Centerfield

In 1997, I was decidedly leftist (although I always had a conservative streak when it came to welfare reform, which was enacted the year before). It was not until 1999 or 2000 that my politics grew more libertarian, interestingly after I became an individual stockholder. The country's mood has shifted to the right but the Democratic Party has also shifted to left.

Posted by: molotov at May 31, 2005 10:18 AM

I thought I was left while growing up and living in Texas. Since moving to DC, I realized I was just left of the Texas center--but in DC I'm quite far right of the local center here. The center is different in different regions. So as the southern Republicans have taken over, I think they've pushed the national debate rightward, thus changing the perception of where the national center lies. But I wonder if the real center (as distinct from the perceived center) has shifted all that much in 8 years. Maybe over the last 25, but I'm not so sure it's changed dramatically since 1997.

Posted by: alan at May 31, 2005 10:59 AM

I think the parties move around more than the people do. As different groups are empowered, they become the noisy visible factions. But most of us don't really move around that much, except in response to pressures from the extremes.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 11:16 AM

I think that Olympia Snowe was exactly right when she said "I happen to think moderate Republicanism represents traditional Republicanism. I don't think I've changed; I think the Republican Party has changed over the past 20 years". The party has shifted right, and embraced things that we would never have accepted even ten years ago; Newt Gingrich called for the abolition of the Department of Education, George W. Bush pushed its expansion in NCLB. Newt Gingrich fought for a balanced budget; Dick Cheney has said that "deficits don't matter". When Justice Scalia - the anchor of sensible, intelligent jurisprudence and mainstream conservatism, IMO - is a moderate by the standards of the party's recent trendsetters, something has gone wrong.

Posted by: Simon at May 31, 2005 11:54 AM

I would be the first to admit I have shifted dramatically. I was far right--I was raised reading John Birch Society literature...lol. I began a slight center shift in 1992, which was the first Presidential election in which I was eligible to vote. I was the only person I knew of at the private college that I attended that voted for Perot. I would say; however, that my major transformation occured during the Clinton impeachment trial. I became very disillusioned with the right and the hypocrisy that I saw. Interestingly enough, my relgious beliefs began to moderate during that time as well. I'm sure it's all related. It's almost impossible to define myself now. Socially, I'm about as liberal as they come. Fiscally, I'm pretty conservative. I'm more of a dove, but believe in a strong military. Labels are impossible to ascribe.

As a side note, I've admired Sen. Smith for a while. He went through a very difficult personal tragedy with the suicide of his son several years ago. From everything I've ever read of him, he is an incredible public servant.

Posted by: AR at May 31, 2005 01:24 PM

I've always been libertarian on rights issues, conservative when it comes to the military and patriotism, a moderate pragmatist on the social safety net and taxation. I've moved some over the years, but it's really more a case of standing there watching the giant pendulum swing wildly past me first one way, then the other. I want people to be free, my country to be strong, and I don't want to have to step over beggars on my way into a four star restaurant. And I have never had any patience for ideologues. My first unenthusiastic vote was for Nixon, my most recent unenthusiastic vote was for Kerry. I'll have to wait and see where to apply my unenthusiastic vote next time.

Posted by: mikereynolds at May 31, 2005 04:08 PM

Not to be obtuse but I think a linear model with a center point misses the mark. Libertarian conservative and religious conservative differ significantly on several issues. The libertarian would suggest the religious conservative's interest in government control of public and private morality far to the left of center. I believe the linear continuum fits a bit better on the Democratic side but at the same time (at least at present) it appears the left wing of the party views a movement to the "center" as a move "into the Republican Party".

I also note we tend to use certain "marker" positions to "help" place people on the continuum. My sense is pro-choice puts you in the majority of the "centrists" here. However, if there are a sizeable minority of "pro-life" Democrats (and that may be a big if) then it seems pro-choice/pro-life would be one of those issues that spans the center.

