Centerfield

I've never been to TPMCafe. After a look around and seeing their side panel adds I'm not sure I'd agree with their definition if they came up with one. I already know "Centrists" is a bad word for many Democrats.

Posted by: c3 at June 25, 2005 12:36 PM

TPMCafe is a Democrat-oriented site founded by Josh Marshall. Among the name bloggers are several from the DLC, which is one reason I like it. A number of commenters have migrated over from DailyKos to bash the DLC.

Still, it is the most centrist-friendly place I've found among Democratic-oriented sites that allow comments.

Posted by: rickheller at June 25, 2005 12:50 PM

I have an answer... "no." We like not being defined thank you very much.

Posted by: Mathew at June 25, 2005 02:01 PM

I felt up to the challenge and posted a rather long article there. Tell me what you people think, if you feel like reading it.

Reading what Rick just posted about it being a centrist-friendly site, I probably went overboard because I remember the response to Rick's last comment which earned him the "wanker of the day" award. I tried to stave off a deaniac onslaught.

In any case, I feel we ought to update the "what is a centrist link" on our page to make it more succinct and professional. Make the discussion separate from the policy statement.

I think the second poster on TPMcafe had some good points as I think if we want to grow we really need to tap into the constituency of Americans who consider themselves "middle of the road." Using the term socially liberal and fiscally conservative, while the trend certainly exists, I think would alienate a lot of voters. Using such a term could basically just mean "Schwarzenegger Republican." While I like the "Governator," that constituency is too limited, and centrism goes beyond that. We don't want to be the party (or organziation) of rich former porn-stars (did you hear about someone like this who recently attended a GOP fundraiser?).

I think a better strategy would be the following.

"Centrists are best described as middle-of-the-road Americans who don't feel entirely comfortable in either party. Centrism is probably best summed up in the following slogan: Principled Compromise, Practical Solutions, and Honest Discourse."

Note if talking to wonks or young people I substitute "innovative" for "practical" in the above as I did on my post at TPMcafe.

BTW, Rick, I'm glad I'm not the only one who is attracted to centrism for "buddhist" reasons. Buddhism is definitely the most rational and pragmatic religion/philosophy I've ever encountered.

Posted by: Adam at June 25, 2005 02:29 PM

Adam,

That's interesting. I'm not actually a Buddhist, though I have taken a class in Zen meditation at a Buddhist center. I would say that I'm Buddhist influenced, and one thing I've learned from Eastern philosophy is not to be too "attached" to my own ideas, and to allow myself to be receptive to other points of view. On the other hand, I'm definitely not a pacifist.

Posted by: rickheller at June 25, 2005 02:37 PM

I'm not actually a Buddhist either and am not a pacifist by any stretch. I'm probably one of the more hawkish here. But as Buddhism embraces the middle way and an exercise of rational faculties and, as well, eschews authority and ideology, the relationship between the two is more than a just surface one. I often cite Buddhism as an example of the power of centrist thinking to mobilize to those centrist party skeptics. After all it was able to engulf a large portion of an entire continent relatively rapidly.

Posted by: Adam at June 25, 2005 02:48 PM

Perspective. Centrists have it, extremists don't.

Posted by: Tully at June 25, 2005 03:59 PM

It's elusive- like defining a "reasonable man" or a "gentleman". They're a motley bunch- usually moderate in attitude, willing to listen and a bit contrarian. If this website is any reflection of their attitudes, they are thoughtful, intelligent and considerate. Not bad.

Posted by: kreiz at June 25, 2005 05:54 PM

Define centrist.

For the purposes of the United States, a person who has strong political opinions, none of which are exclusively informed by either the conservative or liberal ideology but many of which are exclusively informed by the individual's ideology, composed or perspective, experience and values.

Posted by: Scott at June 25, 2005 06:12 PM

composed or=composed of

Posted by: Scott at June 25, 2005 06:13 PM

We have a critic over at TPMCafe who feels we are ill-defined and "underly" ambitious. I agree in part. Here is my response which is cross-posted.

