their grandparents got an education on the GI Bill. Their parents get Medicare and Medicaid, they receive Social Security, and its them other poor people that want
"handouts".
3
The World Trade Center towers were brought down on 9/11 by an act of God to make Trump's towers the tallest again.
Extreme?
Extreme?
1
Political wonks like the writer of this article who seem to seek the middle ground lose any sense of the feelings of voters. It becomes a game of checkers and equivalence that has no sense of reality even though that is what they are seeking. Donald Trump's positions on issues means nothing at all as he mouths platitudes for platitudes sake and hopes that no one will notice he is not the seeker of change but in the pockets of conservatives. Listening to his supporters they seem to have no idea what will serve their interests. Their opposition to Hillary is almost purely personal without regard to issues and this is also true of opposition from the extremist left. In this climate any political commentary can not afford to disregard the deep cult of personality that consumes the sense of the voters.
2
C'mon, Bartels, Drumpf has "moderated" his party's conservative stands? That's an absurd statement, and another example of how media people attempt to inject false equivalencies into this race. It's in YOUR best interests for this contest to be a "close horse race", as it sells papers and clicks.
There's NOTHING moderate about Drumpf. How could anyone even extract a clear position from the blather he spouts? Tax breaks for the extremely wealthy are nothing new, but there is NO evidence there's any economic benefit to our country if we pursue this path. And where are those tax returns? Why don't you focus on that very important omission? Without them, we cannot be sure of anything Drumpf says about his past, his actual wealth, his connections to russian "investors", or whether he actually pays ANY taxes.
Clinton is no "hard core liberal", either. She is, in fact, more moderate than you would suggest. However, painting her in this way would support the theme of this column, but it's a very weak characterization.
There's NOTHING moderate about Drumpf. How could anyone even extract a clear position from the blather he spouts? Tax breaks for the extremely wealthy are nothing new, but there is NO evidence there's any economic benefit to our country if we pursue this path. And where are those tax returns? Why don't you focus on that very important omission? Without them, we cannot be sure of anything Drumpf says about his past, his actual wealth, his connections to russian "investors", or whether he actually pays ANY taxes.
Clinton is no "hard core liberal", either. She is, in fact, more moderate than you would suggest. However, painting her in this way would support the theme of this column, but it's a very weak characterization.
4
"A principle is 'a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.' Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.
The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.
To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one must compromise) and by panicky appeals to “practicality.”
-Ayn Rand
The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.
To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one must compromise) and by panicky appeals to “practicality.”
-Ayn Rand
2
A really stupid article. The publicans have been moving right since goldwater and now are dramatically to the right. Democrats have moved moderately left since Clinton.
3
What happened to Alexander Hamilton as the target of Aaron Burr's gun was not extremist in an age of honorable gentlemanly duels. Perhaps a return to dueling in a nation of profane prancing preening pretending macho tough talking guys would have some positive salutary impact to separate the clucking hens from the bull bears.
Marion Morrison aka John Wayne dodged the draft during World War II while making movies and acting like "The Duke" when he was "The Duchess." Wayne had multiple Mexican wives.
Cheney, Gingrich, Giuliani and Trump need to man up. White men with guns like the radical Mormon terrorist extremists Cliven Bundy and sons will get a white man "pass" to live and let live.
Is Trump the messenger of a legion or a legend of followers?
Marion Morrison aka John Wayne dodged the draft during World War II while making movies and acting like "The Duke" when he was "The Duchess." Wayne had multiple Mexican wives.
Cheney, Gingrich, Giuliani and Trump need to man up. White men with guns like the radical Mormon terrorist extremists Cliven Bundy and sons will get a white man "pass" to live and let live.
Is Trump the messenger of a legion or a legend of followers?
1
A very flawed piece of analysis about the political divide. Maybe HRC may seem "left-wing" in Nashville, Tennessee where this professor teaches, it simply isn't the case. Hillary Clinton's platform basically centrist. Furthermore, I'd argue that extreme conservatism is a minority of loud, angry voices that gets far too much attention for its out-of-touch and regressive views (the abortion issue is a perfect example). Compared to countries in Western Europe, we in the US pay very low taxes (contrary to Republican claims), do not provide free public university, tolerate dire poverty among our citizenry, refuse to curtail guns, refuse to accept climate change, continue to carry out the death penalty, etc, etc. I would like to see this country head towards the mainstream of more intelligent and civilized views, as defined by the left. I'm hopeful that by the time my children's generation takes over, it will happen.
4
The reason the political waters are now so turbulent is because the circumstances of our country -- and the world -- are so extreme. People want answers, action, and real results. We cannot afford anything less -- anymore.
As a teacher, you have the unique ability to frame the political perception of young minds. How many of your students have become successful politicians based solely on your tutelage? Something tells me the margin is thin.
You, a political scientist, begin the article saying something to the effect that political students are taught to win. Perhaps you missed a decidedly dramatic shift away from realpolitik in recent years. Have you ever considered that the major-parties are increasingly un-indicative of the core issues upon which "swing voters", particularly young voters, pivot? A modern voter might find themselves passionately divided on both sides of an argument by matter of topic and approach. Yet, at the same time, that voter can be maligned to the theoretical underpinnings of both parties simply by principle and experience.
You seem to have missed the boat my friend.
You, a political scientist, begin the article saying something to the effect that political students are taught to win. Perhaps you missed a decidedly dramatic shift away from realpolitik in recent years. Have you ever considered that the major-parties are increasingly un-indicative of the core issues upon which "swing voters", particularly young voters, pivot? A modern voter might find themselves passionately divided on both sides of an argument by matter of topic and approach. Yet, at the same time, that voter can be maligned to the theoretical underpinnings of both parties simply by principle and experience.
You seem to have missed the boat my friend.
2
I suppose that it is inevitable that some like the author will take the "scientific" approach to analyzing this campaign. What is far right? Far left? Moderate? How polarized are Clinton and Trump? There might be some merit to such an analysis in a normal election. This election is anything but normal; it is an extreme aberration. It is impossible to define how far right Trump is, but that simply does not matter.
1
If expanded health care, criminal justice reform, greater spending on infrastructure and climate change are extremist, count me an extremist. The present GOP would make Teddy Roosevelt and Mother Teresa seem extremist.
1
The New York Times once again asserts false equivalence.
The Republicans have become the extremists. They are the danger to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The Republicans have become the extremists. They are the danger to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
1
The current winner-take-all system of the electoral college makes an 18th century institution very anti-democratic by rewarding the political plurality in each state all of the minority's votes. That means the national campaigns don't bother making an effort in anything but swing states. The local media cater to the majority, so the dominant view is reinforced. This is fundamentally why those who live in red states can't understate those in blue states. The EC needs to be abolished or reformed if we're going to improve our presidential or party system because the partisan divide is too great to overcome. As a journalist who writes about presidential leadership, here are my reasons for supporting Clinton (please share, read by 15,000): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
An exercise in false equivalences and near sightedness
As partisan as this may sound, I blame the GOP for the current state of our political extremism. They have taken everything to the extreme. It started under Clinton with Newt Gingrich, the rise of right wing media, right wing think tanks, AND the religious right. We now have people who get ALL their news and opinions from extreme sources. Based on that information, they create their own reality, which in turn creates a space for a demagogue like Trump. So, here we find ourselves with a candidate supremely unqualified, yet actually has a chance of winning, up against an opponent who is one of the most qualified candidates we've ever had, struggling to keep a relatively small lead. I'm not a super fan of HRC's, but nor do I dislike her. I have come to believe after watching this campaign, that there is underlying misogyny at work, and that she's held to different standards, far more scrutiny, and far more criticism than her male counterpart, who has behaved in nothing less than a disgusting manner, yet gets away with it. Why, for example, are his feet not being held more to the fire regarding his tax returns?
4
Excuse me, but your analysis of parties moving left or right is dubious science at best. How have you calibrated your research in terms of general shifts in ideology? Liberals in 1980 did not accept same-sex marriage and yet now a large percentage of the country does. There are societal shifts that are not measurable on your pseudo-scientific analyses. You talk about 1.5 % shift to the left. What are your parameters? Very doubtful that this can be measured with accuracy.
On another note---Hilary Clinton is, in my opinion, a moderate Republican. No way is she an extremist. We do not really have a left in this country. There are the rumbles from a new left (Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders) that is no more left than FDR and the New Deal.
I am tired of this comparison of Hilary with Trump. Hilary is not extreme. She represents the majority in the center. Trump is a dangerous, xenophobic, alt-right, misogynistic, undereducated reality tv star. He has agitated the extreme right into action. It is the republican party that has become extreme. Unfortunately the democrats have moved more to the right.
On another note---Hilary Clinton is, in my opinion, a moderate Republican. No way is she an extremist. We do not really have a left in this country. There are the rumbles from a new left (Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders) that is no more left than FDR and the New Deal.
I am tired of this comparison of Hilary with Trump. Hilary is not extreme. She represents the majority in the center. Trump is a dangerous, xenophobic, alt-right, misogynistic, undereducated reality tv star. He has agitated the extreme right into action. It is the republican party that has become extreme. Unfortunately the democrats have moved more to the right.
Typical political science, pseudo-science irrelevance and indifference to the data actually presented, rising to the level of irresponsible disinformation. The systemic functional model, here, assumes there is a virtue to "the center," without demonstrating that it exists except as a statistical artifact of the model itself, and calls both parties "extremist," with little regard to the political content of their respective so called extremism. It turns out that "centrist voters mostly have other things on their minds" than those that divide "the extremists," not some moderate, sensible, virtuous views on those scores; e.g., in the current context, a centrist voter who favors moderate bigotry, moderate equality of pay for women, and carrying rape pregnancies moderately to term. It turns out that swing voters are not in "the center"; they are elsewhere on dimensions the model does not recognize. Similarly, the Democratic party base is equally described as growing "extremist" because it has moved 1.5 points further to the left of this virtuous center that is not actually there, while the Republican party has leaped decisively 6.5 points to the right. What a point represents we do not know. Is the scale linear? This is a political "science" that cannot recognize the danger to American democracy posed by a party of the right becoming a party of the white nationalist "alt right." All it sees are threats to its own model of how electoral politics work, according to that model.
One could argue that "moderating" ones positions in pursuit of "acceptable" legislation has rendered the resulting laws so flawed by design to be totally ineffective. Compromise is a good thing when the goal is to accomplish a positive result; when the goal is to obstruct progress by an opponent, the nation becomes ungovernable.
Where did you dig up Bartels? Trump is not far right of the GOP. He represents a GOP base swung so far to the right that there is no longer an extreme right, except for the Timothy McVeigh types that will come out of the woodwork should Clinton prevail. He is in line with his base on immigration, foreign policy and tax cuts for the wealthy (Bartels does remember Romney's 47% comment, right?) The base ignores the tax cuts for the wealthy to achieve a political Armageddon and at least dominate the moral compass of the country, if nothing else. Their expectations, in this cynical political climate, are low. However, if Bartels thinks Clinton is "extreme" because of her support for affirmative action, reproductive rights, and government spending he has no understanding of the Democratic Party.
Bartels compares the two as equals in extremity, when in reality Trump is a raving egomaniac prone to confabulation with no governing experience. Clinton is many things but an egomaniac out of touch with reality she is not.
As a Tennessee resident I am not surprised at the delusional tone of this commentary. Nashville (home of Vanderbilt) is in the heart of the Bible Belt where fact is discredited (thanks Ailes) and blind faith dominates reason. Comparing an insulting, misogynist, egotist to a polished politician, however much you disagree with her policies and political connections, puts Bartels exactly where one would expect to find a contemporary GOP loyalist these days. In denial.
Bartels compares the two as equals in extremity, when in reality Trump is a raving egomaniac prone to confabulation with no governing experience. Clinton is many things but an egomaniac out of touch with reality she is not.
As a Tennessee resident I am not surprised at the delusional tone of this commentary. Nashville (home of Vanderbilt) is in the heart of the Bible Belt where fact is discredited (thanks Ailes) and blind faith dominates reason. Comparing an insulting, misogynist, egotist to a polished politician, however much you disagree with her policies and political connections, puts Bartels exactly where one would expect to find a contemporary GOP loyalist these days. In denial.
In states with open primaries, Bernie Sanders averaged 60% of the vote, because he had a reputation for being honest and trustworthy, speaking directly about the corruption of our government by a global oligarchy, and enumerating policies that the middle of the country really wants (single payer health care, affordable college, taxes on the rich, renegotiated trade deals, etc.). Bernie showed that a socialist, without begging the mega-rich for cash, could win among independents (which is why mainstream media didn't talk about independents this year.)
The Clinton Dynasty is strategically centrist. The stick as close as they can to the fake "center" created by corporate mass media and rented politicians that claim that independent voters want free trade deals and more wars. The election is hers to lose, and according to median voter theory she should not.
But the reason why extremists seem to do better now, is that the disconnect between the real middle of the People, and the fake "center" at the service of the oligarchy, makes the real middle look extreme in the eyes of mass media,
The Republicans rejected their corporate hacks and got lying showman,. Democrats kept their hack. Who represents the real middle?
Lee's than half of the American People will vote for Trump and Clinton combined. Half of however is left could put a third party in office.
The Clinton Dynasty is strategically centrist. The stick as close as they can to the fake "center" created by corporate mass media and rented politicians that claim that independent voters want free trade deals and more wars. The election is hers to lose, and according to median voter theory she should not.
But the reason why extremists seem to do better now, is that the disconnect between the real middle of the People, and the fake "center" at the service of the oligarchy, makes the real middle look extreme in the eyes of mass media,
The Republicans rejected their corporate hacks and got lying showman,. Democrats kept their hack. Who represents the real middle?
Lee's than half of the American People will vote for Trump and Clinton combined. Half of however is left could put a third party in office.
This article is ridiculous. Quoting Jason Greenblatt lying about Democratic candidates does not offset Paul Krugman's correct statement. The Republican Party has brought in right-wing extremists into the heart of their party. it is not the same for the Democratic Party. There are clearly left-wing extremists but Bernie Sanders is not the nominee. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and the Clintons are hardly extreme leftists.
Most polls show that when asked about specific policies voters are at least as far 'left' as Hillary Clinton. The fact that it is likely to be a close election despite that is that the media doesn't cover policy, they cover scandal, real or imagined.
