Centerfield

Wow! This is a great idea for a blog, and I am linking right now. I consider small "l" libertarianism to be the new center -- which both parties try to keep down.

Dropped by from AS to check it out. The narrative here is pretty consistently anti-Bush. Moreover, the premises implicit in the commentary and analysis are indistinguishable from those of my liberal California friends. A forum for centrist discourse is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, this site doesn't deliver -- at least not yet.

Seems as though you need to get off the fence since being a centrist may cause others to think you have no opinion, it's not left or right!

Hi mountb. You are right that I, personally, am fairly consistently anti-Bush. Others here are less consistent on the matter -- like Rick, for example, who has much nicer (more evenhanded?) approach to Bush on Iraq ... to Ashcroft's record as AG ... and maybe a few other things.

It's quite possible, though, that the commentary you see here right now is tilted to the left. Having a conservative president, with a rather distinct neo-conservative foreign policy, makes it likely that we'll discuss the overall direction of the country in terms of the president's agenda. To the extent that we, as centrists, disagree with that agenda, the overall flavor of commentary is likely to seem ... well, anti-conservative ... which may seem liberal.

I wrote a little missive of personal frustration on foreign policy in the "Mobilizing the Center" thread a couple posts down. My conclusion was (and is) that while Bush's policies on Iraq are wrong, the Democrats running for president aren't articulating a convincing alternative.

The exception to that pattern being Lieberman -- but honestly, Lieberman is losing the nomination, which kind of proves the point. The Democrats are giving us anti-Bush fire-breathers rather than solid, careful, rational leaders -- which is what we need in a time of war.

Being a centrist isn't the same as not having any opinions, Norm. There are lots of people who straddle the fence because they're pro-choice and against gun control, and neither party reflects both those views.

"There are lots of people who straddle the fence because they're pro-choice and against gun control, and neither party reflects both those views."

Or, lad, they could be upper- or lower-case "L" Libertarians. :)

Like me.

And I'm not a fence-straddler, I simply believe that abortion, while personally abhorrent, is a personal issue and one which the government should not be involved in. What some see as me being open to both sides, is actually my reaction to an issue based upon my lower-case "L" Libertarian political philosophy. BTW, just for point-of-reference, I also fully support Bush on the war and at the same time I'm pro-legalization of controlled substances.

Crazy, huh? :)

Our intention is to be in the center even if we are tilted a bit to the center-left at the moment, which is why we want to recruit some center-right voices.

The thing about Bush, though, is that he is a Republican very far from the center. There are some Democratic candidates who are clearly centrist, such as Lieberman and Clark. They may not get the nomination, but for now they're close to being my dream candidates. Forced to choose between Dean and Bush, I haven't made up my mind.

There are other Republicans who I do support, such as my home state Governor Mitt Romney. I've also had good things to say about Ahnold (groping aside). See

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000178.html

I also supported the Iraq War, though the lack of WMD's makes me think that I may have been mistaken.

Yeah, you're one crazy dude, Mike!

We had a discussion over in the forum side of this site on the relationship between libertarianism and centrism. There's an obvious directional similarity -- most organized centrist groups are fairly liberal on cultural issues (abortion, gay rights), but conservative on economic/fiscal issues (believing in limited government).

Our similar overall take on stuff leads some libertarians to "lean" centrist, and some centrists to use phrases like "moderate libertarian" to describe their views. For example, Jesse Ventura seems to alternate between describing himself as a centrist and as a "moderate libertarian".

To the extent that there's a difference, it tends to be a matter of degree. Centrists don't quite go as far down that road as libertarians do. (For example, I don't personally believe in legalizing drugs.)

The fuller discussion on this in the forum can be found here:

http://www.centristcoalition.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=41&11

The concept of a true centrist forum is intriguing, the stated preference for Clark/Liberman isn't centrist it's purely Democrat party line. If the site admin has an agenda, elect Clark, then that doesn't promote other opinions and preferences,
just debate on the predetermined premise. I am going to follow your site for a while and may post occasionally but as I read your opinions they are in total conflict with your stated objective.

My blog is conservative, but libertarian. So in some senses it is centrist. I, for example, am Republican, but against the death penalty. And I would legalize most "recreational" drugs, but regulate and tax them. In short, my libertarian views often trump my conservative views.

Anyway, if you would like to consider me for a centrist Republican voice on your blog, please let me know. I'd be happy to join the debate. Thanks.

-nikita demosthenes

I'd like to take a closer look at this:

"The concept of a true centrist forum is intriguing, the stated preference for Clark/Liberman isn't centrist it's purely Democrat party line."

I would concede, first of all, that the centrist "segment" of the electorate is diverse. There are a lot of center-left and center-right folks who call themselves "centrist". You can be in the middle and still lean one direction. Lots of the folks who participate in discussions here, or who belong to the Centrist Coalition, actually have a leaning of one direction or the other.

