Missing the point

Ed Kilgore at Democratic Strategist, who has been refreshingly readable in recent years, is back in the old DLC mode today with a silly argument attacking criticism of Obama's perceived move to the center. Basically Kilgore's case comes down to "Obama's not moving to the center, but if he is it's just because he's awesome, SHUT UP ARIANNA HUFFINGTON," and it's not really worth our time. (Especially his dreamy-eyed contention that Obama is a "remarkable man" who can operate outside existing political paradigms, which is startlingly credulous for a man of Kilgore's intellect and experience.) But there's one bit I do want to take issue with, because it's important -- it has to do with concepts of "swing voters." Kilgore writes:

Second of all, as the TDS Roundtable on swing and base voters earlier this year illustrated, there's plenty of disagreement about the definition and nature of "swing voters." They don't necessarily all reside in the ideological "center" of the electorate on every issue, and moreover, "base" voters don't necessarily have inconsistent or antagonistic points of view from "swing voters." The two things that are pretty hard to deny are that (1) undecided "very likely" voters are indeed a disproportionately important electoral prize because winning each of them produces two net votes, and (2) most successful campaigns in a competitive environment manage to energize the partisan base while expanding it into the ranks of independents and even the other party's base. Huffington's horror at swing-voter pandering, and her manifest contempt for swing voters themselves, probably reflects the fashionable but very dubious Lackoffian belief that swing voters are cognitively confused, perhaps even stupid or amoral people who can only be appealed to by an even more strongly expressed partisan "frame."

This is wrong on a very profound level, and it misunderstands both Lakoff and the entire political-strategy argument of the netroots (which Huffington is making a facile version of). If I can arrogantly presume to speak for Lakoffian progressives for a minute -- we don't think that swing voters are confused. We think they don't exist.

Longitudinal research has shown, consistently, that people who claim they are "independent" or "nonpartisan" or whatever overwhelmingly display identical voting patterns to partisan voters. They may not say they're affiliated, but they vote like they are. A few people are out there whose votes regularly switch from Democratic to Republican or vice versa depending on the election in front of them, but there are so few of them that they're politically and statistically insignificant; most are just partisans who won't admit it. What DOES actually define that self-identified nonpartisan group, meanwhile, is that they're predominantly lower-information voters who are much less engaged with the political process and turn out much less frequently. (Which makes sense: the more time you spend following politics, the more likely you are to take a side. It's not that they are "stupid and amoral," and frankly it's rather offensive that Kilgore put those words in Arianna Huffington's mouth. It's only that they're politically disengaged.)

Therefore, outcome-decisive changes over the course of an election, so often assumed by the best analysts to be the product of swing voters changing their minds, are more likely the product of these marginal voters deciding whether or not to vote. (Traditional polls, not being longitudinal, cannot measure this.) Hence a focus on turning out the "base"; there is nobody else to turn out! Of course that's a controversial thesis, and I imagine Kilgore and lots of other people disagree, but it sure makes more sense to me than the alternative (that elections are decided by a tiny cadre of cerebral David Brooksian independents who are somehow engaged in the political process yet fail to identify with a political group).

So even if we grant Kilgore the argument that Obama's not moving to the "center" per se in his pursuit of swing voters, it doesn't matter, because pursuing swing voters at ALL is a wild goose chase. The way to win those valuable marginal votes is to campaign confidently and persuasively, using -- here comes Lakoff -- a cognitive FRAME which can be easily adopted by voters who aren't particularly political in nature. Republicans have done very well since Reagan in establishing their frame (and winning over all kinds of marginal Democrats, both so-called independents and their "Reagan Democrat" cousins, in the process); Democrats are only starting to do so. (I'm beginning to think that Obama's "Change" thing is a good step in that direction, actually, which is for another post.)

