Centerfield

Fabulous. I'm glad science has backed up the obvious. I should go post this in DKos and RedState.

It seems a bit more intellectually honest than previous "scientific" studies purporting to show that "conservatives" were stupid or unthinking... Glad to see that the academic industry bias we discussed earlier hasn't infected everybody yet.

Next step: Link partisan brain activity to a brain parasite.

Gee I had an MRI and all I had to show for it was a venous angioma.....on the right side of my brain.

I, for one, welcome our new ameboid overlords...

Just kidding. Seriously, I think this experiment should be repeated with rabid whackos of all kinds. It explains so much, and supports my theory of poli-theology as a substitute and co-dependency of religion.

Hey, marcus, if you must have a brain abnormality, that's about the best one to have! No symptoms, no effects.

Can your theory be meshed with mine, Tully?

Not if the link doesn't work, it can't....

Oops! here.

Sounds like a case study of James Carville and Bill O'Reilly

Absolutely, Pat. Been preaching that gospel for years now!

Hah! As if centrists aren't partisan about the value of centrism.

Sure, but that's sort of like hating hate. If you hate hate, does that make you a hater in the same sense as the other haters, or is it qualitatively different?

So you can argue that centrism includes some quality that might allow it to be classified as a form of partisanship, but I'd argue that it's qualitatively different from other forms of political partisanship in that it stands in direct opposition to the adverse effects of political partisanship. Are you willing to argue that better political solutions are arrived at more often when political practitioners dismiss unwelcome information?

Actually, I see centrism as more of a method then an ideology. It is an acknowledgement that there is more then one right answer and a commitment to pragmatic compromise. Most of us hear are either a little bit right or a little bit left …

“I’m a little bit country; I’m a little bit rock and roll”.
“Sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don’t”.
“I need to take more of it, or less of it, I can’t figure out which”.

The difference is that we are not out to win nor is establishing our pet solutions the overriding concern. Our commitment is to policy that works and with which both sides can live with.

What do we want?

Reasoned discussion of the seminal issues of the day!

When do we want it?

As soon as feasible!!!!!

Rick, that's close to my definition of centrism, too, but I'm not sure it's shared by all... the ones who want to create a new "centrist" party, for example.

Actually, I see centrism as more of a method then an ideology.

Huzzah! Rick and I agree!

Ideologues worship the ideology. That means absolutism, political fundamentalism.

Centrists believe in the process of democratic pluralism. That means an acceptance that the will of the majority, bounded by the rights of the minority, should be more important than the straitjackets of ideologies.

You don't need an ideology to be a centrist. And having one doesn't mean you're not a centrist. The difference is believing that maintaining the processes and protections of democracy is more important for the welfare of the nation than managing to stuff the entire body politic into an ideologically consistent straitjacket.

By the way, Rick, when are we going to see the t-shirts of your slogans for sale?

Pat,

To nitpick about your concern about a "centrist" party, in some sense the centrist embrace of the above methodology is likely to lead to an ideology, at least in the sense that the same methodology employed by varying people is likely to lead to similar results. For instance, the scientific method if followed properly by anyone will lead to similar results.

So I think a centrist party would have the ideology, or policy views, that would result from that process. That doesn't mean that all centrists would come to similar conclusions, but I would think that most would especially after prolonged and sincere dialogue. Furthermore, in the case of dispute, most would hold the empirical results of a policy to be the best determinant of its correctness.

(As an aside, I do think that while process is the most important determinant of centrism, the embrace of consistently right or left views would weaken that person's claim to centrism. It would probably would make them a moderate and a decent human being, but still a liberal or conservative, imo.)

Thus, I think it would be great to have a have a centrist party although I am not sure one is possible given the US's electoral structure, though I would support fiddling with that structure to allow a centrist party to emerge.

In "conclusion," hey man, you don't like Kadima or Labour? For shame! :)

I just don't think so, Adam. For some issues, yes, following the process described will lead most people to the same result. With others, the policy choices depend far more on each individual's personal religious, moral, and philosophical values... fundamental values about which large segments of the population have opposing views.

With other issues, say health care reform, the problems are so complex that empirical evidence cannot answer all the policy questions. Many of those types of issues then also come down to, for example, whether you put more faith in the free market or more faith in governmental controls.