In defining the center I would suggest that 1) one's take on a variety of issues helps place you near the center (we've seen several "scoring tools" used in the past 2) "party centrists" will tend to be bit to the left or right of the "true center" (i.e. a "moderate Democrat" is likely a bit left of center) 3) the center is defined by where the electorate are, not the politicians.

Posted by: c3 at May 31, 2005 04:16 PM

My sense is pro-choice puts you in the majority of the "centrists" here. However, if there are a sizeable minority of "pro-life" Democrats (and that may be a big if) then it seems pro-choice/pro-life would be one of those issues that spans the center.

I have to admit that I don't like the frequent use of "moderate" Republican as a codeword for "pro-choice" Republican. Certainly, some moderates are pro-choice (Whitman, Snowe, etc.), but many others are not.

Posted by: Simon at May 31, 2005 04:49 PM

One appealing facet of centrism is its tendency to avoid labels and the understanding that not everone fits into a neat little category all of the time. Coming from a middle class family from a blue-collar city in the Northeast, I always associated myself with the Democratic party. As I got involved in politics, especially on a local level, I soon realized that things were not as cut and dry as left and right. An earlier entry stated that it is not so much the people who shift but the parties. I think this is a fairly accurate description. The culture gap is more myth than fact, the polarization of voters is more false than actual. That said, on a personal level I would have to say that I did not so much shift from left to center as much as I just discovered that I had more than just the two options of either left or right open to me.

Posted by: Damien at May 31, 2005 05:19 PM

"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" by themselves are labels that throw you to the extremes for definition. Not picking on those who are there, just noting that the "public" labels are so diametrically opposed and radically defined and agendized, when most of the population has a much less extreme view.

We've talked about the "linear" left/right model before and I maintain that we need to think of the political spectrum as at least a three-dimensional model. At least. Add time shifts for a fourth dimension if you like, with color added for a fifth variable. Say, intensity of special interest group/faction, with red as "most intense," and violet as "least," and so on through the spectrum.

Think of a square plane covered with hills, with the largest hill covering a fair chunk of the middle of the "map." That particular hill is centrism. And all those other, outlying hills are the various "interest groups" and factions. Let's not even think about the borders right now...but it's tough to point at any single spot on that largest hill and say "THIS is centrism," because it's a large and diverse and continually shape-shifting and color-shifting hill.

The Pournelle two-axis model and others are instructive. [Warning--really cool stuff there at the Wikipedia article!] I confess to being a total geek as far as the graphical presentation of multi-dimensional time-shift models goes. I helped beta some of the earliest macro-econ modeling programs in three and four dimensions, and I've always felt it was a marvelous and under-appreciated tool for connecting intuition with empiricals. If you've chosen the right measurements, it's a fascinating way to watch systems evolve.

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 12:13 AM

I grew up as a traditional New Deal-type liberal (in a conservative town), but was never anti-military (this was during Viet Nam and afterward). I began shifting to the right in the late 80s as a result of what I saw as the overly simplistic views of the left on a host of issues and my distaste for its political correctness. Now I have moved back toward the center-left, in part because of Bush, and, more generally, as a result of the right's overly simplistic views, including its obsession with tax cuts, fundamentalist religion and over emphasis on military solutions. IMO, the country has swung so far right, there needs to be a correction. So right now, I would consider myself a center-left Democrat,but I dislike the left-wing of the party, no so much for its policies, as for its intolerance of difference and the persistence of what I call "liberal gospel" (meaning its emphasis on victimization and sanctimonious attitude toward the working class).

Posted by: MWS at June 1, 2005 09:21 AM

There is no absolute position or ideology that is “moderate” because “moderate” is an adjective not a noun. In other words, “moderate” is a comparison like “closer” or “louder” rather than a state of being. You can be a moderate Democrat (Republican, liberal, conservative, antidisestablishmentarian, realist, etc.) but you cannot simply be a moderate. There is no such thing. The question to ask is “moderate in comparison to what?”

