Only 2 in 5 Democrats consider themselves liberal.

The parties are much more polarized than in the past, but the Democratic party (unlike the Republican) is still a coalition party -- and we can't win against a unified Republican party unless our "ramshackle" center-left coalition pulls together. (The Republican party now consists almost entirely of conservatives and ultra-conservatives; the Democratic party includes centrists, moderates, and liberals.)

Also of interest: twice as many voters overall consider themselves conservatives as liberals.

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/congress-hits-new-peak-in-polarization-20110224

The results document another leap forward in the fusion of ideology and partisanship that has remade Congress over the past three decades, the period tracked by NJ’s vote ratings. For most of American history, the two parties operated as ramshackle coalitions that harbored diverse and even antithetical views. Each party’s Senate caucus housed ideological antagonists, such as progressive Democratic titan Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and segregationist stalwart Richard Russell of Georgia, or New Right Republican firebrand Jesse Helms of North Carolina and silk-stocking New York City liberal Jacob Javits. Such contrasts are not extinct. But since the early 1980s, they have vastly diminished as the differences within each party have narrowed and the distance between them has widened.

Over that period, “it’s just a straight, linear increase” in congressional polarization, says Gary Jacobson, a University of California (San Diego) political scientist who specializes in Congress. “There’s a little bit of bumping around in the numbers here and there, but the basic movement is toward the parties moving further and further apart. The 1970s are a high point of all the cross-party . The last three decades are ones of pulling apart.”

SNIP

But the results also reflect a longer-term dynamic: Although both parties are growing more ideologically homogenous, the trend is affecting Republicans more powerfully and more thoroughly. Democrats remain more of a coalition party than the GOP. The roots of that trend extend to the foundation of each party’s electoral base. The Republicans’ voting coalition is much more ideologically uniform than the Democrats’: About three-fourths of GOP voters identify as conservative, while only about two-fifths of Democrats consider themselves liberal, with the rest calling themselves moderate or conservative. That creates a more consistent set of expectations from the base for congressional Republicans than it does for Democrats, no matter what part of the country they represent.

Because about twice as many voters consider themselves conservatives as liberals, Republicans are typically less dependent on support from moderates to win elections, which further amplifies the conservative influence over the party’s elected officials. “The Democrats are always going to be fractious and divided if they want to aspire to majority status,” says Jacobson, the political scientist. “That’s just the nature of their coalition. The Republicans don’t have to be that broad; they can be much more unified. Republicans are now a conservative and very conservative coalition, and their share of moderates is minuscule. The pressure right now is not coming from their centrists; it’s coming from their extremists.”

SNIP

fellow DUers would do well to read it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Need a link?

Not really, dude.

A check of the OP's source finds it to be put out by...

Atlantic Media Company - Our Story

That organization collaborates with the Conscious Capitalism Institute:

Conscious Capitalism Academic Consortium Underway

Thanks for turning me on to the connection. Dude.

linked.What's the big deal? It sounds like they're trying to encourage businesses that don't put profits above all else.

"evil capitalism" to people like Octafish.

Too funny.

Conscious Capitalism is the idea that corporations can be trusted to do right voluntarily. The same was floated by Lemuel Boulware, the GE mastermind who helped convert Ronald Reagan from FDR Democrat to Barry Goldwater repuglian.

You just disproved your earlier claim. Did you see that?

Earlier you claimed that the Aspen Institute published the National Journal. It's the typical Octafish two-step. It's also funny to watch your near-paroxysm when you encounter the word "capitalism".

Too funny.

Our Leadership
Business | Editorial

Business

David Bradley

David Bradley is the Chairman and owner of Atlantic Media Company.

Before entering media, David founded and owned two (now public) research companies - The Advisory Board Company and The Corporate Executive Board Company. With 50,000 applicants each year, the enterprises are the largest employers of young professional talent in the Washington region. David was a Fulbright scholar in the Philippines, serves on the boards of the Council on Foreign Relations and KIPP DC, and is a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

David graduated from Swarthmore College, received an MBA from Harvard Business School, and holds a JD from Georgetown University Law Center.

