Centerfield

Compromise solely for the sake of compromise is definitely not a good universal goal. You are quite correct that there are things on which there should be near-unanimous agreement (genocide, etc.). I also think that there shouldn't necessarily be a single "centrist" position on everything. To me, centrism should be more about process rather than absolute outcome on many subjects.

But I also think that partisanship is not in and of itself an evil. Our country has a fairly long history of pretty intense partisanship which has, objectively speaking, served us pretty well over the years. We've gone a bit too far in recent years for a variety of reasons (which I hope to explore in future posts), so we need to find a way to dial it back some.

As for DeLay, I assume you're speaking largely of the redistricting fight. I'm not a fan of Congressman DeLay by a longshot. I think his hubris is ultimately going to hurt the GOP. But I don't think the redistricting issue is all that one-sided. Beldar had a good post in January of last year analysing the issue and explaining why, in his opinion, what happened wasn't all that radical. To summarize very, very briefly, the main argument against the GOP-led redistricting in 2003 was that it violated the principle of once-in-a-decade redistricting (immediately after the census). Beldar points out that in fact there was only one legislative redistricting since the 2000 census. The 2001 redistricting which DeLay fought against was essentially imposed by the federal court system. As Beldar points out:

the alternative of not redistricting was to leave in place a pro-Democratic gerrymander dating back to 1991, and to ignore the intervening 2002 election in which Texas voters eliminated the divided state government that had allowed the Dems to deadlock the 2001 attempts to redistrict.

In other words, Democratic partisanship prevented a 2001 redistricting which would have made the Texas congressional districts reflect the current partisan makeup of the state. As we say down here, I don't have a dog in this hunt, particularly, I just point out that there are two partisan sides to this issue. And as we've all seen, the travel rules turn out to be equal opportunity for unseemliness by both parties.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2005 01:39 PM

This is true. But then, doing something wrong because someone else did something wrong is never a justifiable arguement.

District reform needs to be a key priority of both the centrist movement, and moderates in Congress, and if not there, than in the State Legislatures.

I would argue that centrism is a philosophy of reaction. Almost all preemptive action is the child of an extreme philosophy, however, REacting to genocide, invasion, whatever... is a natural reaction.

Posted by: Ryan at June 8, 2005 02:08 PM

I agree with Pat that compromise for compromise's sake is not necessarily a virtue. If a centrist were to explain themselves, I think they should say that they are for principled compromise and practical solutions.

I also agree with David that centrists in the long run cannot afford to compromise on things like electoral reform that neither the right or the left wants because it guarantees their "duopoly."

But more importantly, I think David is somewhat abusing the term "radical centrism" as it is commonly used. In my thinking "radical centrism" refers to a centrism that places an emphasis on innovative and fresh policy solutions and will passionately fight for its voice to be heard in the public square.

However, David's potential misconstrusion is an easy one to make, and so therefore I prefer the term vital centrist as opposed to radical centrist.

A peripheral question is whether centrists here consider themselves in the main to be "vital centrists"?

I would counsel it though: it gives some teeth as well as some flavor to centrism that could turn it into a vibrant political movement as opposed to just a call for sanity.

But to return to the main issue. As Barry Goldwater said: " . . . [E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice [,] [a]nd moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Posted by: adam at June 8, 2005 02:27 PM

I think we're confusing "compromise" in process and "compromise" in principle. It one thing to say "I won't compromise my position of non-discrimination", its another thing to say "I won't speak with/work with someone who disagrees with that principle". As uncomfortble as it might be you sometimes have to deal with the SOB at the extreme to something get something accomplished. There were many politicians on both sides of the aisle that spoke with and worked with open racists during the 40's thru 60's who didn't compromise their principles about race and equality.

Personally, I beleive a trait of a centrist is the willingness to talk with just about anyone to further "the cause".

Posted by: c3 at June 8, 2005 02:33 PM

I definitely believe that centrism has to be more than simply finding a middle ground between left and right. Adam's notion of a "vital centrism" (taken from Arthur Schlesinger's "The Vital Center"?) sums up perfectly what I think centrism is. It's finding ways to solve problems without falling back on dogma; sometimes these solutions might be "liberal" and sometimes "conservative" and sometimes a mix.

