I Remember Liberal Republicans

I used to be a Republican.  I cut the teeth of my political views in the 1970’s when terms like “Liberal Republican” (e.g. Nelson Rockefeller) and “Conservative Democrat” (in Minnesota, anyway – what I interpreted to be the “Farmer” faction of the DFL) were not oxymorons.  I even attended the 1976 Republican National Convention which was the last time a major party nomination was in any shadow of a doubt going into the convention.  I laugh today when I hear conservative pundits talk of Ronald Reagan’s principled ideals. They seem to forget that in a last ditch effort to gain the nomination in ’76 Reagan announced that liberal Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker would be his running mate.

Over the course of the past 35 years, although I have continued to learn from experience and other people, I don’t think my basic political views have changed much.  As Jerry Ford was known to say late in his life, “I didn’t leave the party - the party left me.”  How did it happen?  It takes a political analyst with more time to think about it than I have to sort that out but I have some ideas.   I have always believed that history is our greatest teacher, and to determine how to move forward we need a better understanding of how we got into the present situation. 

Reagan was conservative but he was also pragmatic – an attribute we seem to now vilify.  It is somewhat ironic that in the process of losing the nomination in 1976 Reagan probably undercut enough of Ford’s support to cost him the election and then gave himself a better shot at the office four years later.  Jimmy Carter was a ripe target after his first term.  Losing in ’76 opened a bigger door for Reagan in 1980 than he would have had with a Ford victory. 

George W. Bush made people forget that his father was classified as a moderate Republican.  The senior Bush ran for the party nomination against Reagan in 1980 on that basis (remember the term, “voodoo economics”?).  But Reagan pragmatism did not prevent Bush from being selected as his Vice Presidential mate, and lacking pure conservative ideals did not disqualify Bush as the party nominee in 1988. 

Which brings us to the person who I believe is more responsible for the political extremism dominant today than any other individual – Bill Clinton.  Set aside kingmakers like Rove and Clinton’s own Carville, and recognize Bill Clinton as arguably the greatest political genius of our time.  In 1992 he ran one of the most brilliant campaigns for President in history.  He elevated negative messaging to new heights.  “It’s the economy, stupid” was ingenious in that the economy at the time was really not that bad.  Say something often enough and well enough and people will believe it to be true.  He overtook a moderate incumbent who less than two years before had been pulling incredible popularity numbers.  And, Clinton selected someone to his left as his running mate, Al Gore.  The 1992 Presidential election set the stage for future contests between extremists, especially after another moderate, Bob Dole, crashed in his attempt to unseat Clinton in 1996.

Bill Clinton’s two terms led us to the nexus of the current age of political extremism – the 2000 presidential election - the first since 1964 between two candidates of such opposing political ideologies.  Of course, that election was decided in the courts and over ten years later the scars remain.  In fairness, George W. Bush was never given a chance to effectively lead.  Irrespective of his weaknesses there has been no newly elected President in my lifetime who inherited a nation so politically divided and a major portion looking to undermine him.  I don’t think the enmity he was subjected to was as much about Bush as it was the situation.  Had the chads hung the other way and Gore won that election he would have suffered under the same burden.

Since 2000, positions have hardened at the poles.  Pragmatism and compromise is increasingly viewed as a weakness, and we have entered into a mindless cycle where election results (not necessarily the electorate) swing from one extreme to another.  Once again, the people who truly agree with the extremes don’t change – they vote the party line every time.  It’s The Middle Majority that is deciding the elections but finding no representation in the results. Only partisan rancor and ineptness from elected leaders failing to compromise and govern, especially on a civilized basis.  The pendulum swung the full extreme, left to right, between the November 2008 and 2010 elections.  Here in Wisconsin with the debacle of the last month just now fading slightly, it is clear it is already starting to swing back.  Finding a way to shed ourselves of this cycle defines our challenge.  My belief is the only possibility of interrupting it is for The Middle Majority to emerge on its own right instead of swinging its support between opposite poles that care only about our votes at election time and nothing about our views when it is time to govern.  The practical obstacles to achieving that are considerable.  To start with, we need leadership where the people are – in The Middle Majority. 

The Middle Majority

The ironic dilemma in the governance of America today is that the majority of Americans who reside in the political center and are deciding elections have only extremist options to select from and remain largely unrepresented. 

Last fall in Wisconsin we elected Republican Scott Walker as our Governor.  I voted for him.  Walker was elected with a 52% majority.  Had 61,576 people out of nearly 2.2 million voters changed their votes, Walker would have lost to his Democratic opponent, Tom Barrett. 

Many of those 61,576 people, including me, voted for Walker’s predecessor in 2006, Democrat Jim Doyle.  It’s these 61,578 people, and thousands of others like us who are deciding elections.  We represent The Middle Majority – those persuaded not by rigid and narrow political ideals at the far left and right of the political spectrum, but by a combination from each with votes cast on the basis of what we believe, the critical needs of the day, and by what we perceive to be the character and goals of the individual candidate.  Those voters who support the ideals of the conservative and liberal poles vote the party line, and do so virtually every time.  The dramatic swing by the electorate between 2008 and 2010 makes it obvious that, more than ever before, it is The Middle Majority deciding elections. 

Isn’t it ironic then that the political alternatives we are presented with come only from the extremes leaving The Middle Majority effectively unrepresented?   Winners elected by The Middle Majority who represented the balance of our viewpoints then declare they have a mandate associated with their extremist views.  They effectively alienate those of us who really decided their election (not the extremists they side with who have that illusion).  In that alienation they insult The Middle Majority who then swing their votes the other way the next time around.  And in the current state of 24 hour news channels and social media it occurs quickly.  It happened to President Obama and the Democrats after 2008 and is in the process with Governor Walker and the Republicans – and other Republican ’10 victors across the country.  Arrogance and governance is not an attractive combination.  People can smell it, and they react to it.  We want our public officials to be smart, humble, pragmatic and willing to compromise in order to allow progress to occur.  But in the political warfare between the polar extremists we get arrogance, rigid idealism, and competitive rancor but precious little progress. 

Anarchy is, by definition,  “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.”  If that doesn’t perfectly describe the State of Wisconsin this past month I don’t know what does.  Revolutionary ultimatums issued with unreasonable deadlines.  Elected Senators flee the state to avoid voting (what we elect them to do).  A State Capitol turned into what closely resembles a trashy campground.  Members of the State Assembly in orange tee shirts employing delay tactics for 61 straight hours to avoid an inevitable result. Arcane and seldom-used parliamentary maneuvers that force a vote without adequate notice.  They call this democracy?  I want my government to be as dignified as it is effective and this is neither.  This is nothing more that anarchy delivered by elected officials.   As my Mother used to say, they are all brats and ought to be spanked.

Popular view has it that the lobbyists for corporate, union and industrial interests pumping the money driving elections is the root of the evil we have created.  Not entirely untrue, but more directly it is the party machines that are driven by that money at the heart of the problem.  I used to favor more rigid campaign finance reform that limited the corporate, industrial and union impact in order to enhance that of the individual.  I no longer hold that view.  What I now believe is that it is the party machine serving as the engine and it is it that which needs to be disrupted.  Special interest money should be forced to flow directly to the individual candidates whose views support those interests and party idealist should not be empowered to select winners and losers through the allocation of funds to favored candidates.  In reality, it is primarily the obligation to party that corrupts our elected officials. 

It is not enough to declare ourselves Independents.  In the current mechanism “Independents,” even though they may actually represent majority thinking, are effectively neutered from political influence.  It’s time to capture the combined power of the millions of us who hold views independent of either controlling party and mobilize it into an organized force – The Middle Majority.