Redstate

...just one problem: you're neglecting to take into account all those people who've discovered that their 'fancy' pens don't actually work.  They don't want 'cheap' pens, either (this is not the analogy that I would have picked for the GOP/Democrat divide, btw, but I'm stuck with it); they want pens as much like their old pens as they can get, only working.

I've tortured this analogy enough: suffice it to say that it seems like every model I've seen for not taking the Middle too seriously assumes that Left/Right is a viable choice.  Not these days; you want a viable national security policy, you gotta go to the GOP.

like the option you are searching for is a new fancy pen than someone else paid for.

Instead, we get this fearful, gas pump pandering.

The Democrats' hatred of Bush has boxed them in on national security. They are fish in a barrel. Why is it that I can see this but the GOP can't?

...I want a pen that works.  Let's move away from pens; I don't like the fancy/cheap division that we're stuck with, here.  Let's talk tools instead.  I have a tool that I use for a job; the tool turns out to be useless for what I need it to do.  But there's still the job to do.

So I go looking for a new tool.  If I'm given a choice between two tools that both do the job that I need it for, I'll pick the tool that I'm most familar with.  It may well be that I will eventually discover that the tool most unlike my original tool is the better one, but that takes time.

Which is unlikely to change this election cycle, alas.

the situation perfectly, as none ever do, it is apt: people have either the mindset of conservatism or liberalism.  Conservatives generally think of people as individuals needing government to keep them from killing each other, to protect them from outsiders and itself. Liberals believe government can and should make things right between classes of people, and that by doing this those outside will see how nice we are and ignore us.

People go to the ballot box and declare their mindset.  Our job is to get more right-thinking people to the polls than the other side gets there.

There obviously is a Medium Price Pen market and all kinds of other niche markets.  While there may be some truth to this analogy at a real basic level - the mushy middle is often difficult territory - it simple isn't true (IMHO) in pens or politics.  In fact, a whole host of politicians get elected by appearing moderate and centrist without seeming too mushy.

This is true because votes - like prices - are set marginally.  Each person decides just how much they are willing to pay for a pen and the market forms around those choices.  Conservatives and liberals must decide just how centrist they are willing to go (given the make up of the district and other factors) and vote accordingly.  The GOP currently has the widest spectrum of candidates and so is able to garner a majority of votes.  This is because it is the natural home of its conservative base but is still able to reach out to those in the middle.

I simply fail to see how you can ignore the fact that there are plenty of popular moderate politicians.  The GOP should appeal to the center-right not just the right.

Obviously, the GOP has some work to do in convincing conservatives that it supports their agenda, at least in part, but that doesn't mean it should quit trying to appeal to the middle.

When I think of the middle, I think of my wife.

She pays little attention to any of these goings on until about a month before an election.

She's a Republican, but for no other reason than when she turned 18 and she had to check a box on the voter registration form, she chose the party of her parents.

She's pro-life, but abhors Rick Santorum because, "he's too preachy".

During dinner, she'd rather watch reruns of Seinfeld than the news.

Basically, I think she's like a lot of people that don't spend an extrodinary amount of time, like us here in the blogging community, paying attention to some of the more minor issues that play out in our world today.

Politicians need to play to that. There's no way around it.

In the pen analogy, this would correspond to somebody who can compete in both the low and mid priced market. But wooing the center in exchange losing people on the right is not. That is what we do when we support RINOs for office. It's OK to disagree on some issues, but when you have people like Chafee who agree with the party platform on exactly 0 issues, you do a lot more harm to the party than good.

The majority of these problems would go away.

If I could win Powerball, I would be able to pay off my mortgage early.

Don't get too caught up in the labels. There is a difference between being a "centrist," and trying to be both liberal and conservative. Under Dennis Hastert, House Republicans voted for the largest new entitlement program since LBJ, and to build the Great Wall of the Southwest. This is alternately acting like a liberal Democrat, and a Buchanan-style pitchforker. The size of the segment that holds those two things in the same policy set is very, very small.

As we can see, adding an expensive prescription drug benefit has garnered virtually no praise from the left. It has, however, alienated huge numbers of people on the right. Similarly, voting to build "the wall" was a pointless exercise that won no praise from the pitchforkers, but scared the heck out of many others.

Being bipolar is not the same thing as being even-tempered. Even if "on average" the bipolar individual is in a reasonable state, the actual behavior is always either too high or too low.

