A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 25, 2005The Centrist"Coalition" or the Center-right Choir?>I'm getting a lot of flak for adding you to our list >I really do welcome your contribution, as we have a Thanks but no thanks Rick. No hard feelings, but the truth be known you guys aren't really centrists over here or a coalition either for that matter. As you note, overall the bloggers here are pretty much a doctrinal center-right block of apparent moderate republicans, Zell Miller Dems, maybe a smattering of libertarians etc.. And as far as I can tell all guys (white guys?). (I'm sure I'll be corrected on that one if not; if so, apologies up front). That's fine, it is in fact a free country. But it's also a diverse one. Given the apparently rather narrow focus and tolerance of this "audience", you'll likely fail to attract the support you need in order to govern it. Angry white guys are necessary but no longer sufficient to win. I am who I am: centrist on average, while holding some views that come down to the left and right politically, given the issue. I may not agree with all positions, but I won't be afraid to hear and consider them because that's what authentic centrism's all about: opening up to all views across the spectrum and building solid consensus from that process. If you're not open to divergent positions, then there can be no consensus. Rather, just self congratulatory back-slapping between political clones. For the record, I did reference my from the hip style as a potential issue when I offered to join. Anyone who has read my stuff would have known what they were in for. Could it in fact be that the real problem folks have with me over here is that I'm as hard on the Right as the Left? Hmm.. Yes, a Bigger Tent is in fact about broadening the Democratic voter base. We have several bloggers over there now that come down left to center-right in keeping with the mission. And we respect all those views because that's what real coalitions do. The Center Ring, on the other hand, is my personal op-ed blog and thus my personal take. And, yes, my style is provocative. Change that and it's no longer my style but instead yours. There it is. I will leave you with this, though. If the centerfield mission is to reach out both right AND left from the "center", but the practice is to eschew those that don't fit the apparent CF PC code of center-right sensibility, then is this not just another case of "Mission Accomplished" unrealized? Anyhoo, thanks for the opportunity to opine over here, if only temporarily. I'll proudly keep you folks on the blog roll precisely because A Bigger Tent is about reaching out. I'll also, I'm sure, continue to piss off a lot of folks - left, right and center - with The Center Ring by just telling the truth as I see it. I imagine it will at times seem like hell. But as everybody learns in grade school, the truth does indeed sometimes hurt. Some get over it and keep looking for the common ground. Others don't. I sincerely hope that we all can and will succeed in building a true centrist coalition and meet in the winner's circle in 08. Not to will only serve to further the divisive cause of radicals and reactionaries. Cheers, good luck and ciao. The Ringmaster Comments
Ringmaster, Bye then. We'll also keep you on our blogroll. Notice I did not ask you to change the substance of your posts, only the style. In any kind of publication, it's appropriate for the editor to set the style and tone to fit the audience. What works in Rolling Stone may not be appropriate for Time Magazine. We try to keep things politically balanced here, but my sense is that we have been listing to the right in the last few months. I was indeed hoping that you could add to the center-left voices here. If Democrats want to make gains in 2006, and win in 2008, they have to learn how to speak to the center, and even the center-right. I think you are missing an opportunity here. Best of luck. I am personally dissapointed you have decided to go, although I don't remember ever agreeing with you I thought you added some pepper to our salt. I am a little worried about this center left and right categorization. Who is to say who is what. I often think I am center left because I am left of left on things like the death penalty, gay rights, the drug war, flag burning, and campaign finance reform, but I think I get thought of as center right because I still call myself a Republican and a Bush supporter. Anyhoo, I think Rick had a right to say what he said, he is the defacto Editor-in-Chief of our little middle of the road world and I don't think he was telling you to change what you said, just maybe watch how you say it. Furthermore, I find myself troubled when centrists, or at least people who call them self centrist, try to classify what it means to be in the center and completely dismiss anyone who isn't a Democrat (or a Republican) or doesn't agree with them on certain