Pondering Centrism and the 2012 Election.

    By kgb999 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 6:40am |

    I'm not much of a centrist fan. Don't get me wrong, I hope the best for 'em on a personal level. But it's just that ... I don't know. Increasingly it feels like even the Tea Party folks have a more rational plan of action to improve the nation than so-called-centrist Democrats ... who have apparently gone all-in with an "avalanche of clichéd platitudes while doing whatever corporations ask in exchange for mega-donations so we can WIN WIN WIN!" approach to government and policy. The act of owning the White House is clearly all that matters and it is increasingly clear this is all that has mattered from day one.

    Thinking back on recent years, it is hard not to observe Bush's crew was also almost exclusively focused on winning a second term. At the time, Republicans swore everyone had to play along or the alternative unleashed by Democrats would be far worse. Much as blind-loyal Democrats are swearing now. In retrospect, these Bush apologists were, of course (and unsurprisingly), wrong. Partisans are notorious for happily selling their country down the river in exchange for illusionary power over their "rivals." Now just look at the shambles Democrats have created in our nation by doing it.

    Read More[Here I will act preemptively, before anyone tries to pop off with "Buu Buuu Buuttttt! You just said BUSH!!!!!!! It's all HIS FAULT!!!!1!" To that the only proper response is: Bullshit. Yes. That's right. Bullshit.]

    Democrats created this crap we are now dealing with. They did it by dancing to the song of the highest bidder right at the side of Republicans. By telling themselves that arguably better to an infinitesimal degree is all anyone should ever expect, just like the Republicans. Defining their own high-bar as the lowest common denominator in their adversaries. Today we are reaping fields initially sown in the time of Bill Clinton by members of both parties ... while the exact same cast of characters plant the exact same poison crop in even more of our fields for the next generation.

    For an independent, that is probably the most difficult thing to swallow about the electoral approach so-called-centrist Democrats are espousing in their crusade to promote the anti-democracy of voting against one's own interest. This assertion that carefully crafted semantics plausibly casting the GOP as "more guilty" renders the Democrat's actions inconsequential. By all appearances, such people choose to blame the Republicans for the results of their own actions, failures and terrible policy preferences rather than to just stop being and/or supporting total douchebags.

    This is not to absolve or endorse the Republicans. They truly have been, and continue to be, abjectly terrible. But they truly are almost irrelevant to the question.

    There isn't even a pretense team Obama may shape up after reelection and significantly shift the focus of government back to the traditional definition of common good. Supporters just tell everyone to go screw themselves, explaining that *smart* Democrats have thrown in with a theoretical demographic that seemingly can't be isolated in any extant data yet has the amazing properties of loving whatever crap Obama pulls out of his rear-end and holds the ability to hand Democrats reelection (or take reelection away) ... so, just keep voting for these politicians even if they are helping Republicans accomplish what Dem supporters have opposed for decades.

    And now we brace for the inevitable breathless discussion of if Obama managed to properly frame the debate in such a way as to hang responsibility for the disaster that is our current team of political leaders on the GOP - successfully casting them as sole reason we don't have jobs ... or will people still blame Obama. [news flash ... people totally blame both and are going to sit around drinking beer insulting every moment of butthole-in-chief's big speech to our congrassholes until he finally gets his big-eared ass the hell off our TVs to let us watch our damn football game in peace - If the guy had any intention of creating some jobs he wouldn't need to give a speech ... we'd SEE the jobs. There aren't jobs coming any time soon ... and proper election season is still 6 months hence; go away and let the GOP have a primary campaign already. If you want to play primary quit suppressing challengers and have a primary ... otherwise DO SOMETHING. Political chess ninja? Seriously.]

    Obama may well win in 2012. But that doesn't change the fact that at this point unless they pull a complete 180 on policy, Democrats are poised to do more damage to the nation than the GOP ever dreamed of ... on top of the recent Obama-driven policy/narrative devastation. Achieving a supreme court dominated by the likes of Kagen and Sotomayor simply doesn't provide enough heft to offset the massive hemorrhage elsewhere. Assuming one wants better policy and more opportunity for those in the <$100K income bracket, every way this election games out seems to indicate we the people would be better off positioning the GOP to advance the exact same policies we're seeing anyhow under their own banner with honesty and putting the Democrats in a position of having institutional motivation to ensure they are not particularly successful.

