Democrats, Health Care Reform, And The Center
Jonathan Chait
TNR
March 22, 2010
Last week, my former editor Peter Beinart had an article in the Daily Beast arguing that the passage of health care reform would forever change the Democratic Party. Peter argued that the party has long been run by centrist strategists who believe that, in the fact of a presumably skeptical public, Democrats must hew close to the center and make it their highest priority to avoid provoking public ire. Their opponents, first organizing around Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy, countered that Democrats had more to risk by appearing wishy-washy, and could attract voters by displaying principle.
I think Peter oversimplifies the debate here in a lot of ways. Still, there's something to it. I think it's worth thinking through what we've learned from the health care triumph. I think it has altered Democratic thinking about political strategy, but hasn't completely overturned it.
The Clintonite political strategy was a hyper-vigilant application of what political scientists call "median voter theory." In a nutshell, the theory holds that the most powerful force in politics at any given moment is the voter in the center of the political spectrum. The party that hews closest to the center wins the allegiance of that median voter and wins the election. The Clintonite approach was to ruthlessly purge the party of any positions that alienated the center. Democrats would embrace capital punishment, welfare reform, middle-class tax cuts, and anything else they needed to do in order to avoid being stuck holding an unpopular position.
I would analogize this theory to the most simplistic, neoclassical economic theories, which envision an efficient economic system in which every individual maximizes his own utility. In the broad sense, the theory works pretty well. But there's enough friction, lack of information, and other problems that the system rarely works perfectly. And there are some rare occasions where it completely breaks down.
(More here.)
TNR
March 22, 2010
Last week, my former editor Peter Beinart had an article in the Daily Beast arguing that the passage of health care reform would forever change the Democratic Party. Peter argued that the party has long been run by centrist strategists who believe that, in the fact of a presumably skeptical public, Democrats must hew close to the center and make it their highest priority to avoid provoking public ire. Their opponents, first organizing around Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy, countered that Democrats had more to risk by appearing wishy-washy, and could attract voters by displaying principle.
I think Peter oversimplifies the debate here in a lot of ways. Still, there's something to it. I think it's worth thinking through what we've learned from the health care triumph. I think it has altered Democratic thinking about political strategy, but hasn't completely overturned it.
The Clintonite political strategy was a hyper-vigilant application of what political scientists call "median voter theory." In a nutshell, the theory holds that the most powerful force in politics at any given moment is the voter in the center of the political spectrum. The party that hews closest to the center wins the allegiance of that median voter and wins the election. The Clintonite approach was to ruthlessly purge the party of any positions that alienated the center. Democrats would embrace capital punishment, welfare reform, middle-class tax cuts, and anything else they needed to do in order to avoid being stuck holding an unpopular position.
I would analogize this theory to the most simplistic, neoclassical economic theories, which envision an efficient economic system in which every individual maximizes his own utility. In the broad sense, the theory works pretty well. But there's enough friction, lack of information, and other problems that the system rarely works perfectly. And there are some rare occasions where it completely breaks down.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home