From this perspective Obama's movements away from progressivism, then, actually do direct damage to both the Democratic voter coalition and to his own electoral prospects (which are closely tied), by cutting up the party's frame for no damn reason. Hence Arianna Huffington's outrage, and hence the netroots' frustration at those within the party who still (insanely) think nonpartisanship and "triangulation" is a route to victory. Kilgore's total failure to understand this, and to instead treat the argument like he's defending Obama from hordes of raging hippies, is a saddening reminder of how out-of-touch -- how ignorant -- DC-elite centrism is of the way politics works in real life. But what else is new?

Ed Kilgore: Close, But No Cigar

Ed Kilgore at Democratic Strategist takes apart an interesting NYT article about Democratic populism and economic policy. To my utter shock, I mostly agree with him, especially when he recognizes that Democrats are far more unified on economics than you'd guess from press coverage (which, he correctly notes, focuses to a fault on the trade argument -- while that is a hot issue, and one that illuminates clear divisions within the Democratic coalition, 1993 is over and it's hardly the whole kettle of fish anymore). This bit is good:

Meanwhile, it's simply not accurate to typecast Democrats as pro- or anti-trade. Yes, there are some highly visible "populists" who believe trade agreements are the single largest factor creating economic inequality and insecurity, and advocate repeal of past agreements along with systemic opposition to new ones. But as Will Marshall and Ed Gresser usefully pointed out in these pages recently, another Democratic faction, which they call "social democratic," favors an aggressive international economic strategy focused on emulating the high-wage, high-benefit policies of European nations, instead of reflexive opposition to trade and globalization. And in practice, many Democratic politicians and voters combine elements of all three of the "pro-trade," "populist," and "social democratic" philosophies.

There are obviously very large omissions in [the Times]'s picture of Democratic economic policies preferences. Democrats are united as never before in making universal access to health care; universal access to college; and a serious assault on global climate change, major goals for the party and for the country. They are equally committed to a broad and progressive income tax (not unimportant at a time when Republicans continue to flirt not only with regressive tax cuts, but with "flat tax" and national sales tax schemes); to reductions in corporate subsides and measure to insure corporate accountability; to a strengthening the social safety net; and to a restoration of the endangered right of workers to organize unions.

It's encouraging stuff, especially coming from a former DLCer; his attempts to unite the party rather than just demonize the left are atypical for someone of his background. But Kilgore hits the skids in his last paragraph:

Indeed, while maintaining an open atmosphere of intraparty debate, Democrats need to remember two fundamental facts that transcend factions: we are all "populists" now in opposing and seeking to reverse Republican policies aimed at entrenching wealth and privilege in every aspect of economic policy. And we are all "centrists" now in seeking to explain to the American people that their interests and the national interest have been subordinated to an ideological and partisan-power-building agenda which is far out of the mainstream of economic thought and practice.

Uh... how's that with the "centrists" again?

we are all "centrists" now in seeking to explain to the American people that their interests and the national interest have been subordinated to an ideological and partisan-power-building agenda which is far out of the mainstream of economic thought and practice.

That doesn't sound like something "centrists" say. That sounds like something Daily Kos diarists say. If being "centrist" means you recognize that the Bush-Republican position is extreme and dangerous, then centrism encompasses everyone in this country left of Mussolini.

In fact, look again at the positions Kilgore lays out, especially in conjunction with the points Robin Toner makes in her article -- Democrats are uniting behind things like social safety nets, progressive tax, high minimum wages, unions & job security, etc. These are not characteristically centrist positions -- these border on socialist positions. Centrism, in the sense of fiscal caution and dedication to the free market, is largely anathema to the economic agenda today's Democrats are laying out.

So I tend to think that Kilgore's argument there is informed by a bit of wishful thinking, or maybe just a stab at some old-fashioned swing-voter-palatable spin, in saying that Democratic centrism and populism have somehow merged. They have not: populism has won, at least for the time being, and is clearly the dominant mode of Democratic economic argument today. I personally think Democrats are better off for it -- that's a different debate -- but we should all at least realize where we are on the issues, as a party, and not get lost in inaccurate labels.