Centerfield

Have a happy and safe Fourth weekend, everyone.

229 years, and still kickin'.

Summer in Phoenix: 6/30 Temp 113 Humidity 4%. Yes, in fact it IS a dry heat. We're all Planters Peanuts here; dry-roasted for extra flavor.

Oh yeah and lets not forget the 113,000 acre fire that has spread many miles north of Phoenix and still burning.

Do we know how to do summer or what!

All you need now is weenies and marshmallows.

I know a lot of liberals are gutted at O'Connor's departure, but it looks like SOMEONE took O'Connor's retirement pretty hard.

The small-budget, MLB-owned Washington Nationals are on a roll in the extremely tough NL East. Meanwhile, the $200+ million payroll of the New York Yankees has resulted in a 39-38 record for the Bombers.

Life is good for the baseball purist.

I'll post updated '08 nomination odds momentarily.

George Allen 19.5
John McCain 17.5
Bill Frist 12.8
Rudy Giuliani 10.5
Mitt Romney 8.9
Jeb Bush 6.7
Condi Rice 5.3
Chuck Hagel 3.0
George Pataki 2.3
Newt Gingrich 2.3
Colin Powell 2.2
Dick Cheney 2.0

Others of note

Sam Brownback 1.2
Rick Santorum 1.1
Lindsay Graham 0.2

Hilary Clinton 48.7
Mark Warner 10.5
Joe Biden 10.5
John Edwards 6.7
Al Gore 5.6
Evan Bayh 4.7
Bill Richardson 3.4
John Kerry 3.3
Jon Corzine 2.3

Others of note

Phil Bredesen 1.7
Wesley Clark 1.6
Tom Vilsack 1.5
Barack Obama 1.4
Howard Dean 1.0
Colin Powell 0.2

Dems 51.3
Repubs 48.2

The CAFTA vote. Results here.

Senators who crossed party lines (Dems voting for, Rep voting against):

DEMS

Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT) (More or less a Dem)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Wyden (D-OR)

REPS

Burns (R-MT)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

By state these states voted unanimously for:

AK, AZ, FL, GA, KS, KY, MS, MO, NE, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA.

These unanimously against:

HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, ND, SD, WV, WI, WY.

The rest split (Lieberman did not vote).

I suspect that Bingaman and Nelson of Florida voted for because they don’t want to have to defend an anti-CAFTA vote to the Hispanic media in the 2006 campaign. I’m sure any GOP challenger would try to frame this as an anti-Hispanic vote. This might also explain Feinstein’s vote.

Some of the others puzzle me. Why were WA & OR for? Why were WY, ID, the Dakotas & ME against?

And God bless those twelve GOP'ers who crossed the line, even if the attempt to stop it ultimately failed. Let's hope we have better luck in the House.

I just saw the attack ad that Moveon.com is running. They slam Bush for the whole Schiavo incident claiming that he allowed the courts to take away our rights. That argument might have worked prior to the Kelo decision but not now.

Mark my words, this will come back to bite us (the Dems) on the ass. Democrats should be weary of bringing up Schiavo in 2006 (and in the nomination battles) because we are just going to have Kelo thrown back in our faces every time we do. Kelo resonates with people much more than Schiavo at this point. Schiavo is dead but Kelo still threatens our property rights. Of course our Dear Leader, Dr. Dean, plans to go there early and often. Oy, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse...

Do you own some sugar stocks, Simon? Are you afraid that Haitian zombies are going to steal our jobs (voodoo economics)? I can’t think of any other reason to oppose CAFTA.

I think Ex rel Schaivo may resonate less and less with democrats with every day, but be careful not to assume that it resonates less and less, by the day, in GOP circles.

Kelo is a bizarre situation for democrats, because it was foisted on the nation by the court's LIBERAL bloc. It will surely be propaganda used by the GOP against the democrats; the idea that the other party could sieze it as their own issue - particularly since at least one of your leadership hasn't figured out what the decision actually was - seems very odd to me.

