Centerfield

Nicely said, Rick. I think we should be especially choosy in the beginning. We should only endorse worthy candidates. If everyone running is partisan, we should say that, and not make any endorsement.

Posted by: bk at February 5, 2005 01:43 PM

I think that's outstanding, Rick. I know this has gone through a few drafts, and I'd have to say this one is quite eloquent and clear and concise. Very well done.

Posted by: William Swann at February 5, 2005 03:32 PM

The concern with which I wrestled from early on, and still wrestle with now, is how to define centrism in a meaningful way. While I find nothing in Rick's post objectionable, I wonder whether it is meaty enough to stand alone. (Obviously, it will not stand alone forever, but it does at the moment and shall for some ill-defined period.)

Extremists are either procedural or substantive; we've long discussed (here on the blog, on the Yahoo listserv, and among the "board") whether centrists are either procedural or substantive as well. The problem, as I've considered the topic, is how to remain moderate while being neither mediocre nor banal. Extremists on either side are passionate about something (the something differing by faction); about what are we, as moderates or centrists, passionate? About what are we militant?

If nothing else, I feel confident that the 2004 election taught us that a political movement cannot be wholly reactionary. We cannot be simply "against the extremists." We can be "for civility" or "for thoughtful, deliberate politics and politicians," but these are both subjective and inadequate. Each extreme considers its standard bearers thoughtful and deliberative (and among substantive, rather than procedural, extremists, this is probably a fair assessment); each extreme excuses its incivility on the grounds either a) that the other side started it, or b) that the other side has done something in order no longer to deserve respectful treatment.

If we stand for nothing, we cannot expect to be taken seriously. There must be some objective theme that allows us to identify ourselves, both to know who we are and who were are not and to allow others to appreciate the import of our endorsement of one candidate or position to the exclusion of another candidate or position. After many false starts down the path of identifying what policies we (at least those of us here at Centerfield) can agree upon, we really need to make a concerted effort in this area. We may have a better feel for which candidates we can agree upon--but when last I was a part of that process, the agreement was subjective and based on external criteria relatively arbitrarily co-opted for our purposes.

The argument against defining a "platform" has been that it will necessarily exclude others; that Centerfield is too young to do so, and needs more people before it can risk alienating outsiders; that it will pave the way for criticism from left and right that Centerfield is not centrist but merely the plaything of some conservative or liberal agenda. None of these concerns are illegitimate, but we've outgrown them. We cannot seriously present ourselves to external political entities (each of whom have agreed to some manifesto on some number of issues) as an equal in power and process--an entity with which to be reckoned--until we put ourselves on a par with them ideologically.

We cannot be effective, and will not, until we agree on what we stand for in real, substantive terms. Our endorsements (and withholding of endorsements) will not be effective until we have objective criteria, developed independently of other interest groups' criteria, for evaluating candidates for those endorsements. Until we take this necessary and painful step towards organizational maturity, we will be nothing more than a rag-tag band of disparate one-time or would-be activists, militantly and stridently (though civilly and thoughtfully) standing for something--something that none of us know or agree on. And all shall fear us.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at February 5, 2005 06:39 PM

I agree that centrists need to be substantive and not procedural, and I actually think most of us actively involved in the CC have looked at it that way and proceeded accordingly. I think I have a somewhat different perception from the one you just expressed of what we've done and where we are.

On candidate endorsements, I would call that substantive. We created profiles with a broad range of information on each candidate. Part of it involved the ratings they've received from other interest groups, but part also involved their legislative history and the work they've done on various issues, the statements they've made about their own positions, and the leadership role they've played in the centrist movement.

What we did, basically, was choose the ones with a pattern of views that can be considered fiscally conservative and culturally liberal. We made two exceptions to that pattern -- John McCain and Joe Lieberman. McCain was an exception because he is pro-life (the only pro-life guy on the list). Lieberman is an exception because he's not that conservative on fiscal/economic issues (even though he seems to have a reputation as so).

We made these two exceptions in part because these two guys have moved part the way in the direction we prefer. McCain has a pro-life record, but expressed pro-choice sounding sentiments during the 2000 campaign. He also gave a speech denouncing the religious right, and has done some positive things in the gay rights area. Lieberman is half-way between left and right on the fiscal/economic issues. He's spoken out for free trade and ran on a fiscally responsible platform in 2004.