I do, however, disagree with Goldwater; extremism in defense of liberty may often be a vice.

Posted by: MWS at June 8, 2005 03:02 PM

Just to clarify, Adam, is "vital centrism" the new name of your paradigm or mine?

Posted by: David at June 8, 2005 03:04 PM

Let me offer this. Forget the term moderate. Bury it. Moderates are people who seek to quiet things down and maintain the status-quo. I think by calling ourselves moderates in one breath and Centrists in another, we're confusing the matter. Centrists are often moderate in debate but not in their ideals. We have no knee-jerk revulsion to compromise (like the wings) but we don't reach for compromise as the first solution. Most of the debates here and on all our blogs (those who have them) are not about finding the "compromise" position. They're about finding better ideas. Sometimes we agree with the left. Sometimes we agree with the right. But often times neither position satisifies so we try to create a third way--not a compromise so much as a synthesis.

Some here might be moderate Centrists. But I think most of us are vital Centrists and even radical Centrists in the sense we're looking for rather sweeping change. But I haven't met a lot of "moderates" here.

Posted by: Alan at June 8, 2005 03:18 PM

You have to be vigorous about your core principles, the one which you value most highly. It just happens that for many of he centrists here, the nature of such principles varies from the nature of the principles of the party partisans.

This nature is such that some paradoxes can ensue. Maybe you are closed-minded about the need for keeping an open mind. Maybe you are intolerant of intolerance. Maybe you hate hatefulness. Maybe you have something approaching blind faith in reason. See what I mean?

it's important to understand the nature of what I think of as the meta-level exceptions to such principles. Acknowledge such paradoxes, know them well, and be prepared when other attempts to cloak themsleves in such paradoxes in order to rhetorically deconstruct you.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2005 04:19 PM

Marc,

I didn't fully agree with the Goldwater comment either, after all, that statement really damaged his campaign. I thought it was a nifty statement: I think he stole it from some Roman orator.

I do believe the term vital center originated with Arthur Schelisinger, but I've seen it used in lots of places:at the DLC website and in John Avlon's book "Independent Nation."

David,

Vital centrism in my mind means the same thing as Radical Centrism as it frequently used. When Radical Centrists use the term, it refers more to innovation and going to the "radix" or root of the issue, not a bunch of "radicals." I felt you were using the term "radical" in the normal way as opposed to the specialized way it is used by Radical Centrists.

What you were advocating I think can be characterized as vital centrist thinking. I was just saying that doesn't mean you're a radical in the normal sense. Does this help?

Posted by: adam at June 8, 2005 04:28 PM

In the same vain is radical opposition to radicalism, or extreme opposition to extremism. I think that gets back to the original question in the original post. If you are radically opposed to Tom DeLay because he is radical, that doesn't invalidate your centrism. If you are opposed to Tom DeLay because you're liberal and he opposes liberals, then it probably does. Is it dogmatic to believe in eschewing dogma as a matter of principal?

Posted by: WHQ at June 8, 2005 04:32 PM

You go, bk. I for one will vanquish any who dare attack the Queen of Virtue and Reason: Vital Centrism. Before her alone do I offer my fealty and my very life :)

Posted by: adam at June 8, 2005 04:35 PM

I want to add that I'm glad to see the distinction between what is moderate and what is centrist being made here. I thought that such a distinction was my own personal notion that might not hold much water for other people. Let me put this to the group - would it be fair or accurate to say that moderates are centrists, but that centrists are not necessarily moderates?

Posted by: WHQ at June 8, 2005 04:36 PM

In my opinion most moderates are not Centrists, at least not the ones we've been seeing in Congress.
For instance I don't know that I would agree that Sen. Byrd is a Centrist, or even a moderate. I would say that he was more an opportunist. And as much as I like McCain, I am forced to wonder how much his leadership in all this was because of his wanting to be the GOP nominee in 08 and how much was his actually standing up for his more Centrist principles.

Posted by: jdeer165 at June 8, 2005 08:50 PM

First, define "centrist."