Anon,

Your comments are very useful. I myself am a strong advocate of a centrist party. However, the centrist coalition seems to be of two minds on this one. I feel that we should first become an activist network and hopefully that would attract some of the currently elected moderates to jump ship and form a new party.

Some have skepticism, but perhaps you're right that it's best to form a party. That would attract more attention than just an activist network. And hopefully some well known politicians would claim the reins and bring it success.

I also agree that much of the definition of a centrist will come once we come together. That's why I also am urging the centrist coalition to work on a platform. One that would evolve as more joined.

I think we centrists need to aim high. Little is accomplished without your idealists, dreamers, even "revolutionaries" to give a movement energy.

You complain that there are conflicting definitions, but to me all those given point to a similar entity--wittgenstein's family resemblance theory of definition comes to mind. We may all look a little different, but in the end we look like we are members of the same family. You seem to want a more succinct definition though. Here is what I posted on centerfield and it is a slight adaptation from what I wrote above.

"Centrists are middle-of-the-road Americans who don't feel entirely comfortable in either party and are sick of empty partisan wrangling. They stand for principled compromise, practical solutions, and honest discourse."

Would you find this an acceptable description of centrists? I feel socially liberal and fiscally conservative to be too narrow and even misleading of a description.

Finally, you say we need an issue to coalesce around, like the Republicans did with abolition. How about clean and honest government: campaign finance and electoral reform. That's about the only major issue that neither party seems to be addressing, except for maybe fiscal responsibility. We could tack that on as well. And let me point out that neither party is following our definition, meaning they seem to stand for refusal to compromsise, half-solutions, and half-truths.

In any case, centrists are still emerging. I think in the end we won't disappoint. Don't condemn us for being toddlers. We hope to be full-grown soon.

Two things that might help clarify. First off, I feel there is a range of centrism. When I wrote, I perhaps showed the left edge of centrism when I discussed women's and gays' rights and poverty. I did that to show that even people who feel more affinity with the left could still consider themselves centrists.

Another clarification, Rick mentioned that there are few socially conservative, fiscally liberal centrists. While that is true, I think he omits centrist centrists. In the sense that I consider myself socially and fiscally moderate overall.

You're right that we need to better clarify our identity but as Rick points out we need a broad-based coalition. Furthermore, I think centrists have more in common than some Democrats and Republicans have with members of their own party.

Posted by: Adam at June 25, 2005 07:28 PM

"One" question for Rick and then I'll shuts it.

When I read "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" my first question is, "Does this mean completely socially liberal (like Amsterdam liberal) and completely fiscally conservative (like total Adam Smith laissez-faire conservative)?

From my experience here, the answer is no. It's more of a slight leaning on both issues. I think that ought to be clarified just because I actually think the average American is just the opposite. Meaning they lean socially conservative and lean fiscally liberal.

I think the centrist coalition ought to get people smack dab in the center as well as those who lean a little on both issues regardless of which way they lean. Basically, anyone who is reasonable and not an extremist.

Do people agree with this? In any case, Rick, you're the executive director and I don't presume to tell you what to do. It just depends on how broad a following you want.

Posted by: Adam at June 25, 2005 07:38 PM

Adam, I like your formulation here: "Centrists are middle-of-the-road Americans who don't feel entirely comfortable in either party and are sick of empty partisan wrangling. They stand for principled compromise, practical solutions, and honest discourse." Well said.

Also, as the CC is working to do, I think you're right in that our focus as centrists ought to center around the theme of "good government" - reforms in the campaign finance and electoral arenas. This gets (most) centrists together without trying to resolve inter-necine disagreements on other, more sticky, issues.

I've really enjoyed this thread, both here and at TPMCafe.

Posted by: JBD at June 25, 2005 11:22 PM

Has anyone considered borrowing language from the centrist manifesto over at Centrists.org?

It seems to endorse, albeit more verbosely, Scott's (not me) and Adam's line: "Centrists are middle-of-the-road Americans who don't feel entirely comfortable in either party and are sick of empty partisan wrangling. They stand for principled compromise, practical solutions, and honest discourse." In addition, it mentions subordinating dogma to experience and goes into some detail about policy specifics. The policy specifics may or may not be digestible into a format suitable for a summary of what centrism is.