And yes, there are medium-price pens, just as there are still Macys stores. But in virtually no market does the firm occupying that position have a commanding market share or particularly stellar profits. "The middle" is a place for losers and also-rans. That there are plenty of losers and also-rans is not an argument for trying to become one on purpose.

Let me clarify it for those who think it is about a middle/moderate market. It is not. It is about people making a choice. For people to make a choice, they have to have clearly defined items from which to choose. This is what the Republicans seem not to understand. We have a great opportunity to give people clear choices. Do you want to drill oil wells in some God forsaken wasteland in Alaska that no more than 2,000 people have ever seen or do you want $4.00 gas? Do you want safe, clean nuclear energy or do want Iran, Venezuela and Russia to have us by our unlubricated ball-bearings? Do want Cuba to have Florida oil or us? Do you want to pay for the health care and education of illegal aliens or for you and your own kids'? Do you want France to negotiate with the terrorists for us or do you want us to go kill them? Do you want Kofi the Korrupt to control nuclear weapons proliferation or the US Air Force? Do you need a $12.00 pen to write your Congressman or will a .29 cent Bic do?

...you could even pay off my student loans at the same time.  

(pause)

There's a scheme there.

Anyway, seriously I think that our best bet on gerrymandering is to hit it one state at a time and think long-term.  Very long-term.  With no judiciary shortcuts; the solutions they offer are usually worse than the problem itself.

I think that this would help as well.

While I'm daydreaming, I think I will set a little something up with me going to Vegas and and meeting Trish Stratus there...

Count me in

I'm not sure about this whole 'there is no market for mid-priced pens' thing.  My favored pens are gel pens that sell for about a buck, and there are huge numbers of them at CVS (and pretty much anywhere else that sells pens).

Similarly, it just seems odd to say that there is no market for centrist ideology.  Obviously there is.  Of course, people at the ends of the political spectrum shout the loudest, but at the end of the day, the middle's vote counts just as much as theirs.  Does it really seem so strange to say that the majority of Americans are to the left of the right wing and to the right of the left wing?

...saying that for years.  :)

...not Trish Stratus, whoever she is.

I should have put this in my original post...

The reason Papermate lost ground to Bic is not that the mid-range pen market doesn't exist.  It does.  Check CVS or Staples if you don't believe me.  The reason Papermate is in a bad position is that they misjudged the mid-range pen market.  People won't pay twice as much for a ballpoint pen that retracts, but they will for a pen that writes better.

So, reapplying the analogy to politics: appealing to the center makes perfect sense if you actually appeal to the center.  But if you just dress up your same ideology as something that the center should embrace, you might be dissapointed.

The "pen" analogy fails because pens are basically insignificance who really agonizes over the choice of a pen?   The point of the analogy is that politics, like the pen market, is either-or.  But politics is often about things that are very significant, and people do pay careful attention (at least some of the time).  For that reason, a market-based example needs to deal with something important if it is to serve as a meaningful analogy to the political arena.  So pick a market that people pay attention to when they are shopping -- cars, for example, or houses (or any other big ticket item that people are careful about when making a decision to buy/sell).  

Does anyone really think that there is no such thing as a market for mid-priced cars, or houses?  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the conventional wisdom that the winning position  in politics generally doesn't stray too far from the center.  In politics, the real talent comes in knowing where to find the middle; and the extraordinary talent lies in being able to convince those open to persuasion that the middle is where that poltician is standing on an issue, rather than the position that you the voter had originally taken.

13 is good. We can keep that one.

15, 19, and 26 are okay, I guess.

The remainder are totally bogus. I'd settle for getting rid of 16 and 17, if pressed.

And Trish Stratus is a Professional Wrestler.

I'd personally rather start with number 12, but I'll settle for starting at 16

is unsliced bread.

Yes, but there is a difference between the Median political opinion and the political "Middle". Most politicians try and be as close to the Middle as possible, without realizing that (regarless of how they self-label) most people tend to lean conservative in their hearts.

Because of that, Democrats don't win by earning more votes, they win by the Republicans convincing the public that there's no difference between the two parties.

Except for California. All bets are off in CA.

...bread that's already sliced for you, then?

