Will the Far Left Be Impotent, but the Far Right Have Influence, in 2008? (US Pres)

[Pangloss]

It's interesting that the current situation with the candidates has produced a situation where the leading Democratic candidates are seen as moderates and the leading Republican candidates are seen as unable to win. You can put whatever spin on that you like (and I've read some darned interesting speculation), but one thing it suggests to me is that the extremes on the right will be more empowered over the next year than the extremes on the far left.

 

But is this real influence, or just a temporary condition? Will far-right conservatives lose that influence once a clear front-runner emerges from the Republican pool (lake? ocean?) of candidates? And will the far left rally and find a way to exert influence during the run-up to the primaries (which are now only six months off)?

 

Here's a quote from an article on MSNBC about Fred Thompson jumping into the race that underscore the situation:

 

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, just 53% of Republicans are satisfied with their presidential choices (compared with 78% of Democrats who say they are).

 

In addition, as Business Week reported, there is plenty of uncommitted GOP Ranger/Pioneer money out there for Thompson to gobble up (many of whom were on a conference call yesterday with Thompson).

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18938109/

 

<<Boilerplate On>> "Far left" in mainstream discourse (which is what we have here) refers to the general sweep of organizations and individuals encompassed by Air America, Al Franken, MoveOn.org, George Soros, et al. Note that this is not a condemnation or attempt to marginalize these individuals, who play an important role in the national political landscape. <<Boilerplate off.>>

[ecoli]

It'll certianly be interesting to see how split the republican primary will be. At least, is some candidate doesn't make a strong statement.

 

 

It's interesting though, because I remember hearing poles that several of the republican candidates where farther ahead than either Hilary or Obama. If this is true (I don't have a source) why would the republicans be less satisfied with their candidates?

[Sisyphus]

It seems that the Democratic Party, which has been somewhat lost and divided for a while now, is finally starting to resettle itself as the party of moderation. The Republican Party, however, which after 9/11 solidified itself very firmly unusually far right, is now pretty much in shambles and struggling to redefine itself, wherein even individual candidates don't seem sure whether they're moderate or radical. (Granted, a lot of that is probably just the same old pre-primary maneuvering and noncommital, but still.) Everything is still very much in the air for the GOP, and it remains to be seen how much influence various factions will end up with. If the radicals win out, we might see significant realignment and defection. On the other hand, if the Democrats don't throw the far left a bone, will there be a Green Party resurgence? Or did Democrats learn such a harsh lesson in 2000 with Florida and Nader that they'll be more immune to desertion?

[John Cuthber]

As far as I recall, the US hasn't had a far left to be impotent or anything else.

[Pangloss]

As far as I recall, the US hasn't had a far left to be impotent or anything else.

 

Since you said "as far as I recall" instead of "in my opinion", I feel compelled to respond that the generally-accepted view is that this country has an extremely active and organized "far left", which has been bolstered in recent years by the politics of the Bush administration. You may not feel that it's far enough left for your political views, but in terms of objective political observation that statement has to be viewed as a personal opinion (and you're welcome to continue to express it here).

 

<<Boilerplate On>> "Far left" in mainstream discourse (which is what we have here) refers to the general sweep of organizations and individuals encompassed by Air America, Al Franken, MoveOn.org, George Soros, et al. Note that this is not a condemnation or attempt to marginalize these individuals, who play an important role in the national political landscape. <<Boilerplate off.>>

 

(Boilerplate added to OP.)

[Pangloss]

It seems that the Democratic Party, which has been somewhat lost and divided for a while now, is finally starting to resettle itself as the party of moderation.

 

I hope so, although the post from John Cuthber above goes right to the heart of my next point, which is that there will be very vocal, strenuous opposition to that moderatization. The far left has spent the last several years activating, modernizing and mobilizing, and they're not about to toss that on the fire just for the sake of winning the office. They'll support, but they won't be happy about it.

 

I think this country is about to discover that the far left can be just as stubborn and ornery as the far right. They stand every chance of undermining the Hillary Clinton campaign, for example, and could well do the same to Obama.

 

 

The Republican Party, however, which after 9/11 solidified itself very firmly unusually far right, is now pretty much in shambles and struggling to redefine itself, wherein even individual candidates don't seem sure whether they're moderate or radical. (Granted, a lot of that is probably just the same old pre-primary maneuvering and noncommital, but still.) Everything is still very much in the air for the GOP, and it remains to be seen how much influence various factions will end up with. If the radicals win out, we might see significant realignment and defection. On the other hand, if the Democrats don't throw the far left a bone, will there be a Green Party resurgence? Or did Democrats learn such a harsh lesson in 2000 with Florida and Nader that they'll be more immune to desertion?