By the way, if anyone has any spectacularly clever suggestions for a moderate GOP blog's title, feel free to suggest it. I'm not feeling very inspired. ;) I've nearly finished writing the software and importing stuff I wrote over the last few years, and I'm hoping to further detract from the internet's signal-to-noise ratio as of sometime next week.

I’m a bit confused by your response, Simon. I’m a Democrat and I believe that Dean is making a huge mistake if he thinks that the general public is going to be pissed at the GOP over Schiavo. For the most part they have forgotten it. Your link seems to be about a GOP senator.

As to Kelo, my point is that we Dems have to tread lightly because this is an explosive issue that goes against us inasmuch as it was the liberals who did this, not the conservatives. I assume here that most Americans who feel strongly about Kelo hate it.

Every time Dean goes to Schiavo as a sign that Republicans want to take away our rights (a fair argument in its day but that day has long passed), he will be countered with the GOP argument that Democrats want to take away our property rights as proven by Kelo. Whatever you think of that argument, it will be effective because as I wrote above, Schiavo is over for most people while Kelo lives on.

My point about Schaivo was that the right have not forgotten Schaivo, even if the left are in the process of doing so. Dr. Dean may be barking up the wrong tree trying to use it as an issue to get dems to the polls, but it's still a live issue for the right wing of the GOP, and if Dr. Dean keeps talking about it, he allow the leaders of the right of the GOP to whip up the foot solders - "look at howlin' howard, he doesn't think killing one woman was enough! send us cash and votes, and we'll stop him!"

So it's at best an ineffective strategy, and at "worst" (from the dem perspective), it's a counterproductive strategy.

The links related to Kelo, rather than Schaivo, which I thought was clear.

By the way, if anyone has any spectacularly clever suggestions for a moderate GOP blog's title, feel free to suggest it. I'm not feeling very inspired. ;)

I don't know, Simon...How about "Pink Elephants"? Or would that be too cute? ;-)

As for Kelo, I don't think the Dems are going to have problems with W and the GOP, considering W's past.

It sounds like we are making the same point about Dean from different perspectives.

I kind of misread the link that you posted—or I should say I mis-scanned it. I should have taken a minute to fully read it.

I think that might make it sound like I'm blogging from a certain log cabin, Jean. ;)

I hate to break it to you, BJ, but W is not going to be on the ballot in 2008. You people put so much effort into demonizing Bush that anyone else is going to seem moderate by comparison. So now we go into 2008 with one hand tied our backs. Thanks. (Yes, I blame the leftists for our party’s decline.)

LOL, Simon! Touche! Thought it would be too cute, but ya never know, with the rumors about Lincoln and all....;-)

Yes, Alf, W's not going to be on the ballot in '06, but he's still going to be in WH, unless you know something I don't. As such, he's still going to be influencing the political landscape. After all, Clinton wasn't on the ballot in 1998, but Gingrich still thought he could gain lots of GOP seats out of Clinton's troubles. (Of course, Newt was wrong, but that's another story.)

My point was, anyone who wants to pin the Kelo tail on the Democratic donkey is going to have to answer why the head of the GOP gained so much from the "takings" clause we all deplore. (Not to mention that three out of five of the "liberal block" were appointed by GOP presidents, and one was the swing vote on the--shudder---Bush vs. Gore decision.)

As for Schiavo, you're right in so far that it will be old news next year. The Right will still be declaiming "That poor woman was killed by the state!" and the Left will still be declaiming "That poor woman wasn't allowed to die as she wished, because of the state!" (Me, I'll still be laughing about Frist's long distance diagnosis, especially since he denied being wrong about it. ;-)

But most of the middle will still be scratching their heads and saying "How come Congress can pass a special law to help the parents of one woman, when most people can't afford health insurance?" That's the audience that Dr. Dean will have to play to.

Have any of you been over to the American Centrist Party's Website ? The author has put a lot of work into it and seems to have provided a very nice template. I know some here feel it is premature or are opposed to a centrist party more generally; however, those interested should check it out. In my mind, the centrist coalition could be the centrist MoveOn, and this guy's site could be our party. He even has
provided a forum which is not in much use yet. But we could visit it. In any case, a proliferation of centrist sites, if sensibly coordinated is a great thing.

