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

    By AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 9:53am |
    Warning: This is an abstract post, not light reading (do I ever do light reading?).  Alternative Title: On One Way to Let Them Have Our Way.  Short version: Before trashing and running away from using the label "centrist", consider that may not in a particular situation, or even perhaps as a general matter, be a helpful thing to do to advance a liberal/progressive political agenda.  Example of what I am talking about is Paul Begala here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/a-centrist-democratic-age_b_777955.html
     
    "Centrism" in practice amounts to a tactical, and perhaps philosophical and ideological, assertion that one is opposed to someone over *here*, who labels themself or who one chooses to label as left/liberal/radical, and also opposed to someone over *here*, who labels themself or who one chooses to label conservative/right/wacko.  It is defined in part by what it is against in a specific context.  In this sense it is inherently empty of substance, conveying no general or consistent meaning. 
     
    "Centrists" portray themselves as rejectors of extremes, as having a happily sensible and moderate outlook, unlike those people over *there* and over *there*.  For the purposes of the person claiming the label, it doesn't matter whether their affirmative position is coherent (what is the "centrist" position on more stimulus vs. deficit reduction?  stepping on the accelerator and the break simultaneously?  I thought that was just evidence of confusion or stupidity) in context or not.  It also does matter whether public opinion is more supportive of the stance they are taking at a given moment, or whether it is more supportive of stances they are tactically trying to marginalize.  Which also should lead thinking people to question whether the proposed "centrist" course of action in a given context is in step, or actually out of step, with public sentiment.  With some it seems to enjoy unquestioned, and undeserved, default status as in-step with public opinion, which by definition is "moderate" and "centrist", right?
     
    Why does "centrism" entertain so many ardent suitors who wish to claim it for their purposes? 
     
    *Well, it has a moderate, reasonable-sounding name.  It implies rejection of some points of view which really are extreme or unreasonable and really don't make policy sense, and it is always easy to find some of those. 
     
    *It sounds as though it might convey rejection of what may be seen as tired, dogmatic positions trotted out during partisan warfare which often lend themselves to evidently unproductive food fights.  So it can seem like a way out of what otherwise might be an impasse, and that can seem appealing to those who believe doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing ("half a loaf is always better than none". Right?)
     
    *The label to some implies a kind of bastardized pragmatism, the kind of (often unpragmatic, but that is another post)  "pragmatism" embraced by many establishment Democratic officials these days and all but completely banished from Republican Party and Right vocabulary and practice these days.  And pragmatism--broadly defined here as "doing what works"-- is the closest thing to America's national philosophy.
     
    *The label implies bipartisanship to many people.  Which to self-styled problem-solvers and also conflict-avoiding citizens as well as elected officials implies reasonableness, typically contrasted with a supposed fanaticism and stubborness on either side of the linear ideological spectrum that is posited (incorrectly, but no matter, as many political insiders and opinion writers talk publicly as though they accept this) to exist.
     
    *It sounds different, precisely, I maintain, because no one knows what it means and how it will be defined in the particular context.  Never underestimate the boredom factor.  If you can come up with a position which sounds new or fresh, you will often get a hearing.  Even if there turns out to be nothing new or fresh about it whatsoever.
     
    *Perhaps above all, claiming the "centrist" mantle helps to marginalize, dismiss, even silence, anyone one chooses to marginalize in a particular context without having to do much work.  If you can claim the mantle of "centrist" for your own position, you don't have to argue the merits of an issue.  You don't have to actually examine public opinion on that issue.  You can sometimes prevail in a short-term tactical situation without having to do any of that.  Just because you have successfully claimed an inherently vacuous label for your own purposes before your opponents could.  
     
    So many people embrace the "centrist" label as a tactic that sometimes turns out to be effective in a particular context. 
     
    Given its advantages I am inclined to hope that more self-identified liberals and progressives, instead of rejecting this label and the tactic it implies, will not shy away from grabbing it for themselves in particular contexts where that may be useful.  Especially when trying to win people over, or persuade people who don't use the same self-identifying political labels or don't care about labels but consider themselves sound, sensible, mainstream, pragmatic types, which is a whole lot of people in my experience.
     
    If liberals and progressives cede that playing field to the right side of the political spectrum, it is an opportunity forfeited.   Over time the political center gets moved steadily rightward when those self-identifying on the left side of the political spectrum flee from, and reject it.  In so doing they end up doing the work of self-described "centrists", who by default often have right of center views, by doing what amounts to self-marginalizing, given low percentages of the public which use the term "liberal"--and even fewer "left"-- to describe their abstract political philosophy. 
     
    This, for me anyway, helps explain why left of center ideas and initiatives, which in my view utterly dominate the list of ideas which have improved this country and are seen as such, is so persistently villified, shat upon, and kicked in the groin even when flat on its back.  It's easy to see why Republicans and the Right who disagree that these are improvements villify liberals, and are afraid of them.  But the other part of this is that the left side of the political spectrum, even though it has done so much to help define a new reality ("center", if you will), sees only more work to be done.  It never rests content with status quo.  So it, too, rejects "maintream" and "centrist" labels, preferring to move on to the next fight for justice.
     
    There is much to be said for defining and fighting for the center in political debate, instead of running from it and trashing it.  We should not forget its essential vacuity.  It can take on affirmative meaning only in specific contexts.  But political battles are won and lost in specific contexts.  Count me among those who prefer good policy wins over being able to claim credit and victory for liberals or the left.  We know when we've won, even if much of the rest of our society doesn't seem to, or quickly forgets. 
     
    This is not an unproblematic perspective.  Liberals, progressives, and the left continue to suffer from a longstanding inability to advantageously use in public discussion, as a positively-perceived shorthand, a label which describes what they believe.  They are unable to really agree enough amongst themselves on what label to use, even given that individuals inevitably do not totally accept any particular political program in all its specifics.  I have limited willingness to invest thought and energy into that project when I see Rome burning.
     
    It isn't as though one person can say or write some manifesto whereupon everyone magically cries out, "yes!  that's it!  that's the answer!"  These matters--label definition, consistency and coherence--don't get "resolved" by fiat. In fact, they don't ever get fully resolved because the meaning of political labels is always contested.
     

    Comments

    So leftists should just relabel themselves 'centrists', because ...that has a nicer ring to it?

    I think we should call ourselves Ice Cream.

    Everyone loves ice cream!!


    by Obey on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:24am

    No.  Certainly not irrespective of the context. 

    But defining a liberal/progressive/leftist advocacy stance as "centrist", when addressing individuals or audiences sympathetic to "centrism", is highly credible when it has majority public support.  And it beats the heck of leading with "I'm a liberal/leftist/progressive", or letting someone trying to win or avoid further discussion by trying to label you that get away with that.

    Because, when engaging with the vast majority of people who don't self-identify with those terms, to make any sort of "thing" out of one's label is going to tend not to be a very effective advocacy strategy.  Perhaps even a conversation stopper.  Because people who don't identify as liberals "know" what liberals believe and are--(fill in the blanks with your favorite epithets)

    This would not be true if there weren't very large numbers of people who, operationally and on specific issues, believe things self-defined liberals do, but who don't define themselves as liberals and may even (think they think?) think poorly of them.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:37am

    I don't think running from every label that gets slimed by the right-wing media machine is going to help. It's not like there are intrinsically negative connotations to the words 'liberal' or 'progressive'. Liberty and progress are naturally positively connotated.

    The negative connotations come to stick because a certain radical agenda - state takeover of industry, envy of wealth, turning everyone gay, destroying religion, environmentalist de-industrialization, etc - is attached to the rough group of people to whom the label applies. Hence people don't self-identify because they don't identify with that supposed agenda.

    I find that, when I talk to people who actually know what liberalism or progressivism roughly entails, I can use those labels as a shorthand way of helping them locate my perspective on issues. When I'm talking to someone who thinks Obama is a terrorist muslim, or the like, I will avoid those tags because it just closes off discussion. I tend to get a fair hearing for de facto progressive policy proposals if I can explain some of them within their frame of 'free-market' economics - eg. opening up the health care system to international competition to lower costs, ending the subsidy to the TBTF banks through a tax calibrated to the market's evaluation of the implicit government guarantee of their liabilities, framing a carbon tax as a tax on foreign energy dependence, and so on.

    Running from every label that gets smeared just makes it look like you have something to hide. It's not like 'centrist' is a magical label immune to getting trashed. Just fyi, here in Switzerland the extreme right anti-foreigner party is called ... the Union of Centrist Democrats, which means calling yourself a centrist democrat over here means basically you're ... a fascist.

    Sorry, but I really find this fight over labels, fighting for them, or running from them, as utterly pointless.


    by Obey on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:28pm

    Sorry to be away for a bit--just got back from son's guitar lesson, where a store sign reads "unattended children will be given espresso and a free puppy".  If I were forced to label that philosophy, I'd say slightly social conservative but gets a "mainstream" especially when factoring in the sense of humor quotient.  Smile  OTOH, the guitar store employees I've talked to, as befits the stereotype, are decidedly liberal/leftist in their views, although one I enjoy chatting up sometimes offered a few weeks back, unprompted by me, that she hates labels. 

    I don't advocate "running from a label".  But leading with it, or spending a lot of time talking about what it means and doesn't mean, is often not terribly helpful in my experience.  If you are discussing something with one other person and you want to talk about an issue concern, and you don't know how they describe their political philosophy, I see no need to lead with a label.  If they listen to what you're saying and say "oh, you liberals are all the same!" then I ask them which specific thing I said they disagree with and go from there.  If I respond with either "yes, I am a liberal, damn it, and I'm proud of it!" or "No, I am not a liberal!..." I am letting the other person's comment take me away from my purpose.

    Effective advocacy seems to me to start with knowing what one's own beliefs and purposes are.  But step 2 in a specific context is understanding how one's audience thinks and looking for points of agreement to engage them.  In general I find it is often much more effective to listen to the person I'm trying to engage first, and then pick up on the thing they said that I can connect with the point I'm trying to make.  Instead of trying to persuade them of some idea or philosophy without having a sense of where they are coming from.  The bigger the audience, of course, the greater is the necessity of guessing or playing percentages, if one can't find out more through audience research coming in. 

    I think you, obey and many others here are effective advocates and would recognize some of what I am saying in this post as advocacy 101.  Then I read threads where folks are beating the bejeezus out of one another because they don't like that person's self-ascribed label.  Or else they ascribe a label to someone else based on that person's view, say, on one or two issues.  Or on what they *think* they're hearing.  No clarification sought.  No further inquiry seen as advisable.  Just write that person off "oh, not part of my tribe."  (and therefore nothing worthwhile to listen to) So people who agree with one another on many things end up angry or feeling pessimistic or defeated.  Sometimes unnecessarily so, it seems to me, on account of miscommunication triggered by interpretations of what a label means that sometimes turn out to be false.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:02pm

    I live in a very very extremely ridiculously conservative area.  Talk radio is big here.  I have to be very careful how I explain my position on any subject (God. Do not even consider bringing up a conversation about guns.) because as soon as someone realizes I am not conservative they start arguing with "my" argument that they think I have from listening to the radio or cable.  It is a tremendous amount of energy to just get them to step away from thinking they know my point of view.  In most cases it is not possible to talk to them because they think they know what I believe more than I do.  Anyway, I was going somewhere with this but I am not expressing myself well so I'll just say, yeah, I think you make a good point. 

    Although the Ice Cream Party sounds fun.


    by emerson on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:52pm

    sorry--duplicate comment


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:40am

    No one would accuse you of duplicity, Dreamer. Nice post. I think I might go back to calling myself a Democrat, or maybe a Tea Party Democrat. I don't know about "Centrist" though. In a case like this, I always ask myself, what would Don Draper saySurprised about it?  


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:00pm

    I got such a headache trying to make sense of this; now I know what it was: just an Ice Cream headache!!!  Thanks for the explanation; hot tea will take care of it.  ;o)


    by Chiaroscuro (not verified) on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:01pm

    I really hate labels because labels lead inevitably to dogma. Where in one is obliged to adhere to some predefined position and/or action whether one believes it appropriate or not. For instance - I see myself as fiscally conservative in that I do not believe in government bailing out business for any reason what so ever bu I do believe in the socialist agenda of national health and national pensions.  As well as public transport and subsidies for housing and scientific research. However I do not believe that the government has any business telling me what I should be putting in my mouth, arms, stomach or lungs.

    Lets forget the labels.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:57am

    FrownSo you're a spoiler then.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:06pm

    I would be all for that when it comes to political discussion if if it weren't for the reality that labels are used as shorthands, and they are also hurled as bricks, in political conversation.  So there is a practical need to try to figure out how to deal with that, so as to be able to even reach the merits of issue-based discussions.  Your beliefs illustrate very well, I think, the point about the way in which labels so often obscure rather than promote clear communication.

    As another twist on that, I am a fan of making the conservative case for a liberal position I happen to hold when I am talking to someone who is or identifies as a conservative.  For example, there is nothing remotely "conservative" about allowing the present extremely dangerous lack of adequate regulation of the financial sector to continue.  Including allowing banks that are too big to fail (and therefore are too big, as Stiglitz among others argues) continue to put taxpayers and the global economy at grave risk.  

