Centerfield

"He’s more Jon Stewart than Howard Beale.
Yet the candidate’s critique is deeper and more nuanced than that. Behind the popularity of Stewart—and the rise of the Purple Party—is the simmering frustration with an increasingly polarized system that coughs up a series of false choices."

Amen. Sounds a lot me! hahahaha. But seriously, Jon Stewart's views, to me, represent the taboo but majority point of view towards pols and DC. His sarcastic eye-rolling and what they say and do at times is the right reaction that resonates with most people.

I'd vote for Stewart...simply for the dry-dark-humoristic way in which he'd embarass Congress into getting its act together.

Posted by: John at April 20, 2006 06:13 PM

"On economics, the candidate is one part Warren Buffett, one part Bob Rubin, and one part Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google...He embraces free trade, gets the money markets, and is obsessed with restoring fiscal sanity to Washington...he understands that the flow of information is driving globalization—and that innovation holds the key to helping America’s workers adapt to the new reality."

Amen. Why is so hard for such a man to step forward?? I think of Jon Corzine as fitting that mold. I'm sure they're are many others.

Posted by: John at April 20, 2006 06:24 PM

I remain bemused as to why anyone would waste the monumental amount of time, money and energy involved in creating yet another entry in the long litany of failed American third parties, when those resources could be used far more productively in supporting moderate candidates in each of the two major parties.

Moreover, it seems to me that the author of this piece is less looking for a pragmatic, centrist or moderate party, than he is venting about the inadequacies of the Democratic Party. It seems that the "purple party" they desire is far more #560099 than it is #99007A - still less #990056.

Starry-eyed mysticism, I tend to think that the two-party system, for all its faults, is still better than any alternative yet seen. Worse yet, the basic failure of the authors is to grasp that public frustration at the two existing parties does not translate into substantive agreement that would lend itself to third party votes. I imagine that Tina Fey and I are both frustrated as one another with what we see as failures on the parts of both parties, but that doesn't mean you're going to see us sharing a platform (or anything else) any time soon.

Posted by: Simon at April 20, 2006 11:05 PM

Any story, by the way, which suggests that Joe Biden has "demonstrated the requisite ideological ambidexterity" (rather than a self-involved incapacity to grasp the basics of any particular ideology) immediateley sacrifices any hope of being taken seriously.

Posted by: Simon at April 20, 2006 11:09 PM

I thought the article was wonderful.

Posted by: Adam at April 21, 2006 02:25 AM

"Purple Rain" as the theme song?

Posted by: AR at April 21, 2006 09:28 AM

I remain bemused as to why anyone would waste the monumental amount of time, money and energy involved in creating yet another entry in the long litany of failed American third parties, when those resources could be used far more productively in supporting moderate candidates in each of the two major parties.

I can't help but wonder whether past skeptics didn't say things like I remain bemused as to why anyone would waste the monumental amount of time, money and energy involved in creating yet another entry in the long litany of failed attempts at___fill-in-the-blank___. Like say, human flight, visiting the moon, etc. Why are past failures proof of impossibility, Simon? Roe hasn't been overturned for 30 years, but you think that's imminent. Isn't it possible that in past cases people weren't ready or the environment wasn't right?

Personally, I'm not in favor of another party at this time. But I don't think it's impossible that another party could form which could be a vast improvement over both of the existing ones. I mean, if there's any common message here, isn't it that we think we can do better?

Posted by: bk at April 21, 2006 10:13 AM

Simon:

Wow, you certainly are cynical. It pays to recall that even though we've had a two-party system for most of our existence, parties have also died and been replaced by new parties. The Federalists, Whigs, and Democratic-Republicans are no longer with us, and the Democratic and Republican parties of today have little or nothing to do with the parties that used to bear that name.

In other words, there has been change to go along with the continuity. And perhaps the article might be overly optimistic --- but I hope not. There's truth in the cliche that it's better to light a single candle than curse the darkness

Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2006 10:14 AM

"Never say 'never.'" is a cliche for a reason. If we all continue to believe that something is simply impossible and continue to behave accordingly, our prophecy will be self-fulfulling. Plus, the first NY mag article suggested starting something in NYC, not on a national level. I agree that supporting good candidates in the two existing major parties is effort well-spent, but I see that effort as a means to an ultimate end of creating a moderate/centrist party, even if by transforming one of the two existing parties. Call it a hostile takeover, splitting the wingers of one party or the other off into their own futile new party.

Posted by: WHQ at April 21, 2006 10:29 AM

Dan,
While I agree with your recounting of a list of now-dead parties, you seem to take that list as supporting the proposition that a third party can work. I take it to support the precise opposite: the resilience of the two party system in America. Other parties have come and gone, and yet at no point has there been a sustained period when three of these parties have co-existed.

