Centerfield

Outstanding. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to see right now in the Democratic party -- a focus on building a balanced agenda and expressing a message that middle America will find appealing.

Those certainly are the leading lights among centrist Democrats: Lincoln, Bayh, Carper, and Landreau.

You'll recall that I suggested Carper as a possible presidential candidate in 2008, but there are several in this group who should consider it. Either Lincoln or Landreau might bring a really fresh approach for the party -- and they're both exceptionally talented, dynamic leaders. Bayh has already been discussed at some length as an option for 2008.

I think that "progressive" is not a term that moderates and independents respond to especially favorably, and to which they may respond negatively.

I'm not saying that there's anything actually wrong with the word intellectually, I'm saying that emotionally it will be perceived as "off code" to the core audience they are trying to reach and grow.

My contact with the word is such that usually when I hear it, it's being used by someone I consider to be left of liberal, left of the DLC. I've found it to be a word popular with the egalitarian left. My advice is to avoid using it.

While agree with you, Bk, that the word "progressive" has a decidedly negative connotation among many, I would like to comment that it is a sad state of affairs when a word that means moving forward and searching for new and better solutions to our problems has been turned into what it has. I, for one, know what it really means and won't ever hesitate in using it.

It's a word they're stuck with, Brian, given the nature of the group as Democratic. You're right about the negative connotations of course--"progressive" is international leftist code-speak for "socialist," even "Marxist." But it's also firmly established in the American Democratic lexicon as part of the language of the DLC, co-opted from their more leftist brethren. They can't bring the less-docrinaire liberals into the fold without it.

The Third Way is a de facto lobbying and organizing arm of the DLC Senate Dems. Nothing wrong with that! This is part of the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party that's been ongoing for well over a decade, and I wish them all the luck in the world. These are the people that recognize the achievements of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in building centrist coalitions instead of extremist ones. They'll get my full support if and when they begin reaching across the aisle to GOP Senate moderates and centrists such as Olympia Snowe. Or even farther across the aisle to Senators such as John McCain.

Much has been said here about bringing the Democrats back to the center (indeed, I've said much of it). But the Democrats aren't the only party out there. Making the Dems into a centrist-left party that can actively contest elections is a good thing. But a solid centrist coalition of politicians from both parties is required for practical moderate centrism to become a major influence or a way of government, instead of just the stretched-out "middle of the rope" in a game of extremist tug o' war.

CJB,

Well, then you maybe, just MAYBE, you don't understand or value good political communication as much as you think you do. (I'm not tryyng to be insulting, which is why I'm stressing MAYBE) Go ahead and read that Luntz article I linked to in the visceral response thread below. And then consider the notion I'm suggesting.

The point I believe Luntz would make is that sometimes people who insist on using particular words THINK they mean something more than what they actually transmit.

The word "progress" is vague. Despite your protestations, I don't think most people feel it necessarily implies what you seem to say it does. Progress from what towards what? By declaring yourself and your views as progressive, aren't you in fact trying to obscure the fact of disagreement about what constitutes positive progress? Aren't you trying to obscure the fact of differing views among the public as to what the actual practical desirable goals of our society are?

Suppose every time a liberal politican uses the word "progressive," the negative response meter spikes among the moderates needed to recapture a lost majority. Then why would you insist on using this word if other language could be found that both better transmits the real ideas and is also more favorably received by the target audience? Seriously.

I think you're analysis is basically right, Tully.

I would point out that it has happened off and on over the past decade or two, especially in the Senate. There's been ad-hoc centrist coalitions made up of precisely these people -- Lieberman, Lincoln, Bayh, and Breaux on the D side, and Snowe, Chafee, Collins on the R side.

I think they've had as many as 10 or 11 Senators in those bipartisan groups as times.

The Senate is a place where level-headedness still counts for something, at times, and where statesmanship is sometimes actually practiced.

