Bill Clinton used the tactic of triangulation during his presidential campaigns - and he won. This spawned a large growth industry in "expert" political consultants who have dominated Democratic political campaigns ever since. These "experts" - both consultants and pundits - repeat the same advice to Democrats over and over again: "Don't take controversial stands - the path to victory for Democrats lies somewhere in the middle ground."
Interestingly, as many have noted, the path to victory for Republicans lies in pandering to the far right wing. Why is it that the pundits believe that the path to political victory for both Republicans and Democrats lies somewhere between the center and the far right? One answer is the dirty, smelly, drug-addled hippie meme of modern politics.
Read Hunter S Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972" and you can see the genesis of this belief. The Democratic machine had Hubert Humphrey all lined up as the Candidate - only to watch McGovern win the nomination. Angered, Hubert refused to endorse McGovern until the last 2 weeks of the election. Meanwhile, McGovern moderated his then-winning message at the urging of the experts - and, with the help of Nixon's dirty tricks, lost badly. (More Below)
Then as now, expert political consultants and the party machine needed to find someone other than themselves to blame for this loss. The Teamsters, angered that their boy Hubert didn't get the nod, had ensured the destruction of Big Labor as a political force by supporting Nixon. However, the Teamsters had the most money, so the "experts" couldn't very well assign blame where blame was due and still remain employed. The easiest folks to blame were, of course, the dirty, smelly drug-addled hippies - who weren't large political donors.
Thus did the theory later to be called "triangulation" take root: the idea that taking a position as close to the Republican Party's right wing as possible maximized campaign donations, and thus success. The inherent problem, of course, is that steering a middle course requires constantly shifting one's positions as the political winds change - opening candidates to charges that they are "flip-floppers" that "don't stand for anything."
Meanwhile, the Republicans succeeded by taking strong, consistent stands on issues - thus showing their "leadership." This is why charges of "flip-flopping" don't hurt Republicans very much - it doesn't feed into the stereotypical Republican image the way it does for a generic Democratic candidate. (One exception was Bush 1's "read my lips - no new taxes" pledge, but that wasn't why Bush-1 lost - and it has become the Republican version of the dirty hippie meme: raise taxes and lose elections.)
Reagan vs. Carter also fed into this issue by reinforcing the "Republicans are strong, Democrats are weak" theme. The Iranian hostage crisis lost more than the Carter presidency - it also ensured the end of the US concern for human rights. Republicans had learned that beating up the smaller kids made them look strong, which got the Nascar vote regardless of long term consequences.
Triangulation never worked well in practice. One classic example of triangulation's failure is the Dukakis in a Tank picture. Trying to steer a middle course ran the Dukakis candidacy onto the rocks and sank it. It only worked for Bill Clinton by accident. Looking at the Bush-1 vs. Clinton struggle, my armchair speculation is that it was the lack of an external threat that doomed Daddy Bush's Presidency. Americans only put up with the otherwise unpopular Republican policies if they think the boogieman will get them without the strong leader's protection. Once the "Evil Empire" fell, the electorate stopped feeling the need to put up with the abuse from their "strong leader" President in favor of an "it's the economy, stupid" President.
Triangulation's failure is nowhere more obvious than in John Kerry's failed campaign. Triangulation means "nuanced" positions, which is the exact opposite of leadership. It fed into the flip-flopper meme Republicans developed into an art form to oppose the triangulation tactic, and opens the door to character smears. Swift-boating tactics work far better against a "nuanced" responder than they do against a plain-spoken opponent. It especially doesn't help when the candidate says things like "I was in favor of funding before I opposed it" rather than "I am in favor of funding the troops, I oppose putting it on the credit cards."
So what does this mean for 2008? The electorate still wants a strong leader due to fears of al Qaeda - but they're real tired of incompetent strong leaders. In this election, triangulation = weakness, a sure loser. We need to ask all the candidates to suck it up and take firm, principled, plainly-worded stands on key issues. Triangulation is like battleships: once useful, now outmoded and more of a burden than an asset.