Posted by: Scott Smith at June 26, 2005 12:41 AM

Thanks JBD. However, if you've seen the arguments I've had with Simon and Tully, maybe you won't be so optimistic about electoral reform!

Now, however, to contradict myself, I think we can and we must resolve our differences on more sticky issues. Not that we throw away our differences, but frankly if centrists can't be practical, and can't compromise in a principled manner, then who the hell can? It would be an embarrassment if we couldn't. I mean, this is what we stand for, right?

What I'm thinking of is a situation where 3/4's of centrists would agree on each "plank" and all centrists would agree with 3/4's of the entire platform. The fact that they could agree with 3/4's of the platform would likely mean that they agree far more with centrists than with either dems or repubs, thus "meriting" the title.

And before people bitch and moan about how they could never give up their independent thinking and how they don't want to be boxed in by a "platform" blah blah blah blah, I would ask if that's the case, what kind of friggin' coalition are we? If we all go our separate ways we might as well not exist.

It's late and I hope people realize that I was joking in part. If people want more justification then they can refer to my iron-clad masterpiece of rhetoric under June 8, 2005 Centrist Q&A :)

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 02:40 AM

One last thing. Scott Smith has a good point.

So again to those doubters, look, centrists already have come up with a platform. Also, Halstead and Lind's "The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics" and others such as Mark Satin
have come up with "platforms." So people, we just have to let loose our resident wonks to separate the wheat from the chaff and then have, I gotta do it, an "up-or-down vote", after extensive discussion of course, based on what our wonks say.

So hop to it, centrist legions, destiny awaits!

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 02:51 AM

Adam: You're welcome ... but I'm not nearly as pessimistic about electoral reform (particularly redistricting). To every post I write about redistricting I get "this will never happen" comments. That's true if people keep thinking like that! One of the most important elements of centrism in my mind is optimism - optimism that the American people are sick of how things are going and are receptive to proposals that will throw "more of the same" out the window. Pessimism has never gotten reform accomplished anywhere.

I don't necessarily disagree with your 2:40 comment re: sticky issues. I think there are certain elements of those issues that most centrists can probably agree on, I'm just not convinced that coming up with a long detailed platform that addresses every issue under the sun (or even half of them) ought to be our main focus. Seems to me we don't really need something like that to know where we stand.

Posted by: JBD at June 26, 2005 09:33 AM

You're probably right. I was perhaps overstating the case. But I feel that people should have a sense on where we stand on the major issues in order to form a viable political movement. We can't do much of anything as a group, if we don't come to an agreement on things.

Besides, we are always discussing issues, I just feel we could gain a little more from those discussions by providing a summary of them to newcomers. Meaning state the majority centrist position, state why we arrived at the conclusion, and also mention those who disagreed.

I just feel our political identity needs to be sharpened so that people get a better sense of whether they want to join us or not. Certainly we want it to be big tent, but given our preference for compromise, I feel we need to give the country an idea for what we would do, were we given the reins of power.

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 01:55 PM

Optimism all the way. In fact, I think coming to an agreement will both be easier and harder than some think. I like the idea of having some sort of vote after a long discussion because without a vote you don't know how the lurkers stand. You suffer from sampling bias, all the people with strong opinions post, and you don't know how the rest feel.

Also I think we would need some sort of quorum, we wouldn't want to make a decision based on five people.

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 02:00 PM

I've remarked before (and no doubt will again) that centrism is not so much an issues driven position as it is a process driven position. Centrists understand that in a diverse and democratic nation, the accomodation of diverse viewpoints and political concensus are necessary. Centrists prefer a comfortable "melting pot" looseness to the dogmatic straitjackets of the extremes.

Wingers accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of being either wishy-washy (centrists, moderates) or evil (opposite wing). If you are not a mindless absolutist, they believe you to be without any convictions at all. If you're just as rigid as they are but on the other side of the issue, you're one of Them, and Evil.

The middle thinks both wings are missing the forest of America to pay homage to their favorite species of trees.

How's that for metaphorical mangling?

