Your points are well taken, yet I dont see where I ever disagreed with your basic thesis. I started by making, I think, a point about how centrism is not a cop out, but rather a fairly noble intellectual exercise concerning the acknowledgment of nuance and complexity in the political sphere.
You are right that parties are generally more important than individual politicians, but that is only because of the institutional framework of the US government, whose two party system naturally leads towards the broadening and dispersion of ideological considerations in order to attract the most voters, makes it so.
I understand that it is important, when it comes down to it, to vote for the party (Democrat or Republican) which, most broadly (and however imperfectly) represents your values. I have resigned to this reality. (I consider voting third party a waste)
I was under the impression that the original poster asked not about the processes which "naturally" create two centrist parties in this country, and the importance of voting the party line in order to have your voice heard, but rather to discuss centrism as an isolated intellectual exercise. Whether it was a "cop out" or reflected disinterest on the part of an individual who professes it.
If centrist is equivalent to what we used to call moderate, then I guess I'm a centrist. fishin' described it well. It isn't that I don't hold strong opinions or vote my conscience, but I don't allow a party platform or 'company line' to determine, or even influence, my opinions. I read a lot, determine for myself what makes the most sense to me, and vote accordingly. As an avowed Independent, I've voted for Republican, Democratic, and third party candidates. I don't think voting third party is a waste in the least if it most accurately reflects my views.
Unfortunately, in recent national elections I've found myself having to vote for candidates I normally wouldn't support in order to vote against those who I really feel should not be elected. In that way, my vote has not in the least reflected my opinions on the issues but it's a choice I've made on an election-by-election basis.
Brookings wrote:You are right that parties are generally more important than individual politicians, but that is only because of the institutional framework of the US government, whose two party system naturally leads towards the broadening and dispersion of ideological considerations in order to attract the most voters, makes it so.
I disagree with your comment here. The two party system isn't enshrined in the Constitution, any statute or law. It isn't a part of the framework of our Federal government. It was created by voters - most of which subscribe to ebrown's view that it's the party or nothing - and they operate as shadow entities outside of government. (i.e. The head of the DNC and RNC aren't beholden to the electorate yet they dictate party policy and with that, exercise control over the actual elected officials.)
If every voter cast their vote based on where each individual candidate stood on issues the parties would cease to exist.
fishin wrote:
If every voter cast their vote based on where each individual candidate stood on issues the parties would cease to exist.
... and the world would be a better place, IMO.
fishin wrote:Brookings wrote:You are right that parties are generally more important than individual politicians, but that is only because of the institutional framework of the US government, whose two party system naturally leads towards the broadening and dispersion of ideological considerations in order to attract the most voters, makes it so.
I disagree with your comment here. The two party system isn't enshrined in the Constitution, any statute or law. It isn't a part of the framework of our Federal government. It was created by voters - most of which subscribe to ebrown's view that it's the party or nothing - and they operate as shadow entities outside of government. (i.e. The head of the DNC and RNC aren't beholden to the electorate yet they dictate party policy and with that, exercise control over the actual elected officials.)
If every voter cast their vote based on where each individual candidate stood on issues the parties would cease to exist.
You are right, there is nothing explicitly in the framework. However, from the very inception of the country, with the federalists and the anti-federalists, this general system has prevailed and entrenched itself rather stubbornly.
Fishin'
I am not saying "party or nothing".
I am a values voter... meaning my values are the most important thing to determine my vote.
But I am a realist. I use my vote strategically-- i.e. I vote in the way that will result in policies that reflect my values. This isn't always the same thing as voting my values. (I have come to realize this with age, in my idealistic youth I felt otherwise).
I am a progressive first, and a Democrat second. But I am most certainly a Democrat. A continued Republican control of Congress is a disaster for those of us who share my views on many issues; not just the war in Iraq, but Stem cells, gay rights, immigration, health care and poverty.
I also am not so sure that your utopian idea of a country with no parties is possible or even desirable. In a Democracy, alliances are the key to power.
For example, in November you will vote for a US Representative. But... the House of Representatives is a body whose direction and results are determined by majorities. When you vote... your vote is not really for your local candidate first... you are either voting for Hastert or Pelosi... leaders of the two ideological blocs that we have divided ourselves into.
But how could it be any different. If you get rid of parties... you will still have blocs and majorities and alliances.
Really if you think about it, alliances are really about compromise saying I will support your passion about the war, if you support my passionate feelings about gay marriage (this is intentionally ambiguous since it happens on both sides).
