CON GAMES: The Quiet Majority In The New Century

January 29th, 2008 at 05:59am Michael Conniff 2

We have all no doubt heard of "The Silent Majority" and "The Moral Majority," but I would like to posit "The Quiet Majority."

The two previous "majorities"--both Silent and Moral--were a way of defining a fundamental shift toward conservatism marked by anti-communism, religiosity, and what were once known as "family values" before Republicans with multiple wives started to run for President. The Quiet Majority, in contrast, is not tied to these arcane formulations--or any others, for that matter.

The Quiet Majority is based on basic freedoms--of speech, religion, sexual orientation--and the right to a level playing field that is unalterably American. The Quiet Majority believes in a strong defense built on morality, one that resists the chest bumps of unilateralism and neoconservatism. The same morality resists earmarks and the corporate dominance of government at all levels.

Personal freedoms, a measured foreign policy, alternative energy, and the rejection of the corporate gene are all powerful components of this new majority. But those are just ducks on the pond. Above all, The Quiet Majority lives in the center of the political debate and likes to pick and choose.

Here's what I mean. The vast majority of voters look at problems in pragmatic, nuanced fashion belied by the partisanship of political debate in the year 2008. Most people are not card-carrying liberals or free-range conservatives but free-thinkers who think there are things to love and to hate about both parties. They know government is too big--and spending way too much--and they want to do something about it.

I look at my own political evolution as moving more and more toward the pragmatic center of The Quiet Majority. The first manifestation was when, years ago now, I suggested in a newspaper column that the United States should put up a fence if it wanted to fix the immigration problem. At the time, and even now, liberals are not supposed to believe in border fences--but I did and I do.

The same thing with abortion, the most difficult issue of all for liberals. After speaking with students at Yampah Mountain High School in Glenwood Springs it dawned on me that adoption was a far more viable option than I had known before. But liberals are not supposed to talk about adoption in any way, shape, or form, for fear that it would interfere with "a woman's right to choose."

Nuclear energy is another good example. I have come to believe over time that we need to take a much closer look at the technology and figure out a way to deal with nuclear waste, the major sticking point from my perspective. This is a liberal talking: just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean I have to march lockstep with those who won't even discuss nuclear power.

In cherry-picking my views on all these issues, I believe I'm no different that most of us in The Quiet Majority. We may lean left or right, but at the end of the day we live in the middle, looking at the problems of America one by one, without any adherence to single, limiting political philosophy. Tell the truth, I can't think of any other way to think about politics in the 21st Century.

Entry Filed under: Politics, Basalt, Colorado, Con Games, United Post

13 Comments Add your own

1. Cathleen Krahe | January 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am

The quiet majority most likely thinks nuclear power is a good solution to our alternative energy needs, but I do not. I worked for 8 years at a N.J. pharmaceutical company that manufactured nuclear medical products. We also manufactured all non radioactive dosage forms. The nuclear division had the most problems. Since it was hard to attract good employees even though they were paid a premium, some a little crazy.

Even low levels of radiation can cause health problems, thus people had to wear badges which were checked monthly. I did notice a higher rate of health problems among long time emplyees working in the building where the radioactive products were made.

Seeing the dangers associated with nuclear manufactuing, led me to join the Princeton based Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament-my introduction into becoming a peace activist.
2. Hugh520 | January 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

All of this free thinking gets harder in the age of advocacy-personality driven journalism, eg, FOX, CNN and MSNBC. If the Fourth Estate had done its job, would we be in Iraq? Or might the "Quiet Middle" have risen up to say no. We'll never know.

When Ms. "Run Amok" Judy Nathan prizes accessibility over the truth, and gets "page one" for her "stenography." We're in trouble.

When idiots like CNN's Glenn Beck are given 45 million dollar contracts to spout their nonsense about global warming. We're in trouble.

I love the movie Broadcast News directed by James L Brooks in 1987. There's a scene where I believe William Hurt gives the slightest hint of what he thinks of the news he's just read to millions. The scene switches to the production booth, where the crusty veteran newsman Robert Prosky mutters under his breath, "Who gives a damn what you think." Amen.

Beck's transparent idiocy was on display when he cited the movie National Treasure as his moment of truth for the words, "We the people," He's getting his research from a Nicolas Cage movie, for the love of God!

