“But its worth remembering that part of the reason why Conservatives are very confident about their views (able to put centre-left on the defensive) is because of their view that this is fundamentally a conservative country.”

It is on some matters but not on others. Both Left and Right can point to public opinion as reasons to implement their policies. The problem is that they then have to explain why unpopular policies should be implemented without sounding arrogant, partisan or illogical.

Cim wrote an excellent piece on this last week here: http://refusingthedefault.blogspot.com/2011/01/principles-and-power-with-diagrams.html

The problem with constantly trying to take the centre ground is that you allow the opposition to drag the centre ground continually further away from you. If the current coalition is teaching us anything, it is that you have to seek power to do things – it is pointless worrying about polls all the time.

…he hasn’t gone out to pick fights with the left to placate right-wingers.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

I wouldn’t say, actually, that Obama’s admin. picked a fight with the left as a means of appearing right-wing. Rather, I think, in the light of its own rapid backsliding, it wanted to position its critics as extreme, unserious, dirty fucking hippies and so on while retaining its mantle of sensible moderateness.

This is problematic because – as I’ll add, humourlessly – the guy’s not only “not moving fast enough” he’s often not moving at all – Iraq, the banks, Bush-era crimes – or veering in the wrong direction – prosecuting whisteblowers, hiring frauds and thugs, sweeping all kinds of skullduggery beneath the carpet.

Rather, I think, in the light of its own rapid backsliding, it wanted to position its critics as extreme, unserious, dirty fucking hippies and so on while retaining its mantle of sensible moderateness.

This is entirely accurate. If you came to power on promises of less war and more justice, then you need a strategy to deal with the disapproval of the DFHes when you ratchet the war up to 11, pack your administration with the same financial wizards who tanked the entire planet and start forking over mega-billion handouts to thieves.

Actually Ed Miliband’s position is rather similar to Obama’s. He is up against a Party that wants to transform the country into a free market theme park; a sizable section of his own party that has similar leanings; and a media that has bought into the same, rather battered, myths so much it treats any attempt to return to reality with horror and incomprehension.

Triangulation simply isn’t possible with such people. Partly because there is no substantial far left to set against the free market fundamentalists, but also because the latter’s world view makes them unable to move an inch to compromise. Belief in the primacy of markets has become a religious rather than an economic theory.

The ‘progressive majority’ is as good place to start as any. Apart from anything else it reminds us of the enormous changes there have been in public attitudes on questions of morality, such as homosexuality, race and illegitimacy, over the last decades. If such changes are possible in one area of life, they may be possible in others.

Of course in Britain you already have a headstart with great affection still for the post-war consensus. But we should underestimate the effect that the more recent orthodoxy has had on voter attitudes, especially among the under-40′s.

The danger of assuming a ‘progressive majority’ though is that voters are still seen as a large simple-minded mass, flocking to whichever side makes the best pitch and then to be forgotten about. This may work in the States with its two party system, and many partisans would love the same to be true in Britain – hence the joy at the current eclipse of the Lib Dems. But the UK is always going to be more complex than that, not just because of the Lib Dems but Nationalists, UKIP, the Greens etc (current polls are showing ‘others’ around the 12% mark).

More seriously taking ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ majority for granted underestimates the voters, whose opinions may be more complex, subtle and open to change than such a simple model expects.

We do have the advantage of more polls from more sources than ever before and you can often see such opinions in action. To take the case of government cuts. Most people now think such cuts unfair and even bad for the economy. But they still think they are necessary and mostly blame Labour for them. Unless the necessity is challenged and most of the blame put on the Conservatives, campaigns against the cuts will have no overall effect.

Like Obama, the surest proof of Miliband’s integrity is the enemies he makes. The constant attacks on him since his election, virulent from the Right and covert from within his own Party, show that there is some fear there that he will upset the conventional Westminster consensus.

That doesn’t apply for three reasons Ben Six.

First, Gibbs started it, not Obama.

Second, his complaint was more that they complained too much about the pace of change, rather than they were wrong about their demands.