A non-party centrist movement and philosophy can help everybody on both sides focus more on the real issues and facts under debate. A centrist party would just be another place for ideologies to develop.

Not to mention that many people lean very "conservative" on some issues, "liberal" on others, and "moderate" on still more. Adopting a bunch of formal "centrist" positions could easily alienate those people who are, say, really hawkish on the war, but are absolutely "pro-choice" on abortion. Telling these individuals that they can't be officially centrist unless they sign on to the party line would alienate otherwise potentially strong allies.

By the way, Rick, when are we going to see the t-shirts of your slogans for sale?

Just as soon as I can steal the copyright from whoever made them up. [grin]

I love the idea of centrist T-shirts, maybe not just ones with slogans, but with clever cartoons that include caricatures and equal-opportunity lampooning of various flavors of wingnuts. I sometimes fantasize about ideas for centrist editorial cartoons, but I can't draw a lick and so I'd need a talented collaborator.

Also, I think there's very solid merit to the idea of resisting the temptation to become a party and field our own candidates. The urge to form a party is strong, but my gut tells me there's much advantage to resisting this temptation. I think it would be especially compelling, supposing centrism gets a 15-minute burst in the media spotlight, if we could have a few "that's why we're different" points to insulate us from "aren't you guys just another flavor of the same political beast that democrats and republicans are?"

If we were accused of this, we could say "That's why we're different. We're not a party, we're a coalition. We don't have any candidates seeking power. All we have is ideas, about how to work together and how to approach important issues."

Maybe this could even extend to "and that's why, as a coalition, we don't endorse candidates. We encourage our individual members to advocate for both ideas and for candidates they believe in, but the coalition itself does not normally endorse candidates. We're driven by ideas, and process and results, but we don't seek to accumulate political seats of power or embrace personalities."

IMO, as soon as we become a conventional party, we become a fundamentally different beast. YMMV.

Now adopting the position I'm advocating here absolutely has some real drawbacks, and leads to some serious criticisms. I acknowledge my position as a particular choice between different approaches, each of which has advantages.

The main strength of the approach I'm advocating is that it encourages each of the coalition members to decide how centrism manifests itself in a member's life and location, and then participate as fully and freely as they can. The coalition doesn't act political per se, but its members act as they see fit.

Everyone has an ideology to one degree or another because an ideology is simply how you frame and interpret the world. As a moderate or centrist, my ideology is that the world is complex, there are no black and white answers, and extreme solutions are problematic. Obviously, a strong liberal or conservative would have different ideologies.

As a corrollary, it seems to me that ideology is often (not always) an extension of temperament. People that are strong partisans--and I don't mean just that they prefer one party to another but their their world outlook is shaped by their partisanship, eg. someone like Kos--I suspect are drawn to highly passionate positions by temperament. If it wasn't politics, they might be like that with respect to sports teams--some sports fans are beyond reason with respect to their teams.

I don't think process leads people to a particular policy position because politics is ultimately a matter of values. Two people can use the identical method, see the same facts and interpret them differently. That's why I can't see how a truly centrist party could have any real substantive content. Parties exist as vehicles to facilitate the expression of political and policy values. I don't think simply following a methodology is going to provide the values necessary for people to cohere around. Everyone on this blog thinks of him or herself as a centrist, yet the policy positions often differ substantially. It's fine to say that we are all committed to reason and finding solutions to problems, but what does that mean when we may have diametrically opposed positions, even if we accept that others have something to contribute? My view on the war is much different than others here and, while we can concede that each position is legitimate and each make valid points, it's unlikely that we could agree on a specific policy.

I definitely agree with Marc's ultimate conclusion, which is why I don't agree with the creation of a specifically centrist party.

But I do thing the process we engage in can make a real difference not just in our own thinking but in terms of influencing others. Not everybody out in the real world is a Kos or a LGF lizardoid. Even with highly value-driven policies, such as abortion or the death penalty, talking things through and understanding the other side's position can lessen the animosity and allow for compromises which are acceptable to most of the people out there.