Like most posters, I wonder if Prof. Bartels got the wiring right on his "extremism-o-meter". His thesis would seem to fit a Ted Cruz - Bernie Sanders election scenario, but instead we end up in the mushy middle with one candidate a natural liar and shape-shifter and the other a status-quo more-of-the-same figure. Trump occasionally states some extreme policy ("no Muslim's allowed"), but ends up with the current policy, done better ("well, we'll do extreme vetting" - oh wait, that's current policy).
McGovern was not the radical he was painted as. (For example, he was against legalizing pot.) The Nixon campaign's success in painting him as one baby step to the right of the Weathermen was a triumph of spin.
Trump has no consistent policy positions; if you parse his public utterances (or try to diagram one of his sentences - good luck with that!) you will find a cascade of disjointed, loosely strung buzzwords, catchphrases, and dogwhistles, plus mudslinging schoolyard-bully insults to Clinton. He can depend on his audiences to plaster together the fragments of his incoherence by supplying their own assumptions.
This analysis would be more useful if it were applied to the down-ticket races, which, so few centrist and left-wing voters *still* fail to grasp, is where the real power lies. Are candidates for House and Senate, or for state legislatures and county and municipal offices, being pushed into ideological boxes? Are national issues such as gay rights or Israel - subjects on which those lower officials' stands are purely symbolic, since they have no influence on their resolution - swamping local issues? Your vote as one of 30M for president is largely symbolic - a drop in the ocean. Your vote for local office carries far more actual weight. And eventually your mayor or state senator may be running for president. So an analysis of down-ticket trends nationwide is called for. Get busy, sir.
Trump has no consistent policy positions; if you parse his public utterances (or try to diagram one of his sentences - good luck with that!) you will find a cascade of disjointed, loosely strung buzzwords, catchphrases, and dogwhistles, plus mudslinging schoolyard-bully insults to Clinton. He can depend on his audiences to plaster together the fragments of his incoherence by supplying their own assumptions.
This analysis would be more useful if it were applied to the down-ticket races, which, so few centrist and left-wing voters *still* fail to grasp, is where the real power lies. Are candidates for House and Senate, or for state legislatures and county and municipal offices, being pushed into ideological boxes? Are national issues such as gay rights or Israel - subjects on which those lower officials' stands are purely symbolic, since they have no influence on their resolution - swamping local issues? Your vote as one of 30M for president is largely symbolic - a drop in the ocean. Your vote for local office carries far more actual weight. And eventually your mayor or state senator may be running for president. So an analysis of down-ticket trends nationwide is called for. Get busy, sir.
Bartels has fallen victim to the reigning "politically correct evenhandedness" of US politics: Even if one candidate is an unprecedented extremist, s/he (and "he" in this instance) must be treated as no more extreme than "his" opponent on the other side. For heaven's sake! Let's be intellectually honest for a change and admit that Hillary, by any other country's standards, is a Center Right candidate. THERE IS NO LEFTIST LIBERAL CANDIDATE in this election. There is only a timid centrist and a demagogic extremist. Bartel's standard approach is a disservice to reality and the truth.
MIGHT I SUGGEST that what the author calls 'extremism' is the voice of the people who have otherwise not been heard
nah
nah
Brave New Language
It appears that the Old Gray Lady is in the last millennium, where people look to thoughtful 10 minute op-eds and articles, and then go off to read their 1,000 page histories and novels.
They do not seem to understand that the picture, the caption below it, and the title are the first thing that impact a contemporary viewer's mind. There is a reason that all those pharmaceutical ads have lovely images of grandparents hugging children, and artists and fly fisherman in idyllic settings while they must disclose that their product may cause heart attacks, blindness, loss of libido, and increased risk for bone cancer. -- Our contemporary minds are set to see, read, hear, and think on two different levels. Fox News is the media equivalent of GM in the 1950's: it has an industry that includes hate radio, get rich quick schemes, right wing "alt" america propagandists.
NYT this weekend had two articles that demonstrate their ineptness in this new visual/verbal amalgam of a language. One where they used the B word to defend Clinton, another that enumerated all of Trumps slurs at Clinton to prove they were groundless.
What is lacking, and limply left to the candidates, including this article, is the actual facts. Clinton supports healthcare and popular relief that the public wants. Trump supports massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and proves to be a: poor businessman, tax cheat, lawsuit profiteer, 'pay me while my businesses fail', blowhard.
It appears that the Old Gray Lady is in the last millennium, where people look to thoughtful 10 minute op-eds and articles, and then go off to read their 1,000 page histories and novels.
They do not seem to understand that the picture, the caption below it, and the title are the first thing that impact a contemporary viewer's mind. There is a reason that all those pharmaceutical ads have lovely images of grandparents hugging children, and artists and fly fisherman in idyllic settings while they must disclose that their product may cause heart attacks, blindness, loss of libido, and increased risk for bone cancer. -- Our contemporary minds are set to see, read, hear, and think on two different levels. Fox News is the media equivalent of GM in the 1950's: it has an industry that includes hate radio, get rich quick schemes, right wing "alt" america propagandists.
NYT this weekend had two articles that demonstrate their ineptness in this new visual/verbal amalgam of a language. One where they used the B word to defend Clinton, another that enumerated all of Trumps slurs at Clinton to prove they were groundless.
What is lacking, and limply left to the candidates, including this article, is the actual facts. Clinton supports healthcare and popular relief that the public wants. Trump supports massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and proves to be a: poor businessman, tax cheat, lawsuit profiteer, 'pay me while my businesses fail', blowhard.
Use this one:
The GOP has fostered a Southern Strategy since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was mastered by Ronald Reagan & Lee Atwater who figured-out that the Southlanders would vote against their own financial, educational, and medical well-being in favor of minimal federal influence, emphasis upon states rights, re-invigorating segregation, non-unionization of the workforce, and the renewal of evangelical law against (among other things) women's rights and gender equality, gay and lesbian rights, ready access to contraception and abortion, and in favor end-of-days thoughts that support guns/ammo and self defense over the environmental cleanup and basic human rights.
For years the GOP and their banking and business allies have flourished with this approach. But they can no longer hold together the party of Lincoln, Teddy, Hoover, Eisenhower, Reagan, and even Bush 1. They are simply considered by Southlanders to be RINOs: Republicans In Name Only – persons who favor only fiscal conservatism, but who are social and moral cowards and degenerates.
So, the vaunted Southland strategy has finally come full circle and has devoured the GOP! Trump's nomination and campaign are all the proof necessary.
We can only hope the rest of us aren't devoured come Election Day!
The GOP has fostered a Southern Strategy since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was mastered by Ronald Reagan & Lee Atwater who figured-out that the Southlanders would vote against their own financial, educational, and medical well-being in favor of minimal federal influence, emphasis upon states rights, re-invigorating segregation, non-unionization of the workforce, and the renewal of evangelical law against (among other things) women's rights and gender equality, gay and lesbian rights, ready access to contraception and abortion, and in favor end-of-days thoughts that support guns/ammo and self defense over the environmental cleanup and basic human rights.
For years the GOP and their banking and business allies have flourished with this approach. But they can no longer hold together the party of Lincoln, Teddy, Hoover, Eisenhower, Reagan, and even Bush 1. They are simply considered by Southlanders to be RINOs: Republicans In Name Only – persons who favor only fiscal conservatism, but who are social and moral cowards and degenerates.
So, the vaunted Southland strategy has finally come full circle and has devoured the GOP! Trump's nomination and campaign are all the proof necessary.
We can only hope the rest of us aren't devoured come Election Day!
2
I think Mr Bartel is confusing swing voters with political centrists. Establishment Republicans and Democrats generally represent the political center, while a shifting group throws support behind more extreme candidates.
Today that group includes among others, people who fervently supported Sanders and now Trump. While the vast majority of Sanders supporters now plan to vote for Clinton, some clearly plan to vote for Trump.
As the recent NYT article highlighted, there are many voters who want "spectacular change", including some who voted for Obama.
Sorry, Mr Bartel, but "Let's blow things up and see what happens" does not qualify as centrist politics or a mandate for leadership, but that's clearly what Trump represents to some.
Today that group includes among others, people who fervently supported Sanders and now Trump. While the vast majority of Sanders supporters now plan to vote for Clinton, some clearly plan to vote for Trump.
As the recent NYT article highlighted, there are many voters who want "spectacular change", including some who voted for Obama.
Sorry, Mr Bartel, but "Let's blow things up and see what happens" does not qualify as centrist politics or a mandate for leadership, but that's clearly what Trump represents to some.
2
What a bunch of mealy-mouthed horse-race baloney. The false equivalence is clear to see in the author's own statistics - the Republican "base" has moved four times farther out of step with "swing" voters than the Democratic "base", yet the implication is that both parties are becoming extreme.
A "survey" that ideologically places candidates based on generally and badly stated "issues" does very little to measure the policy positions or goals of the candidates or the parties. It measures the effectiveness of political journalism and propaganda. And there is little question that since Reagan took the public-interest reigns off in the early 80's that the news has been largely captured by corporate interests.
Go back to the drawing board Professor, and measure something worthwhile.
A "survey" that ideologically places candidates based on generally and badly stated "issues" does very little to measure the policy positions or goals of the candidates or the parties. It measures the effectiveness of political journalism and propaganda. And there is little question that since Reagan took the public-interest reigns off in the early 80's that the news has been largely captured by corporate interests.
Go back to the drawing board Professor, and measure something worthwhile.
10
Any reasonable person would recognize that George McGovern's "extremism" was merely opposing a vicious genocidal war against the people of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and a desire to insure that the Democratic Party utilized more participatory, democratic, and transparent methods to nominate candidates for president. Suggesting that these two major policies constitute "extremism" is patently ridiculous, but apparently feeds the narrative that only candidates supporting the status quo are deemed acceptable to the corporate media, political class and and corporate interests.
6
There is nothing extreme about the policies that Clinton are espousing. This opinion peace is not worth the time I took to read it. How someone with a PhD can come to the conclusion that both Hillary and Trump are extremist candidates speaks to the obvious bias of the writer, or the false equivalency that today's media likes to engage in.
10
Mr Bartels’ article is a little hard to follow unless familiar with the studies it is based on but I have seem them before. What he does not spend time on is what has shaped the center that is the unit to measure differences against and it is that standard that has moved dramatically rightward since the call it ‘liberal period’ of the sixties and early to middle seventies.
In short the Business Class became aware that their core values were under attack and launched a well finance drive to ‘correct’ that situation setting up Think Tanks and funding research centers at universities and concentrating on control on the media to reestablish True American Values; what has come to be labeled as Neo-Liberalism, moving in short order both major parties rightward toward Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Privatization of Governmental Activities; and growing inequality. This was Milton Friedman’s vision of a “free” society with no democratic infrastructure.
The average citizen has not fared well in this transformation and either knows why or doesn’t, the left being better informed that the right mostly due to higher levels of education, but both manifesting discontent with politics as it is. Interesting, and a little frightening times.
In short the Business Class became aware that their core values were under attack and launched a well finance drive to ‘correct’ that situation setting up Think Tanks and funding research centers at universities and concentrating on control on the media to reestablish True American Values; what has come to be labeled as Neo-Liberalism, moving in short order both major parties rightward toward Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Privatization of Governmental Activities; and growing inequality. This was Milton Friedman’s vision of a “free” society with no democratic infrastructure.
The average citizen has not fared well in this transformation and either knows why or doesn’t, the left being better informed that the right mostly due to higher levels of education, but both manifesting discontent with politics as it is. Interesting, and a little frightening times.
1
When he calls Trump moderate...you don't need to read the rest of the article!
6
Surveys have also shown the percentage of Americans who can correctly answer which Party controls the House and the Senate is only 12% above random chance (37%). The fence sitters are often uninformed, and have apparently little incentive to become more informed about their government. Only one side has shut down the government, expressed their mission as causing a Presidency to fail, refuses to perform their Constitutional duties and relentlessly tries to get around democracy by disenfranchising voters.
6
One crucial problem with the reasoning in this opinion piece is the fact that it measures everything political on a spectrum of left-right-center. The topsy-turvy nature of this political race calls for coming up with another way to chart where voters stand on the political spectrum. Certainly Trump's ad lib hodge podge of political stances makes hash of a left-right orientation. Time to come up with another way to filter the voting population in cohesive groups that we can discuss in a meaningful way.
The candidates are just exploiting the corrupt system that exists.
No, no, no I am not a Trump supporter, but I use the same language because it is true. When free speech is not free at all and the one who has and spends the most most generally wins, then it is indeed; corrupt.
True progressive policies would include a tax system where you make more more; you pay more taxes ( no exceptions, gimmicks or loopholes ) Profit motive would be taken out of education ( charter schools) and our health care ( single payer ) Votes would actually be required to go to war and revised when circumstances on the ground change. ( not continuous from 15 years ago )
I could go on and on, but the only way we can change any of these extreme yet normal positions would be for all of us to actually vote for our own best interests.
That doesn't cost a thing. ( only if you don't )
No, no, no I am not a Trump supporter, but I use the same language because it is true. When free speech is not free at all and the one who has and spends the most most generally wins, then it is indeed; corrupt.
True progressive policies would include a tax system where you make more more; you pay more taxes ( no exceptions, gimmicks or loopholes ) Profit motive would be taken out of education ( charter schools) and our health care ( single payer ) Votes would actually be required to go to war and revised when circumstances on the ground change. ( not continuous from 15 years ago )
I could go on and on, but the only way we can change any of these extreme yet normal positions would be for all of us to actually vote for our own best interests.
That doesn't cost a thing. ( only if you don't )
1
gerrymandering, gerrymandering, gerrymandering. when you have no threat to your election from the other party, you must defend your flank from someone more "pure" than you are. If congressional districts were picked from computer models, rather than from politicians trying to gain "safe " seats, mor epoliticians would HAVE to move towards the middle .