Yes, yes, aside from "bread that's already sliced for you".  :)

It's called "Sliced Bread". As in, "The greatest thing since sliced bread." I guess the last time you were in a supermarket it was with Bush Senior :-).

A quick search suggests that it's a British phrase, and I was reading Pratchett lately, so there you go...

I don't think it applies either to today's politics in the post-Bill-Clinton era and I also don't think it applies to marketing any longer.  Every product that I want to buy is intensively niche-marketed, and at times that's confusing, but it ensures that people will buy products across the spectrum that the manfuacturer offers.

Have a look at the digital camera market, for example.

The Republicans are not going to win this election by sticking to appealing to people who wanted to by Cross pens.  If this is the level of understanding our Republican strategists have to work with coming into this election cycle, I can forecast right now, definitively, that we're going to lose.  

the analogy is that you have to be clear about what you are marketing, and who your customers are. And that the current GOP seems quite confused on both counts.

Purchasing is about just two variables(usually): price and quality. Politics is about a vast comprendium of variables (the issues). It's not so much that most people are right in the middle; rather it is that most people are liberal on one issue, conservative on another and middle of the road on a third. Very few people are reliably liberal or conservative straight down the list-- in parft bercause neither liberalism nor conservatism are logically consistent; the ideologies are shaped far more by historical accident than by any sort of rational system of what stances belong to which ideology. So you really do need to keep the tent big and open if you want to put together a winning coalition. Stray too far toward the extremes and you will lose too many voters. Why do you think the Democrats have been exiled from power these last few years if not because they are listening too closely to their far fringe?

Because of that, Democrats don't win by earning more votes, they win by the Republicans convincing the public that there's no difference between the two parties.

The Democrats win by championing the idea of niche-marketed government services and programs to a population that has become addicted to them.  They enforce that addiction through a very strong Party hierarchy that is absolutely devoted to the extension of Keynesian economics (as far as the remaining Liberals are concerned) or Marxist economic theory (insofar as the Angry Left is concerned.)

Bill Clinton and the rest of his government were the first people on Earth who figured out how to take normally self-interested Americans and turn them into government Dependants:  you blind them with an endless barrage of programs that could potentially help them smooth over all of their burrs, help them pick their nits, and get them on the government dole for one reason or another.  Clinton is the person, singularly brilliant in his way, who was able to convince the American people that the answer to all of their prayers (and their curses) was to appeal to the Federal Government for help.  In that sense, everything that Al Gore thinks and everything that Hillary is going to do as President if she elected, follows naturally.

Clinton was, and still is, the most gifted politician on the planet.  He took the idea of endlessly expanding government to a level that nobody had ever imagined before.

Re: Because of that, Democrats don't win by earning more votes

Dems do win when they nove (sincerely or at least convincingly) toward the middle and the public believes they are not wild-eyed leftists out to experiment on the country with a pocketful of looney ideas. Hence the successs of Bill Clinton.

very few new programs. In fact his flagship proposal (health care reform) sunk like the Titanic. The Bush administration has expanded entitlements more than Clinton did.

For an example of the sort of Democrat politician you describe I think you have to go back to LBJ or FDR.

I agree that there is no real middle. The middle price pen market and centerist politics are small targets but the simplicity of the market for writing implements cannot explain the lack of a political center.

Most people hold some views that are considered extreme. In fact it almost impossible not to. The simpler an issue is, the more likely it is to be binary, putting anyone with an opinion at one extreme or the other. Those of us on the right hold more positions at the right extreme than at the left. Our opponents hold more lefty extreme positions. So called moderates simply have their extreme positions more balanced. A middle priced pen market could exist, but a political middle cannot because "moderates" disagree with each other about their extreme positions as much as they disagree with either side.

There may be some true moderates out there but they are a very small group. A vast majority of the political middle is lazy, apathetic or terminally conflicted.

We should thank our lucky stars that we don't have as many different voices pulling the party in all kinds of separate directions as the Donks do.  We've got a few, I would say perhaps three or four internal issues that need to be worked on.  But most Republicans and Conservatives will agree on the core principles:

1. Limited Government
   
   
2. Lower Taxes
   
   
3. Less Government interference in our lives
   
   
4. Capitalism
   
   
5. Respect for the Constitution as it was written
   
   
6. A strong national defense
   
   
7. An agressive foreign policy -- where it needs to be

We also have a singular opportunity, and we're missing it, to redefine education in this country and reverse the leftist "multicultural" trend and return to a "melting pot."  This means some terribly unconscionable things for people at our elite academic institutions.

