Centerfield

I disagree with you about what centrism involves. Clearly, Kerry has a more "liberal"conception of politics in the sense that he believes in more government involvement in the economy. I don't see that as necessarily being "non-centrist." He is not talking about any huge departures in government action other than possibly his health care initiatives. To me, centrism is not a narrow spectrum of policy, but a willingness to engage with different ideas. To that extent, it seems to me that centrism can embrace more or less liberal policies depending on their merits. I did not hear Kerry talking about anything that was not within the solid left-of-center mainstream in American politics. You can certainly disagree with his policies and some of what he said about trade was clearly meant to appease his supporters. But I don't think centrism requires that every policy be a compromise between liberal and conservative.

Good points Bill. I also had mixed feelings, especially about his security/defense positions. I like the idea of adding the new troops, and about not ceding our security policy to other countries, but I was a little uncertain about the limits of the comments regarding pre-emptive war. I am not totally opposed to a view that would be more restrictive on the use of force than the current administration, but I believed the way he stated it was something like he would never go to war unless we were attacked. That seems to make some of our commitments a little hazy, and also to call into question some actions that I actually supported, such as Kosovo, where I think you have to stretch the concept of our security much farther than you do in the case of Iraq to justify that on those grounds. Sometimes we go to war because it's the right thing to do to help others, not just protect ourselves. Maybe I'm reading too much into his selection of words, but if you look at it from a looser perspective, then how much of a difference is there in saying only when required? The Bush administration has always argued that it pretty much was required to do something about Iraq. If that is Kerry's criteria, then does it really mean anything? I just don't like either the idea of handcuffing ourselves too much, or critizing the opponent's approach and presenting one that could be used the exact same way, and it seems to me like Kerry was doing one of those two things.

MWS: Not too argue with your general point, which I think has validity, but your post reminded me of something else in Kerry's speech that bothered me, and that also seemed to at least be somewhat lacking in the centrist view. On social security he said that he would not privatize social security and he wouldn't cut benefits. One problem I have with that is it implies the Bush administration is planning on cutting benefits, which I don't believe I have heard. Another is that it implies that any efforts to "privatize" soc. sec. are wrong. Granted, it doesn't exclude the possibility of some of the proposed solutions to the problem that are out there now, but he also made no comment whatsoever about what he WOULD do about soc. sec. I think this issue is one that is bringing out some of the best in many in Congress on both sides of the aisle, as well as welcoming ideas from outside the beltway. It's not that I think he necessarily PLANS to do nothing about the problem. I just think that the way he chose to talk about it in this speech sounded like the classic "avoid the third rail of politics" approach. If nothing else that is averse to our "BOLD centrism" model.

My feeling while watching the speech might have something to do with the way I perceive the centrist style as it's been practiced by those who use it effectively.

Clinton won in his various battles against the Republicans by basically snatching from his opponents a few issues where their position is popular (and also where they're arguably right).

Thus, you have a Democrat who is tough on crime, for welfare reform, middle class tax relief, etc.

This is triangulation -- grab from your opponent a popular version of their preferred policy, and fight them on the rest. You look like the one who is balanced and reasonable, and they're left fighting on issues where they have less public support.

Clinton did the same on security issues in his speech the other night. Clearly, national security became a key concern following 9/11, and Clinton made it clear that Democrats will protect the nation with force, when appropriate.

He basically grabbed a popular and reasonable version of that policy. He didn't say Iraq was the right war -- lots of people don't think so (myself included). He projected strength and forcefulness in a broader way, suggesting that Democrats will see the military as a significant tool in protecting our security interests.

He suggested that a Democratic president can threaten, and even use, force.

Now, Kerry goes into his speech knowing that this is a weak point. People give Bush higher marks on security issues, and people don't know, yet, if Kerry will pursue our interests with a balance of policies that in part involves our military. They don't know if he's tough enough to be Commander in Chief.

What does a centrist do? He grabs the issue by projecting strength -- making that point first. Then refines the message by explaining the importance of alliances, international cooperation, intelligence reform, protecting our ports, chemical facilities, etc.

He deals with the weak area first -- counters the widely held perception that weakens him -- and then embellishes the message with more expected (but equally important) points.

I don't think Kerry understands how to do this. I don't think he delivers a message in a way that suggests centrism.

Here are some interesting (and divergent) takes from bloggers who are Kerry supporters or undecided voters.

Matthew Yglesias: "To put it politely, I thought that was crap."

Michael Totten: "John Kerry hurts me. I yelled at him on the TV tonight. "

Andrew Sullivan: "This was also, it seems to me, a very liberal speech."

Mickey Kaus: "Good enough! .... I predict a measurable bounce, if anybody was watching. "

After rethinking, I agree on several of the points raised above and I was too quick to jump on some of Bill's comments for which I apologize. I too thought Kerry was making a mistake by explicitly repudiating the possibility of at least some privatization of social security. He clearly was pandering to the base on that. I also thought he probably went too far with respect to when he would use force. Also, his statements on outsourcing and trade were troubling. I think he sort of backed himself into a corner and some of his statements may come back to haunt him if he gets elected. For example, he used the example of the steelworker losing his job as an example of the perils of free trade. But these are the steelworkers that Bush tried to protect by imposing tariffs. The tariffs were ruled illegal by the WTO and probably caused more harm than good in the US. What I think is that Kerry cannot really back away from some form of free trade even if he wants to. That horse has left the barn. Protectionism would devastate the economy. So, I think he would be likely to make some marginal changes to trade policies to protect workers. This won't satisfy the left wing of the party, which will consider him a sellout.

On the other hand, I think these points are rather subtle in terms of the general audience to which Kerry was speaking. I think the speech in general is likely to come across as relatively moderate and centrist--in the generic sense of the term. Plus, if he had really adopted a centrist (or liberals might say conservative) tone in the speech, it would not have gone over well at the convention and it would have been a bad way to start the campaign.

My understanding about Kerry's advisers is that they are essentially pro-trade. Kerry's willingness to pander is disturbing but probably not surprising given the nature of the Democratic Party.