issues. Posted by: Mathew at January 25, 2005 02:01 PMThe real question is who wanted Rick to dump the Ringmaster? Isn't it possible to just skip a post and move on to the next? It seems to me the only person that ought to have any input whatsoever on posting rights is the editor himself. Posted by: Scott at January 25, 2005 02:06 PMJust as a note: On your "Boxer/Kerry" post I count 6 people posting to support the senators, 4 posting disagreement and 2 calling you names. Seems pretty balanced to me. Personally I didn't mind the "Jack boot" comment (but then I'm against the patriot act, torture, and detaining American citizen indefinitely without trial). My advice would be pick one hot potato at a time to post, drop the inflammatory adjectives, line up links from neutral sources and be ready to defend your self. Your facts will be questioned and your sentences picked apart, so be prepared. (Not to say I always follow my own advice.) This is a mixed room, not a bunch of people ready to slap you on the back and say your right. It's also a unique opportunity to talk to people who disagree, but who are not mindless party drones. You can fall back to your original web haunts or you can grow, the choice is yours. Scott, While we encourage a variety of political views in the center-left to center-right range, perhaps we are rigid in our desire for moderation. It's always been the policy that posts should be civil, moderate in tone, and try to bring people together for reasoned discussion rather than start shouting matches. Am I being too rigid? A centrist is someone who agrees with you when you don't think you're being a partisan or an extremist. :-) That's a smiley, but I'm serious. I've said this often in various discussions on bias. Most people's politics match up with those around them. They therefore assume they're moderates, and that their friends are too. Anyone outside that loop is "off-center." Like the infamous quote about the Washingtonian who couldn't believe Nixon got elected, because nobody she knew voted for him. The echo-chamber effect. Personally I am happy NOT to be in an echo chamber, and to be somewhere where the discussion is more rational, less partisan, more realistic, and less inflammatory. If you go where everyone agrees with you, you learn nothing. If you go where everyone disagrees with you, you learn nothing. The Ship of Fools versus the labors of Sisyphus. Shouldn't centrism be about finding common ground and realistic approaches, not new ways to waste time stoking the partisan fires? As if they need more fuel. Posted by: Tully at January 25, 2005 02:26 PMIf memory serves me correctly, Rick, MWS, Erasmus, and AmyE all openly supported Kerry, Mathew, Tully and I all openly supported Bush, Brian and Heather supported a write-in of McCain-Lieberman, and William decided that he did not want to openly support anyone. That is a fairly balanced group. Moreover, frequent commenters cover the entire political spectrum. But Rick's point, which I agree with, is that the reason many of us enjoy this blog is because the debates are spirited, but civil and on the merits. There were two posts in a row where Ringmaster referred to Republicans as Nazis. IMO, calling names not only adds nothing, but it will drive people away. Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 25, 2005 02:29 PMI personally disagree with Ringmaster being made to feel as if he did not fit the mold. I enjoyed much of his work, and even if I did not agree with it, the method with which it was researched and the tone it was written only showed passion and vigor for the cause. I am sorry it has come to this. Posted by: Max at January 25, 2005 02:32 PMI have little to say that Bob didn't say. Perhaps the best I can do is rephrase thusly: Centerfield's draw (even before it drifted center-right, if it has in fact done so) has been its civility. We disagree without being necessarily invidious. Provocative, perhaps, but without animous or resentment. I have to say by way of disclaimer that I disliked the style of your posts back when I was a member of the Yahoo listserv. However, I've never asked for anyone to have their posting privileges revoked. To my knowledge, it's only happened once before here. Mr. Schulman, however, never responded by posting the content of Rick's email to him. I'm well aware that a sender has no privacy expectation in a letter received by the addressee, let alone in an email, but I think your final post reflects, if anything, your fundamental misunderstanding of the tone of Centerfield and our unwritten code of etiquette. Perhaps gentility is a bit too far right. But I've seen it often from those with whom I disagree on the left, so I suspect that hypothesis cannot be true. Posted by: The Jaded JD at January 25, 2005 02:34 PMMax, I very much enjoy your writing, and the tone is perfect. I think you may even succeed at persuading people to your political right. Posted by: rickheller at January 25, 2005 02:43 PMIf Ringmaster thinks that Centerfield is typified by self-congratulatory backslapping, then either he hasn't read many of the comments or he has trouble recognizing civility when he sees it. And if he can't be bothered to be civil, or worse yet doesn't see the value in it, then he's no loss. Posted by: Joshua at January 25, 2005 02:45 PMWhile we encourage a variety of political views in the center-left to center-right range, perhaps we are rigid in our desire for moderation. Yeah that about sums it up Rick. We visitors shouldn't have any say at all in who should and should not post. Posted by: Scott at January 25, 2005 03:21 PMI, too, have no complaints about Ring's style. It his lack of research and argument that came up short, in my view. In his last two posts, "Boxer/Kerry" and "Inaugural George," he certainly let us know where he stood; he just never mentioned why he stood there. On the other hand, his posts have led to good and thoughtful arguments among your readers (even if he declined to participate). I think Bob nailed it - it's fun to argue, and there's no point arguing with people (white or not) who agree with you. Posted by: Literally Retarded at January 25, 2005 03:25 PMI don't understand the comment about angry white guys. Who's angry? I'm not. Posted by: MWS at January 25, 2005 03:27 PMWho's angry? Who's white? Who's a guy? Posted by: Literally Retarded at January 25, 2005 03:29 PMOK, I went over to Centerring to check it out. Frankly, the conversation is more lively, literate, and thoughtful here. Posted by: Literally Retarded at January 25, 2005 03:36 PMFrom what I've read people over here cover a fairly diverse spectrum of opinions but they all attempt to at least be polite in thier tone of discussion. I don't think one could argue that Carla and Susan, for example, hold homogenous political positions. In fact, I would take thier finding a point of agreement on some subject to be a potential sign of the end of the universe;) I don't have any problem with Ringmaster writing in a style that he is comfortable nor do I have a problem with him taking a provocative position. I'm a big fan of the diversity of ideas. Therfore I don't think he should be asked to change his tone. I do, however, think that both the tone and content of his last piece was both inflammitory and unfair. That's just my personnal contribution to the diversity of ideas and my excerizing my right to "call em like I see em". Rick, I think, gives excellent advice about modifying tone. I, VERY OFTEN, don't agree with Rick's position on issues or even with his philosophical stances. However, I'm pretty much always willing to give serious consideration to what he says even when I don't agree with it. Bottom line, if you want people who don't already agree with you to try to UNDERSTAND what you are saying (as opposed to just hearing it) then rolling out the "fightin words" isn't going to get it done. IMO. Posted by: cengel at January 25, 2005 03:52 PMI've never asked anyone their race, but it is probably safe to assume most of us are, as I am, white males. We did have an African-American female blogger, Angela Winters, posting here for a while. Haven't heard from her in a while. She's apparently concentrating on her own personal blog. Heather of Ruminations also used to blog here. She still comes around to comment at times, but she hasn't posted lately. Both Angela and Heather are welcome to resume posting. If I recall correctly, they are both a little to the right of center. Needless to say, Centerfield does not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference. We do discriminate on the basis of political preference in that we expect blog posters to be centrists. We also expect them to be Americans, though if there is someone overseas who can provide informed commentary about American politics, they're welcome to ask to join us. We also discriminate against ranters and screamers. We aim for reasoned debate. Posted by: rickheller at January 25, 2005 03:58 PM I have no problem with Ringo's content. (Disclaimer, I'm a bit right of center> I did have difficulty with the tone and the names. That's why I don't do the "shouting shows" (i.e. Crossfire). I think we have a fairly diverse opinion here; I know I've learned a lot. I've certainly never perceived it to be a bunch of "Angry White guys". Now doesn't that very phrase seem inflammatory. How does one respond to it? I doesn't lead to discussion it leads to either an angry response or silence. Neither furthers dialogue. Posted by: Chris at January 25, 2005 04:05 PMOh and I forgot. Rick, did folks really ask you to dump him? Posted by: Chris at January 25, 2005 04:06 PMI think AmyE has also posted here quite a bit. Posted by: William Swann at January 25, 2005 04:10 PMJust a small point, Todd. I never openly supported Bush, except for acknowledging on Election Day that I had voted for him as the Lesser of Two