Being a progressive I am now solidly in the Democratic party. This is because I believe that within the Democratic party I have the most influence. I have the ability to pressure the party leaders (even the less progressive ones) to support my positions. I have no chance of doing that in the Republican party.
Incidently, this realization is relatively recent. I didn't always feel like this and did. in the past, vote my conscience... even supporting Nader.
Maybe in less contentious times, I could be persuaded that at times it might be preferable to vote my conscience even leaving party.
But right now this is impossible. Republican represent the war (and I mean as a group, not individuals). They represent religious control in our lives. They represent the end of multiculturalism. The stubbornly reject science from Evolution to Global Warming. They object to the minimum wage and strive to weaken bankruptcy protection. They stand for Guantamo and Torture and wiretapping.
It doesn't matter that individual Republicans may have divergent beliefs on one or another of these issues. They represent an Alliance... a bloc and they compromise and agree to work together to foist these things, as a package, upon us.
As long as the Democrats oppose them, for me to not vote Democrat would be immoral.
I always thought the middle of the road would be the spot in the very center that was equidistant from the farthest left and farthest right side of the road....but then I'm just a simple Bear.....
BBB
In the United States, successful governing can only be obtained from the middle, not the FAR right or left. I think history will show that most failed presidencies result from being to far from the center, usually the right. I don't think we've ever had a true left wing president.
My thinking does not focus on a black and white approach to issues. I tend to see large areas of gray with black and white around the edges. Our political system is based on compromise, which requires a centrist outcome.
I may have developed this thinking method resulting from a lifetime of training and experience as a negotiator. To be a successful negotiator (which is what all politics is about) you must know your opponent's case case as well as your own, and find a way to achieve a win-win outcome where everyone get some of what they want but maybe not all.
Bush is in trouble because he's tried to be a political bully. If he has the votes, the hell with everyone else. His is a failed presidency because he does not understand this. Everyone eventually ends up hating the bully.
I'm a progressive, but I'm wise enough to know that I couldn't successfully govern this country from the progressive outlook. If you don't believe that, remember how the conservatives went to war with Clinton who was a centrist, not a political progressive. He may have progressive ideals but was smart enough to know only a centrist can succeed without tearing the country apart.
BBB
ebrown_p wrote:I also am not so sure that your utopian idea of a country with no parties is possible or even desirable. In a Democracy, alliances are the key to power.
For example, in November you will vote for a US Representative. But... the House of Representatives is a body whose direction and results are determined by majorities. When you vote... your vote is not really for your local candidate first... you are either voting for Hastert or Pelosi... leaders of the two ideological blocs that we have divided ourselves into.
But how could it be any different. If you get rid of parties... you will still have blocs and majorities and alliances.
Even without parties you'd have blocks and alliances. They would be issue based instead of party based however. We elect these congressional reps because they are supposed to be representing "We the people", not their respective party.
Quote:
Really if you think about it, alliances are really about compromise saying I will support your passion about the war, if you support my passionate feelings about gay marriage (this is intentionally ambiguous since it happens on both sides).
And Parties are saying "You'll vote the party line or we'll find someone to run against you in your distrct, cut off your campaign finding sources and boot you off committies." The Parties have no passion on issues. They have passion for power and they pander to the electorate by claiming nonsensical stances on issues. The only concern for the party bosses are getting people elected so they can raise more money and fatten their own bank accounts.
Quote:
Being a progressive I am now solidly in the Democratic party. This is because I believe that within the Democratic party I have the most influence. I have the ability to pressure the party leaders (even the less progressive ones) to support my positions. I have no chance of doing that in the Republican party.
Incidently, this realization is relatively recent. I didn't always feel like this and did. in the past, vote my conscience... even supporting Nader.
Maybe in less contentious times, I could be persuaded that at times it might be preferable to vote my conscience even leaving party.
But right now this is impossible. Republican represent the war (and I mean as a group, not individuals). They represent religious control in our lives. They represent the end of multiculturalism. The stubbornly reject science from Evolution to Global Warming. They object to the minimum wage and strive to weaken bankruptcy protection. They stand for Guantamo and Torture and wiretapping.
It doesn't matter that individual Republicans may have divergent beliefs on one or another of these issues. They represent an Alliance... a bloc and they compromise and agree to work together to foist these things, as a package, upon us.
As long as the Democrats oppose them, for me to not vote Democrat would be immoral.
