Centerfield

I just got an e-mail from a reader asking what we can do to get a centrist/moderate party started. I posted my answer here.

You have some good suggestions, William. The key, I suppose, is to address specific issues, not just complain vaguely about how extreme both parties are. Either that, or recruit some celebrity politician to cause a stir.

I think this is a great idea/daydream. Even though I am a little further left than a "centrist," I know and understand that a good number of people don't totally agree with me on a lot of issues. I think messages like these would help to prompt important debates among the public, not just those in office, and maybe we could all find some common ground in the "center".

Folks, let's open dialog here. It's not hard to see that we'll have issues left and right--isn't that grand, though? Instead of being mired in those poles, let's embrace them and work on what we want as Americans...what's OUR right.
Let's work on a middle party that's inclusive, coherent, feisty, ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. And while we're at it, I don't think it would hurt if we had some fun.

I'm on board.

Sounds good to me. I live across the Potomac from DC and am in graduate school at GW for political management, so I think I could help:) Where do we start...

Bill,

Good. I like it!

Thank you, everyone. I find that all very encouraging.

I think what you have to decide is whether you want to try the approach of starting a party ... or if the non-party, interest group approach that we're trying with the CC makes sense to you.

In terms of a party, there is the Independence Party of Minnesota, which I understand is cropping up branches in various places. They may be the most serious effort currently out there for those who want a third party in the middle.

As for the CC, we're suggesting that a new kind of interest group could do most of the things that parties currently do, but without the partisanship. Think of it as a non-partisan party -- something that advocates directly for candidates, but backs the really good ones from all parties and leaves the whole party affiliation thing to the side.

That's where we aim to be. We have about 200 members, at present, with about 20 in our volunteer group that we've set up to work on CC projects. I can send anyone who might be interested an invitation to the Yahoo group we use to communicate between volunteers.

What, specifically, are we trying to do? Our projects include:

* Creating and maintaining the website -- which we aim to serve as a kind of global resource for centrist politics -- linking to every centrist group, weblog, or other web resource out there, and providing a discussion space.

* Providing profiles of centrist candidates, evaluating them, and endorsing the best of the bunch. We have an evaluation group that selected 25 candidates in the 2004 election cycle -- though there were probably a lot more we should have considered.

* Organizing a centrist conference. This was a project suggested by John Avlon -- currently a columnist at the New York Sun, and formerly Rudy Guiliani's head speech writer. He believes he can get Rudy to speak at our conference, and possibly McCain too ... which we hope will get the ball rolling and allow us to attract leading centrists from both parties.

* Incorporating and becoming a formal organization. This is a step we need to take first before we can raise actual money and do things like the ad campaign mentioned in this thread. We also have to raise money to do our own independent ads on behalf of the candidates we endorse.

* Setting up a centrist speaker's bureau. We'd like to start pressuring the media to include centrist voices in their various panels and discussion programs. But we can't do that until we can provide people good at that stuff to fill those roles.

If anyone would like to work on these projects, or perhaps propose ideas of your own, I'll be more than happy to send you an invitation to the volunteers group.

I like the non-party interest track you're on right now. I'll have to take some time to figure out how I can be a part of the projects.

I have been working with updating our list of candidates, and am ready to start digging into that now that I'm not so busy.

I am clearly going to need help with that. I can organize information, I can find information, I can consolidate and compile information. What I lack is familiarity with lesser known centrist politicians. I could use assistance pinpointing senators, congressmen and women, governors, and even state legislators (right, Bill??) that CC may want to highlight and draw up profiles on.

If anyone is interested in educating me on who we ought to be looking at, I'd really appreciate the help. Please feel free to email me with any politician suggestions. I will pull some names off of some of our posts, and I will also be looking at the suggestions offered on our forum, too.

Will,

This is all great and the kind of though thought process centrists need if we are ever going to truly be a force in politics. I couldn't find your email, but please go ahead and send me the volunteer email. I am not sure in what way I can help, but I am willing to figure it out.

I like the ideas being put forth here. I would also be interested in volunteering.

Hi CJ. You should see an invitation to the Yahoo volunteers group in your email. If not, let me know.

I am going to put something out there that I think could work, but you have to be willing to give up some things. First, there are issues that are truly centrist and there are hot button/moral issues. A centrist party needs to abandon hot button issues altogether.

Hot button issues (like gay marriage, abortion, etc) make a lot of noise, but affect only a small portion of the population. Think of a marble inside a balloon. The actual problem is the marble, but between the noise and the hot air everyone pays attention to it while the boulder size problems gather dust on the sidelines. The second problem with moral issues is there no way to quantify "fixing" them. Economic issues, on the other hand, are quantifiable. You can implement solutions and track results. They're not driven by extreme values.

To gain traction, I think the new party should simply be the people that get things done. The party platform should be a series of non-negotiable hard issues to which a standard of voting and law-making is expected. Leave decisions on value issues to the individual lawmaker. If you're running in Utah, you run as center-right. Center on hard issues, and right on value issues. In Mass. you do the opposite.

You're thinking I am crazy, stupid, or both, right? Well that may be, but let's examine some numbers. We'll take a left issue, a right issue and compare to what I consider a hard issue.

Guns: 29,573 were killed by firearms in 2001. (source: CDC)

Abortions: 857,475 in 2000 (source: Cleveland right to life; I assume they have no reason to underestimate and was looking for a realistic worst case scenario)

People living below poverty line: 33,899,812 or 12.4% of all U.S. citizens. (source: US 2000 Census)

Of the three issues, which do you think the average candidate spends more time on in an election year. Which ones get have tons of advocacy groups and deep pockets. Which problem can you actually ameliorate given the resources of the US?