Although I may or may not agree with all the positions taken, my feeling is that it is flexible. He seems amenable to us centrists helping him create a platform.

Adam, the ACP web site is bogus. It's a "lead-in" Trojan Horse for this guy and this party. They're not in the least centrist. They're a "God and State's Rights" populist faction.

The APP supports a crackdown on illegal immigration, making English fluency a requirement of US citizenship, abolishing the IRS and repealing the federal income tax, imposing steeper taxes and tariffs on imported goods, abolition of the centralized Federal Reserve System, withdrawing the US from the United Nations, imposing a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and ending federal involvement in education.

Tully, why I am so dumb? And how do you know so much? Some of the positions I read seemed a bit sketchy, but I felt that, well, people often have sketchy opinions before engaging in constructive dialogue.

Oh God, I am so embarrassed. I emailed this guy, supposedly, Matthew Unger, and told him about our conference call and said centrists should work together. I told him he might want to contact Rick if he hadn't already. Well, I will email him immediately and tell him that he has been exposed. He was posting here today on the forum, not the blog, and people seemed to respond well to him.

I hope that my bumbling doesn't cause any problems. If it does, I am so so sorry.

Should I contact rick and the volunteers@centrist ... email to warn them that I sent this dude their way. I did just email him to let him know that he had been exposed, though.

Man, I know about viruses and hackers and spyware and phishing, but thanks Tully for informing me about "blog agents" as well as "trojan horse sites." Am I the only one here this naive?

Adam,
I hop you were being sarcastic when you wrote "The author has put a lot of work into it and seems to have provided a very nice template." That site doesn't strike me as being well-designed or well-structured at all.

No, the design wasn't particularly nice, but it seemed as if there were an honest attempt to include all the important things and to organize it reasonably. There was even a request for help to improve the site's appearance and to complete it. If it were the work of just one sincere dude trying something out, I'm not gonna slam it. It was a skeleton upon which I thought we could build.

LOL. What do I know, Adam? Heck, he might have some decent ideas. There could be some sober sincerity running around the group. But lock up the silver, just in case.

Their agenda summary is here. "Constitutional" emphasis, flat tax (collected by the states), state's rights, bring the troops home, slam the borders shut. A little to the right of Pat Buchanan. In backwoods Alabama they might be thought of as centrists....

Their Kansas rep, Joe Bellis, ran as the America's Party candidate for President in 2000. America's Party merged with the American Patriot Party. He later dropped out and endorsed Buchanan. In 2004 he ran on the Libertarian ticket for Congress here in Kansas. Not because he's a libertarian, but because they didn't have a candidate and offered the slot to Bellis to keep it open for future use. Bellis' own bio says:

Now that the 2004 election is behind me, I am focusing on building the Kansas Patriot Party and working with the American Patriot Party on the national level.

Yet in a few weeks he reappears as a "centrist." Uh huh. One of their other reps is an old American Liberty Party organizer, and is also currently "National Chairman" of the "United Veterans Rights Party". Their California rep is also a UVRP man. These guys have a lot of parties, and they don't just go to one at a time.

Centrist? Given the company they hang out in, they might think they are. Michael Moore probably thinks he's a centrist also. I suspect their goal is the "fusion" thing, whereby they create a bunch of little fringe parties, sign up whomever they can, and then all the little parties endorse the same candidate--as Bellis endorsed Buchanan. Not a bad idea, that (the technique, not Buchanan).

OK so it seems that one person here has passed judgement on my site and organization and "the troops" are falling-in, double-time. I do have to admit that the lock-step unity here is impressive, though.

I have no idea what you all mean by "trojan horse" lead-in. My site doesn't have any hidden code or illicit purposes. I use MS Frontpage 2002 to design and maintain the site. My webhost is APlus.Net. If someone can provide some type of example of what they are talking about, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I will have to ask you to cease and desist in libelling my site and its purposes.