SOURCE: http://atlanticmediacompany.com/leadership/index.htm

The guy's vitae sounds like he's a leading member of the Establishment - or at least he's rubbing shoulders with them.

Oxymorons always make me laugh.

people don't understand what an oxymoron is.

How's that "socialist revolution" coming along, dude?

the National Journal is published by the Aspen Institute.

In response to your demand for information I had previously linked, here's what I wrote:

About Us

The National Journal Group, Inc., including Government Executive, was acquired by David G. Bradley, founder of the Advisory Board Company and the Corporate Executive Board, in 1997. Upon the purchase of The Atlantic in 1999, the Atlantic Media Company was established.

Today from our headquarters in Washington, DC, Atlantic Media's editorial and business teams collaborate to develop new and exciting products, stimulating events, and key partnerships, balancing esteem for the respected history of each of our publications with a businessman's entrepreneurial eye.

The Atlantic, with the Aspen Institute, annually gathers the nation's intellectual leaders to debate those ideas currently provoking American thought as part of the Aspen Ideas Festival.

In 2006, National Journal Group expanded into broadcast media, launching the PBS program Washington Week with Gwen Ifill and National Journal. Increasing this broadcast presence in 2007, National Journal and NBC News proudly announced joint coverage of the 2008 Presidential Elections and, later that year, XM Satellite Radio's National Journal On Air hit the airwaves.

Government Executive launched NextGov.com in 2008 to address the growing significance of the technology corridor on federal policy.

SOURCE: http://atlanticmediacompany.com/ourstory.html

Again, I stated the OP was from The National Journal, a publication of Atlantic Media Group. I stated Atlantic Media Group collaborates with The Aspen Institute. I also wrote The Aspen Institute collaborates with The Conscious Capitalism Institute, which you "promote." And that's your word, not mine. Dude.

Your initial claim was that the Aspen Institute published the National Journal.

It's funny to watch your spinning.

I believe you do that in order to discredit me as a DUer.

Tell you what: Show me where I wrote what you said.

Better yet, show me why you think I'm wrong for what I did write.

that is precisely what you wrote and it was the basis for your attempt to discredit the National Journalwhich is one of the most respected political publications.

;)

skin that smokewagon and see what happens.

whether they call themselves "liberal" or not.

even some Republicans support liberal policies without knowing it.

allies who might not consider themselves to be liberal, but could share our views on many issues.

not theirs.

For example, certain Democrats should stop saying tax cuts create jobs.

What tell is the traditional Democratic coalition put together since the New Deal and Civil Rights movement being replaced with? What makes up this coalition?

since the break-up of the Soviet Union. The far left isn't seen as a viable alternative anymore, to which concessions need to be made.

I grew up with. That would be the coalition that held it together. It's unwinding rapidly, especially while we have needed a change in direction away from our current rightward lunge.

It isn't seen as a viable threat anymore.

This country is liberal, sorry if that upsets you. Now we need to organize and we will. It took a while to realize how organized the far right was and how much of the media they bought up so they could control the message, speak FOR the people. But when the people speak for themselves, there is no question where they stand. It took THEM 40 years to take control of the message and to deliver their FALSE message and it will take time to overcome that, but not as long as it took them, because THEY had to try to overcome the American people's own positions on issues. We don't have to do that, we only have to provide a way for them to speak for themselves.

Oh, yeah? Then why is it so evenly divided between Dems and GOP?

As much as I wish it were liberal, we have to face facts. You can go on losing elections and conducting "citizen's arrests"

Not that I expect a truthful answer...

stupid question.

they offer so much well-thought-out, intelligent, meaningful debate. :eyes:

To the point where nobody realizes what it means anymore.

IMO, most Americans are "liberals" when it comes to their policy choices. They're just scared to death of the word.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The two party system is a fuckload of fail. Two parties with ever similar ideology arguing over nothing but partisanship based on assholery and to have something to argue about.

I have no idea what folks think chasing the far right over the cliff is supposed to accomplish for poor and working folks in this country or to show proper stewardship of our shared environment and wildlife.

