Centerfield

"Politics is the art of the possible" --Otto Von Bismarck

There's a big yawning gap between zealotry, dogmatism, and politics.

Further proof that "the center" has to be continually and actively defined by each generation.

All the wingers can relax. They don't HAVE to compromise. If they cherish their ideals, they are free to keep them.

It's only necessary to compromise if they want to enact actual policy. If that's distasteful, one can always apply for a grant and start a commune, or write a utopian novel. Whatever its flaws, preaching to the choir is good work, if you can get it. :-)

A quick question for thought:

Are there not "centrist principles" that are neither right-wing nor left-wing?

It seems to me there are. And THOSE principles are the ones that BOTH wings are continually requiring compromise on from centrists.

Bingo, Jack. like the principle of deferring the development of a cherished belief until one feels that one has a solid grasp of all the details. And the principle of not overcherishing ones beliefs on an issue to the extent that one tends to discount new data that doesn't fit the previously built belief.

And you're right, I find that partisans of both wings claim to have already done all the thinking and figured it all out, and know the answers, so that further tedious weighing of pros and cons is unnecessary. So few partisans speak of difficult conundrums and hard decisions, about the best of available flawed options.

In the SS thread below, more than one dem-leaning visitor just wants to sweep incorporating investments into SS right off the table. When you want to talk about hard choices becoming more serious in the face of relentless demographic trends, they just say all we need to do is tweak.

One principle that I think of as centrist is meritocracy, or "equal opportunity." On the left, I see sentiment for "equality of result" while on the right, I see nostalgia for the preservation of inherited privilege.

Regarding deal-making and compromise, one aspect I didn't mention is calculation. If the Democrats nominate a liberal "dream candidate" in 2008 like Hillary Clinton, the odds are she will lose. However, the future is not deterministic, so its possible that a conjuntion of events could make her a surprise winner. On the other hand, were Democrats to nominate a southern or western governor, they'd probably stand a better chance of victory, but liberals might not have a friend in the White House. So for each candidate, one has to weigh the likelihood of victory, and the value of that victory, in determining which candidate "maximizes one's utility" to use econo-speak.

With regard to a specific issue, I also think one can distinguish between principle and position.
In principle, I don't think that marijuana should be illegal. However, if I were running for office, I would not run on a platform of legalizing it. I accept the laws as they are, because I have other priorities.

Ultimately, you have to figure out what the key issues you want to get done are, and you make compromises around the subsidiary issues until you assemble a coalition that has 51% of the vote.

Rick,

This was a completely spot-on commentary. Living in a democracy does NOT mean one has to compromise ones principles.... living in a democracy DOES mean that one has to recognize that one does not exist in thier own private sandbox...one has to find a way to play nice with others....that usualy means one won't always get to do the things one wants.

People like Carla and I have pretty contradictory views on most issues. I suspect that neither one of us is willing to give up our principles or stop trying to convince others of the validity of our viewpoint (i.e. "win"). However, we both live in the same society and have to be governed by the same set of laws. We've got to find a way to compromise and arrive at a set of laws we both can live with... even while we still agree to disagree. If we can't do that for ourselves, then some-one else will do it for us.... and we won't have any input into the matter.

Unless you really do have a large majority on ones side, then unwillingness to compromise is a recipie for marginilization and not getting even a portion of what one wants. Standing up for ones principles and learning to compromise are not mutualy exclusive. The former is about having ideals and working towards them, the latter is about recognizing that we aren't the only ones with ideals and learning to be realistic about what is practicaly achievable in present circumstances. They are both virtues.

It's nice to see you spell it out in no uncertain terms and I heartly agree with you.

Compromise in the making of law is how to achieve “a democracy for the mediocrity”. In such a democracy, we give up X number of things we consider "not that important" for something that we consider really important. The other side does the same.

Now this works if you are the average person. I would argue, however, that there may be no such thing as "The Average Person" and that each person (and more importantly the combination of laws that would make them happy) is unique. This is much more true of each State (and it’s citizenry) I am very much of the opinion, that it is unlikely that the citizens of California and Alabama will ever find a compromise on any one set of laws for the country. I think that it is unlikely that Texans and New Yorkers will share a close enough reality (their perceptions of reality) to find a compromise where they would all be happy.

I think, that this is the reason our founding fathers stressed States Rights. If the federal laws, instead of being compromises of the average were the Lowest Common Denominator, then we could more easily find common ground. Each State then is responsible for the rest of the laws that govern the State. Laws where the states cannot agree such as Marijuana, Abortion, Gun Control, Gay Marriage, etc, etc, etc are then left up to each state; they don’t meet the requirement of “Lowest Common Denominator”.

