You might be a progressive if: The president of the United States is up for reelection, looking for every headwind he can find, and yet he doesn't show up for your party and you say that means nothing, because it's your party.
Did Wisconsin progressives really believe this? Who knows. But obviously the White House knew perhaps the only truth that Scott Walker told in the last few days: The cavalry isn't coming to progressives' rescue, because the progs are hopelessly surrounded. As Ezra Klein notes this morning, "Before the vote, the Real Clear Politics average of polls showed Walker up by 6.7 percent. He won by seven percent." Woe to those who laugh in the face of lethal statistics. The White House didn't.
Here's another stat, from exit polling, and again, rather lethal. Only 21 percent of Tuesday's turnout declared itself "liberal" (of which 86 percent went for Barrett). And year after year, Gallup's polling of ideological self-identification has revealed an American electorate that is ... 21 percent liberal.
From this, let's connect two loose yet incomprehensibly unconnected dots. Today's progressives are essentially yesterday's conservatives, battling to preserve the New Deal-Great Society status quo. Contemporary conservatives, on the other hand, aren't really conservatives; they are reactionary radicals. Now, if one wishes to win popular elections, one might also wish to identify with the vast majority, which in modern America's case self-declares as roughly 80 percent moderate-conservative. OK ... and I'm trying my best to say this calmly ... if your political policies reflect a conservative ideology of stability, tradition, continuity and preservation ... then ... Why don't you call your team conservative?
This is not a malappropriation of terms or some diabolical deceit of Orwellian twists. It's bloody reality. You are the conservative. The other guys are radicals. So claim your proper identification and run it through the opposition like crap through a goose. If radicals can call themselves conservatives, so can conservatives. Right?
You could not be more correct!
Thanks for putting a point on the pencil.
Posted by: Susan Zoon | June 06, 2012 at 08:48 AM
I am living, breathing proof that you are correct. Long-time Republican party operative and bureaucrat who has voted Democratic for the past decade -- and on "conservative" grounds.
Conservatives have respect for culture, history, traditions and institutions. And in America those are all "liberal." That is why Professor Clinton Rossiter called American conservatism the "thankless persuasion." What today's Tea Party conservatives are instead are the old blood and soil reactionaries from Europe, protecting class distinctions and the powers of the established Church.
Many of my generation who came of age during the 1970s identified ourselves as conservative because the system -- the liberal democratic system -- seemed under assault from the counterculturalists of the 1960s. I've come to respect that earlier generations objectives much more than I did at the time, but it was the protection of the liberal demcoratic order that made me a conservative back then, and makes me a liberal now trying to defend the republic from the new theocratic oligarchy that's trying to take over.
Posted by: Ted Frier | June 06, 2012 at 09:41 AM
First, let me say that I am no fan of Bill Clinton - on many lvels. Having said that, last night, I watched a replay of segments of his Monday night speech. He was brilliant in explaining why Obama be allowed to continue leading the economic recovery. He even tied the GOP approach to "Old Europe" with the austerity approach.
And he made the case for protecting the current institutions. I have also argued for Bill Clinton to make the case for "conservatism". With all due respect to PM, good ole Bill did not fall into the trap of arguing for the word, "conservative". He simply was conservative.
And I honestly kept thinking to myself the whole time, "No wonder Hillary keeps taking him back."
I also picked up on another of his techniques. Everyone assumes he is the smartest guy in the room. So, he never argues or preaches. He just lets you in on these little secrets he has learned - like a favorite uncle showing you how to throw a curve ball. So, he teold evryone that he still studies world economics every day - trying to keep up with things, and noted that the GOP wants to go back to W's policies that got us here. He embraced balanced budgets and then "modestly" reminded everyone of his record on that. he slowly turned around and took everyone by the hand to explain that while balanced budgets are very important and Obama will get tot hem, it is more urgent to get the economy growing jobs first. he smiled and shared a little bit of information he has learned lately: If you want to see what austerity policies will do, look at the Euro-Zone. With a gentle chuckle, he reminded everyone that for years and years, the GOP has mocked "Old Europe". Now, they want to follow their lead.
Oh, those silly gooses.
Just brilliant.
he was the conservative and didn't have to use the word.
No wonder Hillary keeps taking him back.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | June 06, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Yes, I agree we are the conservatives now. Every time a republican wants to roll back a gun law or impose a new way to probe into womens' bodies so we have no power over ourselves I just want to stand up and shout "STOP!" as loud as I can. I wonder what they would do if we started calling them the new liberals?
Posted by: AnneJ | June 06, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Many people don't identify themselves as liberals, not because they don't believe in liberal concepts, but because the term liberal was redefined by Republicans starting in the 80's and liberals never fought against that redefinition. The term "liberal" became a four letter word.
However, if you presented basic liberal policies to people and ask if they agreed or disagreed with them, far more than 21% would do so.
It is true that people tend to prefer stability over change, consistency over unpredictability, tradition over replacement of tradition.
Yet, most people agree with the recent changes the ACA brings, even though they disagree with the act as a whole because it has been painted as "liberal" if not worse.
Liberal used to be the radical and in many peoples' minds it still is.
Posted by: japa21 | June 06, 2012 at 11:10 AM
@Robert: Great points, as always.
@Ted: Well said.
And for PM: a great, even-handed and SMART analysis--free of the hair-pulling and caterwauling.
Posted by: Marc McKenzie | June 06, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Oh, and one more thing...here comes Dave Lindorff to blame the whole thing on....you guessed it, President Obama.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Facing-Facts-in-Wisconsin-by-Dave-Lindorff-120606-32.html
You don't have to read it, of course, if you wish not to lose your lunch.
Posted by: Marc McKenzie | June 06, 2012 at 01:59 PM
If 86% of liberals voted for Barrett, that means 14% voted for Walker. 14%!!! 14% of 21% equals enough votes to have reduced Walker's margin of victory by about 86%! What thought passed through these people's brains before it died of loneliness? Probably that recalls are unfair and icky. Walker won because his supporters wanted it more. What we have here is an army that won't fight and bitches that nobody wants to be its general.
Posted by: mdblanche | June 06, 2012 at 11:55 PM