The article just shows there is little point to the bickering other than "winning", what winning translates to is damn similar to losing from the people's standpoint.

republicans keep whittling down on the purity crap.Soon it will be white guys over 60.

and ownership.

that you have much actual involvement with the Democratic Party.

as long as they weren't divided?

when the differences in the party are barely discernable, then there's really no point in hitching my wagon to either one.

is like playing russian roulette with five live bullets in the chambers of a six shooter. Is that analogy too abstract for you?

give me something to vote for. i'm done voting against republicans.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.“ - Rosa Luxemburg

the DU liberal litmus test.

Driving the number of "actual liberals" (as defined by the actual liberals) down to around 1 in 5.

"if you disagree with me, you can't be a liberal"?

THAT litmus test?

But I'd say it this way ...

"If you disagree with me on the timing or the tactics for issue X ... you can't be a liberal."

Democratic Party? Liberal?

idiots or repuke lite.

not that I care about parties really, but still.

gone. All they have done is water down our beliefs and values.

You should mock and ridicule as often as possible. What could possibly go wrong?

said that self identification is not a good guide to political beliefs. It's MUCH more important to look at positions on ISSUES. The demonization of the word "liberal" has led people to hold "liberal" positions without calling themselves "liberal".

The moderates and Blue Dog corporatist are ruining the party turning us into a nicer version of the republicans. We need a real left-wing party.

influence in the democratic party to purge the overwhelming majority moderates.

the house and probably 98 of the senate seats.

Those 3 are nothing but Republicans who are ruining the party.

aren't real liberals, and so they need to go to as well.

Just so no one thought they were going to get away with sneaking in unnoticed.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised!!

Google that title to see who said it first!!!

With the "liberal" element of the party being a near-majority, you'd think the party's leaders would be more vocal about single-payer health care and getting out of Afghanistan.

I'm not conservative or liberal. I'm far left (socialist/communist). I occasionally show up at the polls to vote for the most labor-friendly candidate. Sadly there doesn't look to be much in that category for 2012, in which case I may just show up with anti-establishment signs in protest.

I do believe many people are identifying with "conservative" as a lifestyle choice. God, church, country music and all that ... That has been very adeptly handled by the reactionary-owned media. When push comes to shove, if you gave them a blind questionnaire they'd likely tell you they like roads, schools, Social Security, etc... but right now the media's marketing war is still winning.

I'm not sure if there is even a point in voting anymore.

marginalized and through group think try to get them to give up their Liberal values?

I don't give a flying fuck how other Democrats categorize themselves. I think for myself, thank you very much.

until it is blatantly obvious.

It's no great accomplishment to note that too many Americans are victims of right wing propaganda, or don't think for themselves, or have opinions that fail to recognize the reality of policies that others recognize do not work and who, therefore, would like to change those policies.

the way I see it, those who are conservative are simply behind the curve and eventually come around (think about the sorts of southerners who were racist by their refusal to see the real problem with policies in the south, or wanted MLK to "wait." - now most southerners would be ashamed of the rationales their parents may have provided for their lack of support for one of the GREATEST achievements of the 20th century in America - the civil rights movement.)

Those people were also among the "conservative" democrats.

Like I said - it's not a feather in your cap to acknowledge you're behind the curve.

Thank you.

Back then, the Democratic party did not listen to those who stupidly called for the party to abandon it's traditional base. Core ideals do not change with the prevailing wind and those who say otherwise never had any core beliefs to begin with.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Arbeit macht frei.

Here are some nice pictures to illustrate the differences between the parties.

Republicans:



Conservatives practically own the party, 3 out of 4 Republicans are conservative, and practically all the rest are moderates. I don't know who the 4% are who describe themselves as liberal, but it's obvious this is a very unified, more extreme party, and less of a coalition, which makes it easier to keep together.

Democrats:



There are as many moderates as there are liberals in the Democratic Party. And conservatives make up a hefty portion of the party as well, being 1 out of 5 Democrats.

As for Independents, the trend doesn't look good for us:



Then again, independents are fickle, and this was in 2010, a good year for Republicans.

one of the most highly respected political publications in the world.

I suspect you've got them confused with someone else.

87% of the 2 out of 5 Democrats isn't very many.