Compromise means that you failed to get something you want. For sombunal humans, compromise induces bitterness which can become even more inflamed when the group realizes that the thing they compromised for wasn't as important as they thought it was. In the end, the two compromising groups are at each others throat, slinging partisan mud and holding grudges from decades past.... sound familiar?

Maybe.

Ratatosk

Well 'tosk, there's peace, and then there's
"a just peace." No justice, no peace, right?

bk,

That's right. I think that peace and justice could be achieved with a LCD federal government and States laws based on the will of the electorate.

Do you disagree?

Ratatosk,

I would argue that the folks in my town have more in common with people in rural Texas then they do with people living in Manhatten. Yet we share the same senators and the same state laws as Manhattenites. There IS alot of wisdom in having different local and state laws (and on the international level different national laws). It affords people the opportunity to decide to live some place where the laws more closely reflect thier own mindset. It's one of the reasons why the concept of a single "World Government" that some people espouse has always scared the living daylights out of me.

However, even if we take things down to the lowest, most localized level you aren't going to get everyone to agree on all the same basic principles. Furthermore, as a matter of simple practicality, some things HAVE to be decided on the national level. It's not practical, for example, to have the State of Texas decide it wants to go ahead and institute the Future Ground Combat Systems (FGCS) program for the armed forces whereas the State of New York decides it's a bad idea.

It's a theory that's as nice and simple and elegant-sounding as it is vague. The devil, as always, is in the details.

Most people who have thought about it are familiar with the tensions between state and federal legislation, rules, policies, and so on. I have some ideas about what sorts of things are worth achieving for a nation that can only reasonably be achieved at a national level. My guess is that I probably have a longer list of such things than you do, but probably not as long a list as some other people.

I sort of look at this as a pendulum that swings back and forth on a variety of issues (education, healthcare, tax policy, etc), correcting course by tacking back and forth but never optimizing, at least in part becuase the target is always moving. There's no way to really measure such stuff, but as centrist, my intution is that there's a very broad common body of agreement that is usually overlooked in the rush to focus on disagreements. I'm looked on as a contrarian and often as a pessimist, but my tale of the human race is one of very slow, very hard bitten upward progress. Over time, theer are more humans, more living longer, more better nourished, facing fewer of the basic primitive and life-threatening obstacles our ancestors faced. I find arguments to the contrary to be uncompelling without inverting the hierarchy of human needs to make food, clothes, health, and basic security somehow less important than abstract concerns. If anything, our increasing luxury of being able to consider abstractions should be ample evidence. but then, this may all be at base a question more of attitude than of objectivity. i don't know too many ex-optimists or ex-pessimists who changed their stripes due to things other than a sea change in personal circumstances, after all.

I don't disagree that more focus on States Rights is not a panacea. But I think its a good place to start. Defense, Interstate Commerce, protection of basic liberties and human rights are all thngs that must happen at a federal level (and there will be fighting and compromise and complaining etc etc etc).

However, thats a very small percentage of what Congress fights over on a daily basis today, at the least it could help, at worst, it would be no different.

I fully admit that I might be wrong. It's an idealistic view, perhaps, but one I think the country was founded on and that might work.

Tosk

Hey tosk, is your paradise America one where the state tourism bureau runs ads that say "you'll come for the low taxes, but you'll stay for the legalized drugs?

Will we end up with specialized states? Will one state end up with a bitchin state retirement healthcare program and high death taxes, and so on?

The more different the states get, at some point this is bound to raise tensions higher, not resolve them, I think. If the libertarian project to take over NH succeeds, for example, how likely is the rest of the nation to look favorably on the state with legal drugs, abortions, gambling and fireworks, low taxes, and no social welfare or public health or transportation programs.

bk,

YES. I think that "50 flavors of freedom" is exactly what this country needs. If people want No Abortion, No Drugs, Christmas on The Statehouse Lawn and Guns for everyone, they can move to Alabama. If people want Abortion, No Guns, Marijuana and a model of Darwin's Evolution on the Statehouse Lawn, they can move to New York.

If every State can choose most laws for themselves, then citizens can take personal responsibility and choose where they will live. If they live in Ohio and have a well paying job, but want to have a near theocratic state, they can move, they have to take personal responsibility for what is more important to them, their job or their freedoms. The same is true for the Libretarian, the pothead, etc etc etc.

Ther, of course, is always the danger of the "different = wrong" mentality. I'm sure that some in extremely liberal states would bemaon the evils of states that don't give women the 'right' to abort. There would be Christians who damned the heathens in Sodom and NYC. However, all of those problems come about because Americans are not content to allow people to be free. They don't understand the point that Jefferson was making when he said "What should I care.... It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket".