Process doesn't mean reaching the same conclusions, it means knowing that we won't, but acknowledging that the result of the process is itself legitimate. Not necessarily right, but legitimate. Whether it agrees with your particular ideology or not.

Tully, your are EFFIN MAN! As I read Mark's and Pat's posts, legitimate was the exact word that came into my head.

Yep, that process thing, it's important... ;)

I came up with a great bumber sticker a while back. But I haven't bothered to make one yet:

REAL ISSUES DON'T FIT ON BUMPER STICKERS.

Several points. First, in order for politicians to behave "properly," they need support both monetary and in terms of volunteers. It's all well and good to tell politicians to eschew pork and corruption and embrace compromise, but if their primary source of funds is from unions, corporations, and ideological groups, I 'd imagine that it would be very difficult to do those things.

Thus, if centrism has any real chance of influence, it seems imperative that we become a "pressure" group at some point. And that means supporting particular candidates. In this instance, I still think it imperative to maintain the spirit of open-mindedness and tolerance -- meaning it would be fine and expected if some centrists disagreed with the eventual candidates or policy positions selected. We would still want to encourage dialogue and avoid ideological strait-jackets. But come election-time, choices have to be made. Certain positions/candidates need to be chosen. Otherwise, it seems like we would be castrating ourselves. We don't do this because we like "pressure" groups, but because otherwise we lock ourselves out of the process we desire to change.

I think the counterargument would be that if we refrained from this, we could influence the population to be more moderate and politically involved and our individual actions taken collectively would exert their effects. However, first off, most of the population already is moderate and the reason, imo, that they are disenfranchised (meaning few solid centrists in office) is because they are unorganized. Furthermore, I think it is a characteristic of human nature that people will only take action if they feel it will make a difference. I'm much more likely to get involved if I feel that I'm contributing to a larger effort rather than acting as an individual. While I can see the drawbacks of a pressure group, I think if we work hard at keeping our passions in check and our minds open we can have it both ways. It's just that we would have periodic voting of the members to determine what we would support.

Thus, as I have stated before, I think a centrist party is not something that should be forced but something that might emerge AFTER a pressure group is formed and centrism has been swirling in the body politic for a few years unless some hot-shot like McCain starts a centrist party like Sharon did.

On another point, I think the difficulty with the above process definition of centrism is that it is too weak. A lot of hard-core partisans would likely claim that they follow such a process, even though they probably don't. In my view, if someone uses centrist methodology and arrives at, to use an extreme example, a jihadist ideology, I would think that the process had been incorrectly implemented.

I also feel that some who oppose the formation of a centrist party -- such as say Pat and Simon and Marc, who I think are great people, seriously -- oppose it because they would rather see a moderate conservative (or moderate liberal)takeover of government than a truly centrist one. To use an analogy, I am pro-war and socially liberal. However, were I to govern I would like to work with people who are moderately anti-war (or at least more dovish than I) and socially conservative (not necessarily the same person). I really would like to govern from the center and to hammer out compromises, tested by empirical results. In moral values issues, I would strive to come up with a solution that, although it doesn't satisfy both sides completely, tries the best it can to honor the values of both sides.

For non moral issues, I realize that in some cases the empirical evidence is lacking; but in these cases, my instinct is craft a policy that uses the evidence we have and continually refines the policy in light of the evidence. I may have initial temperamental inclinations but I am desirous to surrender them in the face of the evidence.

So, I think that is a deep test for centrism. Do you want to work with people on the other side of the divide more or are you more comfortable with those on the same side? Where does your heart lie, across the divide or on one side of the gulf?

I actually very much like Marc's and Pat's posts because they allow me to ponder a more ideological position -- but I would like there to be a party where the farthest left we went was Marc and the farthest right was Pat (more or less). As I've said many times before, I just find the notion extremely disgusting that we are "honor-bound" by the political fates to choose between a party that has nancy pelosi or say tom delay. Get rid of the dead weight! Purge the chaff. I don't see why the US has to be either hopping on its left or right foot amidst heavy partisan fire in perpetuity.

A discipline is immature if it has schools of thought rather than independent practioners. For instance, psychology used to have schools but doesn't really any more. An individual person has their inclinations and there are loose coalitions, but we don't have Freudians or behaviorists any more. Thus, I think politics when it matures will be bereft of this "scholasticism" of warring ideologies. And that is where we need to head. To think otherwise is to doom politics to perpetual adolescence.