In addition to moving part-way in our direction, these two guys have done so much that is profound and effective on so many issues that we could feel really comfortable backing them.

I call that, on the whole, a substantive approach to evaluating candidates rather than a procedural one. It isn't a mathmatical process, but it is based primarily on issue positions.

I would say that what we're doing is somewhat different from creating a platform. We're promoting leadership that follows an overall pattern -- that reflects a couple of basic principles -- and we plan to back specific positions on a series of issues. But we don't plan to get to the detailed level of a platform -- something that covers the full range of issues and offers detailed positions on each one.

I think the former approach (principles plus a set of specific issues) is a better overall focus for an organization than the latter (a complete platform). I think it's meaty enough to be politically meaningful, but still leaves some wiggle room. For example, you can be pro-choice and still believe in some limitations, or you can be pro-choice accross the board. In either case, you believe in the basic abortion right, and we currently endorse candidates with both approaches to the issue.

We believe in a principle -- a woman's right to choose -- but we don't take it to the level of a platform (which would, in this case, eliminate a significant portion of our candidates list).

Anyway, these issues are obviously fairly complicated, and I don't mean to go on and on about it. I just wanted to offer a different take on our basic approach as an organization.

Posted by: William Swann at February 5, 2005 07:17 PM

I didn't mean to suggest that the candidate selections were arbitrary (though some of the criteria at least at one time seemed to be). I know Amy and others put a lot of work into the information sheets on each candidate. But I reiterate my suspicion that co-opting, for example, the candidate ratings of the Chamber of Commerce, NARAL, and other groups is probably inadequate.

I continue to believe that, while it may be an exercise in exclusion, principles must be developed beyond their current level of ambiguity. "The right to choose" is too vague to be meaningful. Abortion on-demand, in all cases, in all trimesters? Just after rape or incest, or to protect the health of the mother? Should Medicaid/care pay for them? Is the "morning after" pill contraception or abortion?

This does require a level of detail, but not everyone needs to be excluded for failing in some respect. After all, both Republicans and Democrats have some representatives who buck the party line on the abortion issue; likewise, the Centrist Coalition need not abandon a candidate just for failing on one detail of one issue, or even one issue as a whole. Others who come to the Centrist Coalition must do more than self-identify as centrists or moderates; we should have some statement of who we are on issues, at some discrete level beyond general statements of principle, in order to allow visitors to decide for themselves whether we represent them, and whether they would feel at home here, on the aggregate. At this point, they cannot, because we have not presented ourselves clearly. Likewise, we cannot hope to someday entice candidates to represent a centrist ideology that has never been propounded; we cannot rate them based on a non-existent scale. We cannot persuade them to become more moderate or more centrist if we cannot state what a moderate or centrist position is.

We don't even know for sure who we (Centerfielders) are, in the aggregate. How can we hope to portray ourselves to non-Centerfielders as a cohesive and politically meaningful group in this posture? I don't believe we can.

Self-definition need not be exclusionary--well, it need be exclusionary, but neither prejudicial nor exclusionary beyond reason. Obviously, if we identify a dozen policy points that define Centerfield--the dozen or so positions that 75% or so of us can agree on 75% or so of--some people who disagree 100% with 100% of our position on those policy points will not sign on. But I believe I can feel comfortable in an organization which shares my positions on 75% of the issues. And I think we win more people (members and candidates) over by articulating those issues and allowing them to compare themselves to that "platform" than we do by saying, "we're centrists" without defining "centrist" at least for ourselves. And the members and candidates we attract based on that "platform" are going to be more committed and more active (more willing to contribute intellectually and monetarily) if we are an organization that represents something concrete and identifiable, rather than something abstract and illusory.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at February 5, 2005 08:02 PM

My hope is that by building a network of more and more people who self-identify as centrists, the vagueness will resolve itself--just as more pixels produce a sharper picture.

Posted by: rickheller at February 5, 2005 08:31 PM

Has there been much thought on what we're planning to do to support issues and candidates we like?

Blogging approval and getting the word out in the centrist blogosphere? Centrist branding? Organization? Lobbying? Volunteering for candidates / organizations? Fundraising?

Posted by: Jon Kay at February 5, 2005 11:35 PM

I didn't mean to suggest that the candidate selections were arbitrary (though some of the criteria at least at one time seemed to be). I know Amy and others put a lot of work into the information sheets on each candidate. But I reiterate my suspicion that co-opting, for example, the candidate ratings of the Chamber of Commerce, NARAL, and other groups is probably inadequate.

