It takes no special insight to notice the extreme polarization in the U.S. political landscape. Congress is expressly comprised of the extreme right and the somewhat extreme left with nary a moderate in sight. But then we have Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush leading the pack for the 2016 presidential race.
I find that disheartening. Neither candidate truly represents today's divided America--Jeb is warmed-over Mitt Romney and is only a few notches to the right of center. Hillary is a couple of clicks to the left and hardly a liberal in most senses of the word.
The conventional wisdom says that by running moderate, non-extreme candidates, your team has a better chance of winning the crossover vote and the undecideds. I disagree. I don't really believe there's much crossover in the U.S. today and no one is undecided--those who say they are just want attention paid to them by pollsters.
And, that philosophy doesn't work in practice. Obama, a perceived liberal (though he's not!) beat so-called moderates in John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, a staunch conservative beat a relatively moderate Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton, a perceived liberal (though he really wasn't!), beat a moderate G.W. Bush.
Plus, it seems that America responds to those who truly take a stand, whether it's on the Tea Party right or tree-hugger left. If that's the case, the Republicans may have a better chance of winning if they ignore the crossovers and go with a more radical approach, such as a Rubio or Cruz rather than sticking with a milquetoast Bush.
By the same token, who really needs another triangulating Clinton on the Democratic ticket? Democrats should wear their liberal, progressive badge with pride and go with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
That would finally give America a real choice, scare the partisans on both sides into voting, and inject our electoral politics with some needed adrenalin.
I find that disheartening. Neither candidate truly represents today's divided America--Jeb is warmed-over Mitt Romney and is only a few notches to the right of center. Hillary is a couple of clicks to the left and hardly a liberal in most senses of the word.
The conventional wisdom says that by running moderate, non-extreme candidates, your team has a better chance of winning the crossover vote and the undecideds. I disagree. I don't really believe there's much crossover in the U.S. today and no one is undecided--those who say they are just want attention paid to them by pollsters.
And, that philosophy doesn't work in practice. Obama, a perceived liberal (though he's not!) beat so-called moderates in John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, a staunch conservative beat a relatively moderate Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton, a perceived liberal (though he really wasn't!), beat a moderate G.W. Bush.
Plus, it seems that America responds to those who truly take a stand, whether it's on the Tea Party right or tree-hugger left. If that's the case, the Republicans may have a better chance of winning if they ignore the crossovers and go with a more radical approach, such as a Rubio or Cruz rather than sticking with a milquetoast Bush.
By the same token, who really needs another triangulating Clinton on the Democratic ticket? Democrats should wear their liberal, progressive badge with pride and go with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
That would finally give America a real choice, scare the partisans on both sides into voting, and inject our electoral politics with some needed adrenalin.
No comments:
Post a Comment