One of my ongoing themes about our government is that its become totally dislodged from our common understanding. If people, who's full-time job it is to look into the goings on in Washington can get it so wrong, what's the average Joe like me to think? Even if I'm a "cherry-picker" how do I know which tree? It's becoming increasingly harder to even know what a "middle" is let alone vote for it.

Before you get too comfortable with fences, ask yourself how you'd feel if you had property abutting the Rio Grand. It's been in your family of cattle ranchers for generations, and your cattle, not to mention your view and access to a natural wonder is going to be cut off. These locals are trying to tell us something, but is anyone listening? Ask yourself what price would I pay to fence up the beauty of the Rio Grand? This border could just as easily be in Colorado. What then? We need to think this one through a bit longer -- it's economics that's driving the migration. There's got to be a better way.

But your right Mike, There's no other way to "do" politics these days. No one party has all the answers -- they never did. But I'll say this: I'm a democrat and proud of it. My family are all democrats to. We've even converted a sister-in-law purely by osmosis - not argument. I believe it's the party with a heart and a conscience. I believe it's the party that cares about the thousands of homeless vets. It's the party not in thrall to the military and its profitable suppliers. It could never produce a Cheney who has so little regard for you and me. And in the bargain its way of seeing America has produced yet another truly inspirational candidate in Senator Obama.

I love Caroline Kenedy. She never lost her democratic roots -- to those who have been given much, much is expected. She's not spending her life trying to rid us of the death tax. She's spending it speaking more truth to power than The Grey Lady did when it mattered.

And now Mr. Obama has her vote and her uncle's to, not Hillary. Whaddya think about that? I'd say it's a good example of cherry picking, wouldn't you?
3. Mitch.Mulhall | January 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Michael,

Great post. Glad to see your views evolve in this way.

The trouble with politics, which is to say “towing a party line,” is that it commits you to a platform of unsupportable generalities. Abortion is right, even when adoption would clearly be a better choice for every life involved. Nuclear energy is wrong, even when the two petroleum-powered automobiles in every garage make us beholden to a culture that won’t let a woman drive, let alone vote. Stem cell research is wrong, even when the prospects for effective medical treatments for victims of a host of conditions are great… The list goes on and on and on.

Rather than seeking the best outcome to a question or situation, partisan politics obligates you to hold, champion, and defend a code of rights and wrongs, which, among other things, can make a position dumber than a mud fence.

I don’t know how I became so jaded, but I used to think that where the great un-washed were concerned, the very act of speaking or writing a political opinion seriously de-legitimized it. Political commentary was strictly the domain of heavy-hitters like Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and the like, people who had paid some serious journalistic or political dues, or people who had an intellectual pedigree with ivy growing out of it. Not so anymore. Some of the more thoughtful commentary—spoken and written—I’ve heard and read lately has come from people in this valley. And I’m not talking about opinion, either. This morning, for example, Ed Troy spoke about the different weights of Plutonium as if he’d crammed for a chemistry test all night, and I know he was speaking extemporaneously. The point is, there are some truly remarkable people in this valley, and I’m pleased to see not all of them are silent.

I don’t agree with them all the time, but that’s another matter…

Cheers,
4. Jerry Bovino | January 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I loved your post Michael. It's interesting that the silent majority and the moral majority were neither. The "quiet majority" you allude to are those left in America with any amount of independent thought and common sense. They are the people who don't march along like the little automatons and who don't allow the party regulars to dictate their thoughts.

The Democratic Party shot itself in the foot for the last two elections because they chose candidates too far to the left for most Americans. The extremes of both parties hijack the nominations. They forget that most Americans like their politicians to govern from the center. George Bush, an inherently weak, inarticulate candidate, beat Al Gore and John Kerry. Why? Al Gore, although a very decent man, was not able to translate his sense of reason and fairness in the televised debates. Americans thought he was a stiffo. John Kerry was just too far to port and didn't resonate with middle America.

One would think that the Democrats might finally learn their lesson. They had wonderful, centrist candidates like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson to choose from. They are men who all Americans could respect as leaders. Instead, they line up Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards. I know the party regulars love these candidates, but will they resonate with Michael's "quiet majority" in Peoria? This is going to be an interesting race.
5. Mitch.Mulhall | January 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Jerry,

I agreed with every thing you wrote until you typed "They had wonderful, centrist candidates like Joe Biden..."