Posted by: Tully at June 26, 2005 02:42 PM

I totally agree, Tully, and your statement about process should be central to the definition of centrism. Obviously, centrism is not a fixed set of beliefs on issues, but my reaction to our broad definitions would be: "Well that all sounds great, but how would that translate in practice, in today's world, with today's issues.

We need to walk a fine line between being so loosely defined that we're incapable of taking collective action (lobbying, supporting candidates, sending letters to the editor etc.) and being so focused that we lose our soul.

The idea of a centrist "platform" then needs to be taken with a healthy dose of salt and should include numerous disclaimers to maintain our big-tent status.

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 03:38 PM

I've remarked before (and no doubt will again) that centrism is not so much an issues driven position as it is a process driven position.

See Tully, don't you hate having to make the same point over and over to loon-toons like me and others? That's another reason to come up with a "plaform" of sorts, to distill the best from our discussions and put it in the issues or introduction section of this website for newcomers.

Don't let a good thought go to waste.

In some sense, a "platform" would be a polished digest of discussions we've had here.

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 03:59 PM

If we were to organize, we'd have to agree to a set policy in relation to current issues, as dictated by vote, I would imagine. We're not going to make every Centrist happy about everything. There's going to have to be compromise.

The thing of it is, though, we have to keep an open mind, and we have to repeatedly question our stance. Say... every six months or a year, or if new information comes to light, etc, etc..

Posted by: Ryan at June 26, 2005 04:01 PM

I have been one of those who has actively opposed us developing a robust platform. We're in our infancy an shouldn't be too quick to tie ourselves down.

Nevertheless, I do support developing a more complete set of principles. Some of those principles woul be of the "practical compromise" variety or of Tully's "process" variety, but others could touch on policy.

Also, the fiscially conservative, socially moderate descriptor always seems to elicit a certain amount of criticism. And yet, from what I can tell with this site and the comments, that defines at least 75% of us. If we are going to start voting on things, maybe that should be our first vote--see if we can get 75% agreement that the label is accurate.

I do feel we need some shorthand discriptor of where we stand. Fisically consercative and socially moderate is the best I've seen thus far.

Or we could just go with: Libertarians with Commonsense.

Posted by: Alan at June 26, 2005 06:45 PM

Thanks for your comments, Alan. I think we need to clarify our goals. I think everyone would agree that we need to increase our numbers. After that, I feel we ought to become an activist network like MoveOn (how else can we effect change?) and then maybe later on become a party, depending on the desires of the people here and the political realities.

In any case, we need to determine where we wish to head.

However, given the goal of increasing our numbers, I feel we need to eschew the descriptor of socially liberal (or moderate) and fiscally conservative even though that may be an accurate descriptor of our current membership. I myself tend in those directions.

I just think such an identification is bad for business if we truly want to become the group that speaks for the vast middle or the moderate majority. I think that most people here fit that socially liberal/fiscally conservative description because we are the most disaffected. Given the big government shift of the GOP, people who consider themselves socially conservative but fiscally liberal probably feel relatively at home in the GOP.

Furthermore, do you really think the average American fits the socially liberal/fiscally conservative label--meaning pro-gay marriage and pro big-business? I think the above label is also easily misconstrued to mean something like "Schwarzenegger Republican" as I stated above.

I think it is much better to define centrists in terms of process and in terms of the moderate majority and in terms of "principled compromise, practical solutions, and honest discourse."

Furthermore, I think we need near unanimity on our founding definition though not for specific policy statements (3/4's is probably good there). I feel that virtually everyone who considers themself a centrist ought to be able to agree with the definition of centrist we devise. In my experience, not everyone at centerfield falls into the social L/fiscal C category, and we risk running people out on our "founding" definition.

Finally, I've been scoping out some activist sites like MoveOn and People for the American Way and I've noticed that surprisingly they do not actually rattle off a list of what they support. However, the difference between us and them (and social conservative activists for that matter) is that anyone can easily rattle off what they stand for. Say progressive or social conservative and anyone can rattle off a bunch of positions. We need to be a little more defined than those sites because people don't know what we stand for.