There are a few other wonderful things that we can do if we put our minds to it:

1. True energy independence -- tapping the resources our Congress is forbidding us to use in the short term and
   
2. Concentrating on bringing to market the only three, real alternatives for power generation as we move into the future:  Nuclear, Thermonuclear, and Exoatmospheric Solar.
   
3. Realizing that raising the standard of the world's living is going to mean a form of competition, non-militaristic competition, economic competition, that frankly the United States is unfamiliar with.  We will need the help of some of our immigrants.  

Prescription Drug Benefit program?  Which around here, frankly, is something that most people would like to see repealed or, at the very least, means-tested.  Good luck doing that when Nancy Pelosi wants to see any kind of means testing absolutely forbidden, wants to see the Department of HHS have the power to negotiate for drug prices instead of the participants, and when the New Jersey Democratic Party was running advertisements hyping how Bush was "stealing their lousy old-lady Medicare money."  Gimme a break, dude.

for at least one issue very well. Immigration.

In thins one there is scarce little middle ground, you either want the status quo (tinkering with it wont do any good). Or you want to stop the flood of illegal migration, or at least put a serious dent in it.

  It is precisely here where the republican leadership is all squishy, and it will cost them.

We absolutely have to control the border with Mexico.  We don't have a choice in that politically any longer, and we can't sweep the illegal immigration under the rug any more, as so many of the businesses that have benefited from it have done.

Gingrich recognizes that the American people are fed up with the absolute lack of control we seem to have over the flow.  The simplest rhetorical question to ask is:  "If We Can Put Men On The Moon, How Come We Can't Control The Border With Mexico?"

The answer is that we can.  But it is going to cost us in the short term because we do rely on a lot of immigrant labor.  I think the American people really want to see the border controlled, and I think we can do it effectively: with a combination of "dumb fencing" and "smart fencing" that could also have real, tanigble benefits for our economy.  What if we could generate a few gigawatts of power using the fence?

Regardless, it should be crystal clear to anyone running for Congress right now that the American people are sick and tired of the current, wink-wink-nod-nod approach.  We've successfully completed projects on this scale before, and this one is a matter of national soverignty.  We need to tell anyone running for office on the Republican ticket:  if we support you, find a way to control the border or else get ready to go back home and live with Democrats sitting in your chairs.

Clinton enacted very few new programs.

No, Kowalski is right. It's just that Clinton's programs were all symbolism over substance. He had a new program practically every day. A hundred thousand cops on the street. Midnight basketball. These were all hyped in terms of how much might be spent on them in ten years, as if Clinton were going to be around for ten years. We'd get a headline like "Clinton to spend umpty-million putting cops on the street." In fact, a hundred thousand cops is chump change in the federal budget, and it all ended soon after it began. It was headlines and noise, and little else.  But there was Clinton out there doin' stuff, every day.

You're correct in that he did nothing significant, and left no legacy beyond a stain on a blue dress. But he and the media had a real song-and-dance going that would have you believe that he was "solving problems" left and right. I forget now which program it was, but there was one where the papers triumphally announced that Clinton was going to spend $10,000 on something. The federal government can't get the paperwork for a new program together for $10,000. But to read the papers, you'd think Another Problem had been solved.

Aren't restaurants such as TGI Friday's and Applebee's rather "middle," and also rather popular and successful?

I know - off topic, but I had to.

Part of what Clinton did was rhetorical and part of what he did was factual.  In his Cabinet positions, he did a lot of very factual things that are still having impact to this day.  And if he could have converted more rhetoric into fact, I know that you know he would have.  He did his best.  ;)

Most people don't care much at all for politics.  Of course most people that are here do, and therefore we all have skewed viewpoints regarding this.  The majority of people (most of whom do not vote most of the time) will either vote down party lines (for various reasons) or if they mix it up, they will do so based on relatively little knowledge (i.e.; "I heard John Doe hates babies so I am going to vote for Doug Smith").  John McCain's popularity is based on the fact that people think he is moderate.  Clinton was popular as a moderate too.  For some reason though, people are rejecting Bush's slide toward the center.  I think it is because those on the left will not like him no matter what, and each lurch toward the left further alienates him from those who were inclined to like him in the first place - those on the right.  Just my opinion though....