    Nor, for that matter, is there anything remotely "conservative", in the highly honorable and useful traditional sense of conserving what is good in a society, including taking aggressive action also defined by some as "liberal/progressive/left" by others, to do so, in much of today's Right and GOP program.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:07pm

    Ummm, won't co-opting the Centrist label just allow the Right to re-define and move the perceived Center further to the Right? Won't they shout that whatever Centrist causes we sincerely believe in are Socialist Progressive Liberal idealogy?  Just asking.


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 1:45pm

    My thinking is to for liberals/progressives/leftists, where they have solid majority support for their stance on an issue, to coopt that label to marginalize the extremism of Right views by calling them for what they are, which is extreme.  If the Right gets ceded the "center" by default...well, in discussions about politics, I get the sense that some like to use the label "centrist" in certain contexts (talking head shows, for example) where they think that connotes or is associated with reasonableness, moderation, bipartisanship, very non-extreme stances.  (the need to do this is all the greater the more extreme one's views are).  Whereas in some cases the stances said to be "centrist" are quite extreme and off the wall, or just don't make sense. 

    What if, instead of ceding that ground, folks representing, and who actually hold, an opposing point of view  (whether they prefer the label centrist, liberal, progressive, leftist for themselves) in these discussions say something like "Well, you know, (fill in the blank), you use the word "centrist" ["mainstream", "moderate", whatever non-scary sounding word is preferred] but that is seriously misleading because what you are saying is out of step with what the public believes, which is....so, respectfully, I believe it is the view you are espousing which is extreme and outside of the mainstream..."  That kind of tack (not saying those are the best words, or ways of phrasing, to use here, and it doesn't help if this degenerates into citing dueling public opinion surveys)

    Just putting that thought out there.  Of course the Right is going to say whatever liberals/progressives/leftists (should I start using "lpl" as an abbreviation?) want, whether they define it as centrist or not, is Socialist, Liberal, Leftist, whatever--the terms they have been successfully demonizing for 30 years.  If the response from our side is to let that framing go unanswered, and audiences accept it, then, in a country where, philosophically, minorities define themselves as liberal, don't we lose (or at best have a major uphill fight at that point)? 

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:23pm

    I have lost a bit of forebearance for the simple narratives that so many people throw about that I simple ask for specifics when they go off on an extreme rant.  For instance, as you mention there has been a movement to demonize certain words.  When I am around someone who does this I don't respond to the rhetoric but rather ask for clarification.  So when I hear people being called a Marxist, for instance, I respond with "How?  How are they a Marxist."  And since a person's inclination to call someone a Marxist is usually matched by their ignorance of what a Marxist is (as though anyone could simply define Marx's beliefs) they can't give a specific.  It works every time.  You can do it for any rhetoric that gets thrown around: death panels, socialism, anti-american, destroying our country, etc.  Just keep asking for clarification and NEVER react to the rhetoric.


    by emerson on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:33pm

    So then, if I read you correctly, what you're really talking about is labeling/claiming that our ISSUES are Centrist ones, not convincing people that our views and people are Centrists.

    That's kind of a variation on that meme that was going around a while back where it was said that if you took the labels and titles off issues, and just told people what they did and then asked if they supported the results, most people supported Liberal ideas.

    Okay. I understand now. Thanks for the patience.


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:37pm

    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...


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:48pm

    Good write up.  I want to digest and then read later for clarification.  I do think it is possible for a manifesto that sums up our worldview though.  It seems harder to clarify a principle-centric world view as opposed to a belief-based worldview because principled views aren't as easy to define and there is no symbolism to grab onto like those with beliefs.

    


    by emerson on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:42pm

    Thanks, emerson.  Good to have you here--apologies if I have missed other comments of yours, but if you are new or fairly new (as I am), welcome!


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:25pm

    Thank you AmericanDreamer for the welcome!  I am glad to have found this site.  I have been searching for months for a place made up of substantial topics and discussions.  Looking forward to reading more of your work.  Smile 


    by emerson on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:39pm

    OK, I see so far I'm not having enough people hating on me.  So maybe the post falls short of sufficient "edge".  (More likely it is too long and meandering and tries to say too many things.) So (please, no hating if you disagree!) let me try putting out this question, to perhaps help focus discussion more:

    Why don't liberals/progressives/leftists more often these days, when public opinion is on our side on so many of the things we are saying, try to seize the "centrist" mantle?

