It used to be common for people to urge us to learn “the lessons of history.” But history gets much less attention these days, and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness.
Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently than others.
Advertisement
Talk-show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, “Most political battles are won by seizing the center.” Moreover, he added: “Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years.”
But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, “seize the center”? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential-election victories, “seize the center”?
There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center — and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though Truman was so unpopular at the outset that TheNew Republic urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something — and for months he battled for what he stood for.
That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.
It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.
It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.
Pres. Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election — and lost to an almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.
Pres. George H. W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his “Read my lips, no new taxes” speech, turned “kinder and gentler” — to everyone except the taxpayers — once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.
More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center — Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 — go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of just three years earlier.
Too many politicians today try to be all things to all people. Barack Obama carried that to the extreme. His candidacy strategy was never be specific, be a blank canvas on which everyone could paint him however the wanted to see him. Hope and Change. He would not say the Hope would be that our country might survive intact after he is finished. He never identified that Change meant that he would change America by turning our representative democracy into a socialist state.
After our experience with the teleprompter empty suit, I think we are looking for a leader who love our country first and foremost and will say follow me and it will be alright. To borrow a phrase from Obama, we need a president that will say Yes we can and mean it in a good way.
I know this is a syndicated column so it is unlikely Dr. Sowell will read the comments, but as an economist he really ought to know better than to read to much from one component in an natural experiment that has many many multiple components.
You have to consider how long the incumbent party has been in office, the state of the economy and foreign affairs. You have to look at the candidate's political talent and whether or not they are scandal free among other things.
Reagan got elected during a time of an Iranian hostage crisis abroad and stagflation at home. He was also one of the three greatest political talents of the 20th century. Bob Dole was a God awful campaigner and ran during a time when we were not engaged in any major wars and the economy in pretty good shape. Which of the 1996 candidates would have beaten Clinton in that race? The answer is none of them.
Besides the problem with using only Presidential elections is there are simply not enough data points to draw a conclusion.
There is a thing called the Median Voter Theorem, and it is basically true. The world is a little more complicated than just being the most ideologically acceptable of the candidates to the most people, but it doesn't hurt when you want to win 51%.
Imagine for a second you are at a party and you want to order chicken wings for the party. One third like the wings really spicy, a third like them medium spicy, and a third prefer mild. You order them and they only have two types, mild and medium spicy. Which wings do you think the people who like really spicy wings going to eat? They are going to prefer the medium spicy over the mild, so assuming everyone eats, 2/3 are going to eat the medium spicy and a third is going to eat the mild wings. Medium spicy wins. Of course the people who like the really spicy wings, might be picky eaters and too angry to eat the medium spicy wings. So they might decide not to eat any wings and go hungry and that could even things out a bit, but medium spicy will still have a slight edge, and it is also possible that they will find a human finger in the medium spicy wings and that could make people choose the flavor that they otherwise would not choose. But everything being equal medium spicy usually wins.
I really like your comment, here, and it's stronger than you realize: McCain had larger conservative turnout in 08 than the Bushes, Dole, or Reagan did. That was partially due to Palin but largely due to anti-Obama sentiment. That sentiment is even larger now. As such, Medium spicy is definitely going to get the spicy votes, in 2012.
The question Sowell is asking: Will medium spicy be able to get medium spicy votes?
Obviously, your analogy doesn't allow for that scenario (except for the finger-in-the-wings part), but Sowell's just trying to say that people like a candidate with principle. Even moderates like principle. If a right winger is striving to the center for no reason other than votes, then moderates might just vote Obama. And if a moderate candidate has been putting on right-wing rhetoric or has been flip-flopping, then again, an incumbent president (who, you know, has been president for four years) might just have an edge. Given this, going risky with a right winger might be the better move. Then, at least, you can have a more clear cut campaign strategy. After all, a moderate has to run on his moderation (not a strong thing to run on) or on himself (and in the case of Romney or even Newt, this isn't a strong thing to run on either). Therefore, a moderate in this election (especially given the candidates in question) is without a campaign -- and that benefits Obama tremendously.
I had started favoring the points Medved had made since Sowell's last column, but Sowell has strong argumentation here. I now see that Medved was rather arbitrary in the statistics he chose to cite. Sowell's logic is far more convincing. Perhaps that's because it's actually logic.
In spite of the reply I just wrote, I think Mitt would make a better president than the other GOP contenders, and he'd be way better than Obama. I've gone back and forth on Mitt from time to time (flip-flopped, I guess you could say), but ultimately, he won't be engaging in any reckless expansions of the federal government, he won't let Iran get nukes, and he's really smart. So, honestly, who cares that he's flip-flopped? Some of those charges are unfair, and some of the fair charges get overhyped compared to what could be being said about Obama or Newt. And other times, Romney being a bad on-the-spot question answer-er is mistaken for evasiveness.
That being said, he's still a little too evasive. But with all the qualifications I just gave, it's clear that he could be much worse. So, since I think he'd be the best president, I'm gonna have a tough time voting against him.
In fact, even if Sowell's argumentation is right, it's not a knock-out case against Mitt winning (he'll be able to pick apart holes in Obama's argumentation just fine) nor is it a knock-out case in favor of a candidate who can't remember which government programs he'd cut (Perry) or one who has less experience than anyone (Bachmann). I don't think Gingrich has a shot -- a few crazy quips from him and Obama starts looking sensible (remember, just recently, Gingrich was comparing the rate at which we advance US weapons defense systems to the rate at which Apple turns over new technology -- the man is just simply not as smart as he sounds.... conservatives NEED to understand this) -- and clearly, Cain is out. So, unless you prefer Huntsman to Romney, I think Romney has as good of a chance as anyone this year. Ultimately, there just isn't a reliable farther-right candidate of the type Sowell is looking for. Just because I think his arguments work in the abstract, doesn't mean that they succeed when applied to the real life flesh and blood candidates that the GOP has to work with this year.
"Michael Medved uses the 2008 defeat of tea-party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center."
His doing so is missing the forest for the trees, focusing on three unsucessful campaigns amidst a Tea Party tidal wave -- and Medved apparently forgets that these Democrats were vulnerable because of the principled opposition from the Tea Party. They would have been quite safe had the GOP tried centrism.
The most notable omission in Sowell's recounting of history is George W. Bush, who governed more like his father while still enjoying electoral success.
For that reason, I'm willing to consider the possibility that centrism might sometimes work at the ballot box.
But even *IF* a centrist Republican could beat Obama or even has a better chance of beating Obama than a conservative, the centrist's election would be insufficient for the challenges that face us. He would probably not have the courage of any convictions to fight for a smaller, less fiscally lethal government, and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have a mandate for sweeping reform.
I believe that Sowell may be right, that running a principled conservative is smart politically; it's probably necessary in any case.
He is right. Good advice for all candidates. Reagan is a good example. Even people who didn't agree with all of his positions respected him as a man of his word. They knew what he believed and could bet on his sticking to that position. Being wishy washy is not a formula for success. Having core beliefs and consistently sticking with those core beliefs is the best advice anyone could give to a candidate for President of the United States.
While you might choose none at all, you are not going to choose mild. If the choice is between mild and really spicy, the party goers who prefer medium spicy haver a greater chance of choosing mild. That gives medium spicy an edge over really spicy against mild.
I agree with Dr. Sowell. The only way to beat Barack Obama is to oppose him rigorously. Why would citizens vote for Obama light, when they can have the real Obama? Perhaps a little centrism, with respect to social issues, is good campaign policy, but this election needs a fiscal, foreign policy and economic conservative. The man to defeat Obama must present the nation a choice between further socialism under Obama or prosperity through capitalism.
"Why would citizens vote for Obama light, when they can have the real Obama?"
Again that's such a tired cliche question that sounds more thoughtful than it is. Answer: For the same reason someone who prefers really spicy chicken wings will choose medium spice over mild, it is closer to what he likes.
PS The is a large gulf between Obama and all of the GOP candidates several issues. Romney is ideologically closer to Bachmann than he is to Obama.
I love it. You talk "cliche" and being "thoughtful", then go on to chicken wings? Well, here's one for your chicken wing theory: if the Republican candidate is just another "chicken wing", people like me will stay home and not vote at all. Gridlock is better than having "conservatives" govern like leftists (see: elections 2006, 2008). Your theory has been played out. That kind of idiocy is how we got Obama.
Kinda puts a some indigestion into your chicken wing theory, eh?
Actually not exactly, and it isn't my theory. If the people who like really spicy wings decide to not eat, then that shrinks the number of wings consumed, but half of the wings consumed will be medium spicy and the other half will be mild.
The floor for medium spicy would be 50% and the ceiling would be 66%. If mediums spicy splits the difference, meaning half of the people who prefer really spicy are picky eaters and half are not, then medium spicy will get around 58%.
For really spicy the floor would be 33% and the ceiling would be 66%. If the people who prefer medium spicy split between mild and really spicy evenly then really spicy will get 50%.
The problem in 2006 and 2008 was a mixture of Conservatives staying home, liberals not, and moderates voting with the liberals. And I think you need to read Ramesh's piece on 2006 and 2008 and the misreading of the history that led up to those years: External Link
I don't see any difference between Obama and Romney, except that Romney was governor of a super-liberal state for one term and was an executive, but politically they are almost indistinguishable. Romney will institutionalize Obamacare, and he is foaming at the mouth to get us involved in yet another war in the Mideast. Get thee behind me, RINOs.
The only ones foaming at the mouth to get us into a mideast war is Iran, palestinians and their ilk not anyone in the US. Also it's better to face the fight that is going on there than turn our backs and get shot in the butt if we're lucky.
Completely selective history, not only simplistically reading data, as Richard notes, but also conveniently leaving out contrary data. Also, the "2008" line should be fixed, as it obviously refers to "2010". Incidentally, Bush may have said that "no new taxes" in 1988, but he also spoke of a "kinder, gentler America" (to which Nancy is supposed to have retorted "kinder and gentler than whom?"). Life is complicated, Mr. Sowell, and so is politics.
