dagblog - Comments for "On the Essential Vacuity--and, Sometimes, Tactical Value--of the Label "Centrism" "

Two addenda that are

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:10:32 +0000

In reply to On the Essential Vacuity--and, Sometimes, Tactical Value--of the Label "Centrism"

Two addenda that are pertinent to this thread:

E.J. Dionne, Jr.'s December 16, "Where the 'No Label' Movement Falls Short":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120805113.html

This is classic Dionne, working to marginalize the right through promoting a center-left coalition. Key grafs from his column:

The basic difficulty arises from a false equivalence they make between our current "left" and our current "right." The truth is that the American right is much farther from anything that can fairly be described as "the center" than is the left.

Indeed, there is no far left to speak of anymore. Even among socialists - I'm talking about real ones - almost all now acknowledge the benefits of markets, no longer propose state ownership of the means of production, and accept the inevitability of inequalities in wealth and income. What they oppose is the rise of extreme inequalities that are antithetical to both a healthy democracy and a healthy market economy.

In the meantime, large parts of the right have moved to positions that Ronald Reagan didn't dare take, or abandoned in the name of realism: voucherizing Medicare, partially privatizing Social Security, insisting that the New Deal represented an unconstitutional power grab, and eviscerating inheritance taxes and progressive income taxes.

So successful has the right been in dragooning the discourse that President Obama's health-care plan, a rewrite of middle-of-the-road Republican ideas from 15 years ago, is condemned as radical. His overall program and his rhetoric are more restrained than FDR's, Harry Truman's or LBJ's.

I am still devoted to moderation but reject a cult of the center that defines as good anything that can be called bipartisan. Some of the same centrists who just a few weeks ago called for bipartisan efforts to slash the deficit now praise Obama's tax deal with Republicans, even though it increases the very same deficit by around $900 billion. Exactly what principle is at work here other than a belief that any deal blessed by Republicans deserves praise?

The other link is to DanK's 12/14 "No Labels" thread at dag:

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/more-labels-7828

The initial title of this

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:39:41 +0000

In reply to On the Essential Vacuity--and, Sometimes, Tactical Value--of the Label "Centrism"

The initial title of this Dec. 8 NYT (late edition, the version I initially was sent) piece by Matt Bai was "Murmurs on the Left of a Primary Challenge to Obama":

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08bai.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Matt%20Bai&st=cse

Note that this version is re-headlined "Murmurs of Primary Challenge to Obama".

Interesting that "on the Left" was later deleted.

From the article:

“On issue after issue, when the public is on his side, this president just refuses to fight,” says Adam Green, the group’s [Progressive Change Campaign Committee] co-founder. “At this point, the strategy is to shame him into fighting.”

If one considers Obama's policies on the whole to be somewhat to the right of center of public opinion so far, then a primary challenge reflective of majority public opinion on many of the issues could more properly be said to come from the "center" than an Obama re-election campaign, based on his record to date.

If the headline reads "from the left", a whole lot of people who probably agree more with the views of the self-described "progressive" challengers than with Obama's policies so far will have preconceptions against such an effort for no other reason than it being labeled as coming "from the left" and probably won't even bother reading the article on that account.

Which seems to fly against suppositions about how our system works, or is supposed to work, as, in part, a means of obtaining public input into substance of the policy agenda (a perhaps frightening thought, but still...).

These bizarre dynamics are entirely the result of the disconnect between what currently has been functioning as "centrist" opinion in Washington, versus what should properly be labeled "centrist" opinion in the country taken as a whole.

See Robert Kuttner's 11/28

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:04:03 +0000

In reply to On the Essential Vacuity--and, Sometimes, Tactical Value--of the Label "Centrism"

See Robert Kuttner's 11/28 "Backbone, Please" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/backbone-please_b_788972.html as dead on in my view and also quite relevant to this thread. Kuttner is writing about "bipartisanship" (see excerpt below, emphasis mine), not "centrism". But those advocating both stances typically work to position themselves as presumptively fair and reasonable and sensible.

If anything is more overrated than bipartisanship, it is post-partisanship. The Republicans surely get this. They dig in their heels, don't budge, and wait for the Democrats either to fail, or to come to them.
But the media are infatuated with the idea that excessive partisanship is a symmetrical problem. If only the Republicans and the Democrats would meet each other halfway, the nation's ills would be solved. It is hard to watch the Sunday talk shows without seeing one interviewer after another demanding, why can't you people just compromise?
There are two problems with this formulation, one tactical and the other substantive. The tactical problem is that the Republicans and Democrats aren't playing the same game. So if the Democrats meet the Republicans half way, the Republicans only demand that they do it again. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is identified as media enemy number one because she rejects this nonsense.
The tactical asymmetry connects to the substantive problem -- the fact that the solution to what ails the economy is somewhere to the left of most Democrats, not midway between, say, President Obama and Mitch McConnell. The economy will be fixed only with more public investment, more progressive taxation, and more regulation, but partisan compromise dictates less of each.

More regulation of the financial sector especially, more progressive taxation and more public investment in the form of growth-oriented job creation are all eminently saleable propositions to the public at this time. In fact, based on the exit polling data I've seen, I believe they all actually should follow from this election, far from having been rejected. It's just that this White House is not selling them (or defending them assertively and effectively where some steps have already been taken). Thus the disconnect where millions of voters, feeling as though no one in Washington now is speaking to their concerns and values, voted so many Dems out without in any way embracing the substantive Republican agenda which will only worsen our plight if Obama does not find ways to redirect public discussion at the moment.

