Home > Clive Crook, Politics > Utopian Leftists and Veruca Salt Centrists

Utopian Leftists and Veruca Salt Centrists

Election Day is here. Bring out the pundits ready to explain why things are going to go so badly for the Democrats (I’m not immune). In the Financial Times today Clive Crook, who’s great on policy but suffers from a version of the pundit’s fallacy whenever political strategy comes up, brings us another column faulting Obama for his lack of centrism (another example here). He gets some big things right – he notices that the economy is mainly to blame – but then Crook makes an odd argument (emphasis mine).

My own preferred theories emphasise the economy – which the administration has handled tolerably well in appallingly difficult circumstances – combined with serial political miscalculation. Mr Obama often settled for untidy centrist compromises (on the stimulus, on healthcare), thus disappointing the left; but without ever championing those compromises, causing moderates to wonder where he would stop, given the chance to go further. Offending both segments was an avoidable mistake.

Partly, then, this election is about disaffection in the centre – and the effort to tell Mr Obama, “Enough.” But if this is correct, and the polls turn out to be true, one should pay special tribute to the role the left has played in its own downfall. It did not have to be this way.

[…]

In any event, suppose that the Democratic base had not been sulking. Suppose it saw, for example, that persisting with a historic healthcare reform was politically challenging in the middle of an economic crash. Suppose it granted that radically overhauling a health system – some 20 per cent of the US economy – that many Americans rather like was a lot to take on. Suppose it was impressed that Mr Obama did it anyway, and was ready to go further.

Supposing those hopelessly implausible things, Mr Obama’s midterm strategy could have been different. Sure of the loyalty of the base, he could have addressed himself to the anxious middle, defended his policies as centrist compromises (which they were), and told the country (as he did in 2008) that its concerns were his concerns. In this alternative universe, he would have had his base and at least a shot at bringing the centre back.

Veruca Salt Imdb

Here we have Crook arguing that President Obama enacted “centrist compromises” not the policies the “whining utopian left” wanted. He then imagines that if only the Democratic base had not complained at all and just automatically remained loyal, Obama would have been free to direct his message to the center. I actually agree that the base, whatever their real grievances, should vote to reelect Democrats, but why does Crook imagine that leftists should be unquestioningly loyal while centrists get to act like Veruca Salt – they get all centrist policies but still feel entitled to complain and stomp off? Why doesn’t he “suppose” a scenario where the center “had not been sulking?” Crook is arguing that the left must shut up and support the President despite not getting what they wanted while centrists are free to complain and vote the Democrats out because Obama didn’t coddle them enough even though he delivered them “centrist compromises.”

I come at this as someone who generally favors centrist policies. Yes, I’ve criticized Obama for being “too timid”, as Crook claims liberals say (btw, is this a “whining utopian” leftist?). But the left shouldn’t be expected to always just fall into lock step out of loyalty but the center not. Isn’t the idea to champion as loudly and strongly the policies you want – if you’re always “loyal” what is the incentive for politicians to ever deliver? Remember politics should be about policy goals not political ones.

Also, he just fails to provide any data to back up his argument. I’m positive lots of centrist sounding Democrats are going to lose their seats. In fact, they’re probably the most vulnerable in this election (that’s for structural reasons not tonal ones). The data seems to show that most races are decided for structural reasons – notice how the US House and Lower House in States seat changes track each other.

House_seat_loss

So to recap: Veruca Salt centrist Clive Crook believes centrists got centrist policies, but not enough centrist messaging (although I think that’s even disputable) while whining utopian leftists settled for compromised policies, but got all the messaging. Who’s place would you rather be in? He sees nothing wrong with the centrists and blames the left for Democrats’ predicament. Got it.

Advertisements
Categories: Clive Crook, Politics
  1. Bill Sowka
    November 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    I see Augustus Gloop on the left and Mike Teevee on the right after this election-and polarized as ever. Obama will need to come out looking like Charlie Bucket in 2012 if he wants a second term.

  2. Dave
    November 3, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I’m still horrified Prop 19 failed.

  3. zachrudes
    November 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    I’m horrified by lots of things.

  4. zachrudes
    November 3, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Like Feingold losing to Ron Johnson. That’s right. His name is Ron Johnson. And he is a Tea Party darling who is CEO of a plastics company. Holy friggin crap. Have fun back home, everyone!

    Let’s get a New England separatist movement off the ground.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: