What constitutes moderation in Democratic politics? Which policies of mainstream Democrats are simply unacceptable to South Dakotans, for example? I think these are questions that need to be empirically tested. South Dakota clearly preferred Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, but it isn’t entirely clear why they felt that way. While Republicans absolutely dominate on the local level, the Democrats have done very well in recent years on the federal Senate/House level. Why is that?
These same dynamics have played out in North Dakota and Montana, where Democrats have overperformed in Senate contests. Senators like Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, and Tom Daschle have certainly been frustrating at times, but it’s hard to find all that much commonality between them in terms of their apostacy from the party platform. I suppose they have probably been less environmentally friendly than your average Democrat. They’ve been cozy with the banking and credit card industries. They’ve been a bit more socially conservative than their peers.
If I had to name something really out of whack, it’s been their obsession with the deficit. Because the other stuff is easily explainable by the fact that they represent sparesly-populated states with a lot of mining and financial services activity and not much religious or ethnic diversity, their love of austerity sticks out.
Opposition to big spending seems to be a requirement in these northern plains states. Is that the key ingredient for success? Or is it possible to use a different playbook? How much of a role does personality play? Jon Tester and Max Baucus don’t seem much alike but they both have success. Kent Conrad struck me as quite a bit more conservative than Byron Dorgan, who could be quite openly partisan at times.
I understand the urge to find a candidate who is seen as moderate, but I can’t pinpoint what moderate really means.
Is it possible that ‘moderate’ means ‘unthreatening to rural whites?’ Or is that a tautology of some sort? You’re looking more for policy, but I’m not sure that’s where ‘moderation’ resides.
Who are the most liberal Democrats representing these states?
I think that’s a very astute observation.
Migration into ND for jobs coincided with a significant (20% or so) increase in crime rate in Fargo (think it was Fargo and not ND) in 2012 for instance. If you’re a white person in rural ND and you watch the TV news from Fargo you’re probably going to feel more under siege. This despite that living in Fargo does not feel unsafe at all unless you go into a few very small areas at night.
Since I ran as a Democrat in SD for State Senate, I can state, without any fear of contradiction, that I am the most qualified person here to answer this question. I did discuss my candidacy with Boo, and decided to remain under my posting name, rather than revealing who I am.
In SD, there have been several successful democrats. All federal offices in SD are state-wide, and this is an important point. There are 4-5 population centers, and you have to roll up huge leads in those to do well as a Dem. Pennington Ct, where Rapid City is located (Far west) is the most conservative part. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin lost the 2010 race there. She had a slim lead in East River (eastern part of the state), but got absolutely clobbered in West River.
SD Dems MUST be
The Democratic Party has a bad rep here. Even Matt McGovern, George’s grandson, running for Public Works Commissioner, could not overcome the anti-Dem tilt. It’s part guns, it’s part rural cussidness, it’s part anti-tax, but it’s mostly a residual of 30 years of good Republican publicity. They hate unions here, they hate taxes, they love guns. It’s the no-nothing mix.
They hate unions here, they hate taxes, they love guns.
And how many people does Ellsworth AFB(among other government places) employ, directly and indirectly?
How could I forget Mt Rushmore? That place must be a crazy madhouse during the summer! Funny that it turns almost into a ghost-town as soon as Labor Day rolls around though.
Only a small number, probably under 1000. The big employer is agriculture, health systems (my employer), banks.
Moderate is like PhD, MA, BA – a suffix applied to the name of someone who has mastered a suite of specific skillsets – in this case lying, bribery and backstabbling.
I hate the way the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ are used in our politics. As far as I am concerned, a moderate is anyone who is committed to peaceful, democratic means in pursuit of political ends. Extremists promote violent means, period.
They love big spending. They just want politicians that rail against it so they don’t have to remind themselves that Minnesota is paying their bills.
“Moderate” used to mean, I think, a person who could see pros and cons on a variety of issues in both liberal and conservative viewpoints. Some moderates might be a little more outspoken and declare that the so called “liberal” and “conservative” positions were sometimes manipulated to present only binary and often false choices. They thought issues held more nuance than many partisans seemed to. They were inclined to think reality might lie in the middle.
This all changed. The so called conservatives have embraced conspiracy theories, bigotry and money from corporations. They’ve gone off the deep end. “Moderate” no longer means anything, unless it stands for the few confused white folks that still haven’t figured out how despicable “conservatives” have become.
On the extremes are people driven purely by ideology. They think thinking means being able to fine exactly where in their testament, constitution, or other great work of theology, philosophy or science the “proof” for their assertion lays.
A smudge towards the center are those who think thinking is figuring out what will keep their party and party’s agenda in power.
True moderates understand that ready-made solutions can’t be looked up like cookie recipes in a book, nor can even the perfect solution be implemented without the will of the powerful — whether the power is with the people or a few. Moderates are practcal and measure success by progress against the genuine need, not purity of principle or loyalty to party. It is from doing this successfully that moderates draw their power.
By this definition, Bernie Sanders is a moderate.
I haven’t a clue what moderate means or what the northern plains states want. But I think having the Democratic party go and ASK them what they want is a brilliant idea. So is analyzing their voting history to see what they really choose. Stop guessing, use facts.
Most Americans describe themselves as politically moderate and middle class. Doesn’t matter if one’s income and wealth puts one in the 90% or 30% bracket, they all claim to be middle class. “Politically moderate” is even less connected to reality. It’s a self-descriptor that has little to nothing to do with actual public policies but makes one feel good about oneself.
I think this is right. “Moderate” has simply become a meaningless label, often used by people who simply have no knowledge of the actual competing policies proposals. To some degree it reflects the 30+ years of rightwing corporate propaganda and is used by those who would agree with Dem proposals (if they knew what they were) but want to make clear they disagree with the (imagined) crazy outrageous godless gayfeminist lib’ruls that they hear about on teevee, as well as the (actual) menagerie of Rightwing nutjobs that they also see/hear frequently.
The fact that Booman (who lives US politics every day) can’t identify what the concept even means, specifically or policy-wise, makes clear it is a largely meaningless label, personally appended by the label-wearer for public consumption.
A moderate is a Democrat too scared to run as a Democrat or an opportunist pushing pro-business and pro-donor policies. Take your pick.
Its association with rural counties has to do with the penetration that Rush Limbaugh achieved early on as ClearChannel started by aggregating rural (i.e. inexpensive to buy) radio stations into a radio network. The growth or Rush corresponded in history to the hunt for Bill Clinton. What was just something new to talk about in small towns became a cornerstone of political belief within a decade through Rush’s use of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
This means that moderate Democrats track Rush’s policies. In 1990, a Mike McIntyre would have voted for Obamacare had it been offered. In 2010, he voted No.
There was a time when Democrats carried rural counties and understood rural economic issues. Now the culture wars hammered by Rush and local preachers and the continuing drumbeat of the fear of socialism even as capitalism creates disaster after disaster keep rural economic woes off the agenda.