The "pen" analogy fails

No, the pen analogy is just fine, because most people put about as much energy into voting as they do picking a 50-cent pen. With houses and cars, people are constrained by income. They "choose" a mid-priced car because that's what they can afford. In politics, the poorest people can "afford" to vote for the most expensive government; it costs nothing to vote, and most people don't make any connection between their votes and their taxes.

Whether a pen is 29 cents or 50 cents isn't really a deal-killer for most people. The price is only an issue for purposes of keeping score; it doesn't really ration consumption the way million-dollar houses do. In that way it's exactly like voting... the price does not constrain the behavior; it's just there as a marker to tell one thing from another.

Besides which, you missed the point. The Republicans in Congress are not being politically "moderate." What they are doing is careening back-and-forth between LBJ-style liberal Democrats and "send 'em all back to Mexico" pitchforkers. They are the store where on any given day you can't tell whether the merchandise will be K-Mart's or Nordstrom's. They think by doing this they will appeal to everyone. But in fact nobody wants a store where they can't tell from one day to the next what merchandise they sell.

So let me get this right...or correct?

When it comes to buying pens I have two basic choices.

I should only want and use a pen that is certified and built according to the moral codes and beliefs which are spelled in sacred texts. This pen can only be used in proscribed ways to write things that are in concert with those moral codes and beliefs, and is never used on certain days of the week.  Oh yes, by the way, the pin inspector will be coming to my house to check in my bed room soon to make sure that I am using the pen only for those moral purposes that they were intended.

Or

I should only want and use a pen that is built using holistic, homeopathic, sexually neutral non value oriented collectives of granola eating communes.  These pins are "bought" using my taxes and handed out for free at times and at other times I am forced to take them.  One other thing about these pins, my kids are being taught in school that anyone who does not like these pins are not nice people, and are pin haters, and should be placed in jail.

How about, I don't like pens, they scare me.  I'd rather use a pencil?

Killer!

Stuff like this is what makes marketing hard. You have to be careful about grouping things that are actually substitutes for one another. TGIF and Applebees are only "middle" if you consider them part of a spectrum that includes McDonalds and L'Auberge. But hardly anyone flips a coin to decide between McDonalds and L'Auberge, or between either one of those and TGI Friday's. They are different kinds of places; a person might use all three on different occasions, just as somebody might have a Timex as a day-to-day watch and a Movado in a drawer someplace.

You can bet that both TGI Friday's and Applebees have spies that visit each other's places and keep close tabs on what the other guy is charging. Neither one of them wants to become the "medium price" offering in their market.

That said, neither of those companies is a Really Big Win, in the way that McDonalds was a Really Big Win. If you're going to have a political party, you want it to be the majority political party. You don't want to be some guy in the middle with a 3% market share. In politics you want the Big Win. You want McDonalds-class volume. You don't get that being Applebee.

It occurs to be that there is an example of a "medium price" fast-food joint: In-N-Out. I love their stuff. But as an investment in the fast-food business, they are also-rans. If they were a political party they'd be the Libertarians.

but it's not what the GOP is selling. Maybe we need to sell it to them first.

One quibble - I'm not sure how raising the worlds living standard fits in with the whole limited government approach.

It offers 5 different colors so as not use up the black ink faster than the other ink colors. It conveniently "rewords" written phrases that may offend the reader. It costs $5 dollars to make which puts it in the "fancy" category. But, it is sold for 30 cents so everyone can afford it. Order now as supplies are extremely limited.

Why is the choice between only two types of pens? Or, why not substitute a defective pen with.....ok, nevermind...

Why can't the "two party system" be Republicans vs Libertarians! Isn't it time we stop debating the benefits of socialism? Why can't we win this argument once and for all and move on to better debates?

The Democrats, led by Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, Feinstein, Dean, Boxer, etc, are weak. One effective campaign to teach the people how ridiculous the liberals theories are and the democrats are finished.

Well then, the other pens are what then?

The Hard Core Pen is very hard to use, it is prone to stop writing if the words are not to it's liking and if it really don't like what you are writing with it, it's prone to smiting you. But hey, Focus on the Pen (TM) has endorsed it as the only true pen that will ensure the "correct" words are written and civilization will be preserved.