In actuality, I would like the centrist party to actually get rid of parties altogether eventually. I would like to choose between candidates, not on the basis of ideology, but on the basis of intelligence and character. Meaning elections populated primarily by centrists. If each person is elected individually and not on the basis of party, then all the congresscritters could work together. Their only "enemies" would be the people they defeated in order to serve in Congress and those guys, by definition, wouldn't be in the Congress!

Once in office, they could form loose and shifting coalitions in order to govern. Each vote would be a free vote.

Thus, if ordinary people can be prodded to donate and volunteer we can eliminate parties altogther, because, as it seems to me, parties only exist to provide a structure for money gathering.

In conclusion, I want a centrist party to emerge that will be the end of all parties, you know the war to end all wars. :)

(I know all this is a tad utopian, but I think we need to have a clear sense of the ideal so we know what to approximate and where to go. And as far as the pressure group/party idea goes, I say let us have a coalition of the willing. Those among us who think a pressure group is a good idea, let's do it. We can just agree to disagree with the others. I really am leery of allowing "closet partisans" to kill these ideas. No offense to anyone, but I'm just not sure of some's [perhaps unconscious] motivations.)

Excellent and thoughtful post, Adam. (Though naturally I don't agree 100%)

I don't know what unconscious motivation I may have, so I can't say whether you are right or not (you certainly could be, that's the thing about unconscious motivations... they're unconscious), so all I can do is talk about my intellectual thoughts on the subject, however they came to be.

My lack of enthusiasm (not opposition, by a long shot) for a centrist party is because I just don't think it would work, largely for reasons summed up so humorously in Rick DeMent's slogans. People are moved and history is changed by strong visions, visions that have generally have some core ideology underlying them.

Ronald Reagan was not elected overwhelmingly because he promised to make the trains run on time and find good compromises, but because he had a vision for America that America liked.

Martin Luther King Jr. changed the world not because he said "let's compromise with the white man" but because he said "my vision is right, and our system now is wrong".

Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought about great things... because he had a vision and an ideology. Taken too far, I wouldn't like the results of his ideology too much, of course. But the steps he took were necessary at the time and could not have been taken without him just saying, this is what I think is right and we're moving on ahead with it, no matter what.

Imagine you're at the airport, catching a cab. There are 3 limo drivers vying for your business. You ask each to recommend the best hotel in town. One guy says the Ritz, the other guy says the Savoy. The third guy says "I don't know, but let's talk about it while we drive around for awhile". Which driver are you going to go with?

Ideology provides an impetus, a spark, a shove in some direction, any direction. Without it, I really don't think we would move forward at all, in the long run.

"Centrism--The Anti-Idiotology"

That said, I'm all for your coalition of the willing. It would be a fine experiment (though I think the Reform Party tried the same experiment). I doubt I'll sign up, though I might contribute to particular candidates if I like what I see in them. I just hope that your coalition doesn't take on what I think are the all-but-inevitable trappings of a political party, ostracism of those not strongly on-board with the party platform, pleas to ignore particular issues because they won't help the election, etc.

P.S. You needn't call me a "closet" partisan. I'm a Republican and happy to be one. I don't like everything my party does, for sure, but I do tend to believe that the core thrust of Republican beliefs are most in line with my own outlook on the world. I'm very much in favor of practical compromises, however, which neither of the big parties does very well right now.

If we do move forward with a site redesign, we should look at maybe raising our profile (and some money) by designing some shirts and mugs and stuff over at CafePress.com. Put a little ad for them on the side. If we're the only centrist site with cool centrist swag, we could become really popular! Get a couple of good slogans and a funny drawing, put it on a baby doll t-shirt worn by an attractive young woman, and BANG! we've got us a happening place.

I'm all for wacky t-shirts! Centrist pride, you know.

Thanks Pat. That was the question I was aiming for; whether you "opposed" a centrist party on principle or on pragmatism.