    As I have stated previously, the options really suck. But within the range of options, maybe the best outcome would be the Democrats losing the Presidency to Romney, have them solidify control of the Senate and maybe retake the House (completely unrealistic with Obama on the ballot as electoral anvil, I know). Romney has proven he can work with a Democratic congress ... hell, he passed Obamacare back when Obama was still pretending to support a seemingly effective approach to comprehensive reform.

    Equally important to refocusing the Dems on being Democrats again, with Romney (or any GOPer) in the WH, Dems would have a good shot at achieving solid congressional control with the 2014 cycle and (assuming they hold the line in 2012) risk of losing the senate majority pretty much evaporates. If Obama wins, Dems are seriously looking at perhaps as long as 2018 to retake the House and the Senate certainly has potential to remain in play. I'm probably screwed though (as usual); I don't think Obama's going to lose. He's making too much money for the people who own the GOP ... they seem perfectly content to finance a great big dog-and-pony freakfest for Obama's benefit while setting pace for record-breaking donations into his campaign coffers.

    [Of course, I can't resist flogging the pipe dream: it would be totally awesome to see a few states send a handful of independent legislators to Washington in 2012]

    (originally posted at kgblogz)

    Comments

    Hey kgb, just a brief comment on what we put on the front page, which I mention only because you've raised the issue before.

    This is a good piece--regardless of whether or not I agree with it--and I would put it up except for the news flash bit. Generally, we try to keep front page articles (pseudo-)professional, so we avoid pieces with name-calling, profanity, grammatical errors, and the like. It has nothing to do with the target. If you called Bush butthole-in-chief, it would be the same.

    If you would like to edit the name-calling, I'll put it up. There's no obligation to do so, of course. There's no issue with the ToS, and my comment is not in any way a reprimand. I just wanted to be clear about why it's not on the front page right now and give you the option.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:25am

    I don't enjoy being in the peculiar position of defending a president who has mostly disappointed me over the past couple of years.  But I don't understand how it is bullshit to assert that it would be worse for the country if any of the Republicans who are running for president defeat Obama.   And I also don't understand--if this is what you're arguing--how it is bullshit to make good faith determinations that do indeed taste like plain vanilla centrist, but are based on recent past experience.  And I guess ultimately I'm not really sure what it is that you are advocating; I don't agree that it doesn't matter who wins if Obama is the Democratic nominee, if that's what you're arguing.  

    Thanks for cross-posting.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:27am

    This was more of a opinion/reflection piece. I'm not sure I'm actually advocating anything ... maybe that people stop playing partisan and start voting for the person who represents them best, even if that person likely won't win. Everyone seems to agree partisanship is killing us - but the consistent solution presented is that everyone should become Democrats. My thought is that maybe the way to end partisanship is to abandon it ... and you can't do that if you refuse to vote for anyone other than a Democrat.

    But I don't understand how it is bullshit to assert that it would be worse for the country if any of the Republicans who are running for president defeat Obama.

    I suppose it's bullshit because I disagree entirely. The argument for this looks so damn much like what the GOPers were shoveling back in 2004 it's scary.

    I am not opposed to compromise - if it is truly a compromise and made for honest reasons. But I don't see those who adopt centrism as an ideology representing legitimate political compromise. I posted this article at a few places ... over at MyFDL, Wendy (formerly Stardust when she posted here) rightfully challenged the sentence another commenter snarked on below. I think my response on that thread might explain the specific deficiency I see in the political approach better than the article does (the thought people wouldn't just implicitly understand that part of my opinion never occurred to me :-).

    My current view is that if it comes down to having a President who totally agrees with the "Third Way" style decision-making matrix that is conventional Dagblog wisdom (although I am quite fond of those promoting it on a personal level), we are better off with the Tea Party taking the White House. Ineffective buffoonery is far preferable to the premeditated and calculated corporatist destruction they happily envision as a natural upshot of maintaining Democrats in power through Obama.

    Thanks for reading, and thanks for the thoughtful reply.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 5:06pm

    I can't resist flogging the pipe dream: it would be totally awesome to see a few states send a handful of independent legislators to Washington in 2012

    Lieberman Independents?  Sanders Independents?  Does it matter to you?

    Today we are reaping fields initially sown in the time of Bill Clinton by members of both parties.