Is it realistic, I don't know. I'd like to think it is achievable in at least some respects (perhaps my view of humanity is too optimistic), but I'm willing to admit that it may be idealistic. I have no problem with being idealistic though, after all if we don't aim high, we may shoot our foot off (or our reproductive bits)

;-)

Tosk, I'm the first to admit there's some merit to emphasizing states rights. IMO, it's a matter of balance. As a nation we generally find ways to move things to the federal level as agreement becomes widespread. And the drawback to overemphasis on state difference is fostering LCD battles to the bottom.

For example, if we achieved a status where federal taxes were much lower and state taxes concurrently higher but also variable, we might get situations where a very low tax state A that provided few services could in essence parasite of off a higher tax, higher service state B. if you got laid off or sick in state A, you could move to state B. Not dismissing the idea, just anticipating drawbacks/hurdles to jump.

Yes, there are potential problems, lazy states being one of them. However, individuals crossing state lines to work would fall under Interstate Commerce and could hence be regulated if necessary.

Really, I think that most of the major issues we would see States dealing with would be social ones. I think that the states are closly enough aligned to come to agreements on commerce.

Here's a little A-1 to go with your steak...

This is a cut and paste of what a comment I wrote on this thread on our blog:

I believe that I am being asked to give up my passionate beliefs for the sake of winning in the short term. I'm not one to come to a passionate belief lightly. I often do a lot of reading and research before I reach a conclusion..and even then sometimes my opinion on a topic isn't fully formed until I've debated it from both sides for awhile. I'm weird that way.

I think that it's up to me to continue to hold these beliefs and advocate for them as long as they continue to stand up to my own scrutiny. To abandon them for the sake of short term victory is like asking someone to cut off part of their arm so it fits better in a sleeve.

Compromise is well and good for some things and I'm not advocating for ending that process. But from where I sit..lefties have been compromising (with little or no compromise from the right) since Democrats lost the House in 1994. Enough is enough.

I further submit that in those years where conservatives have had little or no compromise...they've continually and constantly rammed what they want down the throats of Americans. They've owned the echo chamber outright...and have used it mercilessly. Yet now when liberals want some of it back...we're told to drop Michael Moore and MoveOn...and soften our stance.

It would appear that if one were to learn from recent history...one would see that to win one must capture the echo chamber..use it ruthlessly...and pound your ideas into people's brains.

Centrists bring on the snark!

"It would appear that if one were to learn from recent history...one would see that to win one must capture the echo chamber..use it ruthlessly...and pound your ideas into people's brains"

If you really believe that's what happaned then I suppose that is the conclusion you would draw.

I've got a slightly different hypothesis, however. I don't think your average American voter is as much of a sheep as the Left wants to paint them as after this election. I think BOTH sides have thier respective echo chambers and have made significant use of them.

I think the reason why the Lefts message hasn't resonated with American voters as well as the Right's has is NOT because the Left lacks sufficient volume. I think it's because in thier heart of hearts the values of American voters are a little bit closer to the Rights then they are to the Lefts.... and the Right ideas for getting things done are a little bit closer to the ideas that American voters themselves have.

Now, I could be wrong, but I think if the Left's answer to this last election is just to scream louder, longer and harder then they have before... they are going to fall flat on thier postierior. Certainly it seems that those speaking with the most volume on the Left haven't had much success in winning the hearts and minds of swing voters (if anything I'd say they've significantly hurt the Left's chances).

However, far be it from me to offer up a recipe for you guys. By all means you guys try that "pump up the volume" thing. Check back with me in a few election cycles and let me know how it's worked out. If you're right you should have regained some of your loses.....if I'm right there won't be much of a Democratic Party left to rehabilitate. I can tell you right now that most of us Conservatives are drooling at the prospect of you doing exactly what you seem to be proposing. Letting Moore and MoveOn do your talking for you alienates a large percentage of the populace and makes you easy targets for us.

I'm doing a little less drooling, however. Much as I like to see our guys in control of government policy..... if the opposition party becomes too marginalized there is no effective check and balance on the power of my own party. I may trust our guys more then I trust yours....but I don't trust them THAT much!

Cengel:

I guess we'll see. But frankly...the policies of the right haven't exactly been a boon for the nation. So what am I to believe...other than people will accept the loudest and boldest marketing their given?

I agree that both sides have an echo chamber (now) but the Left was bereft of one until this year...and they're still way far behind. The number of media people recieving face time on radio, television and print from the right vastly eclipses the left. It has for over 15 years.

The left did regain many of their losses...but it was at the local and state level..not at the federal level. But I think it will come. And the left obviously attracted a great deal of swing voters. Bush's win wasn't exactly overwhelming.