The Libertarian, middle of road pin does not exist or at least the government is silent on the subject of pens, because what you write with is none of anyone else's darn business, and lets keep it that way.

How in the world did they end up buying SEARS? Like the author mentioned, they had just filed for bankruptcy in 2002. I know I'm way off topic here, but this is one news tidbit that really makes me wonder about our corporate "bankruptcy" system.

Every product that I want to buy is intensively niche-marketed

Niches are places to hide when you're a little guy. They are not where a political party with ambitions of running the government needs to be. The Constitution Party is a niche product. They are not going to run the government any time soon.

It's very difficult to collect 51% share (which is what you need in politics) by farming niches. That stuff is what makes the governments in places like Italy and Israel so unstable... they're constantly having to re-assemble the niche parties into governing majorities.

One effective campaign to teach the people how ridiculous the liberals theories are and the democrats are finished.

I don't believe that. I think there are people out there, probably about as many as there are of us, to whom liberalism makes perfect sense. To them it is the only true and correct way to live.

I think this is one of those Eternal Struggles that is designed not to allow either side to win. The object of the game is to keep the game going.

I agree that there are those on the left that really really believe their values are correct. But, that doesn't mean they're right.

Minimum wage is a case in point. It hurts the very people it supposed to help. This is Economics 101. Are you telling me they can't learn basic economics?

High taxes are a penalty on job creating businesses. Lowering taxes grows the economy. Are you telling me the liberals cannot learn this concept?

A "windfall tax" will actually increase the price of gasoline. Are you telling me liberals will never understand this concept?

Perhaps, liberalism as a category may exist "eternally" but that doesn't mean what constitutes liberalism cannot be changed.

Sure, there are social issues such as gay marriage that are worth debating. But, at some point, we need to put certain economic issues to rest.

Of course, there will always be a segment of our population that distrusts business more than government and thats ok. But, this segment should not be a major political party in a country founded on personal and economic freedom.

As I've said numerous times before, an educated populace is modern liberalism's worst enemy.

Why can't we package "economic freedom" into something easily understood by all people and not just "conservatives"?

Why can't we explain minimum wage and high taxes in a way that evokes positive emotion from the emotional party?

Conservatives have the better ideas. But, we sell those ideas in textbook format. We need to sell it in magazine format.

just that it makes sense to them. Yes, educating people about actual economics is good. But there will still be a lot of people who Just. Won't. Flip.

I fully acknowledge that liberalism "just makes sense" to most liberals. Like I said, that doesn't mean they're right. Can they not be corrected? Sure there will always be a segment that refuses to believe the simple laws of economics. But, surely you can agree that we can lessen the effect of liberalism as a major political party by educating the people of economic issues.

Strongly believing you are right and actually being right are two different things. Social issues fall more into the ambiguous area of politics that pure education will not always fix.

But, economics is closer to mathematics. There's not much to debate.

For example, why can't the bleeding heart liberals reject high taxes as a penalty on the very companies that provide jobs for the working class.

I like the story. Rush is fond of saying that moderates accomplish nothing, only those willing to push the envelope really progress.

I beg to differ with Rush, the moderates in this country get up every morning and work. 98% of people are not interested in pushing the envelope.  They want their lives relatively free of "interesting" and are content to try to make things better for their kids.

Your analogy suggests that there are no real benefit to being in the middle politically because people will either fall to the democrats or republicans and therefore the parties should focus on their respective bases.

I beg to differ with you.  I believe and there is some evidence to support it, that most voters no longer vote party lines.  They vote for the person that best speaks to their concerns.  The reality is that I might be very much a national republican and a local democrat (or national democrat and local republican).   Some people might buy a Bic for their desk, a Papermate to carry around and a Parker Pen to show off.  

Now, I am biased.  I host a blog called Moderate Mainstream.  And I can tell you that people are pissed at the cheapness of the BIC and the expense of the Parker and like another poster, more and more people are turning to pencils...

Your analogy suggests that there are no real benefit to being in the middle politically ..

I think we can look to the real world and see the same thing. The Republican party has moved steadily to the "middle" over the last several years, and has not obtained any benifit from doing so. All it has done is frustrate its supporters. How does that square with what you are saying?

For the record, I'm skeptical that something like the center exists. The "exterme right wing" views on a number of subjects command 40 - 70% support from the electorate. On a host of topics the "right wing" viewpoint actually is the center, assuming we are defining the center as the place where most people are.