I believe that Centrists, Moderates, and other 3rd parties need to work together to give this country another alternative to the "Big Two" political parties that currently have a stranglehold on the political process. I have some ideas on how to do that, but I guess my ideas aren't welcome here. It's too bad really, because we all need to work together, not factionalize eachother.

Well, I wish you all a great 4th of July and good luck in your organization.

Very Sincerely,
Matt Unger

The Trojan Horse term doesn't refer to illicit or illegal activity, rather it was meant to refer to a deceptive front. Meaning the real purpose was not to create a centrist party but rather to serve as a plug for American Patriot Party et al. ideas. That was the meaning, I believe.

But maybe you were trying the fusion angle. However, there was no mention of affiliations to other parties on that site and in that sense it was deceptive. If the fusion thing was your idea, it would have been nice to be totally upfront about it. I know you mentioned it on the forum but did not disclose other affiliations on it.

I have no problems with alternative ideas and I don't think centerfield would have any problem discussing them even if they weren't "centrist." It's the deception that is the problem.

It's just that Tully has proved himself to be an expert fact-checker, and I trust him. I do believe we need to band together and I thought your reference to "an alternative to dumbos and jackasses" was great. I just don't like it when people aren't upfront.

Furthermore, I think you're confusing moderate/centrist with alternative. Both centrists and third-party people are usually an alternative to the two-party idea. Where we differ is that some third-party people aim for the fringe disaffected, whereas centrists aim
for mainstream Americans who are disaffected.

Again I have no problem with discussing of views, but I think before calling oneself centrist you need to float your ideas before people who identify as centrists and see if they gain any traction. If none gain traction, well maybe you're not a centrist. None of the centrist sites I've seen endorse the views you espouse. I'm not saying that your views are wrong just that it's a bit presumptive to call them centrist.

Hey look, I believe in being friendly to all people, I just hate being misled. I guess I'm a bit too dichotomous. Either you're an honest joe or you're an evil conspirator. My bad. I apologize but still the failure to disclose was the big problem.

I hope you too have a good 4th of July weekend.

Best,
Adam

Adam:

I have no official affiliation with the APP at all. Yeah, I check their website and post on their forum, but simply in an effort to maintain a connection with different parts of American political thought. The Joe Bellis angle that was brought up was from late 2004. I supported his run for office because I support throwing out RNC/DNC incumbents. As he has officially divorced himself from the APP after the "hijack" of the organization, he has no further connection with the APP either (that I am aware of).

You believe I am not a centrist. Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Just because your definition doesn't fit my definition does not mean that you are right and I'm wrong, or vice-versa. I think it is dangerous to exclude people from the movement because they don't fit into your definition. This is why 3rd parties don't get anywhere-- because they EXCLUDE people who might prove useful to the cause. I have experienced lots of success thus far bringing people into the ACP, many with experience in other 3rd parties, and some with media connections, which are very useful for spreading the word. Based on the responses and membership I have gotten thus far, I think the ACP supports ideas that the "average Joe/Jane" supports. Of course you can argue that perhaps those ideas may not fit your definition of "centrist" but definitions don't win elections.

So once more, there is NO/ZERO/ZILCH/GOOSE-EGG official affiliation between the ACP and APP. Ergo, there is no deception intended.

Matt Unger

Well it is true that you support gay rights, women's rights, and cancelling the indecency fine by the FCC. Which are liberal ideas. But then you support isolationism and state's rights. So I guess you could call it centrist in that it takes ideas from the left and right. But most people would consider the isolationism and protectionism and support for a very strong form of state's rights to be extreme. To me it seems more like libertarianism with a bit Pat Buchanan spice thrown in than centrism.

I went through your site more carefully and I do see that you do state on your guestbook that your views are very similar to the APP's. However, I am not sure how Tully arrived at his initial conclusions.

At this point, I am not sure whose analysis is accurate. So I am not sure of the level of deception, if any, that has occurred.

So if I was mistaken, I apologize. If not, please remember that when spin begins, no conversation can begin, no one will win, we will all be chagrined. Therefore, if any spin has occurred, if you repent now, forgiveness can be given. Otherwise, we ought to just declare an armistice.