4
Can you hear my eyes rolling from there? And, can you spell "false equivalency"? Supporting women's right to control their own bodies (as confirmed by the Supreme Court); recognizing and trying to atone in some minimal way for our slavery-tainted racial history; and using government resources to support everyone's health, education, and infrastructure is here equated with gross, even gleeful, disregard for such niceties as the laws of war (let's take the oil, and torture the prisoners!); the separation of powers (I get to choose my own generals, right?); and the laws of nature (climate change? Not happening). What would be useful is some analysis as to why people (including this writer, apparently) are so disproportionate in their perspective on the two candidates' positions. Even if you count the lies, Trump outpaces Clinton by a factor of tens or hundreds. If you take some account of the SIZE of the lies, the old mountain vs. molehill doesn't begin to convey the discrepancy.
5
Thank you, Professor Bartels, for a near-textbook example of why political science is in fact not a science. Creation of constructs supported by post-behavior analytics reduced to statistics offers no real predictive value on either micro or macro levels. Yes, it's interesting and in some senses even fun to undertake these sorts of studies. Yes, there is value to post-facto analysis. But the question remains "why." Why do electorates and candidates behave in certain ways? What sways them? What differences are there among the contexts of past and present election cycles? Politics, it could be argued, is the sum of economic, sociological, environmental, international and other trends and events. Many real and perceived variables need to be considered to construct a reasonable post-facto analysis, let alone dissect a current campaign.
2
If a poster child for false equivalence were needed, Mr Bartels has given birth to it with this nonsense.
There is only one extremist running for President in this cycle, and there has only been one extremist major party candidate since Goldwater in 1964: Mr Trump.
Compare to Mr Trump, Goldwater was a paragon of centrism.
There is only one extremist running for President in this cycle, and there has only been one extremist major party candidate since Goldwater in 1964: Mr Trump.
Compare to Mr Trump, Goldwater was a paragon of centrism.
3
I got lost at Hillary being far left of her Democratic base and Trump being more centrist. Has anyone been able to decipher his policy positions enough to make a proper comparison? He waffles back and forth even on immigration. Bernie Sanders would be a better comparison as a leftist presidential extremist.
5
When a party embraces the idea that voter suppression laws are the only way to win an election perhaps it's time to point out who, exactly those people are., left, right or center.
1
Laws are made by Congress not the White House. And those races have already been settled through gerrymandering. So presidential candidates in a constant news-cycle environment will say whatever gets them attention.
Having said that, describing Hillary as an extremist is rather extreme in itself.
Having said that, describing Hillary as an extremist is rather extreme in itself.
4
Get new data. Hillary Clinton is a Rockefeller Republican. To say she is a liberal is a total misread. Perhaps comparatively in the newly insane United States but Ms. Clinton is not a liberal. So what does that make the Donald. I believe the word is Facist Lite. Your study is worthless sir.
5
"There you go again," Mr. Bartels.
The single largest difference in positions, you say, has been "on the issue of racial policy." (?!) Republican candidates just 6 points to the right of center, but, you say, on "government assistance to African-Americans." Democratic candidates, 26 points to the left, but here you leave the qualifier off.
I don't wonder why. You're almost as good as Trump, telling us about the "world" and "history." Racial policy has always been just a welfare issue? Really?
The single largest difference in positions, you say, has been "on the issue of racial policy." (?!) Republican candidates just 6 points to the right of center, but, you say, on "government assistance to African-Americans." Democratic candidates, 26 points to the left, but here you leave the qualifier off.
I don't wonder why. You're almost as good as Trump, telling us about the "world" and "history." Racial policy has always been just a welfare issue? Really?
4
All of this seems to assume that you can operationalize where candidates and voters sit on a single left-right spectrum in such a way that you can make informative generalizations, either about a small data set (recent elections that we already know about) or about future elections (by making predictions). But I don't see why we should think that this is possible.
Where a policy proposal sits on the left-right spectrum depends on more than just where it sits vis-a-vis the opinions of voters and party supporters. It also depends on the relevant bargaining positions of the different sides: e.g., if you have the political power to get single-payer healthcare, then it's a more moderate position to push for something like Obamacare than if you think getting Obamacare is a stretch. It also depends on background economic and social conditions: e.g., bailing out or nationalizing businesses is a much more radical position when you're facing a moderate financial crisis than when you're facing an epochal recession. Often, voters may have opinions about policies without having any real knowledge of candidates' relative bargaining positions or background economic and social conditions, so their opinions will sometimes diverge from what candidates with similar policy preferences as theirs actually end up supporting. And I don't see how any model could operationalize these background factors in a way that makes decent predictions.
Where a policy proposal sits on the left-right spectrum depends on more than just where it sits vis-a-vis the opinions of voters and party supporters. It also depends on the relevant bargaining positions of the different sides: e.g., if you have the political power to get single-payer healthcare, then it's a more moderate position to push for something like Obamacare than if you think getting Obamacare is a stretch. It also depends on background economic and social conditions: e.g., bailing out or nationalizing businesses is a much more radical position when you're facing a moderate financial crisis than when you're facing an epochal recession. Often, voters may have opinions about policies without having any real knowledge of candidates' relative bargaining positions or background economic and social conditions, so their opinions will sometimes diverge from what candidates with similar policy preferences as theirs actually end up supporting. And I don't see how any model could operationalize these background factors in a way that makes decent predictions.
1
It is bad practice to conflate social and economic issues. Politicians may take extreme positions on social issues such as abortion and same-sex-marriage, but their positions and actions are much less "extreme" on economic matters. Economic positions and policies of politicians in both parties tend to be designed for the benefit of big-money interests and tend not to coincide with the preferences of the majority of voters. Bartels does not seem to realize that there is a difference between the two main types of issues. He seems to think that there is a "center" of some sort of unitary political spectrum.
Also he does not seem to recognize that the Republicans have adopted a deliberate policy of non-cooperation and fostering of extreme social positions, in order to conceal the fact that their main economic policies are to the detriment of most voters (more than those of Democrats). Democrats seem to have relied more and more on special appeals to minorities.
Also he does not seem to recognize that the Republicans have adopted a deliberate policy of non-cooperation and fostering of extreme social positions, in order to conceal the fact that their main economic policies are to the detriment of most voters (more than those of Democrats). Democrats seem to have relied more and more on special appeals to minorities.
19
Issues like income inequality are social issues. Are we going to have permanent entrenched social hierarchies along wealth lines or not? That's as much a social issue as feudal serfdom was a social issue: are we going to have lords and ladies who have all the power and to whom everyone else has to defer or not? These may also be economic issues, but they're definitely social issues; the two categories aren't mutually exclusive. An economic, non-social issue might be whether or not we engage in deficit spending, assuming that we don't have a good reason to think that this won't affect the distribution of wealth or economic power in any significant way (suppose the deficit spending is balanced between tax cuts and spending to make it likely that this is the case). Or any time we're debating about policies that determine the overall size of the pie without determining who gets what share.
Your point can still be made: on any economic issue, whether or not it's a social issue, there's reason to think that politicians will suffer from political capture by people with a lot of economic power, and that they won't be responsive to the forces (democratic or otherwise) that drive their policy choices on non-economic issues.
Your point can still be made: on any economic issue, whether or not it's a social issue, there's reason to think that politicians will suffer from political capture by people with a lot of economic power, and that they won't be responsive to the forces (democratic or otherwise) that drive their policy choices on non-economic issues.
I would disagree in part. Candidates during the primary swing towards their base and then do the political two step to appear more moderate in the general election. This perhaps is not occurring at the presidential level, but we see it every year from candidates for the Senate, House and lower level elections.
1
The rise of presidential extremists is the logical outcome of extremists being active in party primaries, which we've always had to a certain extent, but which are now being leveraged by the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions that set aside McCain-Feingold, unleashing the flood gates of special interest monies.
These factors are aggravated by the extreme wealth/income inequality, which put a substantial number of Americans in a position to self-fund/buy any office they choose, even treating the highest elective office on the planet as an entry-level political vanity trinket, no experience needed.
This scenario is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine, set aside by the Roger Ailes-advised Ronnie Ray-gun administration:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine
had been preventing, by forcing equal time requirements on broadcast media, which is why there was no Faux Noise Machina propaganda organ until 1996.
The problem for our democracy is that no one born after 1965 (meaning they were about 22 years old when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed) has any concept of what ' fair and balanced ' is really like.
These factors are aggravated by the extreme wealth/income inequality, which put a substantial number of Americans in a position to self-fund/buy any office they choose, even treating the highest elective office on the planet as an entry-level political vanity trinket, no experience needed.
This scenario is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine, set aside by the Roger Ailes-advised Ronnie Ray-gun administration:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine
had been preventing, by forcing equal time requirements on broadcast media, which is why there was no Faux Noise Machina propaganda organ until 1996.
The problem for our democracy is that no one born after 1965 (meaning they were about 22 years old when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed) has any concept of what ' fair and balanced ' is really like.
16
Additional evidence that politicians are responding to donors and special interest pressure groups is the fact most GOP'ers, and overwhelming majorities of gun owners want better background checks, which GOP'ers ae loathe to provide:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/opinions/kohn-gop-guns/
as well as studies showing that what the donor class wants is what politicians worry about when legislating:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-peopl...
Extremist politicians rise up because, under Citizens United and McCutcheon, their donors are not ' the middle ' defined by the author.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/opinions/kohn-gop-guns/
as well as studies showing that what the donor class wants is what politicians worry about when legislating:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-peopl...
Extremist politicians rise up because, under Citizens United and McCutcheon, their donors are not ' the middle ' defined by the author.
14
That is a simplistic version of what Political Science teaches, and that teaching was a simplistic view of reality.
Politicians appeal to the extremes because it helps get votes.
First, it differentiates them from the other candidates. They must be seen as something different and special, not just one more of a mass of politicians all saying the same thing.
Second, as Trump is proving, it is part of advertising. It gets attention, free campaign advertising.
Third, It motivates their voters. If their existing voters are some percentage more likely to turn out and vote, that is as good as getting that percentage more voters' choice.
It works. Out of 17 Republican candidates, it was one of the extremists who won, not one of the more centrist, and that was by a wide margin. The closest other candidate was also an extremist, Cruz.
Now, it is true that the need to compromise to get anything passed forces them to govern from the center, but that is not the same as how they run for election.
As the campaign becomes permanent, and the candidates more extreme, governing from the center becomes more difficult. They are constantly doing "Notice me, I'm not like them" instead of getting anything done.
Politicians appeal to the extremes because it helps get votes.
First, it differentiates them from the other candidates. They must be seen as something different and special, not just one more of a mass of politicians all saying the same thing.
Second, as Trump is proving, it is part of advertising. It gets attention, free campaign advertising.
Third, It motivates their voters. If their existing voters are some percentage more likely to turn out and vote, that is as good as getting that percentage more voters' choice.
It works. Out of 17 Republican candidates, it was one of the extremists who won, not one of the more centrist, and that was by a wide margin. The closest other candidate was also an extremist, Cruz.
Now, it is true that the need to compromise to get anything passed forces them to govern from the center, but that is not the same as how they run for election.
As the campaign becomes permanent, and the candidates more extreme, governing from the center becomes more difficult. They are constantly doing "Notice me, I'm not like them" instead of getting anything done.
3
The title should be The Rise of REPUBLICAN Presidential Extremists. What you point out as extreme of the side of the Democrats such as abortion is not extreme at all as is supported by the majority. Anti-Israel ? Oh Puhleeze.
114
Now now now we must always pretend there is an "other side" otherwise we would have to admit to their being only one side and the opponents of that side who oppose for selfish not rational reasons more often that would seem reasonably possible.
1
right on
Extremists, plural? You're crazy. There is only one extremist here, and it's Trump. None of the other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, are extremists.
63
Describing HRC as a "hard-core liberal," and Trump as "moderating," seems quizzical at best. Hilary reaches across the aisle to the extent that any true hard-core liberals (ie. Bernie or Bust) call her a republican. On the other hand, the only views Trump has previously expressed that have strayed from his party are rapidly adopting an even more extreme version, such as punishing a woman who seeks or revives an abortion. His penchant for conspiracy theories makes him the most extreme candidate of my lifetime, an extreme unbounded by reality. His brand of extremism is exactly what makes extremism harmful to the public - skewing reality so far over the edge that people are dumbfounded to remember where the edge once was...
The do-nothing congress of the past eight years is the result of extremism. The longest vacancy in the Supreme Court in history is the result of extremism. The condemnation of science is the result of extremism.
Extremism dissolves any cooperative approach to problem-solving into a theatre of the absurd.
I pray for a moderate era, where people open themselves enough to actually understand both sides of the coin. In place of childish antics we could allow for the type of discourse one would expect of adults - one that can create actionable solutions tethered to reality.
The do-nothing congress of the past eight years is the result of extremism. The longest vacancy in the Supreme Court in history is the result of extremism. The condemnation of science is the result of extremism.
Extremism dissolves any cooperative approach to problem-solving into a theatre of the absurd.
I pray for a moderate era, where people open themselves enough to actually understand both sides of the coin. In place of childish antics we could allow for the type of discourse one would expect of adults - one that can create actionable solutions tethered to reality.
47
> I pray for a moderate era, where people open themselves enough to actually understand both sides of the coin.
Tell us about moderate Nazism.
Tell us about moderate Nazism.
I meet people every day who are disconnected from reality.
I talk to clergy who know for sure (not speculating, but absolute knowledge) that they will be arrested any day for practicing their Christian beliefs, and seemingly sensible people who are spending their hard earned, not copious incomes making sure their basements stocked with gold nuggets and freeze dried meals because the apocalypse is near, and the elderly with retirement incomes way above what younger generations will ever amass and who live comfortably in rural farm country but know with absolute certainty that hoards of armed Islamic terrorists are just down the road. I won't even go into the number of people stock piling weapons because the purge is coming and we gotta be ready.
So, yes, this extremist thinking does have consequences.
I talk to clergy who know for sure (not speculating, but absolute knowledge) that they will be arrested any day for practicing their Christian beliefs, and seemingly sensible people who are spending their hard earned, not copious incomes making sure their basements stocked with gold nuggets and freeze dried meals because the apocalypse is near, and the elderly with retirement incomes way above what younger generations will ever amass and who live comfortably in rural farm country but know with absolute certainty that hoards of armed Islamic terrorists are just down the road. I won't even go into the number of people stock piling weapons because the purge is coming and we gotta be ready.
So, yes, this extremist thinking does have consequences.