 

I'd say that's a pretty good assessment. I still don't see a lot of movement towards a third party, especially one based on a more extreme position (so sorry Al Franken fans!). But there has definitely been a lot more interest in the Greens and the Libertarians of late. No question about it.

[jackson33]

unfortunately, IMO, there are no viably electable republican candidates to choose from. even Fred Thompson, would come close politically but standing next to his wife, would be rejected by the majority of the women and many of the men from the solid base. another person, even more fitting would be Newt G., which has much the same problem.

 

unless some one comes out of the woodwork, which i do not see happening Hillary has the election to lose. if she fails the primary system, which i don't see happening, a true conservative republican with little baggage pops up then this scenario IMO is 75% probable. worse than this in my view, she will have a democratic congress, to get many of her social programs started.

 

i am basing this more on the immigration issue, then the war, however both are so confusing the media and public have ignored the economy which has long been the judge of a parties success....

[John Cuthber]

"Since you said "as far as I recall" instead of "in my opinion", I feel compelled to respond that the generally-accepted view is that this country has an extremely active and organized "far left"..."

I accept that that is, as you say, the generally accepted view in your country.

Like roughly 95% of the world's population I don't live in your country. I'm not sure that my opinion is not more generally representative of the world as a whole, though I accept I have done no research on this.

[Pangloss]

All well and good, John, but not relevent to this discussion.

[Phi for All]

After eight years of a self-styled "moderate" administration, even the far left should be tickled blue to have a true moderate elected. I would hope even the most radical lefty would understand that another 50/50 election is the last thing this country needs.

 

I hope a lot of Republicans actually do figure their candidates are "unable to win" (and I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed; I'm *that* tired of close call elections). The two-party system creates a need to back the winner in many who aren't platform voters. We have some tricky waters to negotiate in the next decade or so, diplomatically and militarily, and globally right now I think we're about as politically seaworthy as an NBA center in a kayak.

[Pangloss]

Wouldn't that be a nice world to live in? I'm gonna send you a flower to put in your hair, Phi.

 

Love the NBA-center-in-a-kayak-image. Hillarious! Quite right, of course, or at least that's how I see it.

[bascule]

Yeah, this whole thread is basically a roundabout way of saying "the right" is in shambles while "the left" has their ducks in a row. So while "the left" has their choice of candidates, "the right" may very well end up voting for a moderate Democrat. Fortunately, the Democratic frontrunner is a moderate aiming for the middle of the middle (Obama)

 

So yes, "the far right" may very well influence which "leftist" candidate ends up being president, because the neocon candidate on "the right" may very well have deviated more from "the right" than the moderate Democratic candidate.

 

And thus we run into the problem of labels like "the left", "the right", "the far left", "the far right", etc. But of course I've complained about such labels and the inherent category fallacy they present on many occasions.

[Pangloss]

I'm kinda on the horns of a dilemma in a sense when that last subject comes up, because while I agree with the sentiment, I also enjoy following political matters, and as such I get a reward out of observing an obvious left-right bias in the country. But it's a bit like cheering at gladiatorial games -- kinda leaves you sick to your stomach afterwards.

 

Anyway I agree with the point that the left is better organized than the right at the moment. But interestingly, an ABC News poll came out today that showed that supports for Democrats has fallen dramatically over the last month, mostly over the issue of the War in Iraq. The percentage of respondants who felt that the Democrats were stronger on Iraq fell below 50%, as did the percentage who felt they would be best suited to get us out. Overall leadership advantage has also fallen to a dead heat with Republicans.

 

It's worth noting that Republicans haven't gained ground; Democrats have only lost it. In other words, public opinion about Washington in general has fallen since the election. This is not unusual in this post-election time frame, though (something the article about the poll that I linked below doesn't mention -- that's entirely my opinion).

 

Anyway, one of reasons for this decline is viewed as the influence of the far left on mainstream opinion regarding the war in Iraq. The Obama and Clinton votes last week on funding was paraded around like it was some kind of major scandal, and because it "played in Peoria" it became one of those rare moments were lefty extremists were in complete accord with red-state cow-tippers. (Like I said, politics can be fun.)

 

The point being that the left may not have its ducks in a row for long. And boy, this is just going to be an absolutely fascinating year for political observers and historians.

 

(Here's a link to an article about the poll.)

[Pangloss]

BTW, does this mean it's time to impeach Pelosi? ;-)