Well, AD, all I can say about

Ramona — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:55:27 +0000

In reply to Thanks, Ramona. That's a

Well, AD, all I can say about your comment is that you're missing the boat if you don't make it a post. Cut and paste from the 3rd pp on, throw a couple of links in, and you're pretty much done!

Thanks, Ramona. That's a

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:48:33 +0000

In reply to Great job here, AD. There is

Thanks, Ramona. That's a focus I wholeheartedly support, again, for reasons both conservative and liberal and embraced by people who attribute other labels to describe their views as well.

I came across Berman's book over the weekend. It looks interesting. Read in conjunction with Matt Bai's earlier The Argument, and informed by the perspectives of those here who have additional experience and insights, it might form the basis for a stimulating and highly topical and relevant discussion. I'm going to try to get to both of them soon--after I finally finish reading Stiglitz's Freefall and enjoy the fruits of Genghis' labors.

On the front page of today's Washington Post Senator Mark Udall is quoted giving his take that the meaning of this election is that the voters are really, really upset and want more bipartisanship. Really? Perhaps the good Senator is unaware of Minority Leader McConnell's openly stated agenda. No, Senator. With respect, the voters want a government that ameliorates their distress, respects their values, protects their pocketbooks from unnecessary and offensive spending they can't afford, and articulates and works to build something that looks like a future for them and their loved ones. They elect you to figure out what that means rather than pursue agreement for agreement's sake, regardless of whether the result makes any sense or is adequate to the challenges. They are going to hold you responsible for results, and not cut you a bit of slack on account of the public appearance of making nice with one another.

The folks who think this can happen by our elected officials reaching across the aisle, holding hands, and singing kumbaya (couldn't resist making that charge against the other side for a change) may be well-intentioned, but they have no clue what today's reality is in the US Congress. There is no bipartisan consensus on most of the big issues, nor will there be, because, among other reasons, a) elected officials sincerely disagree on what should be done; and b) power is at stake and those seeking more of it do not consider it in their interests to make those holding it from the other tribe look good. Quite the contrary. I had not thought this was exactly a news flash.

That doesn't mean elected officials should not look for opportunities to work across party lines. They should. Always have to be open to that. It's just that in the current climate whatever agreements may be reached are likely to be around the margins of big issues. And that can't prevent the party that controls the White House and Senate from proposing, explaining, and fighting for measures which are commensurate with the magnitude of the problems.

Even if, no especially if, they are likely to be blocked. But before conceding that, consider a bill proposed by Obama in his SOTU which does one thing and one thing only: break up the large banks. Because if they are too large and can bring us all down if they fail, they are too large. And it's very wrong for taxpayers to have to save the US and world economies by paying for the mistakes and recklessness of big bankers who in effect have been playing at their own self-created casino rather than providing funds for innovation and a growing economy, which is what they are supposed to be doing. Is that so hard to explain or understand?

Challenge the House Republicans to introduce and openly debate the proposal, on national television if they dare. If they don't, keep the spotlight on them for not being willing to do so. If the President dares.

The context for Udall's comment in the article was junior Senators asserting the Senate doesn't need to get so little done, and that the Dem party agenda should not be controlled so much by the party leadership. Another "really"? Just what we need. A Senate majority with already weak agenda coherence where some junior members are now saying what is needed is, effectively, weaker and less effective attempts to forge that by the leaders the majority of the caucus themselves elect.

Great job here, AD. There is

Ramona — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:41:00 +0000

In reply to As pumpkin time approaches

Great job here, AD. There is such a need for this kind of conversation. I just caught a minute or two of Ari Berman talking on C-Span about his book, "Herding Donkeys". He chronicles the 2006 Democratic wins and the effort to get Obama elected, reminding us of how much can be done when everyone with an interest in the ultimate goal works together.

My own self-imposed main focus is to try and put the spotlight on building labor and saving the middle class. I need to quit going down those dirt roads to nowhere and get back on the highway.

Thanks for this.

As pumpkin time approaches

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:18:34 +0000

In reply to On the Essential Vacuity--and, Sometimes, Tactical Value--of the Label "Centrism"

As pumpkin time approaches for this thead, just wanted to thank all who participated for hanging with me on this stuff, not easy, I know. To those who started or tried to enter in and quickly got lost, thanks for trying and please know I did also try to make it as accessible as I know how to. Apologies where I came up short and left you feeling frustrated. Also, A-man, not lost on me that your Arizona Marijuana thread had a lot more hits than this one, yet you kept this one up on the banner while putting a new one up in place of yours before your 24 hours were up. Much appreciated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

cmaukonen — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:02:03 +0000

In reply to At this point, I don't think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulTmmTIlM_o

Yes, where that is a credible

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:48:36 +0000

In reply to So then, if I read you

Yes, where that is a credible claim, as it happens to be, if one looks at a number of the big issues today. And big banks/financial accountability, jobs, and corruption are these days also hot button issues that, ironically, moved many voters last week--including many who do not self-identify as liberals/progressives/leftists--to vote against Democratic candidates or sit the election out. How did our side snatch that defeat from what should have been the jaws of victory? Go figure. Lots of populist energy which, effectively addressed or at least positioned, should have had the public supporting the party running Washington. As happened in FDR's first midterm election, where Dems picked up seats.

I don't say all issues cut this way. But when Dems have the bully pulpit...

Link doesn't work,

anna am — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:45:24 +0000

In reply to At this point, I don't think

Link doesn't work, cmaukonen. But I'm pretty sure I know what it was to. R.I.P. Phil Ochs. And I'm glad you caught the reference.