    If you're talking about just the most recent financial crisis, the deregulatory policy changes on financial policy really began in earnest late in the Clinton Administration, with his support and the support of many Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress.  If you're talking about broader, anti-regulatory, pro-privatization, easy-outsourcing, easy capital mobility, anti-union policies--the whole right-wing approach to economic policy which has been dominant in this country since roughly 1981, I'd date it back to roughly the time of Reagan's election, and the ascendency of the forces that put him and the ideology he advocated in power, which began their incubation period well before that. 

    But within the range of options, maybe the best outcome would be the Democrats losing the Presidency to Romney

    Is your assessment of risks and most likely outcomes different with a potential Perry rather than Romney presidency?

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 1:49pm

    Yeah. I was talking about the current crisis. Agreed on your assessment of the Regan era. But I really do see those as two distinct periods. I see the negative outcomes and predictable malfeasance of Regan era deregulation defined by the S&L crisis ... to which a Republican administration responded by putting the perpetrators in jail.  Our era is defined by the derivatives crisis .... to which Obama has responded by putting the perpetrators in his cabinet.

    I don't think a Perry candidacy changes my thinking much. It is a given that no matter who wins, the people are going to hate their president in the next cycle - the relationship has gone entirely toxic. IMO the major difference is that Romney might actually be motivated to do some legitimately good things as president whereas Perry would be entirely lame and only serve the role of redirecting the Democrats to their traditional stance and provide some level of legitimate advocacy vis-a-vis labor, social support infrastructure, small business and national economic investment. OTOH, I think a Perry presidency would all but guarantee the Democrats solid control of the House in 2014. I don't think Romney would alienate voters to the same degree, so I think the congressional hill would be steeper to climb with him in office.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:25pm

    Lieberman Independents?  Sanders Independents?  Does it matter to you?

    Heh. I totally missed this in your comment the first time I read it. Sanders runs as an honest independent. A life-long Democrat who switches to independent after losing a partisan primary totally doesn't count.

    What matters most is if the independent (or any rep) actually represents their constituents. But institutionally, it would be nice to push the current congressional committee assignment process away from the system of patronage and quid-pro-quo that has emerged within the current political duopoly (speaking generously, there are many indicators that we really are looking at a political monopoly leveraged using two brands in the marketplace). That would require enough independents holding office to demand the ability to caucus outside the partisan structure (currently, an independent is required to join a party for all practical purposes if they actually manage to win).


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 5:26pm

    That would require enough independents holding office to demand the ability to caucus outside the partisan structure (currently, an independent is required to join a party for all practical purposes if they actually manage to win).

    What would it mean for independents, the diversity of whose substantive views would make the Democratic party look like a model of lockstep unity, look like?  What would they talk about?

    You seem to have a relatively specific idea of what collection of policy views you would like to see independents advance.  Why wouldn't that logic lead, from your point of view, to advocacy for formation of a new political party committed to advancing, roughly, those views?  Why would you think electing independents would be likely to move the ball in the policy directions you favor when to be an independent in our day is to be practically defined by having no particular set of policy views likely to be widely shared with other independents?

     

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:26pm

    Centrism is killing us, KGB.

    And it's Democrats who are doing it. Bill Clinton, arguably the best President in recent memory, a gentleman from Arkansas whom I ever-so-briefly knew as did ever-so-many others (it's a small state) committed an unforced and almost unforgivable error with his 3rd Way, DLC political philosophy, and his error has dogged Democrats ever since.

    I say almost unforgivable because I did forgive him, based solely upon his remarkable performance in the face of the Ken Starr focused right-wing hatred.

    I even understand the Clinton approach, coming after Reagan and Bush I, even though I don't support it. But there is no excuse for Obama.

    Obama, reputed to be a smart man, has the advantage of being able to see what the Clinton 3rd Way approach purchased, the undermining of the middle class, the systematic deprivation of opportunity for the lower economic classes, and the massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy.

    And yet Obama chooses, at every opportunity, to be the wanna-be Republican.

    I was outraged when the Supreme Court appointed Bush II to the Presidency. But I was even more outraged when Democrats couldn't deny him a second term. Apparently, it was be cause Democrats just really wanted to be him. To be him.

    It's gone beyond Democrat and Republican. Way beyond. Now it's about working people vs. the privileged few, the Plutocrats. 

    I can only hope people are beginning to understand that.