That said, I don't think a focus in Clark and/or Lieberman in the presidential race necessarily reflects a center-left perspective.

I don't personally think Bush represents a centrist option in the 2004 election. His policies aren't straight-line conservative (witness the expansion of government during his term), but his foreign policy surely is ... and his economic policy largely is.

We aren't going to have (in my opinion) a centrist option from the Republicans in 2004. If we had a primary, and, perhaps a Colin Powell or a Christie Whitman, then we might have a centrist option.

I suspect I would be more inclined, personally, to go for one of those moderate Republican options as compared to the moderate Democrat options we now have. I say that because I like Lieberman, with a few reservations, but I think someone like Christie Whitman might be more electable, and I also sense from her some real presidential stature.

I would also point out that I recently worked on a project that involved analyzing the moderates in Congress. In my own personal list of "favorite" moderates, there are more Republicans than Democrats.

I basically like the *bold* politicians. The true mavericks. Moderate Republicans have done a somewhat better job of mixing some dramatic views from both sides of the spectrum.

I suspect a lot of the people calling themselves "centrists" are really neglected proto-libertarians.

I say "proto"-lib because while they may not agree wholeheartedly with a libertarian agenda in terms of hard policy, they generally want less gov't involvement than there is now on both economic issues and social liberties, and aren't listened to by either major party. Figured this much for awhile, but now I'm convinced -- anyone seen that Gallup poll about media bias? Most people that responded were centrists, yet when it came to a question of whther the media is liberal they sided with the conservatives: in truth, most people have simply grown to use "liberal" as a euphemism for statist, when it's not the case.

Given a comment in a posting below that the Bush administration is "ideologically inbred", I guess I can see why you have more anti-Bush contributors. Thanks, but no thanks. I will spend my limited blog-reading time on more insightful and hospitable sites than this.

William,

According to Heller (below), your goal here is to foster the "insurgent center" in American politics. Presumably, your idea is to provide a mixture of viewpoints that those who meet your definition of a centrist will find enlightening and useful.

I agree with the supposition that a large subset of the electorate does not feel completely comfortable with the policies of either party and is frustrated that partisan harangues now constitute the bulk of what passes for politcal discourse.

The antidote you seem to be promoting is a "Hannity and Colmes" style blog -- e.g., you express your "anti-Bush" views and find some pro-Bush partisan to "balance" them out. But this, if it is indeed what you have in mind, doesn't fill the void. The beauty of this technolgy is that Drezner is only one click away from TPM. So, what does putting opposing voices on one page really buy us other than a few saved mouseclicks?

The "Principles" of the Centrist Coalition stake out certain political positions (which, if I had to, would label "moderate liberal"). You identify yourself as anti-Bush. OK, so I can come here and read commentary advocating these views. But, is this what it means to be a centrist? More importantly, is this going to be materially different than the other advocacy blogs I already visit?

I don't identify myself either as pro- or anti-Bush. However, after spending a good bit of time thinking about it and reading the comments of others, I am almost in complete agreement with the administration's policy wrt the war on terror. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to their restrictions on stem cell research. I am niether pro- nor anti-diversity because, frankly, I don't even know what that means. I have always been a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose. Yet, as the technology advances and saves premature babies at younger and younger ages, I wonder if the anti-abortion types have some reasonable, non-religious arguments in their favor.

In other words, what seems to be missing is not so much a political advocacy site that happens to be moderate but, instead, a place where issues and policies are analyzed objectively (you know the format: policy objective, assumptions, facts, conclusions -- all clearly identified). My guess is that, in addition to filling a real need, such a site would be, implicitly, centrist/moderate (i.e., as a place of arrival, not a starting point).

mountb

We're trying to serve the middle slice of public opinion, rather than balancing extremes like Hannity & Colmes If there was a 3 party system, centrist Dems and moderate Reps would be in the same party.

I may still vote for Bush (if Clark is not the nominee) but I'll never like him. We don't see eye to eye. For instance, one issue on which I am conservative is immigration, and that's one of the few issues where Bush takes a liberal approach! There are a number of Republicans I could support as President--Dick Lugar, John McCain..

But there's more to this balancing act. Each of us has limited points of view based on how we grew up and our life experiences. We need to listen to rather than shout over each other.

Hi MountB. I would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in your last paragraph. A political perspective should be some place you naturally "arrive at", not something you aim for. That's a big piece of my personal attitude regarding centrism, and why I advocate a bolder brand of centrism. To lead, you have to make clear choices, which is often the opposite of compromise-based politics that is often called "moderate" or "centrist".

Those aiming for the center end up with a mushier, compromise-based politics. Those who happen to land there, because their views straddle the center, are inclined to be bolder and more decisive.

