Centerfield

Frontal Assault

I opened my local paper this morning, the Columbus Dispatch, and discovered they had picked up the latest column by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. And, yes, that it's a direct, succinct, and comprehensive attack on the moderate or centrist style of politics.

Quite an eye-opener. I hadn't yet had my morning coffee, but it was enough of a jolt to make that unnecessary.

Ultimately, this column is probably a significant favor on our behalf. Because it bundles together the primary objections to centrism, giving us an opportunity to deal with them collectively.

I'd like to address what he has to say one item at a time. (Warning, snark ahead.)

Mr. Goldberg begins with a simple series of questions:

So, let me ask you a few questions: Are you an independent?

Yes.

Do you reject "partisan labels"?

Yes.

Do you like to weigh each candidate on the merits rather than simply vote the party line?

Oh yes.

Do you wait until the last weeks of the presidential election before you make up your mind on whom to vote for, so you can study the issues as much as possible?

Sometimes. In the 2004 election, yes.

Do you watch the presidential debates and feel disappointed that you didn't get enough "substance" on "the issues."

Definitely.

Well, bully for you. You might deserve a lollypop, but you don't deserve to run the country. Unfortunately, you (and people like you) do.

Wow. Sorry to ruin your democracy, man! And no, people like me don't run the country. Most presidential elections are between a relatively doctrinaire liberal and a relatively doctrinaire conservative. We don't usually have a centrist option, which is, perhaps, why it's hard to make up our minds.

He then makes a shrewd downshift:

Now, let me back up for a moment. Decent, smart, and conscientious people are distributed across the political spectrum, including the middle. Also, there are significant differences between, say, a "moderate" and a "swing voter" — or there can be, if you know what you're talking about. And — since it never hurts to flatter the reader — if you're reading this column and you call yourself an independent or undecided, you're still probably not the sort of person I have in mind, since you're actually taking the time to read about politics more than 100 days out from the election.

But then it's back into full gear:

But as a matter of gross generalization, no segment of voters is less deserving of the high esteem they get from the media and politicians than independents, centrists, moderates, swing voters, undecideds, and others we generally call middle-of-the-roaders.

First let me make a simple factual point. There is inherently nothing more intellectually rigorous, morally decent or politically sophisticated about being a centrist. If you have a choice between voting for Nazis and voting for pacifists, how would ticket splitting be the superior way to go?

Now, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are Nazis, but the principle remains the same. Whatever your personal ideological leanings, it's just as likely that one party will be right about X and the other will be wrong. Blurring right and wrong isn't necessarily an improvement. Blending black and white may make you feel good about your capacity for nuanced thinking, but in terms of public policy, gray is often worse than either. For example, California's recent electricity crisis was the result of trying to deregulate "a little," which is worse than not at all.

It's true that there are some moderates and centrists who want to "split the difference" or find a "gray area" on each public policy issue. But there are also centrists who want a bold mix of policies, some drawn from the left and some right.

Consider the most prominent centrist groups from each party. In recent years, the DLC has favored free trade, welfare reform, the Iraq war, and social security privatization -- all distinct policies that took them away from some of the most cherished views of the Democratic party base.

Meanwhile, the members of the Republican Main Street Partnership have, for the most part, favored campaign finance reform, abortion rights, gay rights, and church/state separation, along with a serious approach to controlling government spending which ought to be considered conservative, but doesn't quite sync with contemporary conservatism.

The RMSP diverges from conservatives on cultural issues, and has a stronger backbone on spending and deficit related issues than Republican conservatives (the elected ones, at least).

Of course, those of us who watch the centrist movement closely aren't always happy with what centrist politicians do -- the compromises they sometimes make. But neither are movement conservatives or liberals typically happy with their politicians. We'd all like to see more backbone from the folks who represent us.

This irony is completely lost in the public debate; the more strongly held your beliefs, the less seriously the media take you.

Ok. That's simply not true. When it comes to debating politics, liberals and conservatives largely own the public square. The most typical style for presenting a discussion of issues is to pit the liberal guy against the conservative guy. The whole profession of political punditry is largely owned by the left and right.

Think about the last time you saw someone on, say, a cable news show who used the word "centrist" to describe the perspective he was offering.

What's ironic about this is that people of strong political or ideological views tend to know what they are talking about more than people who have no strong views at all. This is a fact confirmed by common sense. You need to know about something before you can have strong feelings on it. If you wait until the last minute to figure out whom to vote for; if you can't tell the differences between the parties and their candidates (and you're not politically exotic — i.e., an anarchist or a libertarian); if you think voting is like a Chinese menu where you can pick a little from here and a little from there; then the odds are you don't know very much about the political system. You may be a brilliant neurosurgeon, but I know interns who are sharper than you about politics.

A certain distinction is slipping away, here. Mr. Goldberg began to make that distinction earlier in his column, but now it's disappearing.

There is a difference between the folks who involve themselves professionally in politics -- even interns -- and the rest of us.

I could have a conversation with certain family members of mine who are strongly conservative, and very passionate about their views. They are what I think of as regular Americans who have a strong political orientation.

If I were to actually debate them about politics, rather than having a casual conversation, they would run into difficulty quite fast. Because, honestly, their control over the facts is tenuous, at best. They know a few things that happen to support their case, and almost none of the opposing side. They're not looking at the details in an inquisitive, challenging way.

Why? Because politics is neither a profession nor hobby for them. They have jobs and families and lives to attend to. They don't read a dozen political articles on the web each day, like some of us with a less-than-healthy obsession.

Mr. Goldberg's intern knows more than most moderates, but he also knows more than most conservatives and liberals. There's just a cultural distinction between those who track the details and those who have more broadly informed opinions. The junkies will win the argument every time, whether they're right or not.

It's true that too many of us are muddled, including some in the middle. But I challenge you to take a stroll through Centrists.org, where the major issues (and most minor ones too) are analyzed in detail, and where strong opinions are offered as a matter of routine.

Those proposals, I submit, would lead to a better America, if implemented. And we therefore richly deserve our place at the table of American democracy. We actually know where to lead this country.

Posted by William Swann at July 23, 2004 12:08 PM