    After all, there is some CW, not entirely wrong in my estimation, that the side that defines and controls the center of debate wins.  And doing so has a number of advantages, some of which I tried to note in my post.  Using the label "centrist" aggressively to try to marginalize opposition from the right is done by people who expect to win.

    Is it that liberals/progressives/leftists, after so many embattled years in the wilderness, habitually accept that our fights probably are not really winnable, given the forces arrayed against us?  So that the default mindset is an assumption that one is dissenting from instead of largely reflecting or defining or helping crystallize mainstream or majority opinion, even when in particular instances that may be quite incorrect? 

    Is it that the DLC mindset, MO, or program, or some combination of these, to many has given self-described "centrist" stances a (permanently?) bad name for many liberals/progressives/leftists?  Is it that particular elected Democratic officials who have chosen to use the "c" word (John Breaux, former Senator from Louisiana, comes to mind; he happened to associate himself in a major way with the DLC) have given self-described "centrist" stances a (permanently?) bad name among liberals/progressives/leftists?  

    Why not compete with them, or elbow them out of the way, instead of ceding that particular turf?  At least, why aren't more people who believe as self-described liberals/progressives/leftists do on key issues of the day, but who don't like those labels, not using the "centrist" label to advance those goals, and without trying to marginalize those on their left they substantively agree with?  If they did that, and used the dreaded "c" label, would liberals/progressives/leftists who agree and should be supporting on substantive grounds instead attack them based on the label they use, or their institutional position?

    I have some thoughts on these questions but would like to hear from others who would like to share theirs.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:55pm

    Okay,  I guess this means I'm not going to find a buyer for my domain name, "Unrepentant liberal".  Embarassed

    I think I see where you're going with this, AD, and there are days when I would gladly forfeit the labels if my point could be made without them.  (On other days, glory be--my point can be made without them!) 

    But isn't "centrist" also a label? Doesn't it suggest, "Can't we all just get along"?  Or "Yeah, whatever. . .". Or "Okay, okay--have it your way, just don't call me names".  I think we've tried that.  I think Clinton tried that.  It didn't stop the impeachment battle and later on it didn't give Gore enough votes so there was no danger of Bush being "chosen".  It didn't help Kerry and, when the Democrats finally gained control of congress in 2006, it didn't help them, either.

    Was it the Democratic centrists who shut their eyes to the attacks on labor and the outsourcing of jobs and the hoarding of money and the decimation of a universal health care plan? Or was it the few admitted liberals/progressives who let those things go with barely a whimper?

    How would any of those things have changed for the better if everyone had taken a more centrist view? 


    by Ramona on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 3:58pm

    I'm not suggesting that anyone, let alone everyone, take a more centrist view, defined in the specific substantive ways you describe it, Ramona.  Quite the contrary.  I'm suggesting doing the reverse, at least in some contexts such as when addressing audiences consisting primarily of self-described "centrists" and "conservatives": using the "centrist" label as more appropriately also applied to liberal/progressive/left issue stances on many key issues today than to hard Right, truly extreme stances, as a way to marginalize those on the Right who hold radical, outside-the-mainstream views.   

    And I'm not suggesting that those who have passion for restoring the good name of the liberal label--with the goal that political debate can no longer be "won" at times simply by "accusing" someone of being a "liberal", as you clearly and blessedly do, Ramona, cease doing so! 

    I think that doing the latter, in specific contexts where one is trying to engage self-described centrists or conservatives, is not always likely to be productive or successful, at least in my experience.  Because the discussion that ensues can too easily end up limited to back and forth over what is the correct meaning of labels that, in my experience, most ordinary citizens don't have much interest in because they don't see what it has to do with anything going on in their lives.  Part of your project, Ramona, as I understand it, is to advocate for the proud use of the liberal label, primarily as I understand it at sites such as this one, where the term is not inherently some sort of epithet.  Unfortunately to quite a few people, including some agree with you on some issues, it is an epithet. And that isn't going to change rapidly.  The way to win over the winnable folks who don't like the liberal label isn't to argue labels with them, but to find and argue the shared-ground issue with them.

    There are many valuable roles to play.  Different invididuals play different roles and have passion for different pursuits.  Generally speaking, people are better at what they have passion for than at what they don't have passion for. 

    I wrote in my post that doing what I am suggesting might be effective in some specific contexts, such as, perhaps, what Begala did in his piece--but that it does not eliminate the disadvantage liberals/progressives/leftists face in not having a less reviled shorthand descriptor or label to use (call it the positive "branding" challenge, or overturning the negative branding success of the Right and GOP).  And that that is indeed a real problem for liberals/progressives/leftists.  The Right has been very successful in making it one.