You say:  "No, the pen analogy is just fine, because most people put about as much energy into voting as they do picking a 50-cent pen."

You've got a pretty cynical view of voters, and a really strange view of the political landscape.  In my experience, voters are generally not the dumb, disinterested boobs you seem to imagine.  In fact, most voters are not much different from you (or me).  In deciding who to vote for, certainly at the national level and often at the state level, voters want to understand what the candidate is proposing, and where he stands on the issues that matter.  A few are single issue voters but most want a more general sense of what makes each candidate tick.  They pay attention, not necessarily for years but certainly for an extended period of time before election day.  And the reason most people pay attention is because their vote is important to them.  They're smarter than you evidently think.  

The whole "pen" analogy trivializes that reality.  You say:  "In that way it's exactly like voting... the price does not constrain the behavior; it's just there as a marker to tell one thing from another."  So what that price does not "constrain behaviour"?  If this "pen" analogy is to have any point here, it must be that politics is like the "pen" market in that, in choosing between one cheap pen vs. another, no one really cares much about the choice because no one really sees a difference between the two products.  SO a small difference in price leads to different consumer behaviour because there is nothing else to differentiate the products.  

The point of your analogy between the non-existent "medium priced pen market" and the political marketplace is that politics is (or will be) just like that -- no one will see a difference -- unless the differences are made clearly and consistently, across the board of policy issues.  But the idea that no one will see a difference between Rep vs. Dem unless they're consistently different all the time according to some ideological measure across the board is just nuts.  In your original post, you were pressing the idea that politics is an either-or, with us or against us, kind of thing.  In my experience, it's nothing of the sort -- it's got lots of gray but little pure black or white.  

I'm not sure what to make of this comment, where you are referring to Congressional Republicans:  "What they are doing is careening back-and-forth between LBJ-style liberal Democrats and "send 'em all back to Mexico" pitchforkers. They are the store where on any given day you can't tell whether the merchandise will be K-Mart's or Nordstrom's. They think by doing this they will appeal to everyone. But in fact nobody wants a store where they can't tell from one day to the next what merchandise they sell."  

I gather this is a way of saying that the Prescription Drug benefit deal that Bush forced through Congress was a bad idea (perhaps it was), and is radically different from ideas animating the immigration proposals by Tancredo et al. (perhaps it is).  The larger point -- the bit about K-Mart vs. Nordstronm -- is that the Republican brand has to be consistently "conservative," defined using some particular yardstick (you don't say which one you have in mind among the choices -- small gov't, social, free market, something else), or it is worthless.   But in diffentiating between R vs D, everyone in 2004 saw the differences between the two choices.  Bush was for sticking it out in Iraq, Kerry was not (at least on alternate Tuesdays); Bush was for acting unilaterally when necessary; Kerry was all about doing nothing without first getting the French on board; Bush was generally for the socially conservative position; Kerry not; etc.  That Bush has sponsored the largest increase in any entitlement program in decades may have been a bad policy choice, but it didn't prevent anyone from seeing the obvious differences -- even on the two parties' approach to entitlement spending.  That was made clear by Bush's press to give younger folks the right to invest some of their Soc Sec fund in market-based investments -- an idea almost all the Dems have rejected.  Your suggestion that the Prescription Drug Entitlement program got everyone confused, to the point that they didn't see a difference in the choice between Bush and Kerry defies the obvious reality that we all lived through.

Without belaboring it, I think this whole "pen" analogy is off on the wrong track because it is based on a unrealistic view of the messy, far-from-pure political marketplace that we actually live in.  There is and never has been any ideological purity in either major party. (Fred Barnes, for example, has a piece in the current Weekly Standard making a similar point about Bush as a "conservative" to the core despite his occasional wanderings away from what some might view as the standard "conservative" take on a particular issue.)  But that does not mean that people don't understand that the R's are the "conservatives" and the D's are not; or that people don't understand generally how that difference impacts on what the R's would do differently from the D's.  Your "pen" analogy fails because it suggests that voters can't see those differences and don't act on them, when they obviously can and consistently do (which is why political marketing intended to disguise basic differences only has limited effects).  

Are you sure you'd want to get rid of presidential term limits, the revised presidential succession and restrictions on Congressional pay raises?