Weevils. I did openly ridicule Kerry when I thought he was being stupid, or was lying. The challenger is always much more fun to beat up on--by the time the election rolls around most of the fun stuff about the incumbent is already old news and boring. I have bashed Bush and the Republicans mercilessly at times (especially on the Medicare prescription plan and the Homeland Security Bill "midnight surprise") just not much during the campaign. There was IMHO little new and substantive to say, because he mostly wasn't saying anything either new or substantive. Posted by: Tully at January 25, 2005 04:15 PMFar point, Tully. In fact, I did not openly support Bush until one week before the election, and I did so reluctantly. I also repeatedly complained about the lousy choice we were forced to make (as did Brian and William, and probably others too). Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 25, 2005 04:25 PMI'm so sorry, AmyE. I forgot about you because you haven't disappeared completely, but you also post infrequently. Please post more. No one actually said I should dump the Ringmaster in so many words. I was perhaps exaggerating for effect in my email to the Ringmaster, hoping that he valued his blogging privileges here. Posted by: rickheller at January 25, 2005 04:29 PMAs a follow up to Tully and Todd's posts (I also decided on Bush very late) I thought the Blog was dead center or maybe just a wee bit to the left of center. I guess, given the original post, that if you feel you're just at the center or a little to the left that means anything you perceive as being to the right may be in the center. Is it good or bad that you don't know how far the spectrum reaches to the left and right OR THE CORROLLARY that you don't know many "liberals" (or "conservatives" as the case may be) and therefore your perspective is skewed? Posted by: Chris at January 25, 2005 06:14 PMI have a feeling (perhaps wrongly) that people like Ringmaster are young and enjoy being provocative. Most of us are here because we don't particularly like the invective associated with more partisan blogs. Everyone is certainly entitled to their preference, but it seems that a smart polemicist tailors his or her style to the audience. Ringmaster reminds me a lot of Rick Perlstein, who really seemed to resent our dislike of vitriol. There are a lot of people out there that think if you don't rant and rave you don't have principles. I have always thought a degree of dispassion and objectivity was important to informed discussion. I really enjoy interacting with this group and I think our temperaments mesh well. Posted by: MWS at January 25, 2005 08:39 PMUpon a reviewing these comments, I think that a clarification is appropriate. Jaded JD said: I've never asked for anyone to have their posting privileges revoked. To my knowledge, it's only happened once before here. Mr. Schulman, however, never responded by posting the content of Rick's email to him. My understanding is that, like Ringmaster, Mr. Schulman voluntarily decided to stop posting here. If anyone's posting privileges at this blog have been officially revoked, I don't know about it. Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 26, 2005 12:14 AM Okay, he's the scoop about Schulman. When he asked to join Centerfield, he told me he was a centrist. But every post he made seemed right-wing, attacking Kerry and liberals in immoderate language. I gave him a phone call. I said he wasn't sounding like a centrist to me. He indicated that he was more liberal on domestic issues than on foreign policy, which had been the exclusive focus in his posts on Centerfield. So I said, could you do some posts on domestic policy to give your contributions some balance? He said he wasn't that interested in domestic policy. So I said I thought we needed to go in another direction, and he agreed. You could say I "asked him to resign." So I guess that's another aspect to the centrism I expect on this blog. If you say you are a centrist, show it. If you are a centrist on every issue but one, but you only want to blog on that one issue, you're not a good fit for this blog. On the other hand, if you have some left-wing opinions, and some right-wing opinions, and are willing to write about all of them, you may fit in quite well. well... I think I'm just about the only true lefty liberal that comments here... I think you all have drifted to the right. But then I dont' think my opinion matters because I don't think it will be taken seriously on this particular notion. Not to mention the fact that centrism appears more often than not to be a moving target. I love you guys anyway. Posted by: Carla at January 26, 2005 06:09 PMI just wandered over to the center ring. I agreed with some of his writing on center field, but I think he simply lacks the courage to defend his words. Posted by: Bob J Young at January 29, 2005 03:59 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