All of which sounds an awful lot like Bush's "Your either with us or you are against us!" statement which progressives have roundly mocked.
I do understand your position. I really do. It just saddens me to see someone sell out and become a part of the party machine...
Quote:
And Parties are saying "You'll vote the party line or we'll find someone to run against you in your distrct, cut off your campaign finding sources and boot you off committies." The Parties have no passion on issues. They have passion for power and they pander to the electorate by claiming nonsensical stances on issues. The only concern for the party bosses are getting people elected so they can raise more money and fatten their own bank accounts.
Given what just happened in the Lamont/Lieberman primary race, this statement is ironic.
The Democratic party establishment strongly stood with Lieberman in spite of the fact he often didn't support the "line" of the progressive base of the party. The majority of the Democratic entreched big-shots from both Clintons, to the DSCC supported Liberman, with stump appearances, moral support and money.
Lieberman lost the election based in spite of the support of the power establishment because of a grass-roots effort based on progressive ideals.
Only now, after Lieberman lost the primary do you see the Democrats respond to the decision of the voters-- as most would agree they should.
This was very much a victory of people over entrenched power.
The system doesn't always work, but at times it does. The leaders of a party must stay in touch with the people or the people will find someone who does.
I think that right now is a great time to be a person with progressive ideals in the Democratic party. There is leverage and there is movement and there is excitement and for once the real possiblity of getting things done.
ebrown_p wrote:The Democratic party establishment strongly stood with Lieberman in spite of the fact he often didn't support the "line" of the progressive base of the party. The majority of the Democratic entreched big-shots from both Clintons, to the DSCC supported Liberman, with stump appearances, moral support and money.
Lieberman lost the election based in spite of the support of the power establishment because of a grass-roots effort based on progressive ideals.
Only now, after Lieberman lost the primary do you see the Democrats respond to the decision of the voters-- as most would agree they should.
This was very much a victory of people over entrenched power.
Really? Or was it a win for the back room party players over the front men? I guess it's a matter of who you see as the party establishment/leadership.
Lamont is giving much of the credit for his win to a "grassroots" group called "Democracy for America" which was formerly named "Dean For America". DFA is headed by Jim Dean, brother of Howard Dean and Howard Dean's former campaign manager for the State of CT. He also had the endorsement of the former Democratic Party head for the state of CT - George Jepson. It sure looks like the Democratic Party leadership (i.e. Howard Dean and his cronies) was backing Lamont all the way. Looks to me like Lamont had a fairly deep reach into the Democratic Party leadership.
The front men (Clinton, Dodd, etc...) that endorsed Lieberman were doing what was expected of them - publicly supporting the incumbent - while the back room players were all pushing Lamont. You'll note that all of the front men started switching over to support Lamont before the vote count was completed or Lieberman conceeded defeat.
You have a funny way of saying it...
but if by "back room players" you mean the voters of Connecticut and the grass roots supporters who promoted and canvassed for and made phone calls for Lamont, then I guess I agree with your assessment.
Democracy works when commited concerned citizens work to affect changes that support their values, and that is what millions of progressives voters are doing, now from inside the Democratic party.
Setting an end date for the war in Iraq is a progressive idea that is now supported by the majority of Americans. A comprehensive immigration bill this year that includes a path to citizenship for immigrant here illegally now is supported by a majority of Americans. Raising the minimum wage is supported by a majority of Americans.
All of these things can be accomplished by a Democrat led congress-- and that is why this is an important goal.
The idea that American voters shouldn't have a voice because they are progressive seem to be implied by a lot of "centrist" rhetoric these days. But voters with progressive values are voters and we are working for change.
I don't that that is a bad thing, do you?
ebrown_p wrote:You have a funny way of saying it...
but if by "back room players" you mean the voters of Connecticut and the grass roots supporters who promoted and canvassed for and made phone calls for Lamont, then I guess I agree with your assessment.
Nope. What I mean by "back room players" is the DNC party apparatchik - the people on the Democratic Party (National and State levels) payroll as well as those whose strings are being directly controlled by the paid staff. If you honestly think that DFA is the voice of the people then I've got a bridge to sell you. Some of their volunteers may be naive enough to think that they are pushing the party but it's pretty clear to everyone else that the DFA leadership is getting their marching orders from the DNC staff, not the other way around.
Quote:
The idea that American voters shouldn't have a voice because they are progressive seem to be implied by a lot of "centrist" rhetoric these days. But voters with progressive values are voters and we are working for change.