I also take to heart your criticism of a "Hannity & Colms" style blog -- someplace that is "balanced" because it consciously represents opposing views on everything. I don't think we should look for pro-Bush people. I think we should look for moderates and centrists, and *understand* that so long as we're being fair in our selection process, we're likely to get both moderate Republicans and Democrats -- and some moderate Republicans are going to be pro-Bush (some moderate Democrats too).

In other words, we don't look for specific opinions or positions. We look for centrists. And having taken a close look at the lay of the land with regard to centrist perspectives, I know there are lots of center-left and center-right folks out there. And I think what we're doing here works best if we include that diversity of viewpoints.

That's the mission of the Centerfield weblog. There are at least a dozen or so centrist weblogs in the blogosphere right now. There's a bunch of other folks who'd like to blog, but aren't currently (we've been getting lots of emails from them today). To the enxtent any of those authors are willing to share views here, we welcome their analysis and opinion. We think a really rich, diverse centrist weblog would be both unique and possibly pretty insightful.

I want to challenge you on one other point:

"The 'Principles' of the Centrist Coalition stake out certain political positions (which, if I had to, would label 'moderate liberal')."

Not sure why that's the case. I concede that being liberal on the cultural issues and conservative on the economic/fiscal issues dosn't necessarily place you in the "real" center. You might still lean to one side or the other. But why would it necessarily be center-left?

I see the cultural issues as a smaller range of issues, encompassing abortion, gay rights, and church-state separation. The economic/fiscal issues, by contrast, touch almost everything government does. Every social program is a "fiscal issue", in a sense, because it all has to be paid for.

Also, frankly, the left has largely won on the cultural issues. Abortion is legal. The courts have stopped school prayer and most other egregious forms of church/state involvement. We haven't really won on gay rights yet (nationally), but we have in some states and localities.

Sometimes I feel, for all practical purposes, like a conservative -- because I advocate some fairly dramatic changes to the role of government (privatizing Social Security, for example), but many of the things I want to do culturally are already done.

... and i would challenge one of Rick Heller's assertions further down on the page.

In what sense was Gray Davis a "centrist"? (See Rick's post of October 8).

Gray Davis' refusal to build new power plants in California, at the behest of the environmental lobby, practically bankrupted his state. And it made life miserable for Californians for many months. It largely led to Davis' downfall.

It's unclear how he could have been any more "lefty" on this issue - short of making the whole electricity industry in California public. And he did this anyway, by underwriting the "no new power plants approach" - by purchasing power from out-of-state with public funds.

And then, of course, in a splash of brio that was truly remarkable - he had the chutzpah to blame the out-of-state sellers of power for his predicament.

No "centrist" would have taken his extreme - and catastrophic - position.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, no-friend of Fascism or Communism, Supporter of the War on Terror, Against Israeli Settlements, Even More Against Arafat, and tolerant to all opposing ideas and debate.

Think you'll find it quite "centrist."
LibertySoul.

www.libertysoul.blogspot.com

I don't think one can come to an empirical definition of a centrist. I think, in my time anyway, it will always be a relative term, applied to those folks who are at the liberal end of the Republican party and the conservative end of the Democratic party - Until and unless we actually coalesce into a 3rd party. So it's relative, based on the prevailing views holding sway at a particular time.

I'm a 62 year old college educated, white agnostic grandmother who's been married to the same man for 40 years. I live in Fairfield County, CT, so I'm lucky enough to be represented by both Chris Shays and Joe Lieberman. I vote for both of them. In my younger days I was a Presbyterian and a Rockefeller Republican. I voted for Clinton and for Dole. In 2000, I was a McCain supporter. Until.

To deal with recent political realities, I voted for Gore, though I didn't like him. I did and do like Lieberman quite a lot. Mr. Bush's apparent ignorance of the lives of ordinary people, and the behavior of the Bush campaign during the primary made me sick.

I was pro-Bush on the response to terrorism, including the Afghan war, until we started jailing people - of all ilk - without recourse to attorneys.

I was in favor of this Iraq war because it seemed reasonable that Saddam was a potential threat to us. It was apparent that he was a well connected, homicidal maniac. If we could cut him down while rescuing 25 million innocent folks, I thought we should. Certainly no one else cared enough and also had the money and power to go after him. And we certainly need to stay there until some stability in the region is achieved. So I'm in favor of spending money in the ME. I really don't care if we ever find WMD. Iran and N. Korea are much more worrisome to me.

That's about where I stop agreeing with President Bush. The lack of planning for the follow on in Afghanistan and Iraq is appalling; the tax cuts for the wealthy and running up of huge deficits are appalling; the roll back of environmental protections is appalling; the pro big business cronyism is appalling; the unfunded mandates connected to the "leave no child behind" act are appalling; the international unilateralism is not only appalling but dangerous.