American politics is obstinately and persistently bipolar. It has always been. The Federalist party failed, and after a fwe short years, the previously united Democratic-Republicans split to fill the gap. If today's Democratic party now fails, within a few years, the GOP will split into two in order to fill the gap. And if (as seems ever more likely) the Democratic party fails and splits into two, one will stand and one will fall. The system always has - and always will - revert to a two party system. We could philosophize as to why this is the case for hours; we could talk about the bipolar nature of the political spectrum and why that should be the case, about the duality of man, and all this fun stuff, but none of it will change the fact that the two party system is the reality, and will still be the reality. A third party, for its usually brief existence, will always disproportionately syphon votes from one established party or the other; whereafter, either (as usually happens) the established party will strip the carcas of the third party for policy ideas, and the third party will fold, or the third party will strip the formerly established party of its voters, and the established party will fold. Thus it has always been.

By labelling this description as cynical, you seem to presume that this is a bad thing. I am not so sure that it is. As I suggested above, the two party system is better than any other system yet tried; it has yielded to America a political stability that no country with a plurality of parties has enjoyed. In some cases, that has lead to messy chaos (for example, Italy), and in others, it has lead to an authoritarian leader dividing and conquering the opposition (for example, Russia). America has not suffered these defects. As you point out ("the Democratic and Republican parties of today have little or nothing to do with the parties that used to bear that name") - correctly, I think - parties have an institutional capacity to change with the times, and an even stronger incentive to do so. For these reasons, it not only does not only trouble me that America is a two-party system, it pleases me greatly. The article bemoans that the two parties force people to choose between conflicting goals; that, too, I see as being a plus, not a minus.

America has benefited over the years from two big-tent parties; the problems arise when some of the guywires come loose, those tents constrict. The solution is to re-pitch the tents, not to try and erect another tent between them; that approach has never worked, and without exception has worked to the disadvantage of those who support the third party. Those who voted for TR would probably never have voted for Wilson, but made his election possble; those who voted for Ross Perot probably didn't think much of Clinton yet guaranteed Clinton's election; those who voted for Nader got precisely what they deserved: an education that yes, in fact, there was a difference between Gore and Bush.

Posted by: Simon at April 21, 2006 11:53 AM

American politics is obstinately and persistently bipolar.

Simon, you like this phrase so much that you repeat it verbatim from time to time. I'm driven to wonder whether you think that perhaps it's some sort of natural law.

"OHHHHHHHHHH, and down goes Simon! down goes Simon! down goes Simon! down goes Simon! down goes Simon! LOL

Posted by: bk at April 21, 2006 01:22 PM

Simon, you like this phrase so much that you repeat it verbatim from time to time. I'm driven to wonder whether you think that perhaps it's some sort of natural law.

It's more of a conviction that a proposition that has enjoyed a long string of unbroken failure is unlikely to change course. No theory, no matter how attractive or even seductive, can survive unfavorable contact with experiential reality; even if I were convinced that multiparty politics was a good road to go down, there is simply no evidence that it can exist in America, compared to ample evidence that it never has before. "To say that a thing has never yet been done among men is to erect a barrier stronger than reason, stronger than discussion - Thomas Brackett Reed.

In any event, Brian, I think I have already explained (as recently as yesterday, in fact) that I am not opposed to natural law, and that I think positive law ought to resemble natural law. What I object to is its use by Judges to override positive law, thus, even if my reasoning were that the two party system was the command of natural justice (or that it is the natural state of things) then that would not be foreclosed by my previous reasoning unless I was sitting on a bench wearin a robe and declaring third parties to be unconstitutional, would it?

Posted by: Simon at April 21, 2006 02:32 PM

To all,

Regardless of where you stand on the idea of a 3rd party, there is something very incisive and to the point about the theme of this series of articles:

Both parties fail to deliver what most people really think or want. I found a lot of his views and gripes perfectly reasonable and valid.

Another point I liked was the lack of partisanship on a local in NY politics...pointing out that many republican mayors get elected because they have sensible and pragmatic platforms. What I sensed was, in fact an affinity for centrism in the model described on Centrist Coalition:

A socially liberal to moderate candidate not given heavy rhetoric who is willing to roll up his sleeves on the practical matters of governance and economics to find a pragmatic solutions that work.

Perhaps the NY mayoral model is what we need more of on a state and national level.

Posted by: John at April 21, 2006 02:55 PM

John:

Both parties fail to deliver what most people really think or want . . . What I sensed was, in fact an affinity for centrism in the model described [here].

You sensed that despite the fact that the article goes out of its way to upbraid terms like "moderate" or "centrist"? Anderson writes:

“Centrist” is a bit of a misnomer for the paradigm we envision, since that suggests an uninspired, uninspiring, have-it-both-ways, always-split-the-difference approach born entirely of political calculation . . . The moderation will often be immoderate in style and substance, rather than tediously middle-of-the-road.

It seems to me, by the way, that both parties fail to deliver what most people really want because what most people really want is contradictory and impossible. They want, for example, lower taxes and better services. They think you can ban at will employment and retain a vibrant economy. They want the low prices of WalMart but they are horrified by the idea of working for the sort of wages that ender those prices; that is, they want job security of a protected economy but the buying power of free trade. Having two parties forces people to routinely choose their poison; if there is a problem with the two party system, I would submit it is in the recent failure of the parties to present stark enough differences in policy to the electorate. It is homogeneity that is the problem here.