I very much agree that vision is important. This is part of the argument where I sing the praises of past centrist movements and distinguish between a mushy moderate and, to use John Avlon's term, a militant moderate; or between run-of-the-mill centrism and the radical centrism espoused by Mark Satin and the New America foundation.

First, Buddhism is the religion of the middle way and it swept most of Asia, like Islam swept Africa and the Middle East. Aristotle also praised the Golden Mean and his philosophy (merged with Christianity) was the foundation of the medieval period. Confucius also was somewhat of a centrist. IOW, I think it is possible to be a passionate and visionary centrist.

I outlined some of the vision in my previous post. The party to end all parties and what not. The book the radical center: the future of american politics from Halstead and Lind of the New America foundation outlines such a vision. The vision is of a politics with more choices and less ideology. I think the 19th century was called the age of ideology, at least in philosophy, and well, that passed. The central thesis is that the two-party system is sclerotic and unable to handle the pressures of the 21st century and that a new non-ideological ideology will emerge that makes policy decisions without reference to ideological considerations.

I do think centrism needs a "central" vision: my little trio is principled compromise (on moral issues), practical solutions (for other issues), and clean government. The centrist statespersons would be those with a love for political creativity and for real results charged with an ethusiasm to make the US "a city set upon a hill" . . . or whatnot. I find McCain's and Obama's rhetoric to be soaring and inspiring for instance, (think Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt), and I think centrism can be buoyed up by the great frustration of the middle with politics-as-usual. Ideally, for centrism to go places we need a moneybags (like George Soros), an interest group (like moveon), and some charismatic statespersons.

This notion that centrists are visionless, mealy-mouthed wussies who blow with the wind, I consider the "great slander" hurled at centrists :) Partisans usually dismiss centrism with a move like this, and to hear centrists being lured by the same slanders, well, it's unfortunate.

It's true that a vision sometimes must eschew compromise, but what differentiates a centrist is wanting to work with the opposite party if possible. for instance, a major reason why mlk was successful and is beloved by this country was because he advocated an inclusive vision for all humanity. So in that sense he was a centrist because he was able to unite this country. If he had just proclaimed "Black Power!" I don't white people would have responded that way. And look at Gandhi, while he was willing to take radical action he only took it because he had to. In fact, it was so successful, that the British, overcome with guilt, just up and left!

So it's all about radical centrism. . . .

A couple of points in response.

On style, I wouldn't use Soros and MoveOn as examples, for they will send anyone with any conservative leanings screaming for the hills... and with good reason, as they embody some of the worst trends in modern vicious political discourse.

On substance, I think looking for a single bank-roller/spokesperson is a bad idea... again, look at Ross Perot. A big percentage of the population put their faith in him and then in Jesse Ventura, only to be sorely disappointed. A few good spokespeople, fine. One focal point savior, not so much.

In arguing for ideology, I was certainly not arguing for ideologues. One can have an ideology but still acknowledge that others have differing ideologies which are also entitled to respect.

My own perspective comes largely from my legal training, I suppose. Our adversarial system is premised on the idea that the truth is best revealed by the two opposite sides doing their all to prove their case. When each side probes the other's weak points, and builds up their own strong points, eventually everything but the truth is burned away. That's the ideal, anyway... and it really does work that way more often than people think.

The problem we're facing today is that the ideologues used to make up a relatively small part of each party, so the rest of the electorate was left as the impartial judge and jury, evaluating the competing claims. Now too often the ideologues are both the advocates and the judge and jury. And nobody wants to actually solve problems anymore... they want to "preserve the issue" to help with reelection.

Thus, if centrism has any real chance of influence, it seems imperative that we become a "pressure" group at some point. And that means supporting particular candidates.

That may be true, but it's far from an obvious imperative. If we don't become a party or endorse candidates as a coalition, but still attract people to our our coalition who reject partisanship, then the pressure to politicians comes from the voters themselves, in the form of less money and fewer party members.

However, first off, most of the population already is moderate and the reason, imo, that they are disenfranchised (meaning few solid centrists in office) is because they are unorganized.
Perhaps true. But eschewing conventional party affiliation does not mean eschewing organization. What I'm advocating in a coalition that is not a party with endorsed candiates is that the best way harness moderates is via a fundamentally different type of organizing principle.

