I don’t entirely believe Firebug’s analysis, because polls which show that the majority of Americans want national health insurance generally don’t ask about the costs or other options, and how those issues affect people’s opinions. Those are issues which the Republicans would bring up if a Democrat proposed National Health.

The “making markets” paradigm would require a moderately liberal Democrat to vigorously put forward a generally coherent vision of liberalism, set forth in terms which the middle-of-the-road voter can identify with. It would help if such a Democratic candidate could successfully portray the Republicans as weak on some significant issue, and create a perception that the Republicans didn’t have coherent principles, but rather a laundry-list of issues and interests all grabbing for a share of the pie.

Middle-of-the-road voters can be swayed to vote quite a ways from the political center, if the argument is presented in ways which match some of the usually conflicting values which those voters hold. The Republicans have been far better at that than the Democrats, except on a few issues (like same-sex marriage) where they’re losing ground on the issue.

The Democrats might be able to do it, but there isn’t a candidate in 2008 who can do it, unless Edwards does a lot better this time around. It may also not be the Democrats’ time yet. The liberal ideological consensus was the dominant ideological paradigm from 1932 to 1980; in that time, except for Goldwater, conservatives were oppositional rather than advancing an alternative ideological vision. The Democrats today are oppositional, with a few exceptions. The question is whether Howard Dean is the Barry Goldwater or the Robert Welch of the Democrats.

“Unfortunately, Bill Clinton and his cohort at the DLC are profoundly mistaken in their belief that Clinton’s success was due to his “centrist” positions on the issues. Democrats who tried to run on Clinton’s centrist agenda were regularly swept away by Republican candidates throughout the Clinton Era. The only reason why his centrist positions helped to get him elected is because he was able to deftly take away the ammunition his opponents were depending on to define him in a negative way. By eliminating distinctions between himself and his Republican opponent, he was able to reduce the choice for voters to “Who do you want for your President? Him or me?” With his charm, he was the obvious choice for many. As many have pointed out, the only problem with this approach is that you can only agree with your opponent for tactical reasons so many times before you actually become your opponent.”

“Bill Clinton is a great, great guy. How can anyone not like him? His charm reminds me of the 1980’s, when I would listen to one of Reagan’s State of the Union speeches and say, “You know, he even makes me want to believe what he’s saying, and I know that just everything he just said is 100% wrong.” The comparison to Reagan is apt. I predict that one day historians will agree that Bill Clinton was truly a far greater Political Personality than Ronald Reagan ever was. He was/is every bit the equal of Ronald Reagan when it comes to personal charm, and that is saying a lot. But Bill Clinton was/is also extremely intelligent—in a book-learning sort of way—while Reagan regularly turned to The Reader’s Digest for incisive analysis of the issues. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton would have easily trounced Ronald Reagan if they had been matched up against each other at the same time. Charming & Intelligent vs. Charming & Amiable Dunce.”

Beware of the DLC.

Is it possible that you have drifted to the right (e.g. by accepted Republican definition of what ‘to defend the country’ means) and are beyond the reach now? And that, I’m afraid, is the whole point here.

Quite obviously, the big issues facing the country during the last electoral cycle were (1) the probity of the choice to invade, and the path forward in, Iraq; (2) the massive budget deficit; (3) what to do about entitlements with an aging population. But were these the central issues the two candidates debated?

Rhetorical question.

Karl Rove’s genius is that he knows exactly which political issues are the “right ones” to choose for establishing effective Republican differentiation. Instead, the electoral debate, as played out in the so-called liberal media, focused almost entirely on secondary issues chosen by Rove: gay marriage, Swifties, and “personal character.”

There are two problems here. The first is that the Democrats, under DLC guidance, have utterly failed to differentiate themselves from the Republicans on the major issues of the day. This was why I was disgusted by Kerry, but felt that Dean would have been a good candidate. (Dean was “a choice, not an echo,” as the Goldwater phrase would have it.) The second problem was that insofar as they were going to concede parity on the vital issues of the day, the Democrats also ceded the choice of secondary issues to the Republicans.

The result was all but inevitable, and in retrospect it’s frankly amazing that Kerry got as close as he did.

The most effective charge against Kerry during the campaign wasn’t that he’s a liberal – that was red meat for the Rush Limbaugh crowd. It the was oft-repeated “flip-flopper” label, which was most effective among Kilgore’s precious middle.

So how does Kilgore explain the left’s new fascination with Karl Rove? Maybe the left’s new fascination with the conservative movement, and with politicians like Goldwater and Reagan, can best be understood as reflecting a powerful desire to understand how we got into this horrific political situation (much like the one the Republicans faced pre-Goldwater), and how we can get out of it.

So how does Kilgore explain the left’s new fascination with Karl Rove? Maybe the left’s fascination with Goldwater and Reagan can best be understood as reflecting a powerful desire to understand how we got into this horrific political situation, and how we can get out of it.