I think it would be a great tragedy . . . if we had our two major political parties divide on what we would call a conservative-liberal line.” He continued, “I think one of the attributes of our political system has been that we have avoided generally violent swings in Administrations from one extreme to the other. And the reason we have avoided that is that in both parties there has been room for a broad spectrum of opinion.” Therefore, “when your Administrations come to power, they will represent the whole people rather than just one segment of the people.

I love this quote. I can't believe who said it, but according to the New Yorker, this is from Richard Nixon in 1959, when he was just 46 years old.

Unfortunately, I think he describes a bygone era. The middle-ground of our political spectrum is now a World War I no man's land where no politician can hope to survive. Parties may go over the top to try and capture some of that ground, but that's temporary, and we are left with to extremes shooting at each other over a scorched earth middle ground no man's land.

Am I wrong?

Yes, I'd say you're wrong. Look beneath the rhetoric and the two parties stances on social issues and is there really such a big difference between them ? When viewed from Europe what you see is two parties characterised by slightly differing shades of conservatism. If there exists such a thing as a left wing in American politics then it certainly isn't well represented in Congress.

I disagree too (cross-posted with a more succinct Sassenach response)

What you actually have is two parties who are not actually that far apart, but where the key differences are becoming so acute that it appears to take up an entire spectrum. It's not just the middle ground that is being excluded. It's also some of the more left wing (social democracy is not something I see much of from the Democrats, regardless of claims from their opponents) and right wing (Ron Paul and the libertarians are hardly part of mainstream Republican thinking, they are an insurgency from without) that are stuck.

The Democrats have not moved left, and are afraid to because they might lose support from the middle. The Republicans may believe they can win by lurching to the socially conservative side of the right, but that would mean compromise on the economic side - hence Gingrich attacking Romney for being too much of a capitalist.

What you are getting is two powerful but narrowing camps. The overlap in the middle has diminished (although there are some Dems and Reps who would not be out of place in the other Party), and people in the middle are as a result in two different places. But so are people all around.

This is also cyclical. The thing about the decades between WWI and the 1970s is that both parties were in transition across the political spectrum as the axis of debate changed. The Democrats had been the established party of privilege and the Republicans had been the radicals. Democrats dominated the socially conservative South and Republicans the more liberal North. But with the Depression, the Civil Rights struggle and other big debates of the time, they passed each other by. So in the 1950s, they were both all over the place, with liberal and conservative wings and significant areas of common ground.

The irony is that Nixon, quoted above, was part of the process, adopting the 'Southern Strategy'.

It's not new, by the way. The older party systems in the USA also had entrenched two-party systems with a sharp divide between them.

Sassenach wrote:Yes, I'd say you're wrong. Look beneath the rhetoric and the two parties stances on social issues and is there really such a big difference between them ? When viewed from Europe what you see is two parties characterised by slightly differing shades of conservatism. If there exists such a thing as a left wing in American politics then it certainly isn't well represented in Congress.

Thanks. I've always said as much myself, but I think I may have gotten caught up in the rhetoric of this year's contest. I'm paying attention more than ever to the Republican Primary and, man, some of that rhetoric is harsh.

Got to love that Nixon quote, though.

I was watching an interview of a reporter from the New Yorker who did a story on the Obama Presidency using decision memos over time. Anyway, the relevant point to this topic is that the reporter said it used to be true that for instance the six most conservative Democrats in the Senate were more conservative than the six most liberal Republicans. Now the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican. Similar findings hold true for the House, according to the reporter. If true, it would indicate perhaps an unheard of level of polarization and does not bode well for the Congress solving any major problem given the lack of any swing vote.

Oh, I do mourn the passing of the Rockefeller Republican. Some say they're still seen deep in the woods of Maine, but even if there is still one or two out there, they are certainly not long for this world.

geojanes wrote:Oh, I do mourn the passing of the Rockefeller Republican. Some say they're still seen deep in the woods of Maine, but even if there is still one or two out there, they are certainly not long for this world.

I'm probably one. And I know a few as well.

There are probably millions of them, but they find it hard to get elected to Congress.