I don't know how many people here read left-leaning political writing, but the comments about the president posted there , when combined with Townhall and other right-leaning sites, provide an interesting perspective, specifically a strong refutation of those who argue the future of the Republican party is to move "to the center".

I wrote already, in "Clinton and Bush Killed the Center", that ruling form the center is a certain way to disappoint everyone, but I never had evidence as good as I have now.

In some ways, Obama is presenting a spectacle like all other centrists. Like Clinton and Bush, those on his end of the spectrum (the left) find him too moderate, while those on the other end, consider him an extremist. Just think back and you will find this is true. Centrist Bush, proponent of "compassionate conservatism", backer of "no child left behind" and prescription coverage, was called "too left" by his base, yet painted as an "arch-conservative" by the left. Similarly, the left thought Clinton "sold out" and compromised too much, while the right painted him as slightly left of Lenin.

And the same is true of Obama, but more so, as in his case, even the same action is often seen as right-wing by one side, and left-wing by the other.

Look at the bailout. The right, quite properly, sees the Keynesian policy of taking money, or inflating, and then spending to try to "stimulate" the economy as a left wing policy. Granted, Bush was trying the same to some degree, but that only shows how far left the Republicans have moved. Historically, "pump priming" and "stimulus" bills were the province of the left, being first brought about by liberal governments in England and FDR's (misnamed) "brain trust" in the US. Keynesianism was the policy of the non-socialist left.

On the other hand, as much of this spending involves government payments to business, the left is up in arms and calling it a right-wing pro-business agenda. While considerable sums do go to "green energy", social programs, activist groups and other traditional left wing causes, the amounts being sent to businesses have convinced the left that this is not a left-wing policy. (Of course, as we hope to stimulate economic activity, I don't know how they expect to avoid helping businesses in SOME way. The economy doesn't run on food stamps and welfare checks alone. At some point, productive labor is involved, and that means money going to business.)

Now, do not think I am writing this to drum up sympathy for the president. After all, he made his own bed here, running on a content free platform, one that everyone could not only read as meaning what they wanted, but that he hoped each would see as what they wanted ("The Candidate as Inkblot"). So he created the unrealistic expectations that are harming him now, leaving me with little sympathy.

No, my point here is the same one I raised in "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!" and earlier posts. If we did not learn it for Clinton and Bush, let us learn it from Obama. The center is not the key to political victory. While America may average out to moderate, we are a nation which likes our politicians to have beliefs, even if we disagree. We would rather see someone with whom we strongly disagree than a wishy-washy centrist. The moderate middle is a lie, and is political suicide. It may mean we will not be able to have a "big tent" with 49% of the public claiming membership, but having strong beliefs may mean more votes. Just because not everyone joins the party doesn't mean they won't support you*.

But I will let the facts speak for themselves. Three presidents in a row have ruled from the center. One managed to lose congress to the Republicans for the first time in decades, as well as get himself impeached. The second went from close to 100% approval to close to 0%. And the third went from equally great heights to breaking even about 100 days, with no sign of the crash slowing. On the other hand, Reagan, one of the most polarizing and opinionated presidents was eventually even embraced by the opposition**.

Can we finally disabuse ourselves of the notion that the public wants middle of the road presidents?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

* I argued in "Why Shrinking a Party May Be Good " that reducing the size of the party may be a good thing. I still think so. It seems we have been too focused on size of the party, and eliminating independents, and have forgotten that it doesn't matte rif you have 50% of the public in your party if only 10% or 15% show up to vote. It may be more beneficial to have 25% in the party, with 50% or better turnout, and a strong showing among a larger pool of independents. And that is the likely outcome of forming a more opinionated, and more clearly focused party.

** Similarly, the famous presidents, whether one loves or hates them, are those with a clear agenda, such as FDR or Jackson. While they often alienate the other side of the spectrum, they are treated with more respect by both sides than the middle of the road nonentities, such as Nixon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

One more lesson we can learn is in terms of Obama's tone, how it helped him win the election and is harming him now. See my post "Why Obama Won, And Why He Is Losing Support Now " for more on that topic.

In addition, it may be helpful to read "Is Obama a Republican? ". That post points out how Obama is actually repeating a mistake McCain made during the campaign.'

Finally, evidence of Obama's problems can be found in "Falling Popularity and Vanishing Support" and "Quick Note on Poll Results".

POSTSCRIPT II

I managed to reply to a few comments and post this article, but that's it for tonight. I am resting as much as I can, so hopefully tomorrow will be the day when I finally start on all those promised articles. Sorry for the week or more of delay.