The United States is, by most accounts, significantly skewed to the right in terms of its political positions. What would be considered "conservative" in the United States is significantly farther to the right of the cultural equivalent in Europe, namely the United Kingdom. According to many ultra-liberals within the Democratic Party, this is a tragedy. But is this really a bad thing?

The Democrats, of course, are in one of the best electoral positions they have been in generations. The party has won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and has demographics on its side, particularly the invaluably increasing Hispanic voting percentage. When most political pundits agree that the only way for the Republican Party to survive is for it to take a leftward step, it would appear that the ostensibly center-left political party, the Democratic Party, holds the leverage in the future of this country's political discourse.

The Democrats are now attempting to use this newfound leverage to usher in more liberal control of the party, and a much more liberal agenda for this country. Such an attempt, though woul be misguided and unwise. The United States is a center-right nation politically, but this is not because there is no viable left-wing alternative.

The recent mayoral election in New York has been a fine example of this lurch to the left by the party. Christine Quinn, the City Council speaker who was supported by much of the Democratic establishment, came in an embarrassing third-place finish in the Democratic primary as her more liberal opponents berated her alleged centrism. Quinn supported many items of incumbent Michael Bloomberg's agenda, including those that made die-hard liberals uneasy, such as her support for education reform. Bloomberg, a former Republican, may not have been the best endorser himself for Quinn. The victor of this primary, Bill de Blasio, is significantly more liberal on many of these issues.

Other examples of this phenomenon have been seen in the last month, like when fast food workers throughout the nation went on strike in search of higher wages. Ultra-liberals throughout the country flocked to stand in complete solidarity with the strikers' demand of a $15.50 minimum wage. While many in this country, including myself, agree that the minimum wage is too low, the amount demanded is somewhat excessive. Similarly, ultra-liberals have fought any and all attempts of military intervention, however limited, in Syria. The new tactic has apparently conflated a desire of the party for only just or reasonable wars with a dovish foreign policy reminiscent of George McGovern.

These cries from the left-wing are growing louder, and are being heeded more often. Cory Booker, the charismatic mayor of Newark, N.J. and Democratic nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey, has been panned heavily by the left for not being liberal enough. Elizabeth Warren, the junior senator from this Commonwealth, is now being talked up by the left as a serious candidate for president in 2016, following an unwillingness by many ultra-liberals to consider Hillary Clinton. In an article from last December, Salon Magazine already castigated Clinton's future candidacy that blasted her "entitlement" and declared that "the left wing of the Democratic Party has gotten stronger." However, while Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton are feasible candidates for national office, their significantly more liberal counterparts are not.

The ultra-liberals must face the fact that the United States does not, and will not, support ultra-liberal candidates for office in swing states and on national platforms, just as the American people do not and will not support Tea Party Republicans in those circumstances. One does not have to go beyond the crushing defeats of recent Republican Senate candidates, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who both took ideological extreme positions on social issues, to know how abundantly obvious this is.

A pacifist foreign policy and a $15 minimum wage are wonderful sound-bites for winning a Democratic primary in a blue state, but they are not realistic opinions shared by the majority of a country with center-right political views. Have these ultra-liberals forgotten the era of Richard Nixon & Ronald Reagan, when it was the Republicans who won the national popular vote in five out of six consecutive presidential elections? One of the reasons for this is that the excessively liberal positions of the Democratic Party of the time were increasingly out of touch with the American people.

Candidates in this era, such as George McGovern and Michael Dukakis, lost not necessarily because they ran poor campaigns (though the jury is still out on that question), but because they held positions on issues that were out of step with most Americans. McGovern endorsed dangerously drastic cuts to our military and Dukakis actually allowed a program to continue under his watch that allowed weekend passes from prison to murderers, rapists, and other severe criminals.
We have seen ugly resurgences of these views in recent months, as more and more in the Democratic Party have turned to pacifist positions.

Such extreme ideological positions are what have been tearing the Republican Party apart in recent years. I hope the same fate will not occur in the Democratic Party.
*