A related problem is the overuse of the word “Centrist.” We’re told that people like Howard Dean and John McCain are “centrists” because they had to compromise and take some positions favored by the other party at some point in their political careers. But in fact every politician has to compromise at some point, even the most extremist ones. To paraphrase Andy Warhol “In the future everybody will be a centrist for 15 minutes.”

The problem is that people don’t view themselves objectively. Everybody thinks that they are “about average.” I see the same phenomenon on dating websites. 80% of the women on these sites rate themselves as “about average” including women who are built like Calista Flockhart and those who resemble Rosanne Barr. (I suppose this is better than viewing yourself as your mom does—everybody would be like Donald Trump!)

I’m reminded of the story of Marco Polo. The Emperor of China refused to look at Polo’s maps until they were redrawn to show China in the middle. It seems to me that many of us have the same sort of attitude about politics. We refuse to believe that our positions are off center. We demand that the political map be redrawn to show us in the center.

Don’t believe me? Spend some time reading far left and far right websites, Daily Kos and Free Republic, for example. The general tone is “Us vs. Them” where “Us” means “the center” and “Them” means “the extremists.” When in fact they are both extreme when seen from the true center. (Well, it seems like the center. At least I have two points to compare myself to rather than one—I’m not as far to the left as Kos and not as far to the right as Free Republic so I must be in the middle somewhere, right?)

Posted by: Alf at June 1, 2005 10:26 AM

Yeah, we covered that quite a few times during election season, Alf. Everyone in a group that is NOT at the very far ends of the spectrum thinks they're smack-dab in the middle. Like Pauline Kael, who famously said "I can't imagine how Nixon got elected; no one I know voted for him."

Groupthink. We agree we are reasonable people, therefore we must be politically moderate.

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 11:28 AM

BTW: "moderate" can function as an adjective, a verb, or a noun. It may be subjectively and situationally defined, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with the noun usage.

Main Entry: mod·er·ate

Pronunciation: 'mä-d(&-)r&t

Function: noun

: one who holds moderate views or who belongs to a group favoring a moderate course or program :

(Merriam-Webster)

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 12:02 PM

Okay, Tully now define "a moderate course or program."

...and while your at it nail some Jello to the wall. Kinda proves my point.

Posted by: Alf at June 1, 2005 12:40 PM

Okay, Tully now define "a moderate course or program."...and while your at it nail some Jello to the wall.

Easy. One that is not extremist or radical. :-) And you can nail Jello to a wall by freezing it first. Dead easy. Seen it done, on a bet.

A "moderate"(n) is someone holding non-extremist non-radical political views, regardless of party or polity. The specific meaning is in the contextual usage, which in this case would be "political moderate," because we're discussing politics. Where the adjective is political and the noun is moderate.

Contextual usage allows the adjective of an otherwise compound noun to be inherently implied rather than overtly stated. When speaking of politics, you don't need to add the adjective "political" to nouns such as "radical" or "moderate" or "centrist."

Just grammar quibbles--your main point is that "moderate" is a comparitive in any usage (as are "extremist" and "radical"), requiring context for meaningful definition. Gotcha.

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 02:13 PM

I was particularly interested with this from the Wikipedia entry that Tully posted:

In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name dynamists.

This is of particular interest, of course, because using such a measure would split the GOP down precisely the fault line suggested by Andrew Sullivan in TNR recently. In this context, neoconservatives and social conservatives (Sullivan's "conservatives of Faith"), would be stasists, while libertarians and traditional conservatives (Sullivan's "conservatives of doubt"), would be dynamists.

It's an interesting posit, because it would proceduralize the determining factor for what your politics are called; you would be judged based on HOW you want to achieve your goals, not the substantive nature of those goals. John Kerry and James Dobson would thus appear at much the same place on the scale, while the middle would remain in much the same place, I suspect. It would turn the current political axis into a U shape, in other words.

Posted by: Simon at June 1, 2005 03:58 PM

mikereynolds:

I share your unenthusiasm, brother. You summed up a couple of decades of political frustration (mine) in a paragraph. Very impressive.

Posted by: kreiz at June 2, 2005 09:03 AM