A discipline is immature if it has schools of thought rather than independent practioners. For instance, psychology used to have schools but doesn't really any more. An individual person has their inclinations and there are loose coalitions, but we don't have Freudians or behaviorists any more. Thus, I think politics when it matures will be bereft of this "scholasticism" of warring ideologies. And that is where we need to head. To think otherwise is to doom politics to perpetual adolescence.
This strikes me as including insight but offering a false dichotomy. A discipline may be immature if it lacks independent practitioners, but mature disciplines generally include multiple schools of thought, which are a sign of healthy critical thinking. Psychology and philosphy absolutely do still have decidedly different schools of thought. The enduring conundrums of a discipline may well have been mapped in suibstantial detail, but does this mean they have been resolved? No way!

Thus, if ordinary people can be prodded to donate and volunteer we can eliminate parties altogther, because, as it seems to me, parties only exist to provide a structure for money gathering.

People can donate and volunteer for coalitions. We don't need candidates for that, or a party platform to measure loyalty against. Or if we had a platform, it would look and sound different from a party platform.

It really drives the more conservative people nuts when I use MoveOn etc. as examples :) Trust me, I'm not endorsing their policies, just pointing to the power that an organized internet group can have. I think there are a variety of ideas we could draw from MoveOn.

You're right, Pat, one moneybags may be bad and one savior may suck, but certainly charismatic centrist politicians and wealthy donors wouldn't hurt! :)

The adversarial system has its benefits, but, at least in criminal law, we're dealing with guilty or not guilty. Importing this dichotomous model into politics blinds us to the fact that policy need not be dichotomous. I think you're right about the changes in party structure that has exacerbated this problem. However, isn't it the case that public defenders and prosecutors don't get along so well? See, if you want cooperation between parties, the adversarial model doesn't work so well. I want politicians scoring points for the team (America as a whole) and not just for each party.

The adversarial model works best when it is viewed as a cooperative venture between the two persons/groups with a common goal at aiming at truth. We're "fighting" to arrive at truth, not just fighting so we can win and you can lose.

But maybe in politics, it's the "least worst" of our options. But I'm young and optimistic, so I'd like to see if an alternative/non-adversarial model would work.

Oh Brian, you and your training in critical thinking. You point to the fact that centerfield could perhaps drain the swamps of partisans and exert its effect that way. That's not a bad idea. But I just can't get past the fact that politicians need money and volunteers to survive and that people are more likely to contribute to a group effort. It's not imperative to form an interest group, but it seems like a good idea and could be combined with other approaches. And in the case of psychology, I think you could say that it has moved in a less ideological direction. Sure there are lots of disagreements but everything is no longer cast as say nature vs. nurture. All these either/or, or option 1/2/3 debates have been realized to be superficial. For instance, most psychotherapists today are eclectic, with no firm allegiance to any particular school.

But look, Brian, don't you agree that mature disciplines usually get less ideological, less blue team/red team, as they mature and that politics would be helped by a similar maturation? Maybe you just thought I was overstating my case. Well, I do get overenthused, but by and large, I think my suggestions offer a sound approach to spreading the influence of centrism. But what do I know?

Thanks for reading my lengthy posts, guys. Best wishes and Happy Friday.

Oh yeah, Brian, think of biology and physics; they're almost bereft of warring schools, maybe warring hypotheses. Also, I tend to think philosophy is almost by definition immature because it deals with all those questions for which a methodology has yet to be created to solve the questions. If we could do an experiment to figure out whether we had free will, we'd just do it!

But Adam, your examples are both hard sciences, where they have such things as establishing actual facts, and progress, and demonstrating the efficacy of one theory and then using that theory to develop another good one that works, and then another, and then another.

So if politics were a hard science, I might agree with you. I see your point anyway. I just don't think it applies to politics or philosophy. And psychology is way more social "science" than hard science.

So if your discipline is strongly philosophical/social in nature, as I believe politics is, then I really don't expect the discipline to mature into agreement. So I don't want to get drawn into expecting that, because if I come to believe it, next thing I know I'm kicking out the heretics who won't get with the program. For a long time I tried talking myself into this, and now I'm determined to talk others out of it. In that sense, my own discipline has matured. :-)