I am a retired broadcast executive. In my early broadcast career I was on the air. In that role I had to garner audience. Now, retired I do not have to please an audience or a board of directors. What I do is commentate on politics for fun. Since I have no education in political science, I am not qualified to be a real commentator. Therefore I am just a common tator.
What does that behavior tell us? Are there ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats? Yes. Then can you argue that the center changes its opinions on ideological matters often? That does not seem probable, does it? One does not believe in limited government one election and believe that government is the cure all the next election then return to favoring limited government the next election. No. The only logical conclusion is that the middle is NOT IDEOLOGICAL at all.
If we accept that the 1/3 of voters that are centrists are non ideological then they can be divided into two categories. The first category of centrists tend to vote for the person they like. They liked Reagan so they voted for him. They liked Bush Sr. better than Dukakis so they voted for Bush Sr. They liked Clinton better than Bush Sr. so they voted for Clinton. They liked Dubya but didn't like Gore so they didn't vote for Gore... they voted for Dubya.
The remainder of the centrists tend to have a sign tattooed on their forehead that says..."What will you do for me." They look to candidates and ask "What will you do for me?" Once the center's motivation is understood, the appeal Ronald Reagan had for them becomes apparent. Reagan understood these people perfectly. They liked him. They liked him a lot .. which coated him with teflon for more than half the center. But he constantly talked about what he would do for the center voters. He presented the-conservative agenda as something that would help the ordinary person. He promised to do things for the non ideological center. When he talked to the center he did not talk about cutting tax rates. He talked about letting them spend their own money. "I am going to let you keep more of YOUR OWN MONEY." is how Reagan phrased it. "Why is it better for government to take your money and spend it on things it wants, than for you to keep your own money and spend it for things you want?" See how that appeals to the "What's in it for me" crowd?
The laffer curve convinced Reagan.. but he sold it to the center by talking about THEIR MONEY. That is a better sell to the center than I will cut tax rates or laffer curve explanations.
"I will get the government off your back." is the limited government pitch to the "Whats in it for me" group. There is a world of difference between "I will cut the size of government." and "I will get the government off your back."
Democrats won this group for decades by offering government benefits. Reagan offered a whole range of "Non Government Benefits". But the Reagan pitch and the LBJ pitch are the same type of pitch... It is "Here is what I will do for you." pitch.
Bush is making the pitch on several grounds. "I will protect you from terrorists". "When you get old, the government will buy your prescriptions".
The key to true conservative victory is selling the conservative position as a benefit for the center voters. I am not sure Rowe understands how to sell the conservative agenda to the center. He is into stealing the Democrats "Democratism." That is a page from Dick Morris's telling Clinton to steal the Republicans "Republicanism" with welfare reform.
"Give me a solidly Republican Senate and House and I will fix the economy as easily as I defeated Saddam. My administration will create the jobs, create the opportunities to make your life better and far more prosperous." That is a campaign statement that will work to gain the votes of the center.
Some final thoughts. What I call the likability factor varies with the personal appeal of the candidates. If both are quite likable it will be a reduced factor. If both are less than likable, (Humphrey and Nixon in 1968) other factors prevail. But when one candidate is more likable, it is a real factor if exploited. When George Voinovich first ran for the Senate his share of the center was increased with a TV commercial. It showed George and Janet Voinovich walking through a Cleveland City park. They were just strolling in the park holding hands and talking. The viewer did not hear what was said. He was just paying close attention to what she said, and she was pleased and amused with his reply. The voice over announcer said," George Voinovich was a successful Mayor of Cleveland and served two successful terms as Governor. But George always says the best thing he has ever done was convince Janice to marry him." It was just a nice couple, husband and wife, enjoying a summer stroll on TV. The center voters reaction to that commercial was the margin of victory in the race.
The "What's in it for me" of the non ideological center decides nearly all races. That is why successful presentations of the conservative agenda must not be based on its theoretical properties or benefits to society in general. The pitch to the center must be based on what is in it for the voter watching or hearing the commercial. There should be some budget devoted to making a candidate likable to the center voters.