To me, the definition of a quandary is having to choose between Joe Biden's mouth and Dennis Kucinich's brain. Thank the good Lord it did not come anywhere close to that.

Cheers,
6. Jerry Bovino | January 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Mitch...touche! That really made me laugh.

Actually the real dilemma will be choosing between Joe Biden's bad hair transplant and Joan Rivers third face lift.
7. Mitch.Mulhall | January 31st, 2008 at 12:12 am

Jerry... I'm getting too old to criticize anyone's face lift. I'll take satisfaction in your laughter...

Cheers,
8. Edward Troy | February 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am

1) Ionizing radiation is at least a statistically significant cofactor in causing cancer and other mutagenic pathologies. It is very likely to be an statistically significant independent factor in mutagenic pathologies.
2) There is no generally accepted safe sequestering technology regarding nuclear waste disposal, for 30,000 --
200,000 yrs, including terrorist activities now and in the future.

when those two issues are resolved, put me on the bandwagon.

Hillary Clinton is the first candidate (do correct me if I am wrong) in the kodak debate, to mention the requirement of the oxymoronic Mexican government, to pay their erstwhile citizens wages, that would address the initial motivation to come here in the first place.
Why this took so long for any of the candidates drunk on ego, to tell the American people, is simply beyond me. Mitch, thanks for the plug. I am writing this to keep a scintilla of sanity, and must retire again for awhile.
9. Mitch Mulhall | February 1st, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Ed,

If writing keeps you sane, do so more often. God knows I'll read your words.

Cheers,
10. Pete | February 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am

Good post, Michael. Got me thinking about being a member of your "quiet majority" and how my own opinions have changed during the course of my short 58 years, always trying to draw on my own experiences and learning.

We need a blog on the virtues of educated "flipping".

When a candidate for office changes his/her position on a subject (Romney on abortion; McCain on taxes; Kerry on everything!) they are labeled a flip-flopper. But what is wrong with being a "flipper?"

I agree that when our candidates for office change their positions on issues from one election to the next (local office; state office; national office), they should be heavily criticized. Is it too much to ask our politicians to study the many complicated issues of our times and take a strong position? And stick with it?

But when a candidate evolves his/her thinking on an issue based on new technologies, unforeseen outcomes, personal experiences, etc., that would be a positive for me. In other words, they start out with a belief on a subject and in later life they "flip" to being a strong proponent of a different point-of-view. What's wrong with allowing candidates one educated flip??

I have long held the belief that abortion is wrong. And rather than broaden my thinking on this issue, I just stuck with my strongly held view. But now, in my old age, I can appreciate the argument of a woman's right to choose, so I find myself accepting where we are on this issue and trying to make the best of it. Like your new-found awakening to adoptions - what's wrong with a program that strongly encourages adoptions, even if the party-line liberals don't want to talk about it?

It would take a very special politician to pull this off, something I don't see in our run-of-the-mill Washington types running for office today. Obama is the only one who shows a glimmer of independence from conventional party-line politics. Without a change-agent like an Obama, we in the "quiet majority" will continue to be pushed around by the dueling forces of the extremes.
11. Hugh520 | February 4th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

There's a vast gulf between a newly informed POV and flipping. Mitt Romney has given us a text-book example of a flipper. Rudey Guillani wasn't far behind.

These men, instead of arguing for their former views, just gave them up like a dose of the clap in the interest of personal ambition.

The electorate, I have to believe, hates this. Just what might it have been that made you either of you pro-choice that now makes you pro-life?

What part of this singular issue did you fail to think through? Was if the vacuum used in the procedure, or the finality? I'd love to hear your explanation.

Did a light go on on in your head, other than the light of your own electability?
12. Hugh520 | February 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

I guess the acid test on flipping is whether the "flip" leaves you closer to the base positions of your party or further away. This test is particularly relevant, when and if you are seeking advancement within that party structure.

Mitt Romney and the resurgent John McCain are shop keepers with nothing left on their shelves. The Republican store is as bankrupt as the Veterans Administration.

I had praise for John McCain when he took on Bush the Ist, but I've watched with increasing disgust the contortions he's performed to make himself palatable to the Republican base.

You can't buy back your soul. It was never meant to be a shelf item in the first place.
13. find insurance van&hellip | October 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

find insurance van...

atheistic grandma erratum blossomed bounty,...