That 45% of 2004 voters self-identified as moderates has been repeated on this site so many times, I think we've all memorized it (which is why I'm not citing authority for the proposition anymore--it's now common knowledge by my standards). The problem is, those who self-identify as conservate and those who self-identify as liberal each know what that label means. We still don't have a good handle for what self-identifying moderates consider to be they're, say, top ten issues and what the moderate consensus on those ten issues is. (My point in creating the Centrist Platform Committee.)

There has to be a decision at some point by someone whom I've yet to identify--if, in fact such an entity exists--as to whether moderates (once we all decide what that means) should a) work inside our individual parties to pull them both towards the center, b) all move to one existing party and drive it to the center, abandoning the other party to its extreme faction, or c) create a new, moderate party.

I agree with Tully on the point that the DLC, PPI, NDN, and this emerging Third Way are all Class A efforts ("Class A" meaning they fall into the first category I just described). While a legislative agenda element is complementary to the issue advocacy, think-tank, and leadership elements, I don't think they're going to be effective because they don't have enough sway over their Democratic Party's base. The only way to build critical mass is if they reach across to moderate Republicans. But, seriously, if you have a coalition of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans proposing legislative alternatives to the proposals of the leadership in each of their respective parties, what you've really done is create a new party in all but name.

What I mean is, you're going to have renegade Democrats and renegade Republicans, each bucking their party's leadership and discipline structure, and the incumbency advantage is only going to go so far in nomination contests and general elections without party support. It's simple mathematics that the moderate 1/7 of the Republican Senate Conference can easily be squashed by the other 6/7; the moderate 1/10 of the Democratic Senate Conference can easily be squashed by the other 9/10. If, on the other hand, you take the 7 or Republican moderates and the 4 or so Democratic moderates and recruit them into a new party, you have a 1/10th toe-hold in the Senate off the bat.

I don't realistically expect to be able to convert 11 Senators away from their parties, and I think this is the easiest of all the possible ways to build a viable third party--which is why I don't think centrism is going to live as a third party, i.e., the Class C action. But I don't see any alternative to a bipartisan approach; working alone as a minority in each of their respective parties, each group of moderates is going to slowly dwindle into extinction. I'm therefore opposed to Class A actions.

By process of elimination, what's left is Class B action: creating a bipartisan PAC to advance centrist issues (once we figure out what they are). Third Way sounds like it could be this, but as long as it's tied to the DLC, NDN, and their progeny, bipartisanship isn't going to work.

On a personal note, I think that President Clinton, while I regard him as moderate on many issues, is going to be a lightning rod. The minute he takes a prominent role in a Class B or Class C effort, Republicans in the middle of the moderate-conservative spectrum are going to have a hard time trusting us. This is because a) some of his policies have been successfully painted as immoderate by the right, whether accurately or not, b) his personal misconduct is a blemish, and c) his wife's ambitions are going to influence, or be perceived to influence, the organization's work.

I think forming a party now is premature, overly ambitous, and could end up beng counterproductive. I like the idea of something like a bipartisan pac, although I'm not clear why this can't have effects like the "class A" formulations. I do like the idea of trying to have influnece within the parties one way or the other, which is why I think it would be great if we could influence more people to consider independent/unenrolled voter status as a preferred "show-me" default, and then register with one party or the other in strategic instances, such as to swing a primary towards the center.
As far as public faces go, I agree that Bill Clinton would be a mistake. If I had to choose, I'd look for something approaching a bipartisan council of graybeards, retired senators and other public officials with some gravitas and sense of generativity. Such people might be able to speak more credibly since they could speak as Americans that have moved past the need to speak with forked tongues for electoral purposes. I'd like to see such a council speak about the one thing they most admired about their own party and the one thing they found most frustrating or disappointing.

The "Third Way" makes it sound as if it is in direct competition with all of the "other" two ways. It sounds "exclusionary", though of course it cannot be and also pick up support.