If our major goal is to attract people, I feel people need to have some sense of how our fundamental principles/methodology actually is, or at least could be, translated into the real world. So perhaps a platform is too constraining at this point, but we should have a relatively concrete vision statement. I believe we can craft such a statement that is sufficiently concrete to attract members yet is not confining either--a statement that acknowledges and celebrates the diversity among centrists.

In general, we need to become a brand that has mass appeal if we want to succeed. Something that the average American can support and be excited about.

Posted by: Adam at June 26, 2005 07:49 PM

Adam, I do like your holy trinity as it were..

Principled Compromise, Practical Solutions, and Honest Discourse.

It might be semantics, but I'd either change "practical" to innovative, as you earlier suggested, or change "honest" to "polite" or something that also begins with "P"...

It's all in the advertising, after all.

Posted by: Ryan at June 26, 2005 08:02 PM

I like innovative over practical--sounds more interesting.

Adam,

You're right that there's some problems with the fiscal conservative/socially liberal thing. I think it's fine if we avoid using it in our marketing materials because it is probably a little too ill defined, but I think that it will basically define most of the people who join our group. As you said, socially conservative, fiscally liberal people ARE the Republican party these days and fiscially conservative/socially conservative types aren't Centrists. Nor are socially liberal, fiscally liberal types (that'd be the Dems--at least I think that's what their message is).

While we are about process, we have to be about ideas too as you know. An idealogue can hold an honest debate and but that doesn't make him/her a Centrist. And there are a lot of compromises that aren't practical. We have to find a way to give a feel of where we fall. We must be more than just against partisanship.

How about this, instead of the fiscal/social thing, how about something like "believing in balanced budgets, social inclusion and responsive government" or some such.

You seem to have a great grasp on what we need to be doing. The MoveOn thing is exactly what I've been pushing for and is the direction we're headed, I believe. I actually wrote what's currently on the front page of the CC site (with some revisions by John Avlon) and am working on some other communication things with Bill, Rick and Jeff. If you want to talk more about all this, drop me an email at alan_s_c at yahoo dot com.

Posted by: alan at June 26, 2005 11:59 PM

I still like wanker's wanker. That's as good a def'n as any. And TPM cafe would be unable to quarrel with it.

Posted by: bk at June 27, 2005 12:26 PM

ROTFLMAO Brian!

Thanks for spending the time Alan. To me the major draw of centrism is that we are fact-based and we have the best interests of the American people as a whole at heart. In sum, we are not the lapdogs of special interests.

So a clarification I would offer is that I believe that people who lean socially conservative and fiscally liberal are centrists. It's just that we don't see them as frequently because they are less disenfranchised. However, to tie in with my point in the first paragraph, I believe that we can offer a better product to those people than the GOP currently does.

My particular vision for centrists is that, in the long term, we marginalize both wingnuts (right and left), let them have the republican and democratic parties, and we emerge as the dominant party. People would vote for us because we're fair and try to accomodate everyone's concerns. Also, they would vote for us because we're results-oriented. We get things done. And we're not corrupt.

Also, I am hesitant to apply the social L/fisc C because I feel it runs the risk of displeasing half the population. This is how I conceptualize it. First and foremost, above all, centrists believe in reason and in doing what's best for the majority of americans. Then from the twin "pillars" of rationality and benevolence we trend or lean socL/fiscC due to the facts on the ground. What I mean is that we lean socL because we live in a diverse society and because it's a free country. And we lean fiscC because we need to be competitive in a global economy.

I recognize you do justify these leanings in a similar way on the principles page of the CC. However, what I think you fail to do is emphasize the lean. Because if people are fully socL/fiscC then I feel they are likely to offer half-solutions that could alienate a lot of the populace.

Let me be concrete. I think socC's are justifiedly concerned by a slip in the moral quality of our nation. I disagree that we should be anti-gay, pro-life, and fundamentalist.

However, I think we need to incorporate some of their concerns in our solutions.

For instance, I've advocated that centrists really aim to reduce the number of abortions via educational and social and perhaps even mild legal means (meaning supporting the partial-birth abortion ban). I also am in favor of having character education in public schools, education that would enhance civic virtue, honesty, hard work, and caring for others. So although we certainly would not support crazy textbook disclaimers, we would nonethless try to address what are legitimate concerns.