I don't that that is a bad thing, do you?
I have yet to see anyone say or imply that there is any segment of the population that shouldn't have a voice. What I HAVE seen is people saying (or at least implying) that many of the progressives are just as nutty as Bush and his cronies are - that they're opposite sides of the same coin.
I see that as a bad thing because it means that we become further polarized and it allows the DNC to throw additional items onto their agenda and the progressives will support it, even if they may have opposed the issue previously, because they've allowed flat out hatred to control their voting behavior instead of reason. It means an end to any sort of compromise or bipartisanship and a government that will shift dramatically as each party swings into control.
Fishin,
I respectfully disagree with you on the nature of the progressive movement. Of course your characterization of "nutty" is a subjective judgement, but let me use myself as an example of a politically active progressive now working within the Democratic party.
I am not a politician. I am a software engineer and a father (and a regular citizen). I am also well-informed and intelligent and I know a lot about the issues I care about including where I stand.
I also think the "nutty liberal" slur is overplayed. Progressives who are like me care about issues- the Iraq war, a living wage and civil rights. We reject the messages from the left that I (subjectively) feel are truly "nutty" such as the anti-semitic conspiracy theories, or protectionist isolationalism.
There are millions of average Americans who think much the same I do, and it makes sense for us to work together.
My thesis is this (and if I understand you, you will agree with this) "The system works best when it is controlled by the people."
Now you say that the DFA is not representing the voice of the people-- I respectively disagree. I am on of the "People" and they are representing me pretty well on the issues I care about and there are millions of American voters who agree.
Let's look at the Iraq war as an important issues. The progressives (as I describe the political category I indentify with) have been against the war from the beginning. They have been advocating for a quick end to the occupation since "Mission Accomplished".
The Democrats did neither of these two things and for a long time you had Republicans pushing the war and occupation, and the Democrats tacitly agreeing with an occasional murmer.
So you had a large number of Americans (I think 30% is a good estimate) who were represented by neither party. So, what did we do?
First we got behind Dean (who was an anti-war candidate) and millions of Americans sent in the small donations whose numbers were quite remarkable. When his gaff (and the resultant institutional stifling of his campaign) sank his candidate the same people-- real American voters who opposed the war (there were other issues of course-- stayed behind him.
The Democratic leadership put Dean where he is, not because they like having an anti-war Democrat causing problems-- but because with the large minority of support for him, they had to do somthing with him.
The Democratic party is being pressured by its progressive base, that is us educated, active grass roots base, and Dean is part of this.
The current Democratic party trend of getting the guts to oppose the war is very much a response to progressive Democrats who have been right from the beginning.
There has always been tension between the old-guard Democratic party and Howard Dean. They have always fought over the war and other progressive issues. Currently they are fighting over national electoral strategy including whether or not they should grow the spine required to support their consituents.
We are having an impact on the Democratic party-- and this is the best way to have an impact on our nation as a whole.
Brookings wrote:"Maybe I am wrong to equate "centrism" with "apathy"-- but either dropping bombs in the Middle East is wrong, or it is not wrong."
So its impossible to see situations where "dropping bombs on the Middle East" is justified, and situations where it is not? I dont see how you could believe that.
What is coming to play here is not necessarily being on the left or the right. It isn't even a case of situation ethics, although at first glance, it may seem that way. Interestingly, you may have uncovered what it means to honestly and, perhaps the word here is effectively, to be in the middle of the road.
Let me explain.
A person may hold that it is always wrong to drop bombs. That belief may stem from either a personal ethic, from an inherited religious philosophy or from a political philosophy.
In the first case, the person might feel that the taking of innocent lives at any time is just plain wrong. Or, they might feel that the wider destruction of property and the reduction of economic factors within the area being bombed is unjustified.
They might be of a religion that forbids combat or they might interpret their religion as having an injunction against combat.
Finally, they might feel that their particular political philosophy is anti-war.
-------------------------------
Another person might feel that there are times when bombing is allowed, and times when it is not. Finally, a third person might think certain types of war are always acceptable, and no review of the circumstances is necessary.
Primaries threaten political center
I agree with the author's comments about primaries. But the even greater threat to the Middle is Gerrymandering, which has nearly killed competition and assurance of the reelection of encumbents.---BBB
Commentary
Letter from Washington: Primaries threaten political center
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower once dismissed centrist politics with a wisecrack he'd heard from a farmer: "Ain't nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
This summer, there's no more dangerous place for a politician to be than the middle of the road. Primary voters and interest groups in both parties are pushing hard for partisan purity and punishing those who stray too close to the center - or the dreaded other side.