I have always liked a couple of terms: Synergy, catalyst. They imply something at work to create a bigger, better, more effective outcome by bringing together disparate elements. So, the Synergists, or the Catalyst Movement would feel "positive" and INclusive --- like it is a "reaching out in order to move forward" thing. Nothing inhereently wrong with Progressive or Populist, for that matter, but they are weighted down with perceptions of what they've meant in the past.

By the way, I made up a little verse today. Maybe it fits in this thread:

When right is just might and the left is bereft
The center shall rise and dazzle our eyes
With common sense thought that all of us ought
To have never put down just to follow a clown.

By process of elimination, what's left is Class B action: creating a bipartisan PAC to advance centrist issues (once we figure out what they are). Third Way sounds like it could be this, but as long as it's tied to the DLC, NDN, and their progeny, bipartisanship isn't going to work.

Exactly. And I would observe, too, that a "Class B" action, as you put it, can try to support or assist all the "Class A" actions out there. We want to see centrism as a diverse movement that includes partisan groups like the DLC, the Third Way, the RMSP, the Republican Youth Majority, etc.

We're all, in a global ideological sense, working on this together. Recognizing and encouraging the Class A actions is a natural part of any Class B action we take.

Brian,

I like the Council of Greybeards idea, if we can concoct a more politically correct term. I don't know whether Bill Cohen and Sam Nunn agree on anything, but a Northeast Republican and a Southern Democrat (Zell Miller excluded) would be an appealing pairing. I'm not sure whether L.F. Payne is Southern enough or has sufficient national name recognition; as a Virginian, I may be biased.

Even though i've been spouting about language importance, I'm not so zealous as to dismiss the idea that we could benefit from a sense of humor. If all the alternatives to "council of graybeards" sound pompous and/or new agey, we might well be better off with something honest and even amusing instead of dour.

We're probably not going to get much traction talking with titles that include words like wisdom, elders, generativity, etc, even though they apply. Maybe something that simply stresses experience? I dunno, I'll have to troll the AHD.

Council of Mongrels?

A centrist party is premature, but something we should contemplate in the medium term. I used to think that a 3rd party was impossible given the US two party system. But a centrist party could become a replacement 2nd party, with the party that gets replaced varying on a state by state basis.

With the enduring division of the country into red and blue states, the reddest and bluest of the states are becoming 1 party states. So a centrist party could edge in as the 2nd party in those states--overtaking the Republicans in Massachusetts, and the Democrats in Oklahoma. All it would take is a few established politicians willing to play ball.

The Liberal Democrat Party in the UK is the 2nd party in a number of districts. Not that it does them any good, never being in government. But it's still a model we could investigate.

"The Progressive" is a leftist magazine. Sorry, folks, the word is a turn-off for me. And "centrist" lacks sex appeal. Something that uses the word "unity" appeals to me, as it has patriotic overtones.

Funny, and a little off topic. But at the turn of the previous century "progressives" were republican moderates i.e. T. Roosevelt.
It's interesting how meanings change over time.

"Liberal" used to mean Jeffersonian.

I, for one, am truly grateful that we still have some moderate, centrist Democrats left. I believe that Bill Clinton put the democratic Party on the right track, but I was soooo wrong. The problem most moderate democrats have is that during the primaries, the far left of our party gets "energized" and elects candidates who are "far left" of center. The Third Way could be a great oppotunity not only to bring moderate democrats together, but also the moderate republicans as well. I like what Sen Bayh (D-IN) had to say about our population as a whole. Most Americans consider themselves moderates. They want real solutions to real problems. The Third way could make the difference.

I take your point, but I think the term "Progressive" has gotten a bad rap via it's having been coopted by the left. It's really a great label and has some fans even on the right as evidenced by:

http://www.usprogressiveconservatives.org/

And, of course, it was good enough for T Roosevelt; not a bad Icon for a centrist movement himself, IMHO.

Cheers