Talk:Triangulation (politics)

Middle-of-the-Road

Could someone clarify the difference between Triangulation and Middle-of-the-Road stances? I suppose Triangulators try to capitalize on the other "wing's" stance on an issue, but the term does, in some ways, seem to imply a middle-of-the-road approach. 209.212.22.30 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct in your thinking and it points up that the definition given here may be incomplete and could be improved.

Triangulators do indeed try to capitalize on the other, or opposite wing's stance on an issue - the difference is, they are not taking a "centrist" position, as the 'middle-of-the-roaders' are. The diagram which accompanies the article shows this in one way, by showing a different position (above) than merely the (current) middle position.

But Triangulators as exemplified by Bill Clinton are not seeking the moral highground, per se., rather a position which is different to the centrist one which will later prove to be on the same level, going forward. There is no way to do this methodically, hence it is a political skill. If the politicians judgement proves flawed they may either find themselves isolated and alone on the political highground ("Obama-care" & "you didn't build that", as used by the right against the left) or, worse, exposed on the politically-untenable lowground (the discrediting of "New" Labour).

In other words, what triangulators are really trying to do is to predict the *future* middle position, instead of the current one.

General

<>Another example of would be Tony Blair's support of the Iraq War which has led to a rebellion on the Labour Party against him in Parliament.

This is not an example of triangulation; to be triangulation, it would have to be Tony Blair trying to dominate the Conservative's position on Iraq. As it happens, most Conservatives were against the Iraq war too. If anything, Blair's position on Iraq was anti-triangulation - it was one of the (some would say) few cases where he did something out of conviction.

A better Blair example would be his position on immigration, where as Shadow Home Secretary and then Labour leader, he tried to out-flank the Tories (see Nick Cohen's book "Pretty Straight Guys" for more details).

P.

--Paul Moloney 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first heard the term triangulation in a political context I thought it meant something slightly broader. In a geometric sense, triangulation involves determining a third unknown point from the location of two known points. I believe that this model could describe political triangulation outside two existing points as well as in the middle.

For instance a conservative candidate could see where the mainstream liberal candidate is, then where the leading conservative candidate is, and choose a position far enough to the right to appear to be the "real conservative" - outflanking the conservative competitor but not going so far right as to alienate the middle. Or you could see this as triangulation on a subset of the political spectrum: choosing a point between the fringe and centrist candidates in one's own party, for example.

Perjorative usage seems to presume a competitive scenario such as an election. However the same strategy can be used to determine an optimal position for a non-zero-sum strategy of cooperation, particularly if we're talking not about an election but about actual policy making in a pluralistic system with two dominant positions.

Chriscorbell 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deja Vu

From the main article:

"It also forced Kerry to defend positions that he took which he may or may not have actually had."

If anything brings back to mind the weirdness of the 2004 campaign, that sentence does.

--Catawba (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this NPOV?

How is this NPOV?

"Triangulation was emulated during the 2000 presidential election in the Bush campaign's use of the term 'compassionate conservative'. Unlike Bill Clinton, the Bush Administration's actual policies didn't reflect their rhetoric. The subsequent Bush campaign returned to the 80's tradition of focusing on appealing to more partisan voters using so-called wedge issues."

In fact, it is all merely opinion.

And this:

"Many rank-and-file Democrats use the term 'triangulation' as a pejorative, sometimes in reference to the Democratic Leadership Council. They believe that triangulation has led to multiple electoral defeats and eroded the principles of those who use the strategy."

There is no citation given for this and (1) what is a "rank-and-file" Democrat, (2) where on the right-left political spectrum is this "rank-and-file" Democrat, and (3) assumes the policies of the Democratic Leadership Council are somehow rightist.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd and triangulation

What the? Triangulation? Ok I can see why someone might label him as such, but can anyone cite it? Rudd is quoted describing himself as third way, but triangulation? Timeshift (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless an academic source talks about it - which I doubt they necessarily would, as Kevin Rudd isn't a particularly good example - it's WP:OR and should not be in the article. Orderinchaos 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First Use?

According to Founding Brothers, Madison was the first to use triangulation, although it was named apparently in the twentieth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.1.49 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

the tribbles of attribution

It is often referred to[by whom?] as "Clintonian triangulation".

May I suggest:

It was often referred to by faceless staff reporters at media conglomerates which straddle the globe as "Clintonian triangulation".

— MaxEnt 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no attribution for many of the entries who are alleged to have used triangulation, e.g. Hillary Clinton.

— Richard Katz 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

if i hadn't been through the process once before I'd nominate this article for deletion

This is as old as politics, and seems to present the idea as something new and inventive. The only thing original about it is putting a new title on the practice and claiming it's a new thing, BUT WAIT that's also a con as old as time itself. It's appealing to keep this as a novelty, as it does make me chuckle a bit thinking how pleased with himself Morris must have been when he sold the idea as original.

If anyone does go for the delete be sure to ping me, I'll back the decision. Tacticomed (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)