Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2011 > March > 01 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Swing voters not helping moderate politicians
According to one ranking system worth noting:
• Then-Sen. George Voino-vich was tied for least conservative Senate Republican in 2010.
• Sen. Sherrod Brown was tied for the most liberal senator.
• Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, was tied for most conservative House member.
• Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, was 139th most conservative House member, putting him left of center among the 178 Republicans.
• Rep. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, was 85th most conservative.
• Outside of Ohio, perhaps the most striking rating was for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
From 2002 to 2006, he had been among the least conservative Republicans. But by 2010, the Arizona Republican Party had reeled him back in; he was tied for most conservative senator.
Many organizations do these kinds of rankings. Most have ideological or political axes to grind, and they have been known to play games with the numbers.
But these rankings are from the National Journal, which is not aligned with anybody. It does a particularly exhaustive analysis, looking at more than 90 votes.
At that, the system is flawed, as any would be. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich may look like he’s way to the left of the Democratic Party when he runs for president. But he doesn’t get listed as among the most liberal House members, because he’s likely to, for example, cast a vote against a liberal health care plan because it isn’t liberal enough.
Flaws and all, the study is worth pausing over for what it says about the country. In case anybody isn’t convinced that our politics is more polarized all the time, National Journal makes the point quantitatively.
The increasing tendency of legislators to vote along party and ideological lines is unmistakable (and particularly strong among Republicans).
For example, not a single Senate Democrat had a more conservative voting record than a single Republican. That’s happened once before in the history of the NJ study. But this time there was far less overlap in the House than on that occasion.
What’s most striking is the political fate of those legislators who stray even a little bit from the party line.
Among the 98 least liberal (most moderate) House Democrats, 45 were defeated and 10 others were succeeded by Republicans upon retirement.
Meanwhile, though, of the 81 most liberal House Democrats only one lost in 2010 (and one left).
Also: “Just five House Republicans in 2010 generated vote ratings more liberal than the most conservative House Democrat…. Just four Democrats produced ratings more conservative than the most liberal Republican…. Of (those) nine members who were outliers last year, only one — Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina — is still in Congress.”
The other were either defeated or left. Why would they be defeated?
If, as NJ insists, the country is far more moderate and less partisan than Congress — if, indeed, there’s a “moderate plurality” — why wouldn’t the party-pooping Republicans and Democrats prosper?
Because — strange as it sounds — independent voters vote according to party, not the individual. They’re not looking for moderates. They go with one party one year and the other in another year.
In 2006 and 2008, they were generally dissatisfied under a Republican president, and they went Democratic. In 2010, they were dissatisfied under a Democratic president and went Republican.
The relative moderates in Congress tend to represent swing districts, where independents hold the balance of power. The moderation of the local incumbents did nothing to keep those voters from swinging back the other way.
Increasingly, all politics is national, not local.
The national parties seem to have discovered that when it’s their turn, they’re going to win, almost no matter how far from the center they might stray. (The Republicans did manage to blow a few opportunities in 2010, but it wasn’t easy.)
Independents have probably always been people who switch back and forth between the parties from year to year (rather than — as they like to present themselves — people who focus on the individual, rather than party).
But that tendency had a different result back when the parties were more diverse. Now it divides the government between two warring, monolithic forces for whom compromise is a bad thing.
TweetGo to our facebook page and Like us to comment.