I also think fiscal liberals have legitimate concerns such as poverty and outsourcing. So I think we need to be creative in addressing their needs as well.

Basically, I am opposed to the socialL/fiscC conceptualization because it is limiting. I prefer to view centrists as fully balanced. A centrist president would govern as Solomon. A centrist president would be as Buddha, having transcended the duality of conservatism and liberalism, sits perfectly poised on the resplendent center leading the world to enlightened government.

Okay, I'm getting a little carried away. But I think a little missionary zeal is what centrists need in order to mobilize. They need to view themselves as driving the money-changers (Tom Delay comes to mind) from the house of government. (I hope no one takes that reference to be anti-semitic. It certainly is not meant to be.)And restoring order and harmony. They follow in the line of philosopher-kings and dhammarajas (Buddhist term for enlightened rulers).

So basically, I think we want to conceptualize ourselves as perfectly centered, leaning one way or the other as charting the ship of state demands but always returning to the center when the seas are calm. For instance, I think there are times in history when social conservativism and fiscal liberalism perhaps were the best thing to do. So if we avoid the socL/fiscC moniker, we retain the flexibility to change course if the winds of society shift.

As regards the slogans: I would use innovative for the young and the young at heart. However, for the broader public I prefer practical. Probably because I imagine someone in Middle America who doesn't want to support any "new-fangled 'liberal' ideas." I guess we'll just need to do a focus group.

Also, thinking of slogans, and to address Ryan's concerns, how about this. " . . . Centrists believe in principled compromise and practical solutions. They believe in honest discourse and clean government . . . . (I split it up because I thought we should add "clean government" and I thought four phrases was too long. In any case, there's two bumpster sticker ideas.)

I would shy away from "libertarians with common sense" because, well, as the slogan points out, most libertarians don't have any. Frankly, I think libertarian has bad connotations. It makes me think of people ranting about "government schools" as well people who love guns AND drugs. I don't mean to bash any libertarians, but that slogan would scare me. Furthermore, it suffers even more from lack of balance than socL/fiscC does.

Finally, I think we need a slogan that almost everyone can agree to. Make it hard for someone to disagree. I've read moveon and people for the american way's site, and I'm shocked by the lack of things to disagree with. I mean look at campaign slogans in general. What should differentiate ours, however, is that it carries meaning. I mean, "A Stronger America," what does that mean? A slogan should get someone interested, and it's a fact of salemanship that you want to get your foot-in-the-door.

Concerning,

"believing in balanced budgets, social inclusion and responsive government"

I think it's good, but I don't think it's good for a slogan. Fit it into a position statement perhaps. If you say balanced budgets, you could alienate those who think it's code for cutting government programs. If you say social inclusion, you could alientate those who think it's code for gay rights. And while responsive government is good, I think clean government is better. It's more definite and more ambitious.

Posted by: Adam at June 27, 2005 02:05 PM

Also, the fiscially conservative, socially moderate descriptor always seems to elicit a certain amount of criticism. And yet, from what I can tell with this site and the comments, that defines at least 75% of us. If we are going to start voting on things, maybe that should be our first vote--see if we can get 75% agreement that the label is accurate.

I would be careful about assuming "our" views are in sync with the majority of centrist voters. It may be that centrists are less vocal about their views then the either party. If so it will hard to figure out if we're "in sync" with our "constituency" (I know its presumptive to think we have a "constituency" but what the hell) Posted by: c3 at June 27, 2005 05:32 PM

There is a sense, in the Centrist Coalition Forum, that the blogs stray to the right, and the forum to the left... denoting clear idealogical differences.

Personally, I don't adhere to this. I believe the forum, for the most part, deals with policy, with generalities, where as the blog is more specific driven. There are new posts here daily about events occuring in real time with real effects.

At the same time, all discussion of what it means to be a centrist, etc.. our beliefs, policies, initiatives, whatever, will be archived within a matter of days on the blog, pretty much closing the discussion until someone starts a new thread...

Maybe, if we're serious, it's time to move some of this discussion?

Posted by: Ryan at June 27, 2005 05:43 PM