I think that's where our difference in perception lies. We didn't consider the interest group ratings "adequate". We considered them one factor among several. A piece of the puzzle -- which I think they are. In a few cases, we found that the interest group ratings suggested something that the legislative record did not, in which case we go with the legislative record. That's why we gathered a variety of information in the profiles -- to allow each part to serve as a "check" for the others, and ultimately allow a solid substantive conclusion on the candiate.

I continue to believe that, while it may be an exercise in exclusion, principles must be developed beyond their current level of ambiguity. "The right to choose" is too vague to be meaningful. Abortion on-demand, in all cases, in all trimesters? Just after rape or incest, or to protect the health of the mother? Should Medicaid/care pay for them? Is the "morning after" pill contraception or abortion?

Those are all good questions. And I think the practical answer is that someone who believes in the right to choose in the first trimester is generally pro-choice, because 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Someone who believes in it only for rape, incest, life or health of the mother would be generally pro-life because they allow it in an extremely limited number of cases.

That's how we treated the issue in the profiles. Someone who is described as "generally pro-choice" believes in at least the basic first trimester abortion right.

This does require a level of detail.

I think what you may be suggesting is something like the road we are starting down. We plan to gradually collect and endorse specific positions and policies on issues. That will tend to fill out the "who we are" question in our visitors' minds, when added to the principles, candidate endorsements, and leadership model.

I see that as different from a platform in a positive way, however. When you consider issues individually, and take positions when you have both a detailed understanding and a solid fix on the best policy, you contribute to the policy debate in a meaningful way. If you try to cover the full range of issues, like a party platform does, you tend to have a shallower understanding of some of the issues, and you tend to respond to internal politics (the sentiments of your platform committee) more than the likely effects of the policies when enacted.

Basically, there's a difference between being an interest group and a party platform committee. Interest groups can select issues and get deeply involved in them. Platform committees cover the whole political landscape, and tend to "thread the needle" in finding a statement on each issue that's agreeable to most on the committee. It's a more political approach to policy than a pracitcal one.

I think our best approach is to take an issue at a time and truly convince ourselves that the policy is effective, and the best choice, before proceeding. You may actually be talking about that kind of thing when you refer to "a dozen or so positions" -- so maybe we don't really disagree here.

Posted by: William Swann at February 6, 2005 06:55 AM

In some ways, this project reminds me of Europeans in the 1970s who saw a political and moral equivalency between the United States and the Soviet Union.

How can purported centrists find an equivalence betweeen a Republican Party dominated by fiscally irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt supply siders on fiscal issues, neoconservative advocates of preventive war on national security, and the religious right on social issues and a Democratic Party with a partisan, but historically centrist Governor as Chair? In their principles, Dean, Gore, Krugman and E.J. Dionne (for example) are all histor centrists, moderate and pragmatic liberals, whose strong opposition to this Administration is based on consistently applying their beliefs.

Centrism for the sake of centrism is empty. Adherence to principles applied consistently over the years may land one to the right in one decade and to the left in another. There is nothing particularly admirable about shifting principles so one always lands in the middle.

I can understand how people can find themselves unable to strongly support either of the two parties-- a strong abortion opponent who opposes the war in Iraq or someone who buys in to the notion of aggressively using US military power to remake the world but is offended by the GOP's focus on polarizing social issues -- but I can't understand the notion that there is some centrist political movement that can be formed from coalescing these people. Because of the varied policy and conflicting views that may place one in the middle of the political parties, I can't see how this possibly could be a viable project.

Please also note that there is a big difference between being business friendly (which, with relatively few exceptions, elected Democrats are) and being the captive of business interests (which this Administration is to an extent that hasn't been seen since the 1920s).

Posted by: Ben Brackley at February 6, 2005 09:13 AM

I'd rather stay on the sidelines on this discussion but Ben your comments caught me. "Which party is more centrist?" is the wrong question to ask, IMHO.

Posted by: Chris at February 6, 2005 10:50 AM

Hi Ben. A few thoughts on your comments.

First, we're not really focused on finding any sort of "equivalency" between the parties. We're focused on centrist leaders, who happen to include Democrats and Republicans, at the moment. If the ideologues in one party succeed in throwing all the moderates out, we will focus more and more on candidates in the other party. Our endorsement list will then skew to one side, party-wise.