37
The GOP has fostered a Southern Strategy since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it was mastered by Ronald Reagan & Lee Atwater who figured-out that the Southlanders would vote against their own financial, educational, and medical well-being in favor of minimal federal influence, emphasis upon states rights, re-invigorating segregation, non-unionization of the workforce, and the renewal of evangelical law against (among other things) women's rights and gender equality, gay and lesbian rights, ready access to contraception and abortion, and end-of-days thoughts that favor guns/ammo and self defense over the environmental cleanup and basic human rights.
For years the GOP and their banking and business allies have flourished with this approach. But they can no longer hold together the party of Lincoln, Teddy, Hoover, Eisenhower, Reagan, and even Bush 1. They are simply considered by Southlanders to be RINOs: Republicans In Name Only – persons who favor only fiscal conservatism, but who are social and moral cowards and degenerates.
So, the vaunted Southland strategy has finally come full circle and has devoured the GOP! Trump's nomination and campaign are all the proof necessary.
We can only hope the rest of us aren't devoured come Election Day!
For years the GOP and their banking and business allies have flourished with this approach. But they can no longer hold together the party of Lincoln, Teddy, Hoover, Eisenhower, Reagan, and even Bush 1. They are simply considered by Southlanders to be RINOs: Republicans In Name Only – persons who favor only fiscal conservatism, but who are social and moral cowards and degenerates.
So, the vaunted Southland strategy has finally come full circle and has devoured the GOP! Trump's nomination and campaign are all the proof necessary.
We can only hope the rest of us aren't devoured come Election Day!
28
Hillary Clinton is "extreme" in no sense of the word. The fact that defending a woman's right to choose and our economic status quo is seen as "extreme" is laughable.
This country hasn't seen anything remotely "extreme" from the left in over forty years.
This country hasn't seen anything remotely "extreme" from the left in over forty years.
91
Yes, and how glibly did Mr. Bartels ascribe Hillary's position on abortion as "routinely diverg[ing] from the center of public opinion"?
Memo to author: the Democratic candidate's position on abortion is aligned with constitutional law that has been settled for more than 40 years. Only right-wing extremists still beat that dead horse. We are seven billion and counting, after all...
Memo to author: the Democratic candidate's position on abortion is aligned with constitutional law that has been settled for more than 40 years. Only right-wing extremists still beat that dead horse. We are seven billion and counting, after all...
Fact Check:
According to Gallup in 2015, 50% of the US is Pro-choice (compared to 44% pro-life) and 58% support affirmative action for minorities. "Government spending" is meaninglessly nonspecific, the trillion dollar renovation of the nuclear arsenal has broad popularity on the right, while increased spending on the safety net is popular on left.
If those items exemplify Clinton's most extreme views, the argument that she's anything other than a centrist is completely untenable.
According to Gallup in 2015, 50% of the US is Pro-choice (compared to 44% pro-life) and 58% support affirmative action for minorities. "Government spending" is meaninglessly nonspecific, the trillion dollar renovation of the nuclear arsenal has broad popularity on the right, while increased spending on the safety net is popular on left.
If those items exemplify Clinton's most extreme views, the argument that she's anything other than a centrist is completely untenable.
66
Most democrats are also pro-life-- it is disgusting that the GOP has claimed that mantle, when in fact they are just plain anti-abortion. Increased spending "on the safety net" is VERY popular with right wing voters, who cry about the lack of a COLA increase in their social, and use and abuse Medicare with abandon. Otherwise I agree with your comment.
Our country has always been divided by political extremism, which is usually the most unwavering Political part of their respective constituents, therefore, todays candidates pander to these blocks of voters.It’s not the presidential candidates that are extremists, as much as, it’s the constituents that they must have, to have a chance of winning.I have always believed that Trump is not what he seems to be, but he would have been long forgotten if he did not appeal to Hillary’s deplorable, who were in most part responsible for his nomination.The same goes for the Clinton’s who come off as defenders of the poor & disenfranchised, and live in a style that in no way equates to those they appear to support,a closer look at the Clinton’s voting records bear this out, NAFTA was a prime example of their true positions, along with President Clinton’s crack down on Drugs in the inner cities, that led to the incarcerations of thousands of Blacks.
1
Interesting piece, but the author doesn't drill down far enough on big issues. There is extremism within some issues. While a majority of Americans support LGBT rights, a significant majority oppose letting anatomical males use female bathrooms. The majority of people who support abortion rights, are opposed to late term abortions. Many 2nd Amendment supporters also support assault rifle bans.
1
How about this thesis. The American bipartisan political system worked reasonably well after WWII for two important reasons.
First, the benefits of the market-based economy were divided quite evenly between capital and labor.
The so-called upward social mobility was a fact; it translated into a better standard of living, decent wages and education opportunities for a growing middle class.
Second, the ruling elite -- helped by a second to none media propaganda machine -- was able to convince the middle class the political system worked in their favor.
Any middle class kid could dream about becoming president of the USA.
During the last twenty years, however, the middle class finds out the political-economic system has been rigged against them.
Upward mobility became downward social mobility as wages stagnated, education costs skyrocketed and decently paid jobs became scarcer or disappeared completely. America social income-wealth distribution resembles Latin America.
The appearance of Donald Trump is not a surprise. The question is why did take so long?
First, the benefits of the market-based economy were divided quite evenly between capital and labor.
The so-called upward social mobility was a fact; it translated into a better standard of living, decent wages and education opportunities for a growing middle class.
Second, the ruling elite -- helped by a second to none media propaganda machine -- was able to convince the middle class the political system worked in their favor.
Any middle class kid could dream about becoming president of the USA.
During the last twenty years, however, the middle class finds out the political-economic system has been rigged against them.
Upward mobility became downward social mobility as wages stagnated, education costs skyrocketed and decently paid jobs became scarcer or disappeared completely. America social income-wealth distribution resembles Latin America.
The appearance of Donald Trump is not a surprise. The question is why did take so long?
13
"Mr. Trump is trailing despite having moderated some of his party’s conservative stands on issues like social spending and gay rights. "
The perfect description of an elephant by a blind man.
The perfect description of an elephant by a blind man.
12
So recognizing and supporting the supreme court's holdings that reproductive health decisions, including abortion, are rights protected by the constitution, supporting equal educational and employment opportunities, again supported by Supreme Court constitutionality analyses (btw, ever heard of the EEOC?), and being anti-austerity and anti-corporate welfare, I e., believing that the government needs to tax and spend - again a constitutuon-based concept, are "extremist" positions????? Stunning.
27
Today "extremism" = "clearly nuts."
We have a candidate running today whose stated policies are either vague nothing-burgers of self-aggrandizement ("Yuuge." "You'll love it." "I have the greatest brain.") or are demonstrably nuts.
1+1 = 2 -- it is a very old truth, not subject to "new thinking" or revision. You'd think conservatives would be in favor of 1 + 1 = 2 ... but they aren't, when it is a very inconvenient truth.
We have a candidate running today whose stated policies are either vague nothing-burgers of self-aggrandizement ("Yuuge." "You'll love it." "I have the greatest brain.") or are demonstrably nuts.
1+1 = 2 -- it is a very old truth, not subject to "new thinking" or revision. You'd think conservatives would be in favor of 1 + 1 = 2 ... but they aren't, when it is a very inconvenient truth.
9
Clinton an extreme leftist? Give me a break. I know that is how Republicans describe her, but the reality is quite different; that is why Clinton is attracting moderate Republicans who cannot stomach Trump, and losing the extreme left to people like Jill Stein. Frankly, I wish Clinton were more left leaning.
32
Mr. Bartel's piece has some factual errors. Hillary Clinton's position on abortion does not deviate from the center of public opinion. Most Americans are in favor of a woman's right to choose. Most also favor reasonable gun controls, which is one of her cardinal positions.
Her positions are not more extreme than the Democratic Party's core supporters, who consist of blacks, Latinos, and college-education women and men.
Mr. Bartel's has not overturned the median voter model, which predicts that most of the votes will be in the center. In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton tacked to the left to appeal to young Bernie Sanders's supporters. She accepted some of his cardinal principles regarding public education and more regulation of the financial sector, but has moved to the center on foreign and military policy.
The median voter model, which stems from Harold Hotelling's classic theorem of 1929, remains alive and well.
Her positions are not more extreme than the Democratic Party's core supporters, who consist of blacks, Latinos, and college-education women and men.
Mr. Bartel's has not overturned the median voter model, which predicts that most of the votes will be in the center. In the primaries, Mrs. Clinton tacked to the left to appeal to young Bernie Sanders's supporters. She accepted some of his cardinal principles regarding public education and more regulation of the financial sector, but has moved to the center on foreign and military policy.
The median voter model, which stems from Harold Hotelling's classic theorem of 1929, remains alive and well.
21
But contemporary American political parties seem not to have gotten the message.?
It is that the 'scientists' have not got the message:
"Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone" report sponsored by the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Coordination with Joint Staff J-39/Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Branch reveals the reality which has led inexorably to WWI. WWII, "profound and paralyzing risk-confusion" regards enemy cultures utilising "combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression. At the same time,.. exploiting, free-riding on, or are propelled by the generalized erosion or outright failure of traditional political authority." the same elite philosophy driven policy of appeasement of enemy cultures, determining well constructed argument under a Western rationale model will surely convince internal cultures tearing societies apart and external cultures battering Western democratic walls to accept the obvious benefits of the Western Worldview.
It is being demanded of Western citizens by these political 'scientists' citizens grow confidently with terror-genocide in their midst.
"We have to grow with the threat, and we have to do it in a confident manner,” Professor Siracusa said. (Human Security and International Diplomacy)
Two Sydney schools in lockdown as police unions call for support against extremists SBS 20 OCT 2015
Citizens are simply telling these 'scientists' and their followers such as Obama to get lost.
It is that the 'scientists' have not got the message:
"Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone" report sponsored by the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Coordination with Joint Staff J-39/Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Branch reveals the reality which has led inexorably to WWI. WWII, "profound and paralyzing risk-confusion" regards enemy cultures utilising "combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression. At the same time,.. exploiting, free-riding on, or are propelled by the generalized erosion or outright failure of traditional political authority." the same elite philosophy driven policy of appeasement of enemy cultures, determining well constructed argument under a Western rationale model will surely convince internal cultures tearing societies apart and external cultures battering Western democratic walls to accept the obvious benefits of the Western Worldview.
It is being demanded of Western citizens by these political 'scientists' citizens grow confidently with terror-genocide in their midst.
"We have to grow with the threat, and we have to do it in a confident manner,” Professor Siracusa said. (Human Security and International Diplomacy)
Two Sydney schools in lockdown as police unions call for support against extremists SBS 20 OCT 2015
Citizens are simply telling these 'scientists' and their followers such as Obama to get lost.
The rise of presidential extremists can be correlated with the rapid rise of manufactured gridlock in government or maybe its the other way around. The power and influence exercised by the Fourth Estate, be it center, left or right is driven by the essential need to preserve its viability. It is hardly a coincidence that both the media and politicians have the same goal which is to serve the best interests of the wealthy. Politicians understand this, and how to leverage media coverage to push, or more often than not hide their true agenda.
Politics in a sense operates on two different levels - the needs of the politician and the needs of the voter which are often opposite. The media can be the grease that lubricates the friction between the two by either obfuscating or emphasizing issues that are critical to the financial best interests of the wealthy. This explains why two polarizing candidates are alike in their support of the best interests of the wealthy.
Gridlock in governance explains why there has been little movement on issues such as addressing climate change, destruction of our environment, immigration, and trade deals, just to name a few. Social issues are nothing more than thorny wedge issues designed to distract the populace as their lives and financial livelihood have been slowly eroded. Unless we harness the benefits of capitalism to serve the greater good of all, we will eventually end up in the dustbin of history.
Politics in a sense operates on two different levels - the needs of the politician and the needs of the voter which are often opposite. The media can be the grease that lubricates the friction between the two by either obfuscating or emphasizing issues that are critical to the financial best interests of the wealthy. This explains why two polarizing candidates are alike in their support of the best interests of the wealthy.
Gridlock in governance explains why there has been little movement on issues such as addressing climate change, destruction of our environment, immigration, and trade deals, just to name a few. Social issues are nothing more than thorny wedge issues designed to distract the populace as their lives and financial livelihood have been slowly eroded. Unless we harness the benefits of capitalism to serve the greater good of all, we will eventually end up in the dustbin of history.
7
So, Democrats moved a bit while Republicans moved a lot (4X) and there is an equal blame? Another false equivalence, I think!
17
Donald Trump makes extremist remarks because the Republican voters demand it. Pure and simple. And there is no false equivalence with the Democrats.
15
Clinton's positions are not extreme unless looked at from the perspective of the extreme right in this country. In many developed countries she would be considered a centrist or a conservative.
18
The comments thus far have put more effort into explaining why this editorial is embarrassingly bad than the author or the Times put into evaluating it.
If web traffic and reader annoyance (comments) are the goal, good work. If informing your readers is the goal... Big fail.
There is a good article to be written questioning how modern democracy functions if the media fails to even accurately report there real differences between candidates, and how a break down in information flow may upset existing political choice theories... But this sad misrepresentation of the current state of affairs helps no one, except perhaps, raising the author's profile.
If web traffic and reader annoyance (comments) are the goal, good work. If informing your readers is the goal... Big fail.
There is a good article to be written questioning how modern democracy functions if the media fails to even accurately report there real differences between candidates, and how a break down in information flow may upset existing political choice theories... But this sad misrepresentation of the current state of affairs helps no one, except perhaps, raising the author's profile.
16
The comments about the electorate might have some basis but those about the candidates do not. Trump is extremist because of his vile personal character, not because of any consistent ideology that defines his standing on a right-left scale. Clinton is far from extremist by any measure, despite the contortions of the article and its citations to suggest it. Her stance on same-sex marriage has followed, not led, the mood of the country. She is much more militaristic than those on the far left. She is a friend of the banks, not their mortal enemy like Bernie Sanders. Her stances on immigration, government spending, affirmative action, guns, and other major issues are mainstream Democratic going back at least a generation, not some recent veering to the far left. The article is terrible not only because its underlying premise is completely wrong but because it is yet another piece that feeds into a false equivalence between these two dramatically different candidates, only one of whom is extreme and in the worst way.
