Where the Missing Middle Went

Jonathan Rauch has an article in Reason of interest to independent voters, Where the Missing Middle Went.

Using graphs based on statistics going back decades, Rauch writes

At every level of [i.e., strong, weak, "lean to"] partisanship, the red universe feels better represented than does the blue universe. Republicans, it appears, have the stronger and more appealing brand. They are doing a better job of explaining what it means to be a Republican and why voters should care. Democrats seem to have a "mushy brand" problem.
[...]
By a margin of about 20 percentage points, Republicans (strong and weak) are more likely to call themselves conservative than Democrats (strong and weak) are to call themselves liberal.

Put those facts together, and they add up to Republicans' making up in passion and turnout what they lack in numbers. Meanwhile, true independents, most of whom identify themselves as moderates, sulk at home on Election Day, thus diminishing their influence and deepening their funk. A sorry state.

However,

look at true independents. Since 1984, they have moved toward the Democratic column by a whopping 30 points, with an especially large lurch toward Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. Yet, over the same period, independents have grown less liberal and more moderate. Why, then, are they turning blue? The fierceness of the Republican base seems to have repelled them. Polling in 2005, after the ANES data came in, has shown independents' support for Bush and the Republicans continuing to crumble at an alarming pace. Republicans' edge-oriented strategy has not come without cost in the center.
[...]
But without centrist candidates, there can be no centrist voters. For now, Republicans have the advantage of a strong brand and a passionate following. But the Democrats are winning in the center even as their support among their partisans firms up. And it is they, with their large numbers and lagging motivation, who have the greater potential to make gains in turnout and commitment. If the Democrats ever manage to revive their brand, watch out.

Last night I saw Glenn Reynolds interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN. He said that the only litmus test between "liberals" and "conservatives" any more seems to be support for the war. No matter Reynolds' liberal and libertarian positions, his support for the war gets him grouped with the conservatives. I would add abortion as another litmus test, but what was once the biggest difference - the size and scope of government - has been obliterated by the big-spending, Big Government Republicans.

It makes me wonder, when reading articles like Rauch's: moderate about what? "Centrist" on what issues? Many independents love John McCain; I'm also an independent and I hate almost everything McCain stands for. Bill Clinton was a centrist and I couldn't stand him. What Rauch doesn't address is that although independents agree that neither party represents them, they don't necessarily agree on anything else.

But Rauch is still correct that the Democrats have greater potential. Their problem so far is that they've been a crappy opposition party. They acquiesced in a lot of the expensive and counter-productive programs, like No Child Left Behind and the Drug Benefit, and are only mildly protesting Bush's attacks on the Constitution and our civil liberties. In 2004, no incumbent ever deserved to lose as much as Bush did, but at the same time no challenger ever made such a poor case for himself as did Kerry.

The Democrats have become the default party of all opponents of Bush, but that doesn't make for strong and enthusiastic support. The "center" is theirs for the taking. But they will have to earn those votes. They can't sit back and expect Bush's destruction of the GOP is going to help the Democratic Party. If they don't make a case for themselves, they could easily fall victim to low voter turnout.