The Constitution, as great as it is, was written in the 18th century, in the days before planes, mass communication, etc. It's simply naive to think that we can simply let states set policy without any regard to how they affect the rest of the country. What one state does often affects the others, for better or worse. For example, during the 50s, many southern blacks moved to the North to obtain the opportunities and benefits that didn't exist in the South. These movements had a pretty significant impact on the North. So to say that, well, we didn't really need a national civil rights law because if blacks didn't like the south, they could just move north is, in addition to being morally obtuse, ignores the reality of modernity. (I realize no one advocated that, but I'm making a point.)

I'm all for letting states be the "laboratories of democracy." But we have outgrown the 18th century notion that people are citizens of the states, primarily, and only secondarily citizens of the country.

Carla,

I think you have a distorted view of how the GOP has become close to a majority party. Whatever they are trying to do now, they made many of their gains when the Democrats controlled congress. And they were flexible and pragmatic where it counted (even though their ideologues got most of the headlines). Reagan didn't focus on social conservatism, GWH Bush raised taxes, and even GW has not given conservatives everything they wanted. So I think it's a mistake to say that conservatives have succeeded by ramming things down peoples' throats.

MWS:

I agree that the GOP made gains under Reagan. But that's not really where they made serious headway.

When the GOP took the House in 1994...they did so after having controlled the national debate to a great degree (and because Democrats had become lazy and corrupt). But that gave them wings...and they took more and more control over the echo chambers...increasing their holds on talk radio, print media and television. They've held on to it ever since.

I concur that conservatives haven't got everything they wanted on the social side. Their inroads have been greatest on the economic side. And they've been quite large. It was done incrementally and I believe it was the appearance of compromise...while incrementally getting what they actually wanted that's been their success.

The social conservatives have come knocking, now, tho. And slowly they're incrementally getting their way too.

Carla,

But the point is that there wasn't a coup detat. The Republicans didn't all of a sudden take over all the TV/radio stations and newspapers in the country. They convinced people that their policies were correct. To say they controlled the echo chambers and that's why they prevailed is, I think, a dangerous credo for Democrats. Even if you don't like the policies, you have to recognize that the right saw an opportunity after what people perceived as the failed policies of the Democrats in the 60s and 70s. They developed their message and their means of delivering it, while the Democrats sat on their asses.

MWS:

I disagree that they "convinced people that their policies were correct." I think they marketed themselves brilliantly and kept the opposition out of the echo chamber to a great degree.

"Failed policies of the 60s and 70s" is a great example of what I'm talking about. People were told over and over that welfare was a failure. People were told over and over again that taxes are a burden. The same with government "waste" and "lousy public schools". Yet the evidence for this is really anecdotal. Much anecdotal evidence exists (at least) that welfare, taxes, waste and lousy schools aren't what the Republicans have said. But that's not what was successfully marketed.

If you say something like enough and consistently enough...people will believe it. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Republicans grabbed opportunity to deliver their message while the Democrats sat on their asses (hah..good pun). That's part of my point.

Ugh..sorry...that last paragraph should say, "If you say something long enough and consistently enough..."

Carla,

You are simply assuming that citizens don't know what they are talking about and that any disagreement from your position is propaganda. Obviously, you liked the policies of the 60s and 70s so you don't think they failed. But a lot of people didn't and it wasn't simply because of Republican brainwashing. It's sort of a chicken and egg argument. Did people dislike the policies and the GOP took advantage of that discontent or did the GOP create the discontent. It seems to me that what you are saying is that people were quite happy with the way things were going until the GOP started stirring up trouble. I don't think that's true. If we accept your argument, then any time a party criticizes an existing policy, they are simply engaging in propaganda.

I'm sure I could find instances where Democrats exaggerated problems with Republican policies as well (although, of course, you would never acknowledge that). That doesn't mean it's propaganda. I have to admit that I'm sort of at a loss as to what constitutes legitimate criticism by the Republicans. Apparently, nothing, since liberal policies are ALWAYS enlightened and wise. Whether those policies were as bad as claimed or not is besides the point. People were unhappy with them and, sure, the Republicans took advantage of that discontent. But I thought that was democracy.

Well Carla, perceptions are a wonderfull thing. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on who exactly owns the "echo chamber", what constitutes the "echo chamber" and when such ownership occured.

From my perspective, the Left still owns the vast majority of the "echo chamber" and has for decades and it's only in recent years that the Right has started to make in-roads. I wouldn't exactly call Hollywood or Dan Rather as bastions of conservative values.... nor was Walter Durranty writing for the Times in the last year.