|
The Myth of a Moderate Middle |
|
|
Thursday, 07 February 2008 |
How the Minority "Middle" Coalition Perpetuates Unpopular PolicyIn my last post, I showed the four quadrant political belief scale. I think this tool is a much more accurate descriptor of political beliefs and indentities than the traditional yet simplistic "left vs. right" paradigm. Left and right may be good ways to describe general business and economic policies, but they do not begin to address social issues and personal liberty issues. In the 2008 election, the left/right paradigm is failing to explain why liberal Obama and conservative Ron Paul agree on ending the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Most polls show the voting population oppose to these policies and programs, but the myth has been established that the "bipartisan middle" comes to overwhelmingly support any legislation related to expanding the government's spending. This "middle" is nothing more than the respective authoritarian wings of each party acting in coordination. 
The Middle here is the group that comes to agree on things that end up being unpopular with the general population - things that tend to be of a strategic nature and may or may not require undue sacrifice from the population in terms of wealth and liberty.
And here's what that chart looks like on the four-quadrant system
The
party leadership and majority of seats are typically held by more
authoritarian representatives - in general I'd think its safe to say
that politicians favor expansion of their own power more than the
voters do. 
(Sorry about the lack of scale) Although the left can carry the electoral majority, it is unlikely that reforms on these issues that are of importance to a majority of them will be accomplished. Hillary Clinton is running her campaign and attracting votes under the assumptions that she opposes the war and various forms of warrantless spying, but her voting record indicates otherwise. Her position in the Democratic party leadership and committee placement (and votes) in the Armed Services Committee suggest that she has a much more hawkish military policy than most of her supporters. Independents are all over the place Independent voters aren't necessarily the "moderates" either. A lack of faith in the existant parties isn't limited to liberals, conservatives, authoritarians, or libertarians. In some ways, independents tend to be extremists of their own right - intent to try new forms and systems of government that radically depart from the status quo.
Take for example that McCain and Obama have both experienced significant success from independent voters - yet they have almost nothing else in common. Viewed this way, they are drawing independents from opposite, extreme ends of the spectrum. It is generally accepted in major media that Ron Paul's independent supporters are extremists - so can the same be shown for the other candidate's drawing independent support? I believe so, because political parties tend to move toward each other and settle on a very similar policy. In this case of America's federal party system, it is a center-right authoritarian government with very little differentiaition in representation. .The problem is the American voting population tends to be economically centrist and slightly libertarian. Now, how do we synch the voting population to the type of government we have?
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 April 2008 )
|