Posted by: Tully at June 9, 2005 02:10 PM

I sort of disagree with the distinction between centrists and moderates. I think centrists tend to be moderates (or at least I do) because they see the danger in maximalist politics, such as communism or fascism. On the other hand, there is no reason a centrist can't lean toward one side or the other on particular policies; for example, you could support more liberal economic policies or more hardline foreign policies. The point,though, is that a centrist, I would think, is unlikely to advocate policies based on a rigidly ideological position.

Posted by: MWS at June 9, 2005 02:17 PM

First, define "centrist."

Tully,

Feel free. That's kind of the point of the question. What do you think a centrist is? Is it different from what you think a moderate is?

Posted by: WHQ at June 9, 2005 03:43 PM

A moderate? When one side says 52 and the other side says 54, a moderate will always suggest 53.

Based on the "centrists" here, if one side said 30 and the other 70, the centrist might say 65 or 37, or even 75 or 21...

IMO, a moderate is more committed to compromise as a virtue in and of itself. A centrist is committed only to a reasonable process of fact-based review. I know that I often find myself in-between, but not usually right in the middle. Compromise is a means, not an end.

Posted by: bk at June 9, 2005 04:02 PM

David, there is no need to apologize for taking an activist role within Radical Centrism. I don't like the idea that an issue must rise to some level of national threat before right-thinking centrist are allowed to take action. A tendency to sit on the sidelines is the worst (well, one of the worst) habits of the "moderates" (a term I try to avoid.)

Your last two paragraphs were a fine definition of Radical Centrism, in my opinion. At least you've captured a critical element. My own opinions on political issues vary all over the map, and I am active and involved on those issues. What I won't do, however, is fight to see my position win by subverting the democratic process. I contribute my sometimes extreme views in an effort to influence the weight of opinion, not to dictate it.

I am a *moderate*, perhaps only in aggregate. On any individual issue I may well be out on the wings. But the underlying "ism" ("overarching" and "all-encompassing" too!) that frames these individual opinions is a commitment to "finding the center" thorugh the political process.

That commitment to the process is both the "radix" and a "radical" approach.

And I too disagree with Barry about extremism. There a very important distinction between being deeply committed and being extremist. Extremists lose sight of the means in order to obtains their ends.

Posted by: Jay Dean at June 9, 2005 06:37 PM

I've maintained for quite a while now that centrism is not a position per se. It's not standing in the middle of the road on a predetermined spot marked X, waiting for an eighteen-wheeler to swerve over the line (from either side!) and turn you into a wet lumpy smear on the pavement. It's not "splitting the difference" between diametrically opposed Columns A and B.

It's an attitude. It's an approach. It's the realization that in the vast ground between the utterly dogmatic and inflexible absolutist fundamentalist positions of the extremes, and the reality of life and politics and common sense and good will, there should be an awareness that black and white is often for simpletons. It's using your brain and sense and good will to recognize that the world has not just shades of gray, but a few neon paisleys. (sorry for the image burn there...)

Andrew Sullivan had a neat article in the 5/2/05 edition of the New Republic that explored the schisms in the GOP. Sadly it's now hidden behind the subscriber wall, but Taking Sullivan's thoughts in a broader frame, there were excellent insights into the divide between the partisan extremes of both sides and the difference between the partisan True Believers and the Great Middle. You remember the Great Middle? Also known as...The Center?

What becomes apparent is that the extremes have no options but black and white. You are Us or Them. For Us or against Us. The Left is reviled by the Right for "relativism," yet both the Left and the Right in modern times are notable for a slavish adherence to their orthodoxies. The partisan ideologue has nothing but dogma to guide them. On both sides, they are fundamentalists in the most basic sense, relying on inerrant doctrine rather than any semblance of thought.

To once agan hit on Sullivan....