    The next election will not save us. No matter who wins.


    by Red Planet on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:22am

    I think we view Clinton in a similar way ... but with eyes sitting in very different perspectives. The thing that bothers me most about the Clinton-to-now era is how totally dishonest Democrats are being about their (and his) role in facilitating and promoting the current situation we inhabit. No matter what their own hands do or how much power the party holds, the assertion is that they were and remain powerless to stop their own actions because of the big bad republicans or some shit. Riiiiiiiiiight.

    Kerry just ran a terrible campaign. ABC went through all the trouble of sending someone to Vietnam, visiting the village where the "Swift Boat" incident occurred, viewing documentation that not only listed the VC assets deployed on that night ... but also confirmed a casualty exactly matching Kerry's descriptions and assigned exactly the weapon Kerry says he faced. They even had the guy's name ... and the village elders offered to dig up VC-era weapons that they still had buried in someone's garden. These same elders also reported that the Swift Boat guys had been through a few weeks earlier and had been given all the same information yet decided to suppress it beause it conflicted with their desired smear campaign. Kerry didn't even bother to use any of it. Inexplicable.

    I think you are pretty much right about the dynamic of the current political conflict in society. I'm having a hard time envisioning how this is going to end up manifesting when it finally breaks out into the open for serious ... but I suspect things may get ugly.

    The next election is for laying groundwork. We're in for a long slog here. There isn't going to be any one election that can save us.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 11:46pm

    Kerry also had some semi-big bucks set aside for challenging cases of, or defending allegations of, vote fraud but then he couldn't concede fast enough despite good reason to look into Ohio's vote count.  There is an explanation, we just don't know what it is, and speculating just makes a person a whacko conspiracy theorist.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 12:28am

    Increasingly it feels like even the Tea Party folks have a more rational plan of action to improve the nation than so-called-centrist Democrats...

    I stopped reading there. 


    by anna am on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:44pm

    Sounds about right.  You aren't exactly known for intellectual honesty or open-minded debate.

    Thanks for sharing.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:07pm

    Ah now give credit where credit is due.  It's enormously open-minded of me to try reading you at all


    by anna am on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 4:57pm

    No. That's just mildly adventurous.

    Open-minded is more like being eager to read something you are likely to disagree with and challenge it on merit ... learning from those you disagree with in the process. You seem to have come in with a chip on your shoulder looking for superficial excuses to trivially dismiss what you encountered (you're welcome, I put it in the opening preamble for you). Although ... hadn't seen you around for a while so I am totally glad you did. Stoked you seem well.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 5:47pm

    Well I'm glad you're well too.  But what you say is outrageous.  If you don't fully believe it and are simply looking to give your readers (all those creep out dagblog Centrists) a take that, it's totally intellectually dishonest and what's the point of any of us going further?

    If you do fully believe what you say, if you really do find this Koch Brothers fully financed enterprise credible, then I think you may be so angry at Centrism you're losing perspective.  Because I'd say the real truth is that the Tea Party movement is as phony as Monopoly money, and as fresh and wholesome in its outlook as basa fish from the Mekong River.  

    If that's being closed minded, well, I plead guilty. 

    But, by the way, the reason why I started reading is that you can be thought provoking and often delineate issues with a clarity that's impressive.  But here you seem to be blowharding and it turned me off.  That's the long and the short of it. 

     


    by anna am on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 6:09pm

    You've got to bear in mind that I have friends who were Tea Party members long before the Koch brothers came along with their Beckerhead bus tour of geriatric neocons. In many regards addressing such a reductionist caricature of the movement kind of feels like trying to discuss global warming with someone who doesn't understand or even really believe in thermometers. You don't even have a basic perspective to understand the deep animosity between the original tea party and neocons, or the implications of the Kochs et. al. drawing from that specific faction to build their media-ready knock-off. That's not to say I view them as some sort of good-policy powerhouses or anything ... but it has gotten to point where it doesn't much matter anymore.

    Others had raised the line you protested as an honest question and challenged it. And in retrospect, I didn't really explain the thought behind it in the post at all. When I saw it highlighted in the new comments list, figured your questioning it would be totally fair and deserve a deeper explanation.

