Lou Dobbs: The Man in the Middle

Via Micah Sifry, the interactive version of this graphic is really more interesting than the static one represented above. Either way, though, you see the relationship between readers of different books, and you can see that the major political titles cluster into essentially non-communicating "liberal" and "conservative" clusters. In the middle, you see three books two of which are by Lou Dobbs.

That's about as good an illustration as you could like that insofar as there's some kind of excluded middle in our current political situation it's not the brand of Bloomberg-style "centrism" that the bemoaners of partisanship tend to favor. Instead, it's something akin to Dobbs-style populist nationalism. It's not a point of view I favor, but unlike Bloombergism it is a point of view that has a lot of support and only a little representation.

Comments

Bloombergism is a word now? :-)

On domestic issues I think there is a lot of Dobbsism in John Edwards. Edwards, like Dobbs, talks a lot about the corrupting influence of big corporations.

Foreign policy wise, you probably have to look toward Hillary Clinton for the Dobbs position. Dobbs doesn't challenge the basic premises of our foreign policy, only that our plans are being carried out poorly.

Posted by ChrisWWW | January 3, 2008 2:06 PM

It's weird. For almost two decades now, the swing vote in American politics has been the Perot voters.

You'd think that would've become the CW by now, but somehow it never penetrates the consciousness.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:09 PM

ChrisWWw, you're leaving out what Dobbs spends the overwhelming amount of his time on:

Immigration.

In electoral politics his view is represented more or less by Tancredo.

Otherwise it's not really represented in full-throated form, unless the Republicans decide to run a "all brown menace, all the time" campaign, which they may very well do.

Posted by riffle | January 3, 2008 2:09 PM

Yes, exactly.

Bloomberg and Dobbs both represent "the middle" in that their ideologies are a mix of super-imposed states normally associated with the Right and the Left. But their ideologies are the *opposite* mix of super-imposed states, just as one might easily find in lots of quantum physics situations.

Since they're neither Left nor Right, two new reasonable names might be that Bloomberg's ideology is the "Money" state, while Dobbs's ideology is the "Popularity" state.

Now if the "Money" state were somehow combined with the "Popularity" state, we'd clearly have a huge political winner, but separately they won't work.

I know! Bloomberg should pick Dobbs as his VP! Admittedly, they disagree on absolutely everything, but that hasn't prevented lots of previous Democratic and Republican tickets from being formed along similar lines...

Posted by RKU | January 3, 2008 2:12 PM

"In electoral politics his view is represented more or less by Tancredo."

While Dobbs is indeed obsessed with immigration, the broader Perot vote is an anti-globalization vote on several levels.

You can talk about immigration, Islamic terrorism, or middle-class jobs being exported, and you're talking to them.

They're scared about the world outside our borders impinging on their way of life in a wide variety of ways.

Edwards' closing Iowa ad about jobs at the Maytag plant being sent overseas is just as much about their concerns as Tancredo's ramblings are.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:16 PM

How do you know Dobbs' views have a lot of support?

Posted by DTM | January 3, 2008 2:18 PM

Right. Bloomberg is being taken seriously by the media because he's a media billionaire, while a potential bid by Dobbs, which makes far more sense in terms of appealing to a large but underserved section of the electorate, is ignored by the media -- even though Dobbs is one of them!

It would be pretty funny if we ended up with a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg all-New York City threeway race. It would sure demonstrate how much power is now beholden to the money of Wall Street.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 3, 2008 2:19 PM

Very interesting. I am not sure if your total argument is correct, but the points raised are very interesting. I would throw in that Pat Buchanan types fit in here somehow, and then that Buchanan saw potential in the remnants of Perot's party. Certainly Dobbs is picking up on what Perot had. What has screwed Pat types in the past from forming bigger coalitions is the anti-libertarian stances as to "family values" and abortion. Dobbs' fans probably also watch CNBC to check on their 401K's and many probably enjoy naughty things like porn, and violence in movies.

Posted by artapppraiser | January 3, 2008 2:33 PM

It's weird. For almost two decades now, the swing vote in American politics has been the Perot voters.

You'd think that would've become the CW by now, but somehow it never penetrates the consciousness.

It doesn't fit into the world the media elite occupies. Take Joel Klein's most recent entry on the Edwards rally in Des Moines last night. He says sure lobbyists write the laws, millions of Americans lack health care and wages are stagnant, but whines the Edwards is uncivil about it. (And John Mellencamp is no Springsteen or some such twaddle) Bloomberg appeals to the Punditburo and their buddies so they write about him.

Posted by AJ | January 3, 2008 2:34 PM

p.s. to Petey,

I commented before reading the comments, I see you are already on the Perot thingie. :-)

Posted by artapppraiser | January 3, 2008 2:35 PM

"It's not a point of view I favor, but unlike Bloombergism it is a point of view ..."

I think that sentence looks better unfinished.

Posted by Njorl | January 3, 2008 2:35 PM

"I commented before reading the comments, I see you are already on the Perot thingie."