151
He also asserts a false equivalence between the two parties. There is none. Of course the Democrats are going to have some left-leaning spokespeople-- that is why Bernie Sanders (though not a registered dem) had popularity. But that is why in the end the Dems chose HRC-- because Bernie could not win the general election. The party is as centrist as the chosen candidate.
Bernie was against banks that held too much of the country's assets, and gambled with other people's money. His vision is the one that reset banks on a healthier past after the 1929 crash. President Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Law that had separated banks into banks and investment houses who take risks. Bernie is very much in favor of smaller banks who are more in tune with their communities. Other issues Sen Sanders took were in line with majorities by polls. He was the most mainstream candidate of the lot. It is not what change the Democratic Party backs, but what solid majorities of the American people want.
So drawing the support of White Nationalists and drawing the support of pro-abortionists is an equivalence? ?? Anyone who has the position that Hillary Clinton is as extremist a candidate as Trump is doing this nation a disservice. Note to self - Larry Bartels' articles - not worth reading.
7
No one is "pro abortionists". The people you allude to are are pro choice of the woman to have or not to have a child.
The genius of Trump is no policy stands, some policy stands, and maybe a policy stand. How do you nail down an extreme policy, when every minute of the day, his policies are moving targets.
Except for examining Secy. Clinton's Senate voting record, I'm not sure how the professor determined the candidates' policy positions, since neither has said anything of substance about them during the entire campaign so far.
1
This article is a poster child for false equivalence: a 1.5 point average change on a 100 point scale is significant to show a move to the left by Democrats? Well, apparently it must be in order to offset the 6.5 point move to the right by Republicans. Would it not be reasonable to read this data and conclude: "Republicans have become more extreme than Democrats"? Maybe I misunderstand the data, but the change in Republicans is 4X greater than the change in Democrats, isn't it?
6
Only in a completely Center-Right country such as ours would Clinton's policies be called extreme (left). Remember, this is the country that has put the for profit Health Insurance corporations in charge of insuring the non-indigent citizens and as a result I now pay nearly twice as much per month than when the ACA started. That is no exaggeration; almost double. And that's with me down grading my plan. If I kept my same plan I would be paying more than double.
I get it. Obama couldn't have gotten any reform done even in his own party if he didn't leave the foxes at the hen house door. I get it. Believe me, I get it. Every month I get it.
This country is so Center-Right it's laughable. The fact that we even still have debates over saying prayers in public buildings or still attempt to take women's and minorities rights away. That's Center-Right with a lean heavily to the right.
As a result we have a slowly crumbling infrastructure. Schools that are falling behind the advanced group of nations. And a tax structure that increasingly lets the wealthy walk away scott free from their obligation to contribute while offshoring more and more.
Yeah I get it. But it's a one sided equation.
I get it. Obama couldn't have gotten any reform done even in his own party if he didn't leave the foxes at the hen house door. I get it. Believe me, I get it. Every month I get it.
This country is so Center-Right it's laughable. The fact that we even still have debates over saying prayers in public buildings or still attempt to take women's and minorities rights away. That's Center-Right with a lean heavily to the right.
As a result we have a slowly crumbling infrastructure. Schools that are falling behind the advanced group of nations. And a tax structure that increasingly lets the wealthy walk away scott free from their obligation to contribute while offshoring more and more.
Yeah I get it. But it's a one sided equation.
12
This statement that "candidates take extreme stands because the electoral incentive to moderate their positions is too weak to outweigh their own ideological convictions" is more true for Congress than the presidential candidates.
On numerous issues congress fails to reflect the views of the public. Whether immigration reform, taxes, universal health care, or assault weapons bans, poll after poll show the public wanting legislation and congress either doing nothing or acting in the opposite direction.
How can this happen with "no electoral consequences?" It's because of the failure of the media to keep the electorate informed about what our legislators are doing. Who today even knows what legislation is pending, much less how our representatives are voting?
In this age of the internet journalist interns could keep track of what congress is doing or not doing. But their bosses won't let them. Then if voters don't respond, it's on us. But we'll never know what's really happening without serious news coverage. We rely on a press that has decided that these details aren't news and it's too expensive to keep real reporters on capital hill.
Today six corporations own 90% of the radio, cable and print media and they make a lot of money by keeping quiet about what lobbyists and corporate donors are doing. These are the real extremists, those that pull a curtain over what is supposed to be the democratic process. Voters can't respond to what they don't know. And they know it.
On numerous issues congress fails to reflect the views of the public. Whether immigration reform, taxes, universal health care, or assault weapons bans, poll after poll show the public wanting legislation and congress either doing nothing or acting in the opposite direction.
How can this happen with "no electoral consequences?" It's because of the failure of the media to keep the electorate informed about what our legislators are doing. Who today even knows what legislation is pending, much less how our representatives are voting?
In this age of the internet journalist interns could keep track of what congress is doing or not doing. But their bosses won't let them. Then if voters don't respond, it's on us. But we'll never know what's really happening without serious news coverage. We rely on a press that has decided that these details aren't news and it's too expensive to keep real reporters on capital hill.
Today six corporations own 90% of the radio, cable and print media and they make a lot of money by keeping quiet about what lobbyists and corporate donors are doing. These are the real extremists, those that pull a curtain over what is supposed to be the democratic process. Voters can't respond to what they don't know. And they know it.
6
Mr Bartels’ article is a little hard to follow unless familiar with the studies it is based on but I have seem them before. What he does not spend time on is what has shaped the center that is the unit to measure differences against and it is that standard that has moved dramatically rightward since the call it ‘liberal period’ of the sixties and early to middle seventies.
In short the Business Class became aware that their core values were under attack and launched a well finance drive to ‘correct’ that situation setting up Think Tanks and funding research centers at universities and concentrating on control on the media to reestablish True American Values; what has come to be labeled as Neo-Liberalism, moving in short order both major parties rightward toward Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Privatization of Governmental Activities and growing inequality. The average citizen has not fared well in this transformation and either knows why or doesn’t, the left being better informed that the right mostly due to higher levels of education, but both manifesting discontent with politics as it is.
Interesting and a little frightening times.
In short the Business Class became aware that their core values were under attack and launched a well finance drive to ‘correct’ that situation setting up Think Tanks and funding research centers at universities and concentrating on control on the media to reestablish True American Values; what has come to be labeled as Neo-Liberalism, moving in short order both major parties rightward toward Free Enterprise, Free Trade, and Privatization of Governmental Activities and growing inequality. The average citizen has not fared well in this transformation and either knows why or doesn’t, the left being better informed that the right mostly due to higher levels of education, but both manifesting discontent with politics as it is.
Interesting and a little frightening times.
2
Whatever. If you describe the merits of Policy A, many Americans will be in favor of it. If you say that Barack Obama favors Policy A, many of those same Americans will reflexively oppose it. Not sure if the same is true of the other side, but it wouldn't be a surprise if it was.
Voters are not rational, and so we get the irrational government we deserve.
Voters are not rational, and so we get the irrational government we deserve.
1
What even is this piece? The Democrats are not the far left or even center left - they are smack dab in the middle, and actually to the right a bit. The right is so far right that now they are bordering on fascism. Is the NYT this out of touch?
95
I believe that you missed the main reason for the unfolding picture in this election campaign, the spread of the Information technology and the culture that take over because of it. People have all the information they need on their mobiles and they are pushed, by the media, to the headlines rather than to the content, nobody investigates any more, we are becoming a "flesh- headline society". "all Muslim are bed", "Trump is a racist", "Clinton represents the corrupt Washington", etc.. The USA election became a reality show. There are no more extremist than they were before it is only the media that prefers their opinions for its rating. I would not take any survey seriously (and recent polls proved it) because people do not tell the surveyor the truth anymore. And yet, you can be sure that the US election is still the best there is.
2
"Extreme" relative to the opposition?
1
"Democrats well to the left (for example, see Hillary Clinton on abortion, affirmative action and government spending)"
These ARE NOT positions well to the left, these are stands that are well supported by over 50% of Americans. You forgot same sex marriage, which polls at about 70% for it, but is often shown by the GOP as "well to the left". Get it right, or don't print it. Your editorializing with this type of wording is not journalism.
These ARE NOT positions well to the left, these are stands that are well supported by over 50% of Americans. You forgot same sex marriage, which polls at about 70% for it, but is often shown by the GOP as "well to the left". Get it right, or don't print it. Your editorializing with this type of wording is not journalism.
44
Thank you
It is not supposed to be journalism, but any editorial piece should have some basis in facts. This does not. He really lost it with saying that Goldwater did not lose for being too extreme. False.
How ironic, indeed, that Prof. Bartels' book title , "Democracy for Realists," seems to have entirely eluded one party in this nation. The GOTP has created a 50+ year industry of preventing left-leaning voters from voting, deliberate left-leaning voter purges, gerrymandering to assure their own power - despite gaining fewer votes than Democrats, fawning and pandering to Christian extremists, and relentlessly opposing and obstructing our first African American President because, well, he is of color and a Democrat. Extremists? Sorry, Professor: there is one party dedicated to their most extreme base, and it is the GOTP. HRC is hardly a liberal extremist - there are many in the Democratic Party who are far more progressive and liberal than she will ever be. The reason things seem so extreme is that both the GOTP and the Democrats have shifted further to the right - the Democrats because our ostensible leadership has failed miserably to aggressively counter the GOTP messages of hate, misogyny, bigotry, jingoist and militaristic warm drum banging, science denial, etc. Once again, this is an exercise in false equivalency, and it is simply wrong.
7
Anyo e who thinks Hillary Clinton is taking "extreme liberal" positions to satisfy her base has got o be totally whacked. We are not satisfied.
5
"totally whacked. "
=
awkward choice of words,
wack 'em is mafia talk for 'terminate with extreme prejudice,' like, totally,
=
awkward choice of words,
wack 'em is mafia talk for 'terminate with extreme prejudice,' like, totally,
Trump's policy positions are closer to the "center" than previous Republican candidates? It is regretful when Trump policies are "normalized" but a downright failure and a disservice when ignoring what is extreme about the candidate.
Statements to maintain Social Security and Medicare do not add more mass to one side of the scale to offset Trump's other more extreme one-liner or unexplained policy positions. So much detail is lacking or they are so "fluid", few analyses can be done, and it is in the analysis one can determine the weight of extremity.
Trump cannot explain how to maintain Social Security and Medicare while his tax policy and one-liner populist economic policy of trade isolationism would increase the national debt in the tens of trillions over a decade and with the likelihood - based on historical cause and effect - of an economic depression and high inflation.
Trump says his campaign is one of "change". I challenge Mr. Bartel to explain what that means, how it will be implemented, and the consequences.
Statements to maintain Social Security and Medicare do not add more mass to one side of the scale to offset Trump's other more extreme one-liner or unexplained policy positions. So much detail is lacking or they are so "fluid", few analyses can be done, and it is in the analysis one can determine the weight of extremity.
Trump cannot explain how to maintain Social Security and Medicare while his tax policy and one-liner populist economic policy of trade isolationism would increase the national debt in the tens of trillions over a decade and with the likelihood - based on historical cause and effect - of an economic depression and high inflation.
Trump says his campaign is one of "change". I challenge Mr. Bartel to explain what that means, how it will be implemented, and the consequences.
3
Set aside for a moment the substance of Professor Bartels' remarks and focus on the NYT presentation and of this article and its effects. First, the photo shows HRC with a hand raised in a weak approximation of a 'Nazi salute' under a headline, "Presidential Extremist." Second, the headline itself equates Trump and HRC as 'extremists' of right and left. Note, however, that among HRC's supposed extreme positions is defending the law of the land, in this instance, abortion rights under Roe vs. Wade. The Times and other 'mainstream media,' as the Right calls non-rightists, have been regularly and often criticized for maintaining a false equivalence between HRC and DT--perhaps to generate clicks or perhaps to appear "fair and balanced." No matter the reason, the misrepresentations in articles such as this do considerable damage to the American polity and will perhaps put an extremist in office who would kill the parents of terrorists, admire the authoritarian anti-democrats of failed states (Russia, eg), and promote racism and a crack down on civil liberties. The Times needs to ask what it is doing and to what ends. Or perhaps the fate Trump anticipates for it will be better deserved.
12
I understand that newspapers try to keep a balance to their coverage, but to call Hillary's views on anything extreme left is laughable.
She holds the views most moderates do, which is why the left wing chose Bernie over her.
She holds the views most moderates do, which is why the left wing chose Bernie over her.
18
As near November, I keep thinking - is this the best a country of 300 million people can do for presidential candidates? There must be more qualified honest people somewhere in this great land.
4
Jill Stein, Green Party.
"But centrist voters mostly have other things on their minds — from economic anxieties to foreign crises, cultural animosities [hatreds] and candidates’ personalities."
Economics, foreign affairs and candidates personalities are all legitimate issues. Cultural hatreds are a ticking bomb, threatening to destroy our nation. If we can't defuse this issue, we might as well throw in the towel now.
Does the New York Times have any ideas about how to increase our respect for those whose views differ from our own?
Economics, foreign affairs and candidates personalities are all legitimate issues. Cultural hatreds are a ticking bomb, threatening to destroy our nation. If we can't defuse this issue, we might as well throw in the towel now.
Does the New York Times have any ideas about how to increase our respect for those whose views differ from our own?
2
For what it's worth, we can all look forward to a wonderful third term of BHO under HRC. In sharp contrast to the "xenophobia", "Islamophobia", "racism" and "sexism" that we would inevitably see under Donald Trump (and his "deplorable" supporters), here's what we can expect under HRC:
(1) Stronger public school TEACHERS UNIONS (with no choice in education); (2) More "tax the rich" redistribution of wealth programs and increased government spending to "keep everyone happy" and to promote "fairness" & "equality" throughout our economy; (3) "No Justice, No Peace"...an end to widespread & systemic POLICE BRUTALITY & RACISM in our poverty-stricken & crime-ridden inner-cities; (4) Complete OPEN BORDERS and more "sanctuary cities"; and finally... (5) A change to our National Anthem from the "Star Spangled Banner" to "KUMBAYA".
You know what the alternative is...a better, brighter and more secure future, perhaps?