Third, it was only a flap inside the Washington DC circle. For proper triangulation you need to reach out to voters and convince that you hate some segments of the left. That wasn’t what happened there.

it wanted to position its critics as extreme, unserious, dirty fucking hippies and so on while retaining its mantle of sensible moderateness.

No – I think that was an entirely predictable response given that they were pushing on DADT and Healthcare when he didn’t have the necessary votes to move forward at the time.

Sunny/7: No. BenSix is spot on here.

Firstly, Gibbs was at the time Obama’s White House press officer. His job was to speak for Obama to the press. He was not only not fired, but supported by Obama, and has now moved on to another important job working for Obama. If Obama disapproves of his anti-left statements, that’s a funny way to show it.

(And it’s not as if Obama hasn’t said similar things about the US left, either, though not in quite as insensitively-worded a way)

Secondly, so what? Criticising people who are campaigning for something you allegedly agree with by putting pressure on the government to do it makes no sense. See below. Anyway, “When do we want it? 2013 for a phased implementation starting in 2016!” is not a rallying cry you expect to hear. Activists always want stuff now, because otherwise it’s always next year, and it makes no sense to criticise them for it.

Thirdly, at least some of the issues Gibbs criticised the “professional left” for – like DADT – were of importance well outside the DC bubble. I don’t follow the DC bubble at all. I know a lot of US campaigners on issues such as DADT who were rightly furious about being told off by Gibbs.

No – I think that was an entirely predictable response given that they were pushing on DADT and Healthcare when he didn’t have the necessary votes to move forward at the time.

No, that makes no sense. Let’s say I want policy X. Lots of people are being active – protests, lobbying, letters, etc. – in favour of implementing policy X now. Do I:
a) Congratulate them, point to them when speaking to the opposition as evidence that this policy has massive public support, and encourage them to continue pressuring their representatives to get the votes I need?
or
b) Tell them – either directly, or via a proxy – that they don’t understand politics and X will have to wait until the votes have magically appeared?

If I pick ‘b’, how does this differ from the likely response of someone who doesn’t actually care about policy X? If I pick ‘b’ and in doing so discourage the campaigners so that they shut up, how likely are those votes to magically appear later?

What this article is missing is the context: from the get go in 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned as a “New Democrat” DLCer, promising to focus on the economy like a laser, end the welfare system as we know it and balance the budget. Bill Clinton governed as a centrist at a time when conservative movement was ascendant. To pretend otherwise is just a rewriting of history. Candidate Obama campaigned as a progressive during a time when republican ideas have been discredited thanks in part to Bush’s mismanagement of the economy. And in two short years, the republicans have gained control of the US house and are back in power in state houses around the country.

Obama’s White House press officer. His job was to speak for Obama to the press. He was not only not fired, but supported by Obama,

It was always unlikely Obama would have fired Gibbs over that anyway. But Gibbs not only pulled back eventually, but Obama reached out to the ‘professional left’ afterwards. And the comments would have gained more prominence if Obama made them, not Gibbs.

Criticising people who are campaigning for something you allegedly agree with by putting pressure on the government to do it makes no sense.

It does make sense if they’re criticising you for things you’re working on, but can’t get done immediately because the numbers (of votes) are not there.

All these people kept turning up at events criticising Obama for not moving on DADT, when he repeatedly said he was working on it behind the scenes, but needed to move carefully so as not to wreck any negotiations.

There was a good overview on National Journal but I can’t find it now.

Lots of people were fuming over his decision to re-instate DADT:
http://nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/why-obama-pushed-to-reinstate-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-20101021

But it made sense and now he’s done it the right way. So yes, there were legit reasons for Obama to get frustrated at the left I’d say.

b) Tell them – either directly, or via a proxy – that they don’t understand politics and X will have to wait until the votes have magically appeared?

I believe the above point answers it.

On Healthcare, he didn’t have the votes to include public option, so he had to take it out. But he was more confident with DADT, and he wanted to wait for the right conditions and opportunity (which is what happened).