And you are correct that Buchanan tapped into a certain section of the Perot voters.

But it really is amazing to me how folks don't connect the various phenomena in American politics to the Perot voters. The Gingrich revolution in '94 was all about the Perot voters. Dobbs is all about the Perot voters. Huckabee and Edwards this time around are both trying to mobilize Perot voters.

They're rural. They're economically downscale. And they're terrified about foreigners, be they Mexicans coming here for jobs, Saudis coming here to kill us all, or Chinese staying there and taking jobs.

When either party wins over the Perot voters, they become the majority. They are the decider on the national level.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:41 PM

Petey is 100% spot on. A candidate who can retain the core elements of the party who also figures out how to get this section of Americans engaged enough to vote will be formidable.

It is why the intense opposition to the immigration bill was such a surprise to the political elites in each party. It was not just R's in the hinterlands who opposed the bill-- the cross section of people Petey describes, many of whom are otherwise apolitcal, lined up solidly against it.

Of the candidates, Edwards is speaking directly to this audience. If he can capture enough D primary voters to go with him on the populist stuff, the R's should be very concerned.

McCain could alos do well with this group, but he was blind on the immigration issue. Maybe he now understands and will be forgiven. If so, that is why D's should worry about McCain.

Posted by Beer Here | January 3, 2008 2:41 PM

The reason that these swing voters keep swinging is that neither of the main parties can make a permanent play for them. Permanent majorities want tax increases on the rich and social conservatism. They're getting tax cuts for business and gay marriage. They'll be swinging again and again.

Posted by otto | January 3, 2008 2:45 PM

ChrisWWW:

re: "Edwards, like Dobbs, talks a lot about the corrupting influence of big corporations."

I think you are way off on the wrong track.

Dobbs is the former Mr. Capitalism Anchorperson and Perot was former head of a big corporation and their appeal is/was partly in that. Anti-global-corporations, now that, that they are. They just sell knowing how to do capitalism right. Edwards is going to have a real tough time convincing a Dobbs demographic that he doesn't deserve a "take from the rich and successful for welfare" label. I cannot see how Edwards can sell himself as the new Ronnie.

Posted by artapppraiser | January 3, 2008 2:45 PM

"It's not a point of view I favor, but unlike Bloombergism it is a point of view ..." I think that sentence looks better unfinished.

Say what you will about the tenets of nationalist populism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

That said, no one goes any further for the Perot voters than Edwards or Gingrich, because any serious attempt to co-opt them risks creating an enlarged but radically unstable coalition. Parties have to plan beyond the next election.

Posted by Senescent | January 3, 2008 2:47 PM

what isn't hard to believe is that immigration reform is a cross-partisan issue (not necessarily a bi-partisan solution). Lou Dobbs has made a serious effort at informing the public (in his case > 700K people a weekday) about this problem -- he has also made his opinion clear -- something refreshing in the completely bland nightly news category. Glancing at the titles of the other books, it appears the be the likely suspects on both sides -- no surprises there!

Posted by mike c | January 3, 2008 2:52 PM

I'm with Petey, too. Anti-globalism seems to be the common thread between Perot, Buchannan, Nader, and Paul. And it has strains on both the far left and far right, though for different reasons.

Posted by Royko | January 3, 2008 2:54 PM

artapppraiser,
I read Dobb's book from a year or 2 ago. He spent a lot of time deriding big lobbyist money from big pharma, the insurance companies and oil. So maybe you're right. He's not so much against big corporations, he's against these cartel type organizations.

Posted by ChrisWWW | January 3, 2008 3:04 PM

Edwards is going to have a real tough time convincing a Dobbs demographic that he doesn't deserve a "take from the rich and successful for welfare" label.

Ah, another of those wonderful irregular conjugations: Dobbs' gentleman ranch in upscale New Jersey makes him a man of the people, while Edwards' big house makes him a fop.

Lou Dobbs has made a serious effort at informing the public

Ah yes: he apparently still believes that a plague of Mexican lepers has infested the United States.

And Petey: if it's a choice between mobilising the nativist paranoids and losing, I'd honestly take losing. That's like saying that if you'll start smoking, it will impress the opposite sex, albeit at a future risk of lung cancer.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 3, 2008 3:06 PM

"And Petey: if it's a choice between mobilising the nativist paranoids and losing, I'd honestly take losing. "

I'll take winning.

You go to war with the electorate you've got, not the electorate you want.

You can mobilize the Perot-istas on opposing corporate greed just as easily as you can mobilize them on grounds I'd guess we both find far more distasteful.

"That's like saying that if you'll start smoking, it will impress the opposite sex, albeit at a future risk of lung cancer."

I smoke. And it's gotten me enough highly desirable additional tail at the margins that I'd be willing to sacrifice a few years at the end of my life for the pleasure.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 3:14 PM

On understanding Bloomberg and what he's up to, might I suggest that he really doesn't want to be president. What he wants to be is Machiavelli. I am all the more convinced having gone to wikipedia entry and finding this Machiavelli quote as summing up his unifying theme:

All cities that ever at any time have been ruled by an absolute prince, by aristocrats or by the people, have had for their protection force combined with prudence, because the latter is not enough alone, and the first either does not produce things, or when they are produced, does not maintain them. Force and prudence, then, are the might of all the governments that ever have been or will be in the world.

