Revolt of the Middle: It Begins?

While a conspiracy site may be the place you'd expect to find the radical fringes of society, more often than not when it comes to serious political discussion, "conspiracy theorists" clearly see the extremist fringes of what passes for mainstream politics most easily and bemoan the consequences often.

And as they do all too often a day late and a dollar short, mainstream media is slowly catching up.

Revolt of the Middle
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A15
WashingtonPost.com

If you were to prepare a list of the top 10 stories you will never, ever read in a newspaper, one of them would surely include a sentence beginning: "Thousands of angry, screaming moderates took to the streets yesterday demanding . . ."

You can finish that sentence however you would like. The accepted view in politics is that moderates don't get angry, don't scream and don't demonstrate. Politics these days is said to be dominated by ideological enthusiasts. Moderates are thought of as people who sit on the sidelines and decide which batch of true believers they can most easily live with.

But something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration.

The article continues... but doesn't address or seem to know "what happened." It talks about the Republican Party's agenda alienating mainstream America, but is this remotely new?

America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards.

[...]

The "biggest drops" in the Republicans' standing, the pollsters noted, "have come from people who do not identify with a party," with "those who describe themselves as ideologically moderate" and with "mainline Protestants," that is, Protestants outside the ranks of the evangelical and fundamentalist churches. These are classic middle-of-the-road groups.

When they were asked how they would vote if a congressional election were held now, Democrats led by 43 percent to 25 percent among independents, and by 57 percent to 31 percent among moderates. In 2004, according to the network exit polls, Kerry beat Bush by only one point among independents and by nine points among moderates.

[...]

All this, in turn, explains why Republican charges that Democrats are "obstructionist" have not worked. As long as moderate voters believe that Democrats are blocking measures that are immoderate, middle-of-the-roaders will welcome, or at least tolerate, a fair bit of obstruction.

So I ask the resident conspiracy theorists, what did happen? And don't say people are finally waking up or getting a clue. Let's be somewhat realistic.

Here's my totally amateur thought on the matter as I feel I am one of those moderates.

The drama of the 2004 election totally skewed the voters' true feelings about politics. It was such a "vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils" issue that people completely ignored their feeling about the candidate or the party in general.
I think this occured both in the dems and reps.
I know it is true for me. I voted for Bush as a slightly better option than the other guy, knowing full well Bush was not a great option.

Now that the drama is over, we are left with the big let-down, the reality.
Politics and politicans are still rotten to the core, no politician left behind. Neither party will win a prize for doing the right thing, for the good of the people, IMO.
The system is in need of an overhaul...government has gotten so swollen and jaded. They are either unaware of the people they represent or just don't care.
I'd being saying this if the other guy won. Just some of the issues would be different.

Ah, good theory DTOM. Classic buyer's remorse syndrome then. Could very well be.

I dont think it is that hard to realize but that the war going on in afghanistan and iraq had a major play in the voting. Myself working in a blue collar hands on world, found most of the people I work with were voting for Bush because they did not think Kerry could handle the war. And believed that we did not need to change what was going on in the war, scared because something catastrophic might happen. So I think it is as simple as saying many were scared of change because of the effect it might have on the war. It also seemed that more middle aged americans voted this time than in the past, causing a shift in the voting. Yeah i know the polls might not show this but i know people who never voted till this election, and mostly voted for Bush. These are people who have no care whats happening in politics just scared what might happen to them. This might be a small amount of people I know, but one thing usually just a handful of people can show what is happening all over the country.

And for the revolt, this is probably the result of many who just went along and now find that maybe they should of done something then but now its too late. Today is a different world for most Americans and one that is ripping the heart right out of America.


[edit on 26-4-2005 by ncbrian211]

Originally posted by ncbrian211
And for the revolt, this is probably the result of many who just went along and now find that maybe they should of done something then but now its too late. Today is a different world for most Americans and one that is ripping the heart right out of America.

And, not only should have done something, but couldn't.
It's an awful thing when the choices voters are offered get called "the lesse of two evils'.
I don't think these people feel they should have done something but now its too late. More likely they did something, the best they felt they could, and it's not what they really wanted.

I think dems and reps alike are dissatisfied with the choices offered to them on ballots and are at a loss to see a olution.
I think the country feels there are no leaders.

Its no longer election season. Perhaps pollsters just wants to be slightly more honest right now when numbers mean even less than in times when they're used to propogandize public opinion for a specific purpose. When they're called upon again to skew numbers enough to dissuade further dissent, they're sure to step up to the plate.