Because of the varied policy and conflicting views that may place one in the middle of the political parties, I can't see how this possibly could be a viable project.

If our project involves throwing a big tent over everyone in the middle of the spectrum, and if it also involves taking a position on candidates or policy, then you would be right.

There are moderates and centrists with an astonishingly wide combination of views. However, there is also a distinct theme in the centrist movement. There are at least 15 organized centrist groups (see our Resources page), and there's a distinct tendency for the organized groups to espouse a combination of fiscally conservative and culturally liberal policies. There's a streak of what you might call "libertarian lite" running through the centrist movement -- people who like market-oriented policies, limited government, and socially inclusive policies. The Democratic Leadership Council tends include folks who support things like welfare reform and free trade (the two big conservative policies Clinton implemented as president). The Republican Main Street Partnership is dominated by northeastern Republicans who are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and favor campaign finance reform. The Republican Youth Majority describes themselves as "pro-choice, pro-environment, fiscally conservative Republicans".

You'll notice some variability in issue focus among those groups. Some focus on the environment, some don't. Some on campaign finance reform, some not. But the themes of fiscal conservatism and cultural inclusion are reasonably consistent.

I'd also like to share a few thoughts on your comments about a "historically centrist Governor as Chair" of the Democratic party. I was one of those who found Dean interesting in the early stages of the 2004 election cycle, in part because of his record as governor and in part because of his forceful leadership style. I don't think you can argue that his national campaign turned out to be centrist, though.

First, there's the fact that he advocated an across-the-board repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Centrist Democrats in the Clinton era advocated a platform of middle-class tax breaks. That one plank in the Dean platform could have led to his defeat in the general election, if he had gotten the nomination. I think most political realists realized what an albatross it was going to be.

Second, there's his flirtation with protectionist rhetoric on trade. He was a free-trader as governor, but did (despite his subsequent denials) suggest to more than one interviewer that we needed to apply all U.S. environmental and labor standards to any countries we have trade agreements with (which would result in zero trade agreements, realistically speaking).

Third, there's his rhetoric on the war. He went from advocating a strong commitment to rebuild Iraq, including troop increases, to a lot of waffly rhetoric in the middle of his campaign, including a few "withdrawal" type statements. I'd love to have supported a Democrat who opposed the war, but recognized how much the world changed once we invaded and offered a strong, unwavering commitment to making the policy work. Dean seemed like that guy in the early days, but did a little too much to please the pacifist portion of his constituency along the way.

Finally, there's his own choice to make a distinction between his approach and the views of centrist Democrats. We chronicled those comments here on Centerfield, and recognized at the time that he was choosing to make a break with the centrist branch of his party. It's ok to make that choice -- but it does mean something.

Posted by: William Swann at February 6, 2005 12:12 PM

William,

Thanks for your considered reply.

"First, there's the fact that he advocated an across-the-board repeal of the Bush tax cuts."

While one can question whether that is a politically astute position to take on Bush's tax cuts, there is no question it was the most fiscally responsible (and conservative) position. Returning tax rates to those that prevailed at the end of the Clinton Administration hardly seems radical.

Dean's position was the most politically honest with respect to the need for fiscal discipline. If there was any Republican, who had the courage to advocate specific spending cuts that would get us to the same fiscal balance as Dean's proposals, I would say the same thing about them.

I am a long term free trader, but I strongly object to how the free trade advocacy has devolved largely into the advocacy of free trade only when influential US interests benefit from it, rather than as a more universal benefit. We protect sugar beet growers (against the interest of American consumers and third world nations) and use international trade forums to expand intellectual property rights beyond what is reasonable to foster creative endeavors.

There is also no doubt that freer trade and capital flow is one of the factors contributing to greater income inequality in the US (which I are coming to believe is among the greatest economic problems facing the US). That would be acceptable if there were labor, tax and education policies that helped ameliorate the effect freer trade and capital flows were having domestically. But there aren't, and so I can understand the skepticism many Americans, including organized labor, have about this issue. And, in any event, I fail to see how, in the current political environment, this could be a defining issue for anyone.

Instead, while better paying manufacturing jobs
and many service jobs are moved overseas or outsourced, the Administration wants to bring in "temporary immigrants" to do the jobs "that Americans are not willing to do" [ADD: at pre vailing wage rates to make it a true statement]and can't be outsourced.