Bloomberg simply wants to influence the race in a direction he thinks it should go for the long-term future of the country. If that means having to run himself, he'll do it, but that's not the main thing he's after. One thing for sure I know: he's not doing what he's doing expecting that he's going to be the next president. Just like Machiavelli, this is a guy who loves the word "prudence."

Posted by artapppraiser | January 3, 2008 3:17 PM

Instead, it's something akin to Dobbs-style populist nationalism.

Exactly.

It's known that Rove considered John Edwards his "nightmare" opponent in 2004. He was correct in his thinking.

Brainless Zombie Populism, like that of Edwards and Dobbs, cuts across party lines (at least for the large group of people who know nothing about civics but never miss a vote).

Posted by Shinyk | January 3, 2008 3:18 PM

The degree to which Pat Buchanan taps into the populist nationalism of Lou Dobbs is shown nicely above, in that Buchanan's "Day Of Reckoning" ties into the "purple" books in the center, and is the only "red" book directly connecting to a "blue" book -- one by Jack Cafferty, who does seem like the right guy to straddle the line between liberal and populist nationalist.

(I'm discounting the other red-blue connector, between "Nation Of Sheep" and "The End Of America," since I think it's an error. There are two noteworthy political books called "Nation Of Sheep," a liberal one by William Lederer and a conservative one by Andrew Napolitano. Amazon links a book titled "Nation Of Sheep" to all of the books "Nation Of Sheep" links to above -- Lederer's to Naomi Wolf's "The End Of America" and Napolitano's to the other, conservative, books.)

Posted by cminus | January 3, 2008 3:24 PM

We should all look for Dobbs to jump in and run himself. He's a very effective communicator and seems poised to run right now.
as a hillary style dem I find his bent on the world crazy and contemptable but it really works and persuades a lot of people.

Posted by Michael | January 3, 2008 3:25 PM

Re: They're rural. They're economically downscale.

Well, no. Most of them are suburban. But they are economically stressed, and their pet passion nowadays is anti-immigration.

Re: Permanent majorities want tax increases on the rich and social conservatism.

I disagree. Permanent majorities want government largesse but with minimal tax increases (enough to balance the budget, nothing more). And most people want social moderation, rejecting the radicalism of both extremes. That is, they want abortion to stay legal (with some restrictions) and do not want gay marriage (but may tolerate civil unions). Remember, Perot was pro-Choice, and had rather little opinion on gays at all.

Posted by Jonf | January 3, 2008 4:34 PM

John Judis (I think--if not it was someone else writing in The New Republic back when it was worth reading) dissected this phenomenon very well about 1992. There are two groups--what he called the "sensible center" and the "radical middle"--and the commentators find this confusing. The sensible center is cosmopolitan, urban, internationalist, socially liberal but economically libertarian, etc. Think Colin Powell (back then) or maybe Bloomberg now. The radical middle is provincial, suburban, strongly nationalist, protectionist, socially conservative though not fanatical on these issues, and not hostile to a degree of economic paternalism. The sensible center is generally richer than the radical middle, but money isn't the main issue: a college professor might belong to the sensible center while a strip center developer might belong to the radical middle. Think Ross Perot (back then) or Lou Dobbs now.

Posted by y81 | January 3, 2008 5:03 PM

I got The Onion's Our Dumb World for Christmas, and it didn't strike me as a particularly liberal book. Yet here it's a twig on the blue bush, branching from Jefferey Toobin's book about the Supreme Court???

Posted by Grumpy | January 3, 2008 5:13 PM

While I can see how the Onion would attract liberal readers more, I hadn't guessed that the market for it was so slanted. That's what happens when my closest conservative friends are in favor of gay marriage.

I agree with the think about the Perot-Buchanan point. y81 makes a decent point, but I think the "sensible center" does tend to skew Democratic in general (unless they have a blue-state Republican like Bill Weld or Lincoln Chafee to vote for) and are probably just Democrats who like to stay above it all by not calling themselves that.

What is left out of the conversation, though, is that there are decent portions of this country that neither party has sufficiently tapped, so these populations tend to be apolitical (and this not buy political books) and/or not vote. Young single women are probably the largest untapped potential voting bloc in the US. Latinos living in the South are another (part of the reason immigrant bashing is so popular in Georgia as of late is that politicians can do it without having to worry about much of an organized Latino backlash). Somehow I doubt that Lou Dobbs appeals to these groups. Their lack of political activism also means they aren't part of the sensible center either.

Posted by Reality Man | January 3, 2008 10:26 PM

Populism has only "a little representation"?

It's the heart of Edwards' message.

And Huckabee? He's the Second Coming of William Jennings Bryan.

Posted by jeet | January 4, 2008 1:31 AM