Democrats Should Be Wary of Overreach
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman cautions Democrats not to mistake a big Barack Obama win for a sudden American appetite for liberal politics. Polman writes:
Stan Greenberg, a prominent Democratic pollster, suggested the other day that voters are interested in Obama “because of his steadiness,” and not because of his progressive agenda. That sounds about right.
Swing voters - the folks in the middle of the electorate - checked out Obama during the three presidential debates, and judged him to be of keen intellect and good temperament, at a crisis moment when both traits are required. In terms of intellect, Obama is widely viewed as the antithesis of Bush; in terms of temperament, he is widely viewed as the antithesis of John McCain.
But just because Americans want something different, that doesn’t mean that the nation is trending leftward; indeed, as top Obama strategist David Axelrod remarked in Newsweek the other day, “I think right now people are in a pragmatic mood, not an ideological mood.” In other words, Obama is well-positioned to win not because of his liberal profile, but in spite of it.
I think Polman is right and I’m glad to see that Obama and his people seem to have the proper sense of the American mood: pragmatic not ideological.
The last thing we want to do is replace an era of conservative overreach for an era of liberal overreach. If Democrats are tone deaf enough to ignore the national mood in favor of a leftist agenda, I think their time in power will be very short lived.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Too f’ing bad. We get to do whatever we want when we control all three branches, just like the idiot neocons did. Suck on it Washington chattering class. Too bad you didn’t think the Republicans were overreaching for 6 years when they screwed everything up.
Of course the difference is that the Democrats are a big tent party, unlike the ideologically retarded Republicans, so by nature we are more measured and pragmatic than the losers.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I’m hoping for moderation. But then, I’m a centrist, anyway. So really, I just want everything to go my way. Knowing my luck, the government will go left where I want it to go right and right where I want it to go left.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well people dont want conservatism which has failed completely in governance these past eight years. The conservative party is going to be rejected overwhelmingly on tuesday. this means that what the people really want is more conservatism. We must always bow to conservatism because it is actually impossible to want anything else. Of course that things like health care reform and ending the war in iraq and regulating industry are “liberal” ideas and have broad support among the populace and are opposed by conservatives means nothing. Conservatism can never fail, you fail conservatism.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Watch Obama’s interviews carefully. His plans are pragmatic - not ideological. It won’t feel as good to the left base, but there will be no sticking it to the right ala Ed in NJ’s post (above). That’s why Obama is in charge and not Ed. Thank god.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Alan once again your post hits it right on the head. Ironically, Obama is slightly more conservative than I would prefer. But the problem is most democrats that are “powerful” are too liberal for me as well.
November 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Who are you speaking to? A lot of us in the center were pretty vocal in our opposition to the Republican excesses.
Gaucho: No one’s arguing that we need more conservativsim. Just that we need pragmatism. I really could care less if a good idea comes from the right or left. What I don’t want is the Democrats just following the default left position without consideration for what actually works and what the majority of people actually want. Ideological purity breeds inflexibility.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I see nothing wrong with liberalism. I’ve felt whats wrong with conservativism over the past 8 years in my wallet.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
A couple things: most like what we’ll see won’t be liberalism, it’ll be light progresso-socialism. And hey, if that’s what America wants, whatever. But the Dems have long abandoned liberalism (personal freedoms) in favor of social paternalism (the government knows what is best for the populace).
And to Gaucho, I’ve said it a lot on these boards, but you’re still confusing the Republican party with conservatism. The Republicans have devolved into an aimless mess over the last 8 years that has nearly nothing to do with conservatism. Even the term “neocon” is a gross misnomer. There’s plenty of “neo,” but very little “con.” I think beginning around 2010 we’re going to see a surge in conservatism which may or may not include the GOP.