    Now, after debating it through with others, I'm still feeling my conclusion is not off base. It is a genuinely held position and I feel the logic behind it to be well-thought-out. I honestly believe that the relativist nihilism of ideological centrism is currently the most destructive force in American politics. You may disagree with me, but in order to do so credibly you'd have to bother to try and understand what I was saying.

    And yeah ... there is a retaliatory aspect in the tone I selected. This will likely be pretty much true of my tone across the board right now. Insulting and belittling my independent political beliefs (and insulting/belittling the political beliefs of Democratic liberals) is a Dagblog cottage industry and prevalent across the entire establishment Democratic commentariat. If that's the game, OK, I'll play it. One's gotta keep themselves amused. Sorry it turned ya off (but not so sorry that I won't likely do it again ... never been one to disarm unilaterally :-).


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 11:25pm

    You know, I get not being a fan of centrism. But it seems that you're effectively saying that it might as well be right-wing extremism. To me, that's like equating the bystander who "didn't see anything" and who "refused to get involved" with the murderer who actually committed the crime. (In case it's not clear, in this hypothetical the bystander still comes off as an ass, just not a murderer. I'd rather be in a room with an ass than a murderer. It's not even a close contest for me, no matter how much I might hate the ass.)

    Edit to add: In reading the exchange you had with Wendy over at FDL, it seems that you prefer the "murderer" because at least he has the skills and conviction to get things done. (In case it's not clear, I'm being very tongue-in-cheek here and am not suggesting in any manner that you would actually harbor such feelings with regards to a true murderer.)


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 5:13pm

    Actually, I'm saying centrism is worse than right wing extremism.

    Mangling your hypothetical (and joining in equating politics with murder ... yay); right wing extremism holds that murder is necessary to accomplish their vision and better the nation. Centrism holds that working beside right wing extremists to commit murder is fine if it helps accomplish their vision of attaining or holding personal power. Murder will be committed in both instances. Voting for either side of this equation adds your personal endorsement to it. I prefer neither and that's how I plan to vote.

    I'm just saying logic dictates murder committed with an honest vision and intent of bettering the nation has a higher likelihood of improving the nation than murder committed simply for crass personal gain.

    In the centrist case, even if someone else physically pulls the trigger, there is no way in hell to characterize them as a bystander. They are the only fucking cop with a gun in town yet they have driven the so-called murderer to the scene and have been standing right there cheering them on as the trigger is pulled again and again and again.

    I think you are caught up on blame over the past. I don't give a shit about that. That's really not how politics work ... you are thinking of crime. Yesterday is already gone. What about tomorrow? I see throwing centrists out of office as eliminating  the murder's taxicab and forcing them to at least figure out how to travel their own happy ass to the next victim.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 6:22pm

    I agree with you about the future being more important than the past, with the importance of the past primarily being in its ability to inform us of the future. It's my future I'm considering when I say I'd rather be in the room with the ass (the only fucking copy with a gun in town who drove the murderer to the scene) than with the murderer. Yes, I'd rather be with someone else entirely, but unless you can give me a plan* to make that happen…

    *I'm afraid I prefer reasonable plans.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 7:53pm

    Well, at the risk of torturing this metaphor to the point of breaking ....

    Much of this hinges on if one thinks that the "ass" plans on kicking the murderer out of the car any time soon. If the answer is no, as I believe it to be, a win for either results in being in being stuck with an empowered murderer. That part is unavoidable.

    Our options aren't between one or the other. Our options are between one or both. So, do we want to deal with a murderer while also dealing with an ass who's stolen our car and is driving the murderer around so quickly there isn't a chance in hell of ever catching them?

    America needs the cop to not be an ass. If he insists on being one, he shouldn't be driving our cop car. Put that shit in the shop and get the beat cops back to work in a position where their own self-interest is in dealing with the murderers toe to toe. Sure, the murderer may have a car of their own for a bit, but at least the cops may start pulling that car over everywhere he tries to go in it again. That seems preferable to me.

    As for a plan ... the plan is the same plan that every addict hates to hear and the only one that exists. If you want it to end, you have to stop taking the drug. Abandon least-worst and accept that democracy is not going to be under your control. I perceive you are asking for a plan that allows you to extract yourself from indulgent political excess without any pain of withdrawal. I don't think it's possible. We're in too deep. But the DTs just get worse from here. Vote for the best on the ballot, take the GOPper if that's what fate provides and let's move on.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 8:54pm

    Latest Comments