The alternative philosophical tradition begins in precise opposition to the new conservatives' confidence in faith and reason as direct, accessible routes to universal truth. The conservatism of doubt asks how anyone can be sure that his view of what is moral or good is actually true. Conservatives of doubt note that even the most dogmatic of institutions, such as the Catholic or Mormon churches, have changed their views over many centuries, and that, even within such institutions, there is considerable debate about difficult moral issues. They understand that significant critiques of human reason--Nietzsche, anyone?--have rendered the philosophical quest for self-evident truth even more precarious in the modern world. Such conservatives are not nihilists or devotees of what Pope Benedict XVI has called "the dictatorship of relativism." They merely believe that the purported choice between moral absolutism and complete relativism, between God and moral anarchy, is a phony one. Their alternative is a skeptical, careful, prudential approach to all moral questions--and suspicion of anyone claiming to hold the absolute truth. Since such an approach rarely provides a simple answer persuasive to everyone within a democratic society, we live with moral and cultural pluralism.

A conservative of doubt, however, does not regard the existence of such pluralism as a problem. He sees it as an unavoidable fact of modernity, an invitation to lives that are more challenging and autonomous than in more traditional societies. Even when conservatives of doubt disagree with others' moral convictions, they recognize that, in a free, pluralist society, those other views deserve a hearing. So a conservative who believes abortion is always immoral can reconcile herself to a polity in which abortion is still legal, if regulated. Putting government power unequivocally on the side of one view of morality--especially in extremely controversial areas--must always be balanced against the rights and views of citizens who dissent. And, precisely because complete government neutrality may be impossible on these issues, government should tread as lightly as possible. The key in areas of doubt is to do as little harm as possible. Which often means, with respect to government powr, doing as little as possible.

What Sullivan misses in his polemic is that the Left is not devoid of their own "conservatives of doubt." Both sides have 'em. They're known as "moderates" and "centrists." They're the Great God-Damned Middle. They are all of us who don't buy into the extremes, that think there are vast areas where the rule of law must be loose, not a straitjacket. Indeed, that there are vast areas where satisficing is required if we are to continue as Americans, and not as fundamentalist robots.

"Cut it out! Cut it out! What the hell's the matter with you? Stupid! We're all very different people; we're not Watusi, we're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital A, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every out every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're underdogs, we're mutts!

My own take, fostered by a quarter century in RealPolitik and personal disgust with the party orthodoxies. I have no answers--but at least I know that I'm not in possession of the Divine Truth. Your mileage may vary considerably.

Posted by: Tully at June 9, 2005 06:37 PM

You can be radical on some issues and still be a Centrist.

Posted by: Chris Brown at June 11, 2005 03:42 PM

In 1949 Arthur Schlesinger wrote a manifesto entitled The Vital Center, it was to be a call for pragmatic liberalism, something I believe John F. Kennedy represented the pinnacle of.

Liberalism in its pure form is based on concensus, promotes social change and justice, and seeks compromise through pragmatism.

The problem with Vital Center centrism was that it depended on a maintainance of the status quo.

A system based on pragmatism, compromise, and promotion of the status quo lacks the flexibility to react quickly to radical social movements.

Thus, the 1960's marked the implosion of the center as it simply could not handle the civil rights movement, feminism, the vietnam conflict and the counterculture.

To some extent, the Vital Center died with John Kennedy. Despite the perception that he was oblivious to the civil rights movement, I believe history demonstrated that he was merely following his brand of pragmatic liberalism that dealt with improving the socio-economic conditions, creating a fair work environment for african americans, desegrating schools, integrating the army and public housing, all while attempting to keep the Southern Democrats at bay. If ever a civil rights act would be passed, he would need their support.

The branch of the Vital Center that wanted more radical change broke off and became the New Left, which dominated the Johnson administration.

New Leftists were in the Congress, the Courts, and with LBJ, even the White House.

The programs of the Great Society, though noble intentioned, marked the apogee of American Liberalism and would destroy the Vital Center for good.

It was too radical, too fast and of course led to a counter-reaction from the right and thus neo-cons were born.

What we are witnessing today, this great divide or at least perceived divide, is a direct result of the New Lefts radical turn and it's contempt for the pragmatism of the Vital Center...40 years in tha making.

Consensus is not flashy. It lacks the fervor of the radical right or left. But pragmatic liberalism is what this nation was founded on, it is what kept this country going during two great world wars, and the abandonment of it by the left was partially responsible for the social turmoil and unrest of the 1960's and 70's.

Posted by: Damien at June 12, 2005 01:55 AM