I have mixed feelings about the "swing to the left" strategy that many liberals advocate. This report suggests that may be a bad idea, based on math. There simply aren't enough self-identified liberals—21%—to balance any left-leaning political hopes upon, say Galston and Kamarck in their report (the conclusions of which I'd disagree with, based on the Post summary).
Those on the left counter with the argument "if we only had a candidate who appealed to the left, those 21% would actually vote and we'd come out on top."
My experience tells me that this isn't so, either. After spending an election cycle trying to convince those very same 21% to vote for Howard Dean, and again for another progressive congressional candidate, I think the strategy is flawed.
Around five percent of those people would never vote for a Democrat by any name. (I remember one house party, apparently on Mars, where I was told there was no difference between Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and George Bush. Ask those now suffering from federal neglect if they believe that.) Another few percent will only vote for a Democrat named Dennis Kucinich. (I like Dennis, I really do, but he does not have "leader" written all over him, a basic requirement for American voters in a presidential election.)
That leaves another 10 to 15 percent to appeal to, a group I belong to, and a group that formed the basis for Howard Dean's support. Howard also attracted a lot of Republicans, and self-proclaimed moderates. He was, in many ways, the ideal candidate (or he came within a few inches anyway). Yet his campaign fizzled in the primaries.
I think one of the biggest reasons he failed was because he was painted as a far-left liberal, a perception his campaign couldn't reverse. Too many pragmatic Democrats were scared off, and actually voted for someone a lot more liberal on many issues, John Kerry.
You can blame the media, the condensed primary process, or a herd mentality, but I blame math. In the end, the percentage Howard Dean received in the primaries he competed in was about equal to the percentage opposed to the war from the beginning, around 20%. Though Democratic primary voters are by no means representative of the entire electorate, they fooled themselves into thinking they were, and voted the way they thought Republicans would.
Silly, silly Democrats. They need to quit trying to please Republicans, right? Vote for someone who gets the 21% motivated. Use Karl Rove's winning playbook (after first disinfecting it).
As Roxanne points out, that hasn't seemed to work in the past, either. And as I said, John Kerry had some pretty good liberal credentials—and it didn't appear to be lack of liberal support that nailed him. (We'll maintain here that he really did lose Ohio, since he still should have won in some other states.)
Again, it's the math that trips us up.
The problem is not that a candidate should only appeal to the base in order to be electable, but that the concept of a "base" needs refining. I don't believe there is a left-right political spectrum, with everyone poised at some position on a straight line, a la the "number line" you learned in school. Instead, there are many small circles of agreement and disagreement. (Think Venn Diagrams, to continue the math analogy.) For instance, I'm more liberal on some positions and less liberal on others. Where on the number line would I fit?
My perceptions of candidates also defy pigeonholes—I thought Al Gore was a quite engaging fellow, while I see nothing charming in George W. Bush. These perceptions, as much as political ideology, influence my vote, and it's the same with many Americans, who have no idea what the concepts "left" and "right" really mean, though they do know "liberal" is a dirty word.
So the strategy of finding a candidate that appeals to any left/right/middle group on an imaginary political spectrum is doomed to fall apart.
We just need to find a candidate who appeals, period, and forget about a mythical 21 percent. True convictions appeal, an independent streak appeals, and a sense of humor appeals. Note that none of these have anything to do with policy, yet they resonate with voters. So find me someone with these traits, and, as a bonus, a set of policies that happen to resonate with the majority of voters (and those are liberal policies, like jobs and health care, by the way) and I'll show you a winner.
(Kevin Drum analyzes the same information, and tantalizes us with the prospect that the authors of the book Off Center will be his guests next week. I can't wait to see their strategery.)