(1) Stronger public school TEACHERS UNIONS (with no choice in education); (2) More "tax the rich" redistribution of wealth programs and increased government spending to "keep everyone happy" and to promote "fairness" & "equality" throughout our economy; (3) "No Justice, No Peace"...an end to widespread & systemic POLICE BRUTALITY & RACISM in our poverty-stricken & crime-ridden inner-cities; (4) Complete OPEN BORDERS and more "sanctuary cities"; and finally... (5) A change to our National Anthem from the "Star Spangled Banner" to "KUMBAYA".
You know what the alternative is...a better, brighter and more secure future, perhaps?
1
A very unconvincing opinion piece by Mr.Bartels.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton is a "Presidential Extremist".
Look at Trump's past support for single-payer healthcare, tax increases and abortion rights, and you could classify him as a liberal, or look at his current support for tax cuts and abortion restrictions, and classify him as a conservative. He is not an extremist or a moderate. He is ideologically incoherent, given his flip-flops on nearly every major issue.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders might have seemed 'extreme' to some, but only because the party has moved so far right under the rule of the Clinton cabal and the main stream corporate media was pushing the label of 'socialist' ad nauseam, aided by the corrupt DNC. To others like myself, he was the leader of a nascent political movement that would win the presidency on the basis of mobilizing the progressive base and previously unmobilized masses.
Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of moderate, status quo, middle down the road corporatist, neoliberal policies, with a little extremism thrown in with respect to her hawkish foreign policy.
The real problem on the part of the political leadership is that there is no ownership of policies or the desire to lead from the front.There is a wide gap between the rulers and the ruled and this disconnect between them appears to be the major failing of the present leadership.
The Donald is promising this 'strong leadership', making him the CLOWN to beat.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton is a "Presidential Extremist".
Look at Trump's past support for single-payer healthcare, tax increases and abortion rights, and you could classify him as a liberal, or look at his current support for tax cuts and abortion restrictions, and classify him as a conservative. He is not an extremist or a moderate. He is ideologically incoherent, given his flip-flops on nearly every major issue.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders might have seemed 'extreme' to some, but only because the party has moved so far right under the rule of the Clinton cabal and the main stream corporate media was pushing the label of 'socialist' ad nauseam, aided by the corrupt DNC. To others like myself, he was the leader of a nascent political movement that would win the presidency on the basis of mobilizing the progressive base and previously unmobilized masses.
Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of moderate, status quo, middle down the road corporatist, neoliberal policies, with a little extremism thrown in with respect to her hawkish foreign policy.
The real problem on the part of the political leadership is that there is no ownership of policies or the desire to lead from the front.There is a wide gap between the rulers and the ruled and this disconnect between them appears to be the major failing of the present leadership.
The Donald is promising this 'strong leadership', making him the CLOWN to beat.
32
"Look at Trump's past support for single-payer healthcare, tax increases and abortion rights, and you could classify him as a liberal,".....That doesn't sound anything like what he has said recently. As for "strong leadership" anyone can make promises - what are his policy positions???? And it should be obvious that a bigoted narcissist with the emotional control of an eight year old has to be classified as an extremist no matter what they may or may not believe.
1
I agree, this is an opinion piece, not political science. Mr. Trump is a reactionary extremist. Mrs. Clinton is the status quo, which for the moment is left of center. Either a voter is content with the status quo, or not (and neither is a good or bad thing, it's simply a fact). This is obvious. Science isn't necessary to know this. To use the words "bombast" and "inexperience" to discribe Mr. Trump's statements and campaign is to ignore who he is and where he comes from. Please, let's focus on who the candidates are and what the candidates have accomplished. There relative experience or lack thereof. If voters were allowed to do that, perhaps they could make a rational choice.
Presidential candidates get selected by votes cast in the primaries. These voters firmly believe in either the left or the right ideology.
To get candidates who are centrists, candidates from both parties should contest in one single primary. The top two vote getters then enter the final election, even if both of them are from the same party. A candidate who has to appeal to both sides of the ideological spectrum, will need to temper extreme views or she/he will not get maximum number of votes.
To get candidates who are centrists, candidates from both parties should contest in one single primary. The top two vote getters then enter the final election, even if both of them are from the same party. A candidate who has to appeal to both sides of the ideological spectrum, will need to temper extreme views or she/he will not get maximum number of votes.
You say "On average, the Democratic base moved 1.5 points further to the left of swing voters, while the Republican base moved 6.5 points further to the right."
While it is only about 5% difference, is this a significant swing? In which direction? Which group is becoming more extreme?
While it is only about 5% difference, is this a significant swing? In which direction? Which group is becoming more extreme?
It's finally happened: The New York Times has finally printed an op-ed piece that is practically gibberish, with almost nothing to do with political reality.
Hillary Clinton as a leftist? In whose universe? According to what calibration of "the center"? In what foreign policy area?
Note to Bartels: Hillary Clinton is just another "New Democrat", which is a modern term for what used to be called a moderate Republican before that species went extinct. Her foreign policy is neoconservative, and her domestic policies would be neoliberal. There is virtually nothing "left" about her.
Hillary Clinton as a leftist? In whose universe? According to what calibration of "the center"? In what foreign policy area?
Note to Bartels: Hillary Clinton is just another "New Democrat", which is a modern term for what used to be called a moderate Republican before that species went extinct. Her foreign policy is neoconservative, and her domestic policies would be neoliberal. There is virtually nothing "left" about her.
23
OK, so it’s been a tough week..
But she’s ahead of him in the state and national polls; the electoral college;
the quality of her surrogates (Barack and Michelle vs.Mayor Giuliani); the get-out-the- vote efforts; fundraising and advertising;
and debate skills.
Leaving her behind in just two areas, neither of which she has any hope of gaining suppprt from. The nut voters who will vote for Trump because he is a nut like they are; and the desperation voters who feel like they are so bad off that nothing but a nut like Trump can save them.
So there you have it. Good luck to her and us. We are going to need it.
But she’s ahead of him in the state and national polls; the electoral college;
the quality of her surrogates (Barack and Michelle vs.Mayor Giuliani); the get-out-the- vote efforts; fundraising and advertising;
and debate skills.
Leaving her behind in just two areas, neither of which she has any hope of gaining suppprt from. The nut voters who will vote for Trump because he is a nut like they are; and the desperation voters who feel like they are so bad off that nothing but a nut like Trump can save them.
So there you have it. Good luck to her and us. We are going to need it.
10
I'll put it simply - anyone who calls Clinton "hard-core liberal" and follows that by stating Trump's " policy positions are probably closer to the “center” of the electorate than those of previous Republican presidential candidates" cannot be taken seriously.
70
"In this year’s race, Mrs. Clinton is leading in the polls despite her “hard-core liberal” campaign stands and a voting record to the left of most Senate Democrats. "
I'm sorry sir, but are you serious? If HRC was any further Right she could run as a Republican. Tell me, what color is the sky on your planet?
I'm sorry sir, but are you serious? If HRC was any further Right she could run as a Republican. Tell me, what color is the sky on your planet?
19
There is a Mr. Spock logic to this article that seems separated from the common sense knowledge that politics exist on a spectrum, and that the US is well to the right of center. Nothing proposed by Obama, Clinton, or even Bernie Sanders is the least bit radical when compared to the norms of other first world countries. The right wing, by contrast, is pretty far out there.
102
The standard one dimensional ideological spectrum of Left Versus Right is as deceptive as it is illuminating. Libertarians like to point this out and use two dimensions to show that, unlike the more confused major parties, they want less government on both the fiscal and social dimensions..
The actual spectrum is multidimensional, with individuals taking stances on a broad array of issues, which they then prioritize.
Check out Ralph Nader on the Left Right Alliance to see how large numbers of the electorate, seemingly divided into "conservatives" and "liberals" actually agree on many issue positions and can come together to force changes in policy.
The actual spectrum is multidimensional, with individuals taking stances on a broad array of issues, which they then prioritize.
Check out Ralph Nader on the Left Right Alliance to see how large numbers of the electorate, seemingly divided into "conservatives" and "liberals" actually agree on many issue positions and can come together to force changes in policy.
There is certainly nothing "centered" about Hillary Clinton's proposed tax rates or social program platform.
An interesting article.
People with extreme views are more forceful in expressing their opinions and demanding their 'rights', especially when they have the support of like-minded people. Donald Trump is a prime time example of this. Without the backing of cheering crowds, his insults and bizarre promises would fall flat and be forgotten. We have new and efficient ways of communicating and disseminating information now, thus people are able to seek and find support for these extreme views, which makes them even more vocal. Political polar opposites no longer feel they need to fit in and get along. They want to rule.
Barack Obama was able to use modern communication to his advantage to get elected, but it has also hurt his presidency. Instead of accepting him and supporting the USA under his government, his detractors have continued their attack. The likes of Mitch McConnell have reveled in picking the scab of a lost election for years, keeping Republicans stirred up and angry and crippling our government. It's shameful and harmful to everyone.
Meanwhile, as one of those so-called centrist swing-voters I hate it when the phone rings and it's someone wanting to know if they can "ask a few questions about the up-coming election." Thanks for asking, but no thanks.
People with extreme views are more forceful in expressing their opinions and demanding their 'rights', especially when they have the support of like-minded people. Donald Trump is a prime time example of this. Without the backing of cheering crowds, his insults and bizarre promises would fall flat and be forgotten. We have new and efficient ways of communicating and disseminating information now, thus people are able to seek and find support for these extreme views, which makes them even more vocal. Political polar opposites no longer feel they need to fit in and get along. They want to rule.
Barack Obama was able to use modern communication to his advantage to get elected, but it has also hurt his presidency. Instead of accepting him and supporting the USA under his government, his detractors have continued their attack. The likes of Mitch McConnell have reveled in picking the scab of a lost election for years, keeping Republicans stirred up and angry and crippling our government. It's shameful and harmful to everyone.
Meanwhile, as one of those so-called centrist swing-voters I hate it when the phone rings and it's someone wanting to know if they can "ask a few questions about the up-coming election." Thanks for asking, but no thanks.
2
What makes Hillary an extremist? Her foreign policy positions are very much the standard positions of the US since WWII. The main deviant was GW Bush
who should have listened to his father rather than Cheney and Rumsfeld before rushing thoughtlessly into Iraq. When it comes to domestic policies her positions on gun control, abortion, health care, family leave are in line with the majority of voters. Her problem is not her positions, but that too many voters do not trust her to stick to those positions. Nothing indicates that she wont but decades of relentless attacks have been quite effective in promoting that distrust. Now Trump is in a class by himself. He is not an extremist in the classic sense of promoting extreme positions but rather an extremist in shamelessness. He has no problem doubling down on lies or contradicting himself form one day to the next while claiming he never said what he said.
who should have listened to his father rather than Cheney and Rumsfeld before rushing thoughtlessly into Iraq. When it comes to domestic policies her positions on gun control, abortion, health care, family leave are in line with the majority of voters. Her problem is not her positions, but that too many voters do not trust her to stick to those positions. Nothing indicates that she wont but decades of relentless attacks have been quite effective in promoting that distrust. Now Trump is in a class by himself. He is not an extremist in the classic sense of promoting extreme positions but rather an extremist in shamelessness. He has no problem doubling down on lies or contradicting himself form one day to the next while claiming he never said what he said.
10
"Mr. Bartels speaks of Hillary's 'hard-core liberal' campaign stands and cites
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton_VoteMatch.htm
as evidence. Having looked at that report all I can say is that if many of those positions -- e.g., 'comfortable with same-sex marriage,' 'opposes privatizing Social Security,' 'favors higher taxes on the wealthy' -- really are 'hard-core liberal' rather than 'mainstream United States' then we're in even worse trouble than I thought.
But I think -- hope -- that it's more likely that Mr. Bartels is simply wrong.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton_VoteMatch.htm
as evidence. Having looked at that report all I can say is that if many of those positions -- e.g., 'comfortable with same-sex marriage,' 'opposes privatizing Social Security,' 'favors higher taxes on the wealthy' -- really are 'hard-core liberal' rather than 'mainstream United States' then we're in even worse trouble than I thought.
But I think -- hope -- that it's more likely that Mr. Bartels is simply wrong.
9
All speculation no facts. Barack Obama's opponents were John McCain who lurched toward the extreme right and Sarah Palin, even more extreme. Where does this person back up their assertions (can't call them facts)?
6
I doubt there are many swing or undecided voters. Everyone already knows who they are voting for. The rest is a dog and pony show for the media.
2
In a democracy, those put in leadership roles are expected and [once upon a time were] assumed to serve for the betterment of the many if not for all. Extremism puts the lie to this assumption, with rightest extremism far and away the most egregious in its stances.
America under a Trump administration will not be a democracy.
America under a Trump administration will not be a democracy.
5
If you needed more proof that the Times is reflexively anti-Clinton, look no further than this story about political extremism that has a featured image of Hillary Clinton.
Should I assume this is the same Hillary Clinton who had to fight off a primary challenge because many democrats found her to be too far right?
Should I assume this is the same Hillary Clinton who had to fight off a primary challenge because many democrats found her to be too far right?
5
Is it not really just about the money. All the rest is just a show to keep you distracted (Trump is really good at this).
And when I say it is about the money, what I mean is politics is all about who gets the money and who does not get the money. Who does the work and who gets the money. And that is not going to change no matter who you elect president. Those in power get the money, the rest of us will be lucky to get enough to live on.
And when I say it is about the money, what I mean is politics is all about who gets the money and who does not get the money. Who does the work and who gets the money. And that is not going to change no matter who you elect president. Those in power get the money, the rest of us will be lucky to get enough to live on.
4
The article argues "On average, the Democratic base moved 1.5 points further to the left of swing voters, while the Republican base moved 6.5 points further to the right," while nonetheless averring "the political center had itself shifted even further to the right than it had been in the 1980s and ’90s."
So the Republicans moved more than four times further from the center than the Democrats, and the center has moved their way, and this polarization is somehow equally due to Republican and Democratic intransigence? (Indeed, perhaps with his comment that "Democrats may be tempted to say that that is a political center they want no part of. Perhaps they would add — with or without some awareness of irony — that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," the author somehow thinks the Democrats are more responsible for the impasse.)
Isn't it just possible that they disagree because one side is reasonable and the other is mad?
So the Republicans moved more than four times further from the center than the Democrats, and the center has moved their way, and this polarization is somehow equally due to Republican and Democratic intransigence? (Indeed, perhaps with his comment that "Democrats may be tempted to say that that is a political center they want no part of. Perhaps they would add — with or without some awareness of irony — that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," the author somehow thinks the Democrats are more responsible for the impasse.)