Thoughts, anybody?

Troops? In line? Mr. Unger, my opinion is my own, and others will give it what weight they believe it deserves. I read through your site, noted that two of your four ACP state representatives are very familiar names that I don't associate with centrism at all from their past political activities, noted the similarity of some of the ACP platform/policy statements with their recent and current known affiliations, and drew a conclusion. You say I'm dead wrong. If so, my sincere apologies. The company you keep has led me astray.

Aside from Mr. Bellis (a self-avowed conservative) there's also George Nelson, Jr., your Michigan rep, who seems to be involved with more parties than a campus beer delivery service on a Saturday night. The American Liberty Party, the New Whig Party, the American Centrist Party...and current National Chairman and 2008 Presidential candidate of the United Veterans Rights Party. Or is that the New American Veterans Party? It seems to have undergone a name change in the last couple of months. His VP candidate is David Wade, your California ACP rep. You understand my problem here?

Please, by all means, do not let my cynicism and criticality drive you off. We welcome ideas and discussion, from all quarters. These folks even listen to my ideas. If I have leapt to an unwarranted conclusion in the face of the evidence, then my sincerest apologies for any misrepresentations of the ACP and your personal intentions. But I called it as I saw it based on the evidence available on your own web site, and from what I knew of your state reps.

Now, have I misrepresented the ACP policy positions in any way? "Constitutional" emphasis, flat tax (collected by the states), state's rights, bring the troops home, slam the borders shut. That was my capsule description.

Finally, I don't think polling would support your contention that the average joe/jane would support your policies. Certainly, there are some people who do. I bet there are people who believe as you do. Frankly, while the average American may be frustrated with some of the things you mention, I doubt that the average American would truly support that we close almost all our military bases worldwide, pull immediately out of Iraq, and shut down the IRS.

I'm sure a certain segment of the American population thinks this way, but I seriously doubt you could get sustained broad consensus for such an approach. Maybe you could get a temporary populist backlash, but I have trouble seeing it as sustainable. Furthermore, such policies seem like they could be disastrous.

About your email comment that I might be a little paranoid, well let me confess that I'm not the most savvy when it comes to internet communication. So I tend to begin in super-gullible state and then rapidly switch to paranoia. But this would only be the second time that it has occurred. In any case, I will learn to adopt a more measured approach.

Best,
Adam

who seems to be involved with more parties than a campus beer delivery service on a Saturday night

LOL, you're such a crazy guy Tully

I actually rather like the sound of "Pat Buchanan but libertarian on social policy"; I'd actually likely vote for that guy in a primary. But, as mentioned before, I don't supoprt the idea of challenging the two party system. Whatever progress needs to be made, it should work within that system, which has served us very well for an extended period of time. The two party system, in my view, has ensured that America has never fallen into the Europen trap of extremisms, by ensuring politics remains tethered to the mainstream.

Although some - I think Adam is one - have put forth some fairly good arguments why a multi-party system would be a good thing, but I'm not convinced that the potential gains add up to a sufficient benefit to change what we know works.

I resent that label, Adam. I am not "crazy"! I am differently world-viewed. Ask anyone!

As I said, I reached a conclusion based on available evidence. Matt says I am wrong, that I have misinterpreted that evidence and therefore reached a mistaken conclusion about himself and the ACP. I take his word for that, and apologize for any error of conclusion on my part. I was led astray by the Bellis connection, the Bellis endorsement, the similarity in platform/agenda--and the September 10th, 2004 ACP announcement that:

"The American Centrist Party will be partnering with the American Patriot Party. Over the coming days and weeks, this website will reflect additions to support the American Patriot Party's goal of returning the American government to its Constitutional roots."

IOW, I saw the wedding announcement and the dowry offerings, but somehow missed the divorce filing. Obviously something happened to sour the relationship in the last several months, as Matt says there is currently "NO/ZERO/ZILCH/GOOSE-EGG official affiliation between the ACP and APP."