    If being called a "liberal" weren't so disadvantageous in some contexts, such that it makes it harder to win people over to a particular issue stance they actually agree with, this would be less of an issue.  I think the projects of either reviving liberalism's good name or working to identify a widely agreed-upon substitute for it, on the one hand, and tactical claiming of a "centrist" advocacy position in certain contexts, on the other hand, are not mutually incompatible.  Both seem to me to be attempts to respond to real advocacy needs. They will tend to be useful or applicable largely in different contexts.  

    So I hope you keep doing what you're doing, and do very well IMO, Ramona. I think showing or reminding people who believe liberal or progressive things that they have a great deal to be, yes, proud of, and that they have a great deal to offer to make our country and world a better place going forward, is terrific, if it does not involve denigrating people who believe similar things but choose a different label, such as progressive.  And I know you don't denigrate people who use other labels, Ramona.  Except, perhaps, "centrist".  :<) And perhaps, if more people are using "centrist" labels to describe stances you recognize as (also) liberal, that might change.  If I'm not mistaken, this is part of how governing majorities are constructed. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:03pm

    Forgive me, AD.  I do tend to go off on tangents.  Sorry.  Rather than use labels that set us apart, our actions need to speak louder.  I do have a hard time with "centrist"--funny, isn't it?  And again it's because it's one of those square pegs we roundies (on either side) are told we need to fit into.  But I get your point.  We do ourselves no favors in the end by creating such narrow slots there's no room for expansion or inclusion.

    I wholeheartedly agree. 


    by Ramona on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:40pm

    At this point, I don't think any of this matters, outside of a small circle of friends.  If Obama stands up and opposes extension of the Bush tax cuts, and they expire, then everybody will see less money in their paycheck the first week in January and resentment will be endless. 

    If Obama doesn't stand up and the tax cuts get extended, nobody will think about the fact that their paycheck would've been smaller too, everyone will be angry anyway because the rich get richer. 

    The issues are so starkly and emotionally perceived these days that I daresay there is no "center" anymore right now.  Or if there is, it does not -- and will not -- hold.


    by anna am on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:01pm

    On some issues, sure, I agree.  There is no meaningful "center" one could carve out that is likely to be popular.  On mortgage foreclosure I don't see any especially popular stance to take.  If he acts to relieve the distress, as people like Stiglitz are telling him he needs to do, he may actually forestall a large downturn.  But no one will know that.  And many will resent that he has "rewarded" people they consider undeserving.  If he does not do that, he'll have many, different, others po'd at him.  And according to some of the best economists, the ones who've been right most often, he'd be running a huge risk of...a major downturn. 

    But in any context don't you think it is helpful to use the bully pulpit to marginalize one's political opponents as extreme and out of touch?  And that Congressional Republicans on some issues are extreme and out of touch?  In fact I think Obama will have to have much more success doing this if he is to have any chance of success on issues such as jobs and further, more adequate financial reform.  For me the implication is to try to keep as much attention focused on the issues where the opposition is extreme and unpopular.  Force them to take unpopular positions as often as possible to help define yourself and them on terms favorable to you. 

    I don't assert that he means to do any of that.  The evidence at this point suggests not, although it is still not long after last week's midterms.  By the time of the next SOTU I think we should have a pretty clear idea what he takes away from last week.   I do think doing these things could help him build his standing with the public and also with some of the people now alienated who helped elect him.  And it will help him define the 2012 campaign on terms more favorable to him.  Of course, he should also look for useful things he can get done these next two years and there are some he can do just using his Executive authority. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:24pm

    "But in any context don't you think it is helpful to use the bully pulpit to marginalize one's political opponents as extreme and out of touch?"

    Oh, absolutely.  You couldn't be more right here, and I only wish I'd see it happen.  What you outline in this paragraph as a whole makes great sense, but as you ultimately conclude, the signs don't seem to be pointing in this direction, so, yes, we can only wait and see. 


    by anna am on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:50pm

    At this point, I don't think any of this matters, outside of a small circle of friends.

    Nope...not Ouside of a small circle of friends.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:31pm

    I couldn't get the link to work...


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:34pm

    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.


    by anna am on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:45pm

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


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 7:02pm

    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.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 7:18am

    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.


    by Ramona on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:41am

    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.     


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:48am

    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!

    by Ramona on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 10:55am

    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. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:04pm

    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.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 10:39am

    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


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:10am

    Latest Comments