In the current political environment, I am all for greater partisanship; I view it as essential to counteract current Republican dominance. Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Colin Powell and John McCain are not the answer. They might have been the answer in an earlier time. But I am puzzled that purported centrists don't realize how the political sands have shifted so far to the right in recent decades to make nostrums, which had their place in the late 1980s, irrelevant today.

At the same time, I would agree that partisanship should be rational, principled and open to compromise with other rational, principled people.

Posted by: Ben Brackley at February 6, 2005 01:30 PM

I think it's a fundamental mistake to relegate Howard Dean's appeal to the Left. Take away his charismatically strident opposition to the Iraq War (a position that many Centrists subscribe to, btw) and look at his record. Yes, he signed the Civil Union bill into law. But, the events of the last year have shifted that position drastically towards the Center in public opinion polls.

How many elected Liberals got high marks from the NRA? How many elected Liberals balanced an entire (small) state's budget 11 years in a row while pushing thru several tax cuts?

Of the people I've met or otherwise know online, I saw no small amount of interest in Howard Dean from decidedly non-Liberals. Scott from the defunct "Dean Independents" blog now blogs at Indie Castle and posts comments here on occasion. If anything he's to my Right and I identify more with Rockefeller Republicans than with any other conventional mainstream ideological grouping. "J" from the ongoing "Value Judgement" blog self-identifies as a Rockefeller Republican and she was and remains a strong Dean supporter. And I have two cyber friends who default to the Conservative side on most issues, both of whom expressed interest in Dean as they were looking for an alternative to Bush, who they both have problems with. The moment Kerry got the upper hand over Dean they both dismissed voting Democratic as a viable option for them.

I have long supported McCain. Wes Clark was my second choice behind Dean this past election. And I was a big Perot supporter until his quip about black-suited government agents crawling up his lawn during his daughter's wedding convinced me that he was most of a Happy Meal short of a Happy Meal. Of all the Centrist politicians I've seen mentioned here, Lieberman is the only one that I've never liked. So, I don't think my tastes are outside the norm here. Except for Dean. And I'm frankly mystified at the way Dean is relegated to the far Left.

Posted by: Kevin at February 6, 2005 02:07 PM

Bill,

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the political party's use of the word platform in my idiomatic use of the term for want of another term that better described the anthology of political position papers I intend. I was at pains to use Dr. Evil air-quotes around "platform" each time I used it to avoid such a construction.

Call it what you will, a platform, a "suite of policies," a manifesto, Mao's little red book. Call it, if you like, a chart or a map. We are, after all, a ship adrift: we don't know where we start from, we don't know where we want to go. We can't grab a politician by the lapels (not that we ever would in the literal sense) and say, "Be more centrist, goddammit" if we can't describe what being centrist is. And beyond the vague, nebulous, illusory sense of "not being extreme," we can't. "Pro-business, fiscally conservative, socially liberal" isn't going to cut it in the big, bad world of political advocacy. The migration from general statements of principles to detailed, particularized positions is a process of maturing into a viable organization. The manner in which those positions are crafted should be, as you suggest, different at Centerfield compared to a national party's platform committee; the output may also be different in terms of the scope and number of positions contemplated--ideally, we should have fewer (but deeper) positions.

There's a lingering concern that the cart is being put before the horse: a drive to incorporate and register an organization, but an organization whose purpose and direction have not yet been fully formed.

Rick,

I disagree with your pixel analogy. I prefer the EU analogy: before the EU became the EU, it could have decided what it was going to be and how it was going to work. It chose not to because its members thought a) there'd never be universal agreement and b) the result would be exclusionary. As a result, the EU is now an internally chaotic mess, and no one is quite sure where it's going or how it will get there. It expanded before it defined itself, and it may have forever lost the opportunity to define itself as a consequence. No one wants to alienate the current members by drawing clear lines.

I think we have the critical mass (which may have been lacking a few months ago) to begin the process of self-definition. I fear that if we fail to begin this process now, we may forever lose the opportunity.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at February 6, 2005 02:47 PM

I like the idea of exploring self-definition of centrism. Howvever, I think our approach should not be constarined by trying to becopme more like the existing parties, or by getting hung up on the dilemma horns of objective vs. subjective.