Isn't it just possible that they disagree because one side is reasonable and the other is mad?
7
It's the "Lola" principle rewritten for the wealthy: "Whatever the wealthy want, the wealthy get." Money in political arenas is the most destructive consideration. With Congressional purchase comes polarization. Too much money and political extremism run hand in hand.
5
The article states, "It would be hard to argue that a candidate’s temperament and experience should be irrelevant to voters." However, is not this exactly what happened with Sanders and Trump? A very large percentage of the electorate that claims affiliation with the two major political parties did not want a candidate who was an establishment backed career politician. It remains to be seen how active these people will be in the general election. Sanders supporters were quite different from Trump supporters. In all probability, Sanders supporters would not vote for Trump. But, they may not vote for Clinton either. If Trump supporters actually vote in the general election, they will probably vote for him and not Clinton. All of this will likely change the dynamic considerably. The professor's article is interesting, but he may have been studying the wrong things.
11
Sorry, friends - this article was a waste of time, save for the comments it inspired. Indeed, the center has been dragged inexorably to the right. My moderate parents, children of the early this century, would be viewed as radicals now. There is little that is mainstream about Mr. Trump's far-right positions, as far a they can be determined; Secretary Clinton's seem mainstream to me. As several European friends have suggested, there is no more viable left in the US. And now we're in a campaign where radical right wing propaganda - Breitbart, Newsmax - is actually taken seriously as news. Yes, things are definitely wrong with American politics, but I don't see this analysis as the explanation. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the traditional center, not the radical left (since there is none). We can sort out our issues with the messenger later, but only if Trump and Trumpism suffer huge defeats in November. Elect Trump instead and all discussion is closed.
I fear for the state of my country.
I fear for the state of my country.
176
This analysis is intended for another campaign, one in which issues are important.
In this campaign, the current issues seem to be whether our President should emulate Putin, whether Hillary Clinton is too sick to serve, and whether Donald Trump can insult everyone on the white grievance list before Election Day.
When discussing abortion, let's remember that the Supreme Court settled this issue over 40 years ago. However, in a bald attempt to serve their religions more than their country, legislators and executives in several of our states have done their utmost to remove a health remedy from chiefly poor women. So, the "debate" over abortion should be moot. That it continues as an issue demonstrates the lack of respect in certain quarters for rulings of our Supreme Court.
How much debate has there been in this campaign about war and peace and the proper stance of an American chief executive who would prefer to speak softly but is willing to swing a big stick against those such as the Islamic State who seem hellbent on wreaking havoc on anyone within reach? Other than the boilerplate "Obama weak" mewlings, I haven't heard much.
And then there's the elephant in the living room, guns. For eight years we've heard that Obama will come and take our guns, and yet gun deaths in America are still an abomination with which we have chosen to live rather than address the difference between muskets and Uzis.
No, please don't tell me that this campaign is about issues. I might laugh.
In this campaign, the current issues seem to be whether our President should emulate Putin, whether Hillary Clinton is too sick to serve, and whether Donald Trump can insult everyone on the white grievance list before Election Day.
When discussing abortion, let's remember that the Supreme Court settled this issue over 40 years ago. However, in a bald attempt to serve their religions more than their country, legislators and executives in several of our states have done their utmost to remove a health remedy from chiefly poor women. So, the "debate" over abortion should be moot. That it continues as an issue demonstrates the lack of respect in certain quarters for rulings of our Supreme Court.
How much debate has there been in this campaign about war and peace and the proper stance of an American chief executive who would prefer to speak softly but is willing to swing a big stick against those such as the Islamic State who seem hellbent on wreaking havoc on anyone within reach? Other than the boilerplate "Obama weak" mewlings, I haven't heard much.
And then there's the elephant in the living room, guns. For eight years we've heard that Obama will come and take our guns, and yet gun deaths in America are still an abomination with which we have chosen to live rather than address the difference between muskets and Uzis.
No, please don't tell me that this campaign is about issues. I might laugh.
115
Re abortion, the right has discovered that there is no such thing as "settled law". With the proper configuration of the Court, any ruling can be reversed. They are salivating over what a Trump Court will do. So sorry, that is an "issue" that is in the forefront (or hidden just behind the forefront) of the election.
And even with all of this what we have is a Congress that is incapable of governing because the interests of the average American don't count. We are not being well served by our elected representatives because they are serving their rich donors. The issue isn't just about the current presidential candidates. It's about the inability of the current two party system to serve the people because much of the money they receive comes from corporations and lobbyists that are invested in not seeing the government protect Americans from their avaricious practices, regulating the amount of environmental mischief they can cause, and limiting their ability to abuse employees.
In truth if Americans were asked about what they want without the rhetoric there would be much more agreement than is currently seen. We all want our children to have better lives than we've had. We all want to have decent places to live, affordable medical care when we need it, good schools, jobs that pay enough to support ourselves and our families. The parties, especially the Grand Old Prattlers, obscure the issues in order to avoid being confronted with the fact that they despise most Americans and don't care if the country winds up with a thin layer of haves that support them while the rest of us rot.
In truth if Americans were asked about what they want without the rhetoric there would be much more agreement than is currently seen. We all want our children to have better lives than we've had. We all want to have decent places to live, affordable medical care when we need it, good schools, jobs that pay enough to support ourselves and our families. The parties, especially the Grand Old Prattlers, obscure the issues in order to avoid being confronted with the fact that they despise most Americans and don't care if the country winds up with a thin layer of haves that support them while the rest of us rot.
7
Who says irresponsible extremist position has little electoral cost? Ask Trump or his party leaders, what cost they are likely to pay for this indiscretion of choosing the highly divisive political strategy?
24
Trump isn't running to win the presidency. He's following the Sarah Palin game, and he has already achieved "much higher ratings" than Sarah.
The goal isn't to win -- winning means you don't make much money and you have really, really big problems.
The goal is to be the brand identity of a disgruntled crackpot fringe that will keep paying you money and stroking your ego, while you deliver nothing.
The goal isn't to win -- winning means you don't make much money and you have really, really big problems.
The goal is to be the brand identity of a disgruntled crackpot fringe that will keep paying you money and stroking your ego, while you deliver nothing.
3
Very interesting observation indeed, but even the longevity of such brand value remains doubtful. In all likelihood Trump would be dumped soon after the elections as perhaps happened with such mavericks in the past.
1
Barrels is extremely divorced from reality.
If the American people, including independents and centrists, actually were polled on Clinton's specific policy positions, from creating jobs through investment in infrastructure, to universal background checks for gun purchases, to allowing people to refinance their student debt paid for by eliminating a tax break for oil drilling, to any one of the long list of other detailed proposals outlined here
Hillaryclinton.com/issues
It would be obvious that her proposals are in line with the positions of the overwhelming majority of Americans
If the American people, including independents and centrists, actually were polled on Clinton's specific policy positions, from creating jobs through investment in infrastructure, to universal background checks for gun purchases, to allowing people to refinance their student debt paid for by eliminating a tax break for oil drilling, to any one of the long list of other detailed proposals outlined here
Hillaryclinton.com/issues
It would be obvious that her proposals are in line with the positions of the overwhelming majority of Americans
282
How about granting citizenship to all illegal aliens? I'll bet the polls wouldn't be so favorable on that one.
In any case, many people naively support proposals that they turn out not to like in practice:
Pollster: So you would like medical insurance without restrictions on pre-exitisting conditions?
YES!
Pollster: You would like to be able to keep your kids on your policy until they are 26?
YES!
Pollster: You would like a medical insurance policy that has no limits on coverage, and includes mental health, free contraceptives, and regular checkups
YES!
Pollster: OK, that'll be $1750 a month
In any case, many people naively support proposals that they turn out not to like in practice:
Pollster: So you would like medical insurance without restrictions on pre-exitisting conditions?
YES!
Pollster: You would like to be able to keep your kids on your policy until they are 26?
YES!
Pollster: You would like a medical insurance policy that has no limits on coverage, and includes mental health, free contraceptives, and regular checkups
YES!
Pollster: OK, that'll be $1750 a month
2
"How about granting citizenship to all illegal aliens?"...How about it? Requiring illegal immigrants to - identify themselves, and if having already lived here several years, under go a back ground check, pay back taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line; that isn't exactly the same thing as granting citizenship to all illegal aliens is it? Honesty and being factually correct is an important part of having a meaningful discussion.
4
Reply to Jonathan:
A majority of Americans do favor a path to citizenship. Here is a recent Gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigra...
A majority of Americans do favor a path to citizenship. Here is a recent Gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigra...
6
"But centrist voters mostly have other things on their minds — from economic anxieties to foreign crises, cultural animosities and candidates’ personalities."
One does not have to wander through the day prayerfully reciting the long list of fake scandals the GOP has attached to HRC in order to find a candidate with a frightening personality. Mr. Trump is front and center every day demonstrating that he is a common bully at best and possibly a genuine sociopath. The thing about the latter is that history and our psychologists know that such individuals have tremendous power to overcome people's reason and make them line up like good soldiers. That is why we see spooky things like an arena full of people taking a pledge of loyalty to Donald Trump. (Here is the video for those who forgotten about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLmh8ck0yk) If you don't find this at least weird and possibly scary, then you are an ideal mark for a grade A tyrant. We have seen this kind of hysteria destroy ostensibly democratic societies in the past. The odds are still against it here, but the kind of petty "balanced" analysis in this column, while it may keep statisticians in work, is not helpful under the current circumstances. One wonders how Mr. Bartels will feel about his odorless delivery of yin and yang "analysis" if he wakes up in Jamuary with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Who knows? Maybe he's a good soldier.
One does not have to wander through the day prayerfully reciting the long list of fake scandals the GOP has attached to HRC in order to find a candidate with a frightening personality. Mr. Trump is front and center every day demonstrating that he is a common bully at best and possibly a genuine sociopath. The thing about the latter is that history and our psychologists know that such individuals have tremendous power to overcome people's reason and make them line up like good soldiers. That is why we see spooky things like an arena full of people taking a pledge of loyalty to Donald Trump. (Here is the video for those who forgotten about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLmh8ck0yk) If you don't find this at least weird and possibly scary, then you are an ideal mark for a grade A tyrant. We have seen this kind of hysteria destroy ostensibly democratic societies in the past. The odds are still against it here, but the kind of petty "balanced" analysis in this column, while it may keep statisticians in work, is not helpful under the current circumstances. One wonders how Mr. Bartels will feel about his odorless delivery of yin and yang "analysis" if he wakes up in Jamuary with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Who knows? Maybe he's a good soldier.
78
tony zito - "...but the kind of petty "balanced" analysis in this column, while it may keep statisticians in work, is not helpful under the current circumstances."
So henceforth we shall have no "balanced" analysis in reporting on the candidates. The media should pick one side and weigh heavily toward that side with all reporting. Never let the truth have anything to do with reporting the news especially if the truth favors the "other" candidate. Not to worry tony, the NYT, as well as many other liberal, progressive news outlets, have long been playing that tune.
So henceforth we shall have no "balanced" analysis in reporting on the candidates. The media should pick one side and weigh heavily toward that side with all reporting. Never let the truth have anything to do with reporting the news especially if the truth favors the "other" candidate. Not to worry tony, the NYT, as well as many other liberal, progressive news outlets, have long been playing that tune.
I would not say never. Only in the case where one candidate is an unhinged menace to society. Everyone who votes for Trump will be looking to evade responsibility for what follows if he should win. Quaint concerns like the unemployment rate or foreign wars will seem minor compared to an atmosphere of marshall law and normalized persecution of minorities. And those are among the lesser evils Trump has virtually promised us. You are not really listening to Trump. You are voting with ears stuffed with cotton.
There's only one extremist in this presidential race, and it isn't Hillary Clinton.
249
Hillary Clinton to the left of her base? Have you even looked at her foreign policy positions? Or her voting record in the Senate?
Very convenient that you also left out of your column the 12 years of HW Bush, and Bill Clinton. Both were well to the center of their respective bases.
And by what measure, truly, is Obama so liberal? His healthcare act is not even close to the single payer plan most liberals desire. His foreign policy decisions, at least in his first term, were barely to the "left" of Bush II.
Lastly, if you did not notice the marked shifts to the right of McCain and Romney during their presidential runs, compared to their previous positions as moderate Republicans, you really have some unstated bias.
Sorry Professor, but as a lifelong Independent who is pretty "centrist," your essay would receive a poor grade in my class. How did this make it into the Times?
Very convenient that you also left out of your column the 12 years of HW Bush, and Bill Clinton. Both were well to the center of their respective bases.
And by what measure, truly, is Obama so liberal? His healthcare act is not even close to the single payer plan most liberals desire. His foreign policy decisions, at least in his first term, were barely to the "left" of Bush II.
Lastly, if you did not notice the marked shifts to the right of McCain and Romney during their presidential runs, compared to their previous positions as moderate Republicans, you really have some unstated bias.
Sorry Professor, but as a lifelong Independent who is pretty "centrist," your essay would receive a poor grade in my class. How did this make it into the Times?
259
This guy is a political scientist at Vanderbilt, wow.
Oh yeah, PS ... Donald Trump has no "policy positions."
113
You can't become president by just copying the opinion polls. You also need to sell a dream - a story how the country would be better if you were president. And in the process you can - as James Lee already mentioned - change public opinion itself.
Clinton promises to restore the social net that builds the state - from social security to education. It doesn't matter that she is to the left of many people on specific issues. People support the general direction that she proposes and are happy to leave the details to her.
Similarly Trump sells the dream of attacking special interests, from Wall Street to big business to welfare queens. Again, people may differ with him on the details, but they like the big picture.
Clinton promises to restore the social net that builds the state - from social security to education. It doesn't matter that she is to the left of many people on specific issues. People support the general direction that she proposes and are happy to leave the details to her.
Similarly Trump sells the dream of attacking special interests, from Wall Street to big business to welfare queens. Again, people may differ with him on the details, but they like the big picture.
8
Trump thinks "special interests" are the actual population of the United States, Like you and me, not the small, elite groups HE is working for.