I still don't find the ACP agenda particularly centrist (I think "libertarian Buchananist populism" isn't a bad description) but that's my own mileage. I like parts of it, dislike others. And I certainly don't want to stop Matt from making arguments for his positions--I'd much rather hear them. I believe I already said that the fusion approach isn't a bad idea.

Simon wrote:
"Although some - I think Adam is one - have put forth some fairly good arguments why a multi-party system would be a good thing, but I'm not convinced that the potential gains add up to a sufficient benefit to change what we know works."

Simon:

To begin, I think it appropriate to note the following quotation:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
—John Adams

With that said, we should ask ourselves if the present system actually DOES work. It seems we have what we have because people sink into complacency and say exactly what you have said. So I ask you: Is this the BEST that America can do and is this the best WE THE PEOPLE can expect from our federal government..? If the answer to either or both questions is "Yes" then perhaps it is time for us all to hang it up, because there will never be anything better.

Based on everything has been done by our governments from the local level on up, and the controversy those things have generated, it seems that we can and SHOULD expect better, and America certainly have expressed that desire.
---------
Tully:

My personal view of Centrism is not so much dogma-based but results-oriented. By that I mean I see Centrism as the course of action where problems are identified and FEASIBLE solutions are generated and executed. In short, getting the job done at the least possible cost (in money, time, and resources) which benefits the largest amount of people. Maybe that definition isn't what you and/or others here would consider Centrism. But the cold hard facts are that there are a lot of 3rd parties out there, and as separate entities, no one will get anywhere. But to be more open and accepting of other ideas in order to bind the (alleged) 58% of Americans who are "on the fence" politically, is a requirement for anyone who wants to get something other than the status quo done.

Sure we can all sit in front of our computers and discuss the definition of "Centrism" vs. "moderate" vs. everything else and think of new labels to apply to everyone else who doesn't think the same way. But that approach will NEVER achieve any results. It'a going to take a lot of compromise and a lot of open-mindedness in order to truly bring that 58% together.

Yes, some of my views may seem to be outside what you and/or others here define as "Centrist" and that's fine. But as I have repeatedly said and posted, I am totally open to others who want to get involved and HELP to shape a more broad-based platform. Thus far, I have gotten a lot of good response. But upon coming here, I have gotten a lot of people telling me what they don't like, or what they believe won't work. I haven't heard about anything approaching a positive suggestion yet.

Does the CC have an official platform where issues and official CC opinions on said issues are listed? If so, I'd be interested in seeing what stands the CC has taken on the issues.

Matt Unger

I've been trying to move them in the direction of coming up with a platform. From what I hear, they are focusing on redistricting reform first to get their feet weet and then moving to other issues.
If you feel like (and won't do or say anything crazy:)) you could check out the conference call this Sunday.

However, a while back Rick, the executive director, came up with a tentative issues matrix for centrists, as well as right and left positions
here.

If you read the link that I sent you earlier about define centrist, you will also see discussion of what we take a centrist to be. In that thread, one observer felt that we here tended to be "socially moderate, fiscally conservative, and prudently hawkish." However, in that thread I argued that we needed to be broader than that to build our base.

In general, although on one issue or another we may lean right or left, we tend not endorse extreme positions. We are very results oriented as are you; however, usually our results, even if innovative or even radically different, tend not to come from the extremes because we tend to think that extreme solutions usually are impractical.

If you notice, several of the positions you support come from the extreme right or sometimes extreme left column of the issues matrix: UN, foreign policy, and Iraq for example.

Glad you're back. Sorry for the overreaction.

Adam:

Sometimes extreme problems require extreme solutions. As the ad goes, "The Right Tool for the Right Job." Or if you're a student of military history, two of Carl Von Clausewitz's Principles of War are "Economy of Force" which says "Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts", and "Mass" which says "Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time."

Large problems which affect lots of people and cannot be solved by the application of "band-aid" fixes sometimes require radical or "extreme" solutions. It's all a question of what is required to get the job done.