By continuing to talk and continually grow, I think the principles that identify centrism will continue to emerge, and the way we talk about our principles will make them seem different from the sorts of principles that political partiesusually espouse. Many of these principles are critical thinking principles, I think. One of our principles should be that no position we support hold will ever be held so dear as to not be open to re-examination based on new circumstances. We are committed to self-correction. IMO

Our strongest point is the large number of Americans who are independent and who hold views that are somewhere between the poles represented by the partisans on both sides.

I think we should be honestly data-driven, strongly utilitarian, committed to exploring a variety of alternatives, willing to support ideas that may be unpopular in the short term, and willing to stand up for the broad middle of everyday americans against the hordes of special interests on both sides.

We should look to be the synthesis point provider for everyday Americans, the place where you can go to get real story that lies between the cant being sold by both poles.

Anf this can help us navigate newness and not having candidates of our own, whioch makes it easier to find the courage to tell people things that they don't want to hear.

Posted by: bk at February 6, 2005 03:45 PM

I like the idea of exploring self-definition of centrism. However, I think our approach should not be constrained by trying to become more like the existing parties, or by getting hung up on the dilemma horns of objective vs. subjective.

By continuing to talk and continually grow, I think the principles that identify centrism will continue to emerge, and the way we talk about our principles will make them seem different from the sorts of principles that political parties usually espouse. Many of these principles are critical thinking principles, I think. One of our principles should be that no position we support will ever be held so dear as to not be open to re-examination based on new circumstances. We are committed to self-correction. IMO

Our strongest point is the large number of Americans who are independent and who hold views that are somewhere between the poles represented by the partisans on both sides.

I think we should be honestly data-driven, strongly utilitarian, committed to exploring a variety of alternatives, willing to support ideas that may be unpopular in the short term, and willing to stand up for the broad middle of everyday americans against the hordes of special interests on both sides.

We should look to be the synthesis point provider for everyday Americans, the place where you can go to get the real story that lies between the cant being sold by both poles.

And this can help us navigate newness and not having candidates of our own, which makes it easier to find the courage to tell people things that they don't want to hear.

Posted by: bk at February 6, 2005 03:46 PM

Kevin -- I understand that a number of independents and moderate Democrats were interested in Dean. But I got the sense, in blog-land at least, that Lieberman, Clark, and Edwards were drawing a fair portion of the moderate support.

That all kind of came to a head in late 2003, just before the primaries got started, when Dean started to virtually talk himself out of the middle segment of the party:

He gave a domestic policy speech in which he likened Bill Clinton's presidency to an era of "damage control" where Democrats joined with Republicans and just limited the damage they did.

Then, at a town hall meeting, he called the Democratic Leadership Council "the Republican wing of the Democratic party".

Then, at a meeting in Iowa, he drew a pretty clear philosophical difference between his own approach and that of Clinton:

"Bill Clinton was a master politician ... but that was a different time," former Vermont governor Howard Dean told supporters gathered at an Indianola, Iowa, winery the other day. Republican leaders have become more conservative, he said, and Clinton's philosophy of governing from the middle is no longer the right thing to do. "I think this is a time to fight," Dean said.

Check out the whole article that last quote is part of.

In my opinion, what you had is a guy with moderate credentials on gun control, trade, and fiscal policy, but who chose to define his appeal (and his agenda) nationally as more traditionally liberal.

Posted by: William Swann at February 6, 2005 04:03 PM

Here's a start on a list. Let us know what you think's wrong and missing:

Centrist Characteristics:

Determining direction by evidence rather than against where the opposition is going.

Practical, interested in getting things done; happy when deals are made to get things done.

Not afraid of the opposition.

Interested in good government.

Some Centrist Stances:

For regulated capitalism

For technology

For Wilsonianism

For keeping the government out of the bedroom and day-to-day life.

For freedom of speech

For government support of art and culture

For redistricting reform.

Posted by: Jon Kay at February 6, 2005 04:36 PM

I'm not for Wilsonianism. Too idealistic.

Balance is a key value, and I think we need a balance between Wilsonian idealism and Nixonian realism.

Posted by: rickheller at February 6, 2005 06:06 PM

Rich, I think the draft is extremely good, and I like your definition of the "centrist agenda."

Despite it's weaknesses, our two-party system has served us well, and I wouldn't want to see it changed. I think all other options have serious disadvantages that would weaken our political system and cause unnecessary confusion. Having said that, any group that wants to function in the political process at the seam where the two parties join, at the theoretical center, has only two practical choices.

