Yup, it’s a repost, just because I think we need to hear it again.
One game liberals play is to move the goalposts by changing what words mean. They do this all the time, but those I’m concerned with here are terms that identify where you fall on the political spectrum. With the Democrats shifting further to the left, they have shifted the meanings along the spectrum — after all, only conservatives identify someone like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan as a leftist or far-leftist, whereas the Democrats happily embrace them as their own.
Let’s look at the current rhetoric about the SCOTUS appointees. Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, they all keep referring to “mainstream America” as they defend their pro-judicial activist position and object to the court nominee. “Mainstream,” then, means “liberal” (and in this particular context, refers mostly to abortion, so “mainstream” means here pro-abortion). Democrats have moved “mainstream” with them leftward along the political spectrum.
They learned in 1980 that the word “liberal” doesn’t get them any voters — indeed, the McGovern party knocked them out of the White House for 12 years, and Clinton only got elected because he presented himself as a moderate. After the 2000, then 2002, then 2004 elections, Democrats talked endlessly about how they needed to learn to talk to voters, as if the words they used, and not the political agenda, were the problem.
Then there’s the myth of the American moderate, the belief that this represents the bulk of Americans. This myth is often made even more confusing (and untrue) by conflating “moderate” with “independent,” even though “independent” describes someone who feels no particular affiliation to a party, and says nothing about where he falls on the political spectrum.
And of course, everyone to the right of “mainstream” and “moderate” is an “extremist.”
However, let’s look at the results of the latest battleground poll (warning: PDF file). The original question:
D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be . (READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)
| Very conservative |
21% |
| Somewhat conservative |
40% |
| Moderate |
2% |
| Somewhat liberal |
27% |
| Very liberal |
8% |
| Refused/unsure |
2% |
Since it’s not clear where the line falls between “somewhat” and “very,” let’s conflate the above:
| Conservative |
61% |
| Moderate |
2% |
| Liberal |
35% |
| Refused/unsure |
2% |
This presents a very different picture from Democrat rhetoric, which holds liberalism to be “mainstream.” While 35% is not a trivial section of the population, a full 61%, a clear majority, identify themselves as conservative. Now, any reasonable, honest observer would conclude that conservatives, by their majority number, form the mainstream — and not liberals. But Democrats must continue to try to present themselves as representing the majority, because this is the only source of credibility they have, and the only source they have used since FDR. If they truly were a populist party as they claim, they would reflect the conservatism of the majority of voters.
Little needs to be said about political moderates, since only 2% of voters — the same number that either refused to answer or did not know where they fell politically — identified as “moderates.” Only in the very tightest races would a candidate need to appeal to this segment of the political spectrum.
But while we’re looking at the survey, let’s look at the original results, and compare those who identify as very conservative (21%) to those who identify as very liberal (8%). Not only does this support the concept that the American mainstream is further to the right than the Democrats believe, but when compared to the stats for somewhat conservative and liberal, it shows that those who identify as very liberal form 22.9% of the liberal base, while those who identify as very conservative form 34.4% of the conservative base.
The “very liberal,” then, are more properly called “extremists” or “the fringe” than are the “very conservative,” and that is without taking into account the fact that most Americans identify themselves as conservatives.
Save these stats. You may want to use them the next time some liberal tries to claim that he is a “populist” or that conservatives are “extremists.”
So what does this mean for conservatives?
Let’s look again at those data from the latest battleground poll:
D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be . (READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)
| Very conservative |
21% |
| Somewhat conservative |
40% |
| Moderate |
2% |
| Somewhat liberal |
27% |
| Very liberal |
8% |
| Refused/unsure |
2% |
And here are the conflated data:
| Conservative |
61% |
| Moderate |
2% |
| Liberal |
35% |
| Refused/unsure |
2% |
And here are the percentages for the “fringe” groups (calculated by dividing the percentage of each group by the conflated percentage):
| Very conservative |
34.4% |
| Very liberal |
22.9% |
Liberals love polls, even when they’re irrelevant — such as a President’s approval rating (hint for liberals: only unprincipled executives govern by the polls, you know, like Clinton). But since the Dhimmicrats are always crowing about the polls, let’s see how we can and cannot interpret those polls in the context of our battleground poll data.
Of course, the Demorats interpret the poll results, both for the Iraq War and the President, to mean that America is turning into a nation of socialist hippie peaceniks. However, if 61% of the population identifies themselves as conservatives, and a little over a third of them identify as very conservative, then this is (cough, cough) unlikely.
So why might someone be dissatisfied with the President, the direction the nation is headed, or the War on Terror if not because he wears birkenstocks and marches in pro-terrorist peacenik protests?
Given that President Bush is not a conservative, any more than Nixon or Bush.41 was a conservative, and given that Bush has expanded, instead of reduced, the size of government, and given that contrary to the liberal MSM spin we have handled Iraq with kid gloves, one could reasonably conclude that these are valid explanations for a large number of those negative poll results — remembering, again, that 61% of the populace is conservative, and 34.4% of the conservatives are very conservative. And given that only 35% of the population is liberal, and only 22.9% of liberals call themselves very liberal, the usual spin cannot be assumed.
In other words: Being unhappy with the results in Iraq does not translate into wanting to pull out immediately or disapproving of the War on Terror in Iraq.
In other words: Being unhappy with the direction of the nation does not translate into wanting more of a socialist state (especially in light of the fact that Bush has expanded the welfare state).
In other words: Being unhappy with the President does not translate into a vote for Cindy Sheehan in 2008.
Now, let’s look at that last one, the President’s dip in approval ratings. Here’s what you won’t see from the Demorats: Ratings fell sharply right after George nominated Miers (after she withdrew and Bush nominated Alito, they have started to rise).
That tells us that it probably wasn’t only the “religious right” or the “extremists” who were unhappy with the Miers appointment, as Reid, Boxer, Schumer, or Durbin claim. It was a significant section of the conservative base, you know, that 61% of the population. The fact that his numbers are starting to rise again supports the interpretation that those voters are happier with Alito — you know, that awful man who will take us back to the Stone Age, according to Ted (hick! burp!) Kennedy.
It tells us the Dhimmicrats are probably even more out of touch than they seem.
Finally, what do these polls tell us conservatives that could help us in the next two elections?
Keep in mind that these are only possible interpretations, though they are much more likely given the results of the latest battleground poll than the liberal interpretations. But having said that, these results tell us we most likely don’t need to fight for the “moderate” vote, nor do we need to appeal to “liberal” voters. They tell us that it is likely that many (not just a few “fringe” voters) are not happy with the liberal direction in which Bush has steered the nation, and that the party should drop the outdated notion that “moderate” candidates win, and support real conservative candidates — fiscally conservative, as well as socially conservative candidates. Toomey, not Specter. Of course, it’s not realistic to always support the more conservative candidate in every race, because different areas are, well, different (for example, while Paynard would be right at home in Indiana as a conservative, he’s too conservative to win in Pennsylvania, especially running against Lynn Swann in the primary). Still, the party needs to start being conservative, and supporting conservatives who believe that the wings of the federal government and SCOTUS need to be clipped, instead of supporting fiscal liberals.
And it tells us that the further to the left the Democrats move, the better it is for us.