If you confine yourself to ONLY considering "moderate" or "Centrist" dogma-inspired solutions, you may be throwing out the proper solution. Doing that may be shortchanging those whom you're trying to help.

Just remember: My Karma Just Ran Over Your Dogma! ;)

Matt Unger

Also check out centrist policy network and The Radical Center: the Future of American Politics and The Radical Middle. These will give you a flavor of the sort of centrism the centrist coalition tends toward. You can be "radical" and innovative and still not be extreme.

There are probably serious drawbacks to some of the solutions you propose that you may not realize. Some things that have seemed clear to my mind, people have raised a number of prescient objections at this site. Unless you have a PhD in political science AND have consulted widely there are probably numerous things you have failed to consider. If you spend time at this site, people will be able to lay out in detail these "hidden" flaws.

Other differences are more philosophical in nature. For instance, I feel the US is morally obliged to play a role in the world proportionate to its military and economic might. Now it must use this power wisely, and whether it has can be debated, but I feel it would be a grave shirking of duty to just turn inward and forget about the rest of the world. I lean towards a hawkish internationalism.

Furthermore, in most instances both the right and the left have serious points and a centrist solution would find the maximum way to accomodate both of them. Choosing a solution from the far left or right typically indicates that you feel those on the opposing side are completely wrong. I feel that is rare for anyone to be 100% wrong.
In the case of, say, immigration, it is true that our borders are too porous, but it is probably also true that we need Mexican workers. Issues are not simple.

The trick in centrism in my mind is finding an innovative way that satisfies the seemingly contradictory aims of right and left. There are two sides to every story, and a drastic measure, such as abolishing the IRS, would most likely lead to other problems if not even more than we have now. There is a reason we amended the constitution to allow Federal income tax. So choosing an extreme solution typically means that you're blind to the other side.

So check out those links, absorb some of the ideas, and I'll think you'll get a whole new way of looking at centrism, one that is fresh and exciting. I don't think you'll see too many band-aid solutions.

BTW, I have little expertise in public policy so I won't be able to answer any detailed questions you pose to me. However, I'm sure Tully and others can.

Agreement on politics entirely aside, Matt Unger appears to be a very fair and mild-mannered fellow. Thanks for the contribution, Matt.

My personal view of Centrism is not so much dogma-based but results-oriented. By that I mean I see Centrism as the course of action where problems are identified and FEASIBLE solutions are generated and executed. In short, getting the job done at the least possible cost (in money, time, and resources) which benefits the largest amount of people.

Huzzah! I've argued often that centrism is a "process" approach that eschews dogma and ideology for functional problem-solving. Though I generally add some balancing caveats. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is a clearly insufficent boundary in a free society. "Results-oriented" without process checks and protections is a straight espousement of unfettered utilitarianism. The "greatest good for the greatest number" might be possible only through "solutions" that are actively violative of Constitutional rights, the antithesis of the political liberalism of the Constitution. And what constitutes the "greatest good" can be very subjective indeed.

A lack of dogma does not mean a lack of principles or ethics. Centrism (as I perceive it, YMMV) still requires a baseline ethical standard, or it's just utilitarianism. (EX: By conflating the concept of "public good" with the much narrower concept of "public use," the recent Kelo v. New London decision placed "public good" over individual rights--a utilitarian solution.)

Now, I understand the "Big Tent" concept in a fusion strategy, but where do you draw the lines? At what point do you throw out any principles or ethics for the sake of acquiring sheer numbers? In short, where do you place that balancing point between freedom and utility? Because "results-oriented" is just one side of the equation. History is replete with examples of "results-oriented" dictatorships that justified themselves with the claim that they were producing the "greatest good for the greatest number."

The key to "Big Tent" is that your coalition members must all be accepting of pluralism. As Andrew Sullivan put it in a recent column on what he calls "conservatives of doubt":

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."

That strikes me as key to an effective centrist philosophy. And it also strikes me that the problem with trying to "Big Tent" the independent factions is precisely that so many of them are one-issue factions, to whom their issue supersedes the principles of democratic pluralism and individual rights. They don't want the greatest good, they want their "good."