The first choice is to form a centrist third party. In my opinion, that's largely a waste of time, money, and energy. Third party efforts get some attention during election campaigns, but they're pretty quickly forgotten once the campaigns are over, at least in terms of having any lasting influence over policy.

The second choice is to do what your draft advocates, and it's an excellent approach. In effect, it aggregates the influence of many individuals who are either temporary centrist refugees from their own party or are true centrists who prefer a moderate position averaged between the parties' doctrinaire stances.

The essence of this second way is that it's mostly reactive, and that isn't meant to be derogatory. Basically, in my view, the Centrist Coalition would publicly hold baseline positions on certain key issues, reflecting the majority views of participants. As elections come, the Centrist Coalition would take local or national positions, depending on the election in question, based on the candidates fielded by parties. Hence, the reactive aspect. There could be elections where party candidates and their platforms are reasonably moderate, and it wouldn't be necessary to do much more than define and explain preferred issue positions. In other elections which are dominated by more extreme candidates and party platforms, centrists could provide a valuable service in stripping away the camouflage thrown up by candidates to ensure that voters at least know what their actual choices are. I believe the last presidential election fell into that latter category, and I think a strong centrist voice would have been very useful.

Posted by: Tom Carter at February 6, 2005 07:28 PM

Rick, sorry about that typo on your name! Must have been a circuit problem between brain and finger.

Posted by: Tom Carter at February 6, 2005 07:31 PM

Here's a start on a list. Let us know what you think's wrong and missing:

Centrist Characteristics:

Determining direction by evidence rather than against where the opposition is going.

Sounds good

Practical, interested in getting things done; happy when deals are made to get things done.

agreed

Not afraid of the opposition.

still good

Interested in good government.

good. But is anyone for "bad" government

Some Centrist Stances:

For regulated capitalism

And that means...

For technology

more mom and apple pie.

For Wilsonianism

Huh. I bet flyover country would also say "huh?"

For keeping the government out of the bedroom and day-to-day life.

REasonable but tell me more about "everyday life"

For freedom of speech

Mom's still baking the pie.

For government support of art and culture

I mean I like my museums and ballet but is that necessary for good government especially if the dollars are tight. And is that a "centrist" position?

For redistricting reform.

Sounds good but reform to what?

I'm not trying to be picky.

Posted by: Chris at February 7, 2005 12:08 AM

echo Chris

Jon,

They're all platitudes. That's not good enough.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at February 7, 2005 11:24 AM

I'm not for government support of arts and culture if it means subsidizing artists and museums through direct grants. Tax breaks for genuine non-profits is OK.

I think we could write something like a platform by describing our positions on a variety of issues insofar as they represent some synthesis of the other parties opposing views. I also think we could contrast ourselves by listing a prioritized platform.

For example, a first priority could be a balanced budget by any means necessary, or at least one that accrues debt at a lower rate than annual growth, ensuring that we borrow to invest in the future, but not at a rate which makes our debt burden grow to larger and larger shares of GDP.

Posted by: bk at February 7, 2005 01:27 PM

You're right - the list is all platitudes as far as we're concerned. These are things that seem obvious to US. I'm trying to make a list that we all or mostly agree as, yeah, no kidding, obvious, but that would get a rather less happy response from the political extremes. For example, both wings have plenty of antitechnological members (Leon Kass on the right, Jerry Rifkin on the left).

Similarly, I think it's a fair suggestion the wings are more interested in limiting speech than we are.

Now, you can argue (as maybe bk is?) that a long list is a mistake. Maybe we should choose a short list of what we think is most important, in inverse order. Certainly there's a lot of sense to that idea.

In fact, now that I think about it, I guess I was on that side last time this came up, in favor of making redistricting reform the big thing. Maybe I was right then and wrong now :-).

I do agree with fiscal balance concerns being something important to centrist agendas, and that, given the deficit, arguably doesn't have enough defenders in DC right now.

To explain to those who weren't around then, the redistricting reform issue is somethign that's come up high on the agenda before, because arguably it has taken the House of Representatives and some state legislatures out of centrist hands over the last few decades, as computer models made it easier to create "sure" seats.

I can't remember where that agenda question arose before, but here's a convenient pointer to some postings that involved redistricting:

http://centristcoalition.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=redistricting

Posted by: Jon Kay at February 7, 2005 11:32 PM