Next up is Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who faces a strong conservative challenge from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey in a Sept. 12 primary.
Chafee, considered his party's best hope to hold the seat in the liberal state, has nonetheless come under a barrage of criticism from conservatives. They're weary of his support for abortion rights, federal spending and gay marriage and opposition to the Bush tax cuts.
Even if they subsequently lose the seat to a Democrat, some conservatives say it would be worth it to get rid of Chafee. Says the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group opposing Chafee: "It wouldn't be much of a loss if a new Democrat senator were elected, as he would vote much the same as Chafee does now."
It might not make a difference to them on the tax issue. But nationally, this could be a close election where the loss of Rhode Island might turn over the entire Senate to Democratic control.
Chafee also is a member of the Gang of 14 - seven senators from each party who brokered a compromise that allowed Senate confirmation of some controversial Bush appointees to the federal bench while preserving the right of the Democratic minority to filibuster, or block, nominations and legislation.
That outraged conservatives, who wanted the Democrats neutered, even though they got nominees that they wanted confirmed.
"This one hit me personally harder than I think anything ever has coming out of Washington," said Dr. James Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family.
Overlooking for a moment the many things that have come out of Washington that might be even worse - think of legally upheld segregation, if you will, or legalized abortion, if you're of that persuasion - the offense here was the Gang of 14's act of compromise. "Betrayal by a cabal of Republicans," Dobson called it, adding ominously, "This is not over."
Indeed, both sides are mad about centrist compromises.
Another member of the Gang of 14, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., was defeated in a primary a week ago. A key reason was his support for the war in Iraq. But just as important was liberals' anger that Lieberman was cordial with President Bush and worked with Republicans on other issues, such as school vouchers and judicial nominations.
"It's all about who you sleep with," said liberal activist and filmmaker Michael Moore.
We've seen this kind of take-no-prisoners partisanship before.
Most recently, we saw it as the frustrated House Republican minority under former leader Bob Michel of Illinois, the sort of legislator who disagreed agreeably, evolved to practice the more confrontational politics of Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
That led to endless investigations and President Clinton's impeachment - much as today's liberals press for Bush's impeachment.
And it led to the one-party, parliamentary-like reign of Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and the rule that the House votes only on proposals supported by a majority of Republican members. Democrats need not show up; compromise with them wasn't necessary.
The problem is that the governing Republican Party has stalled in Bush's second term. It couldn't muster the votes to change Social Security. It hasn't even tried tax code overhaul. And it's divided over immigration.
While the American people demand action to control the borders, compromise is out of the question. So, apparently, is action from Washington.
Today, liberals and Democrats display the same kind of tolerate-no-compromise attitude that fed the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
That's a recipe certain to please the parties' fringes - but unlikely to help the winners govern.
Brookings wrote:
Being a centrist does NOT mean finding a "middle ground" on ALL choices. You are right that in some instances there is only an either/or option. However, like you said, this isnt theory and in more situations than not, that dichotomy is illusory.
That is why in the original question, I laid out as process the Swedish middle way and the rationale behind a free press. The discovery of a course of action that is beneficial to the greatest number of people within a jurisdiction is the role of a representative body, aided by an untrammeled press.
In that respect, I do not believe that an individual can be on the middle ground.
Brookings wrote:
I think the term "centrist" in this context is a political mind game. If you take a conservative position and call it "centrist"-- the implication is that the other position is "extremist".
and ebrown responded:
Look at the way this battle was fought in the minds of the American electorate. People who supported Bush said things like "Liberals are soft on Terror" and "Cut and Run Democrats". People who opposed him said "Iraq is a Quagmire" and "Unnecessary war". This is the way that electoral campaigns are fought and won.
Somehow, it looks like the two of you are in complete accord in this regard.
J_B wrote:
Unfortunately, in recent national elections I've found myself having to vote for candidates I normally wouldn't support in order to vote against those who I really feel should not be elected. In that way, my vote has not in the least reflected my opinions on the issues but it's a choice I've made on an election-by-election basis.
I think that this has become a story that many people tell. Why? Is it because the media makes us all too well known or, are we all, in the heart of the matter, not known well enough? In other words, do we actually know who the candidate is?