Also, note that much of the left wanted Lieberman chucked out of the Democratic caucus… but Lieberman was key for Obama to repeal DADT and on other issues (though not on Healthcare)

It does make sense if they’re criticising you for things you’re working on, but can’t get done immediately because the numbers (of votes) are not there.

No, I still don’t see how it makes sense.

I can see that in that situation that one would be frustrated that you’re being criticised for factors outside your control that you’re working hard on removing. I’m not arguing that Obama shouldn’t be frustrated by it.

What I can’t see is why it’s politically a good move to express that frustration by criticising your base in public, though. (Complaining about it privately to partners, drinking buddies, pets, and others unlikely to leak your statements to the press, to let off steam, absolutely)

‘What I can’t see is why it’s politically a good move to express that frustration by criticising your base in public, though.’

Because it sets the media standard. It becomes a ‘narrative’ which becomes ingrained in people’s minds. The details will go in time, but the memory will be Obama isn’t even liked by his own people – they think he’s rubbish.

Time for a ‘modernising centrist’ party. This nation needs a party born of the centre, appealing to the centre and serving the centre.
This ridiculous cycle of the left then the right seeking to take the centre ground is part of the problem in this country. Continuously tacking left and right on national policies worth billions of pounds is just a waste of a whole nation’s time, effort and money.
Time the ‘progressive’ banner was dropped as well. Its tainted, it’s limp and it’s increasingly meaningless. I don’t want to see one more ancient party activist arguing for neolithic policies as they relive battles between forgotten politicians while proclaiming that they are ‘progressive’. ‘Progressive’ to me is now shorthand for a fixed mindset, ritualised rhetoric and old argument.
Truly progressive policies will be delivered by moving the argument forward and tackling the debate from a new central strategic vantage point.

What I can’t see is why it’s politically a good move to express that frustration by criticising your base in public, though.

This bit I agree with, which is why Obama never ventured into that territory, and later tried to make amends.

which is why Obama never ventured into that territory

I know a lot of US lefties/progressives/whatever who would disagree with that assertion. (So whether or not he actually did, and there’s no point in going through his speeches to argue over bits of semantics, the perception that he did appears to have stuck)

It’s not at all clear to them – he’s even had some of the more left-wing Democratic Representatives say this – that he gets the difference between his base’s criticism of him (who want him to succeed and “be the President they worked to get elected”) and the Republican’s criticism of him.

and later tried to make amends.

He did. And I think he messed that one up, too. Because Gibbs threw out the term “professional left” to refer to the people criticising Obama for not moving fast enough (or at all, on a lot of issues, where current US policy is much the same as under the Bush administration). And while it’s true that a lot of the actual “professional” left were doing so, a lot of the “amateur” left – who by numbers make up far more of his base – were also doing so, and so they felt included in the insult.

But Obama’s olive branch only got extended to the actual “professional left”, so a lot of the amateur left – the majority of those feeling insulted – felt excluded from the apology but still included in the insult.

If the Republican field wasn’t so terrible, I think he’d be looking at trouble in 2012. He might still be anyway.

If the Republican field wasn’t so terrible, I think he’d be looking at trouble in 2012. He might still be anyway.

I’m afraid this is just bluster. Obama’s ratings amongst Democrats is extremely high, and no one else comes even close. You’re exaggerating how annoyed some Democrats felt.

Obama’s ratings amongst Democrats is extremely high, and no one else comes even close.

I don’t mean he’s risking losing a primary challenge, I mean he’s risking not having a sufficiently motivated base (especially activist base) to be able to win the general when his ratings amongst Independents are falling.

There was a distinct difference in motivation levels between the Republicans and the Democrats in the mid-term elections. If that was to carry over to the general, and the Republicans were somehow to find a credible candidate, he’d be in trouble.

You’re exaggerating how annoyed some Democrats felt.

You might feel I’m exaggerating how many Democrats were that annoyed, or the likely impact of this, though neither is my intent, but I can assure you I’m not exaggerating in the slightest how annoyed – furious would be closer – some registered Democrats (and some non-aligned US lefties) felt and still feel.