1
Extremist positions are not intended to appeal to the whole base, or to the whole party. They are, each by each, intended to to gain the votes of different wedge issue constituencies - a few nutters here, a few loonies there. Wedge issues keep the base intact, and candidates are punished more for abandoning the wedge issue than they are for adopting it.
A GOP candidate who doesn't pander to the God Squad won't get far; a Democratic candidate who doesn't vow to protect abortion rights won't make it through the primaries. Even if the positions they adopt are favorable to a wider base.
Extremism pays off because of a few factors. First, too few people actually vote in primaries, and in fact, in general elections. Second, polarization brought on by the parties' very effective strategy to use wedge issue to divide and conquer, has left us in a bind in which a most elections are almost 50/50, and a small defection can cause a loss. And third, of the too few people who actually vote,many are the extremists in the base. Add in a concerted effort to make voting harder in some regions, and you have a tiny group of powerful extremists.
The solution is for the silent majority to down vote the terrible candidates and positions. That means everybody would have to get up and go vote.
A GOP candidate who doesn't pander to the God Squad won't get far; a Democratic candidate who doesn't vow to protect abortion rights won't make it through the primaries. Even if the positions they adopt are favorable to a wider base.
Extremism pays off because of a few factors. First, too few people actually vote in primaries, and in fact, in general elections. Second, polarization brought on by the parties' very effective strategy to use wedge issue to divide and conquer, has left us in a bind in which a most elections are almost 50/50, and a small defection can cause a loss. And third, of the too few people who actually vote,many are the extremists in the base. Add in a concerted effort to make voting harder in some regions, and you have a tiny group of powerful extremists.
The solution is for the silent majority to down vote the terrible candidates and positions. That means everybody would have to get up and go vote.
13
Protecting abortion rights is protecting the existing constitutional right, as established by Roe v. Wade. There is no way this can be called "extremist."
7
So which are the nutters or loonies? Those who favor abortion rights or those who want to ban it altogether or even criminalize it? Nor am I at all sure that everyone in the "God Squad" qualifies as an extremist, a loony, or a nutter. (It's hard to tell, since no one knows but the writer can be sure what she means by "God Squad.")
1
Yes and many of these issues are left purposely unsolved so they can motivate voters in the future.
A good example is the immigration debate, where neither side puts forth a real solution, but instead one side makes silly promises and the other a temporary amnesty.
If you want to stop undocumented workers, you need to go after the demand: the CEOs that hire them. Start arresting those that hire illegals, and they will find a different business model. But neither party will do that, because the elites like the power they have over undocumented workers.
A good example is the immigration debate, where neither side puts forth a real solution, but instead one side makes silly promises and the other a temporary amnesty.
If you want to stop undocumented workers, you need to go after the demand: the CEOs that hire them. Start arresting those that hire illegals, and they will find a different business model. But neither party will do that, because the elites like the power they have over undocumented workers.
This analysis puzzles me. I have no studies to refute it, but do have questions about the author's confident definition of the "political center" and assertion that the electorate has moved to the Right since the 1980s and 1990s, as well as his implication that liberal Democrats are out on a limb ... far Left of center.
The narrative we've all been telling ourselves assures Liberals that the social revolutions, or evolutions, of the 1960s that granted civil rights to African-Americans, "liberated" women, and welcomed gays to step out of the closet and stand as full citizens have taken hold. That the future belongs to the progressives, since so many of our children support gay marriage and pal around with women who are doctors and lawyers. Widespread support for Bernie Sanders among millennials in this election has been interpreted as proof of this theory: that the big ship we're riding is headed Left.
Is that narrative all bunk? Delusion? Will Christian fundamentalists and golf-course owners take over the helm?
Or are these numbers wrong?
I find it very difficult to accept this interpretation of our "drift" given the attitudes, and lives, of young men and women in the country.
The narrative we've all been telling ourselves assures Liberals that the social revolutions, or evolutions, of the 1960s that granted civil rights to African-Americans, "liberated" women, and welcomed gays to step out of the closet and stand as full citizens have taken hold. That the future belongs to the progressives, since so many of our children support gay marriage and pal around with women who are doctors and lawyers. Widespread support for Bernie Sanders among millennials in this election has been interpreted as proof of this theory: that the big ship we're riding is headed Left.
Is that narrative all bunk? Delusion? Will Christian fundamentalists and golf-course owners take over the helm?
Or are these numbers wrong?
I find it very difficult to accept this interpretation of our "drift" given the attitudes, and lives, of young men and women in the country.
53
A body politic that labels Secretary Clinton as a "hard core liberal" is one so abnormally skewed to the right that Ronald Reagan would have to be labeled a "centrist".
218
Oddly, this article ignores essential points about politics in order to explain politics. Because voting is something to offer voters to disguise the extent to which their government has been co-opted by special interests, the illusion of
democracy Is just that: an illusion. I believe Mr Bartel has a connection to Princeton which has studied what Congress really does and declared us an oligarchy. If government services are tied more effectively to lobbying and cash infusions from the well-off then why would elites care about what voters think? The truth is that the need to be responsive to voters has considerably lessened. What party competition has involved instead is selling ideology and philosophies that support private agendas working in the background. Unfortunately the "angry God-fearing white people" plans of the GOP to disrupt the old New Deal coalition has now gotten out of control and hence we now have Trump. If the American people were in general more knowledgeable about what is really happening to the political system, they would demand reform and increased democracy would move most of us toward the center. Rather than knowledge too many instead are enthralled by passion, fear and resentment as the security in their lives grows increasingly tenuous. That is a prescription for demagogery. That is where we go when we know something is wrong but are clueless about how to get it back.
democracy Is just that: an illusion. I believe Mr Bartel has a connection to Princeton which has studied what Congress really does and declared us an oligarchy. If government services are tied more effectively to lobbying and cash infusions from the well-off then why would elites care about what voters think? The truth is that the need to be responsive to voters has considerably lessened. What party competition has involved instead is selling ideology and philosophies that support private agendas working in the background. Unfortunately the "angry God-fearing white people" plans of the GOP to disrupt the old New Deal coalition has now gotten out of control and hence we now have Trump. If the American people were in general more knowledgeable about what is really happening to the political system, they would demand reform and increased democracy would move most of us toward the center. Rather than knowledge too many instead are enthralled by passion, fear and resentment as the security in their lives grows increasingly tenuous. That is a prescription for demagogery. That is where we go when we know something is wrong but are clueless about how to get it back.
22
Ah, yes, the voice from the center. Clinton thinks abortions should be safe, legal, and rare; Trump wants to ban them and punish the women who get them. It's the same! Of course, the US is a moderately pro-choice country.
Clinton wants moderate tax increases to pay for investments in the country's future; Trump wants to drastically reduce taxes and drastically increase military spending. It's the same!
Clinton wants Israel to work towards a two-state solution; Trump tweets images from anti-Semitic, white supremacist websites. It's the same?
I'm not sure where the genuflecting lower before the radical, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel fringe comes in, though. However, no matter how out there Trump gets with religious tests and Muslim registration, the most important thing to remember is that both sides do it.
Clinton wants moderate tax increases to pay for investments in the country's future; Trump wants to drastically reduce taxes and drastically increase military spending. It's the same!
Clinton wants Israel to work towards a two-state solution; Trump tweets images from anti-Semitic, white supremacist websites. It's the same?
I'm not sure where the genuflecting lower before the radical, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel fringe comes in, though. However, no matter how out there Trump gets with religious tests and Muslim registration, the most important thing to remember is that both sides do it.
66
>>>
America has become ungovernable.
This is what the end looks like.
But if you are old enough and were smart enough not to have kids, you can probably make a good living until it becomes unlivable.
After all the Roman Empire didn't fall in a day.
America peaked in Aug 1945.
Maybe something better will arise from the ashes, but as David Hume made so clear, there is no guarantee of it.
America has become ungovernable.
This is what the end looks like.
But if you are old enough and were smart enough not to have kids, you can probably make a good living until it becomes unlivable.
After all the Roman Empire didn't fall in a day.
America peaked in Aug 1945.
Maybe something better will arise from the ashes, but as David Hume made so clear, there is no guarantee of it.
14
Ah! Another both-sides-do-it column.
152
Just days ago, I read a wonderful column in this paper saying that journalists' both sider-ism is terrible and creates a false equivalency between the candidates. I suppose so long as the column draws page views, the NYTimes doesn't care how terrible the practice is.
Hillary Clinton is a corporatist. No matter what she SAYS she will be a corporatist when elected
9
Trump is a corporation.
6
And at the moment, given Trump as an alternative -- I'll vote "corporatist" ...
4
Behind Professor Bartel's analysis lies the assumption that political leaders simply mirror the views of the electorate. If a candidate, for example, denounced our legal system's mass incarceration of young black men as a violation of the principle of equal justice, Bartels would observe that this position registered left of center on the spectrum of public opinion. The candidate, accordingly, would qualify as an extremist, even if a humane one.
This simplistic formula, however, ignores the role of public officials as educators, who seek to shift the center of the spectrum of political opinion. The policy views of Hillary Clinton, for example, would not have seemed extremist to most voters in the 60s or 70s, even if they disagreed with them. Reagan helped to shift public opinion to the right by providing a rationale for opposing an activist federal government. In effect, he and his advisers made conservatives' instinctive hostility to the liberal state intellectually respectable, while also persuading many moderates that the federal government bore much of the responsibility for the upheavals of the previous two decades.
Views that registered as extremist in the Goldwater campaign achieved mainstream status in the 80s. Had Mr. Obama not confronted a GOP viscerally opposed to any modification of Reagan's ideology, he might have shifted the political center back to the left. Politicians are not simply passive vessels of public opinion; they can help to re-shape it.
This simplistic formula, however, ignores the role of public officials as educators, who seek to shift the center of the spectrum of political opinion. The policy views of Hillary Clinton, for example, would not have seemed extremist to most voters in the 60s or 70s, even if they disagreed with them. Reagan helped to shift public opinion to the right by providing a rationale for opposing an activist federal government. In effect, he and his advisers made conservatives' instinctive hostility to the liberal state intellectually respectable, while also persuading many moderates that the federal government bore much of the responsibility for the upheavals of the previous two decades.
Views that registered as extremist in the Goldwater campaign achieved mainstream status in the 80s. Had Mr. Obama not confronted a GOP viscerally opposed to any modification of Reagan's ideology, he might have shifted the political center back to the left. Politicians are not simply passive vessels of public opinion; they can help to re-shape it.
64
Nearing the end of my life, I find myself appalled that someone like Donald Trump has a 50/50 chance of being the President of the United States. As a child of the 1950s, I dutifully ducked and covered while doing my best to expand my community horizons to those who did not live in my neighborhood and did not look like me. They said that we were on the path to putting human rights above corporate rights, and I supported them. We had Black, Latino, and Jewish kids in my 2nd grade class. They were just like me. None of them were like Trump and his ilk, I find it amazing that the world has forgotten the lessons we so expensively and painfully learned during WWII and its aftermath. Now, war circles the globe. Peace is inadequately funded. Let's change that part, at least, OK?
217
There is one word in the quotidian American lexicon that would succinctly and effectively summarize the conclusions reached herein but, knowing it wouldn't make it past the moderators forces me to instead use "malarkey".
"Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Barack Obama in 2008 had the good fortune to run in years when economic recessions undermined the political appeal of their more moderate opponents"
McCain might have been viewed as moderate prior to 2008 but he sure wasn't running as one, as most effectively illustrated by selecting as a running mate the previous record holder for ignorance on a grand scale.
"In this year’s race, Mrs. Clinton is leading in the polls despite her “hard-core liberal” campaign stands and a voting record to the left of most Senate Democrats."
During the W administration I abandoned a lifelong affiliation with the GOP and became a Democrat. This transition was fueled by the extremism and ideological intransigence of the Republicans and eased by the knowledge that today's Democrats more resemble the party I had once belonged to. This essay sounds more like an argument determined to prove "one is just as bad as the other."
If Democrats were truly a party catering to "hard core liberals", Bernie Sanders would have been their candidate.
Bartels is, however, correct that Republicans have paid little price for their extremism unless you consider "Trumpism" a price.
Maybe the problem is the knowledge base of the average American voter.
"Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Barack Obama in 2008 had the good fortune to run in years when economic recessions undermined the political appeal of their more moderate opponents"
McCain might have been viewed as moderate prior to 2008 but he sure wasn't running as one, as most effectively illustrated by selecting as a running mate the previous record holder for ignorance on a grand scale.
"In this year’s race, Mrs. Clinton is leading in the polls despite her “hard-core liberal” campaign stands and a voting record to the left of most Senate Democrats."
During the W administration I abandoned a lifelong affiliation with the GOP and became a Democrat. This transition was fueled by the extremism and ideological intransigence of the Republicans and eased by the knowledge that today's Democrats more resemble the party I had once belonged to. This essay sounds more like an argument determined to prove "one is just as bad as the other."
If Democrats were truly a party catering to "hard core liberals", Bernie Sanders would have been their candidate.
Bartels is, however, correct that Republicans have paid little price for their extremism unless you consider "Trumpism" a price.
Maybe the problem is the knowledge base of the average American voter.
334
exactly.
3
"Mr. Trump is trailing despite having moderated some of his party’s conservative stands on issues like social spending and gay rights. On the whole, his policy positions are probably closer to the “center” of the electorate than those of previous Republican presidential candidates have been".
Does this mean that Dr. Bartels has managed to cut through the Trump-speak and fathom Trump's policy positions? Is he willing to share them with the rest of us in plain English?
Does this mean that Dr. Bartels has managed to cut through the Trump-speak and fathom Trump's policy positions? Is he willing to share them with the rest of us in plain English?
183
Trump lies extremely often. His followers don't care and the
MSM has normalized it, thinkof the frog in the boiling water,
after a while it does not notice
MSM has normalized it, thinkof the frog in the boiling water,
after a while it does not notice
100
Change the first word to Clinton. We need an honest politician. Wait … that's not possible. Or is it?
Perhaps you missed the sermon? We all lie and politicians are no exception. However, Clinton and Trump are two very different animals. Clinton is a politician, as guilty of self promotion and favoritism as any politician, right or left. Trump, on the other hand, is a delusional egomaniac. Stop trying to normalize Trump. We all long for better politicians in this country. Trump is a step in the wrong direction.