I support the right to choose abortion, tho' I could not do it myself when the time came. I support all stem cell research. I support legalization of marijuana. I support reform of our drug laws - possession of a small amount should not land you in jail. I'm in favor of outlawing Ouzis but not hand guns. I do think they should be registered. I support free trade. I support regulation of the drug industry but think we should let the communications industries fight it out. I loathe subsidization of agriculture. We should not offset deficits with the Social Security "surplus", of which, of course, there is none.

How'm I doing? Am I a centrist? See, I think we each make trade-offs based on a life time of experiences. At this point in our political history I may or may not be your definition of a centrist. I just want an honest, fair, relatively non-judgmental, intelligent, articulate person, with courage and guts, as President of the United States. I don't care if he sees the need to change his mind on this or that policy when he faces new challenges. I do mind if he misrepresents himself.

Fat chance, huh?

I would label myself as a Radical for Capitalism, based on a Rational Philosophy. I am an Objectivist. I wrote a post in August on e.g., Jesse Ventura, Steve Forbes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the two party system in America. You could find a link to the post @ Jay Solo's second edition of the "Carnival of the Capitalists" - www.elhide.com/solo/cotc.htm

Here in Sweden, the politcal "landscape" is a mess with 7 parties. The leading Social Democrats (more left than Democratic Party in America), the Left party (former Communist party), the Green party, the social Liberal party, the Center party (centrist, former Farmer party), the Moderate (republican) party (former Right party), and the Christian Democrats party.

All the Best,

Martin Lindeskog
Gothenburg, Sweden.

Granmere -- I think you're a nice example of what we were discussing -- someone who arrives at centrism because of your strong views on various issues, which happen to straddle the spectrum. You're not aiming for the political center. It's just where you find yourself.

Granmere,

That's the sort of dance I often find myself doing. I like what one politician does up to a point, but then perhaps that individual takes it too far, and I start seeing that the opposition is making some good points. I don't like to be tied to one political party, and have to defend it, right or wrong. There are trade-offs, but many partisans refuse to recognize them.

Nikita,

I'm not an expert on Gray Davis, but his last minute drift to the left, for instance signing the drivers licenses for illegal aliens bill that he'd previously vetoed, suggest that he had previously taken a centrist position. With regards to the refusal to build power plants, I have the impression that it was a NIMBY position that was pretty popular in California before the crisis hit. Thus, it represented the dark side of centrism--allowing polls to drive policy.

Which is exactly my point - Centrism will never be concretely defined - It's those folks boxed into the middle - I think we will be labelled the undecided, not the centrists or the libertarians or whatever we want to call ourselves.

So those doing the polling - most of which is very unsophisticated - will have no clue as to what we have in common. But, in my opinion, we are really an increasingly well defined independent cohort. And that cohort is growing.

My career was in market research. I didn't do polling. I analyzed the results.

I emailed you some links of conflicted liberal bloggers, mostly social liberals, even socialists, who have to come to a more hawkish foreign policy because of 9-11 and subsequent events. Here's another one:
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/those_elusive_n.html

Rick:

Thanks for the response. I'm not a Davis expert either. But when I think "centrist" I think of Democrat Joe Lieberman or Republicans John McCain or Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. I do not think of Gray Davis. But maybe that's just me. I guess "centrist" does not have to be synonymous with "principled centrist."

You know - perhaps we should use a grid like the one linked below to sort out the centrists:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

For an interesting twist on centrism (from the guy who updated the above political quiz), see:

http://www.carlmilsted.com/

He (Carl) is Green AND Libertarian. He calls this "Holistic Politics." It seeks to combine environmental conscience with true support for free markets. It's a good idea. And it's probably, in at least some sense, "centrist."

the above links are on my blogroll too, under "Libertarian Sites."

Let me know what you think.

Hey! Our first comment spam. Now, we're getting somewhere.

Yeah! Now if we can just get one of those denial-of-service attacks that's all the vogue on the "big" blogs these days, then we're really somewhere! :-)

I find it curious that more than one person has made the "I support the right to abortion, but I'd never have one myself" comment. It always comes across as incredibly sanctimonious. I can just see the writer sitting there imagining a glowing halo on his/her head. I'm just wondering why a person would be against having their own baby chopped up and sucked out of their body but they think it's fine if someone else does it. If that's what being a "centrist" is then I don't have the stomach for it. If someone can explain how you straddle this fence, I'm interested in knowing.

It was exactly what I was looking for!!

Have you seen the new trucks that the auto industry has unveiled? These new truck models are incredible!! I definitely recommend checking them out at your local truck dealers. Even if they aren't in your budget you can buy used trucks that you can afford! If you look around you find truck prices that are within your budget.