If chipping away at boulders like poverty, the deficit and education at the expense of gay marriage, abortion, or the gun debate means I have no values, then that is a label I can handle.

Jason

William,

I do not have an email from me. You could also try nmgrey16@hotmail.com or, to be sure I get one, try cbandoli@gwu.edu. Thanks.

Sorry, I don't have an email from *you*, William. Learning to type is a good thing...

I like the idea of an interest group. A centrist party would go against democratic party dynamics - that the strongest arrangement of party coalitions in a democracy is two coalitions, one of the wealthy, the other of the people, each coalescing centrists with extremists.

No centrist party has ever succeeded well, anytime, anywhere, without any extreme element.

You know, it strikes me that there's a particular issue that may be of particular interest to centrists, but also would be supported by non-centrists, that we could concentrate on.

Maybe it's just because I've just been redistricted, and there's no hope that I can hold Lamar Smith (R, Hell) accountable for anything, but I think widespread nonpartisan redistricting commissions would be a good idea to press.

For us, that would be particularly good because it could bring centrist dynamics to bear on Congress and state legislatures again. Nobody but Tom Delay likes gerrymandering - it's making decisions for voters in back rooms.

Only Republican extremists like gerrymandering, because they are the beneficiary of the minute. The Democratic left hates the idea because they're afraid of DeLay continuing to gain power that way.

I think widespread nonpartisan redistricting commissions would be a good idea to press.

Great idea. I think a whole lot of people have little or no sense of having a representative who reflects their views. That's a really broad concern that we should do something about.

FYI -- I sent invitations to the Yahoo group to both of your addresses, CJ, and to yours, Jon. Hope you'll join us!

I like the non-partisan redristricting commission idea. Of course, each state is responsible for its own maps, but a "national" commission with no partisan interest that state legislature's could consult when the time comes for them to redstrict would be great. Republicans redistricted my home district in Indiana to be sure a Dem can't win, and I know the Dems would have done the same had they had the numbers in the statehouse. It is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

Following up on Jason's post. He's talking about "wedge" issues that inherently pull apart. What are the key "bridge" issues, that they tend to push us together. Getting good at the issues and the processes that lead to effective results might improve are collective skill at working across party lines.

William, I like all three of your "scenarios." If nothing else, I think they might actually encourage intelligent rational discussion, a rarity with political debate these days!

I prefer an interest group to a party, at least for the time being, for several reasons. So long as we are an interest group, and our interest is in moderate policy that puts the broad middle of Americans first, I think we can look more principled. As soon as we become a party and run candidates, we have an interest in getting elected which may compromise the way our message and principles are viewed. If you are running as a centrist trying to grab the middle, you look like an opportunist.

In remaining an interest group, I think we canstill do lots of good things to push centrism. For example, if we encourage voters to establish themselves as unenrolled or independent, we can explore each state's system to find ways to use that system to influence primary choices, even registering with one party or the other for the time being. In other words, on a state by state basis, we explore strategies to blunt wing nuts in favor of pragmatic and civil persons interested in public service.

Count me in! This site and blog has really sparked my interest in politics and I don't want to lose this enthusiasm now that the election is over.

I have one very good, tangible suggestion. During the campaign, with everyone wearing their Bush and Kerry buttons, bumper stickers, and shirts, I felt left out. I really wanted some kind of "bling bling" to profess my moderate views -- even a simple button that said something like, "Think for yourself, be an independent."

So that's what we need to get the word out, drive membership, and get people talking. Buttons and t-shirts. It's not moving mountains, but it's a start.

I wonder if we're not seeing a certain nervousness out there. An anxiety not captured entirely by the notion of Bush as a two-term president, but by the sense of a lack of options. Perhaps a vague sense of having no appealing options, and Bush being a two-term president because of the absence of a solid alternative.

I left the GOP a few years ago after it was apparent that the warmongers were in charge ... and when I heard the conservative base cheering on the death of the "ragheads." Also, some of the fascistic sentiments being expressed on such sites as FreeRepublic (after 9/11) started me down the path of reconsideration. I re-registered as an independent.

I think the GOP has adopted the worst of both parties -- fiscal malpractice and social engineering (on an international scale). I actually long for the days of Clinton when it comes to management of America's finances. I used to give credit to the GOP Congress for the roaring 1990s. Now, with the GOP having occupied all branches of government for the last four years, it's obvious to me that having an "R" after one's name means nothing.

The nail in the coffin -- that drove me to this site -- was this past election, specifically the tilt right on social issues. I want to have a voice in order to work to make sure that the Democrats don't go off the deep end and set themselves up as an echo of the GOP. The last thing we need are more holier-than-thou politicians pretending to be pious. We need thinking legislators not preachers. If the Dems emulate the GOP in piety in order to win votes, it'll keep me away from them as well.

That's not to say all appeals to values and "God" are off-limits. Clinton showed that it was possible to speak to the values of Southern voters without becoming a wing nut (if only he practiced what he preached).

It completely baffles me as to how the GOP was able to hijack the word "value." For being a moron and an idiot (according to lefties), Bush sure manages to outmaneuver all the geniuses in the Democratic Party.

What about the values of helping the poor and the elderly? What about the values of healing the sick (healthcare for all)? What about the value of peace? What about the value of 10,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths, which came about as a result of Mr. Bedrock Morality's elective war? Etc.

Democrats need to learn to use language and rhetoric, not figure out how to be more like a party that plays to American's worst fears and prejudices. History shows that bigotry loses in the end. Reactionary forces are eventually overcome. I hope in all the weeping and gnashing, the Dems don't learn the wrong lessons from this election.