Posted by: Simon at April 21, 2006 03:15 PM

Exactly. To expand on Simon's point, it's far too easy to blame "the other" for our political system's problems. Blame the other guy, the other party, the other political philosophy, blame your own party, for that matter. We have the system we have because voters keep voting that way and campaign contributors keep giving money that way. Things won't fundamentally be changed until the public's mind is changed.

And the public needs to understand that hard choices must be made, and they won't like all the results of those hard choices, no matter which choice is made.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2006 04:12 PM

...and we should pay attention to the clever phrasings of Thomas Brackett Reed because..._____________? If you ask me, it strongly suggests that the barrier is indeed primarily mental anyway, which is MY point.

EVERY single thing than any human has ever done, EVER, at any point, had never been done until it was done.

Your point that people want to have their cake and eat it too is certainly well taken. It's a very important part of human nature that we can comfortably harbor conflicting desires, principles, and so on quite blissfully in most instances.

But IMO there's still plenty of reason to think that we can do better and that there's room for a 3rd party which does a better job of representing a majority than the 2 current dominant ones.

"String of unbroken failures" is a bit harsh in any event. Let's not forget to notice that the presence of a 3rd candidate led to both Clinton(Perot) and GW Bush'(Nader) first elections. Since it therefore can be strongly argued that 3rd party candidacies swayed the choices of BOTH of the last 2 Presidents, it's a tough sell that there's nothing to the notion that there's a trend toward 3rd parties having some viability. Granted, it's only enough to suggest nascence, as the power is that of a spoiler, and the trend doesn't at this point suggest sutainability of a single 3rd party.

But what it does suggest is increased numbers of dissaffected voters. There's really no reason, IMO, to think that these dissaffected voters must eventually be re-absorbed into one of the existing dominant behemoths. Certainly both dominant parties would seek to co-opt the success of any 3rd party that showed sustainability by adopting their rhetoric and positions.

No one says it's not a challenge. Mostly, it's just that IMO "it hasn't happened yet" is no stronger of an argument than "past results are no guarantee of future performance." Ways of doing things often get locked in purely as a matter of conspiring happenstances. The longer they stay locked in, the more tempting it is to assume that some natural laws are manifesting themselves, that the so-far enduring way has an inherent force. But often the enduring way has only the power and advantages of incumbency. This again goes to human nature. People don't like the bother of change. But change is practically the only constant in life.

That's the cponundrum of 3rd parties right there...people want political change, but they don't want any bother. Entropy is a bitch.

Posted by: bk at April 21, 2006 04:30 PM

Brian,

I agree with you that it CAN be done. However, I firmly believe, as the article said, that it will take a pool of highly visible and convincing mavericks to get past the obstacles and concerns of playing "the outsider party" card.

This pool of leaders would be in good shape to captialize on the discontent with the establishment right now by sticking behind a pragmatic yet reformist agenda that stays on larger topics of mutual mass-anger of the mushy half of the country. A reactionary yet reasonable rebellion to return to core issues with a true "Had Enough?" theme could pull enough voters to make a serious impact.

Let the Social Far Right wallow in narrow social and cultural grievances and border fences. Let the Populist Economic Left entrench itself in total stubborness toward entitlement reform.

I think there's plenty of room for pragmatic faces on both sides to form a fully disclosed "bi-partisan" ticket (including cabinet members for added effect)whose mandate is government and budgetary reform with integrity that targets areas of mass consensus while lashing back at all critics trying to pigeon-hole them on social issues and "tit for tat" nuance on foreign policy.

Moderate and disgusted America would respond.

Posted by: John at April 21, 2006 04:56 PM

Perhaps a quick reply before I head home for the weekend...

"String of unbroken failures" is a bit harsh in any event. Let's not forget to notice that the presence of a 3rd candidate led to both Clinton(Perot) and GW Bush'(Nader) first elections. Since it therefore can be strongly argued that 3rd party candidacies swayed the choices of BOTH of the last 2 Presidents, it's a tough sell that there's nothing to the notion that there's a trend toward 3rd parties having some viability.

I actually gave notice to the presence of Perot and Nader upthread (ante at 11:53 AM). I think your point about Perot's and Nader's influence might be stronger if the elections were reversed, that is, if Nader had run in 1992 and 1996 helping Clinton's victory and Perot had run in 2000 and 2004 helping Bush's. If that had been the case, then yes, we could say that third parties in those elections showed some kind of viability, or that they swayed the choices of the candidates who eventually won. But in fact, that isn't what happened: in both cases, Nader and Perot handed the election to the candidate most antithetical to their voters. All they can really be said to have achieved is to split the voters of one party or the other, and ensured the other guy won. Any third party is going to lean more one way or the other (as I suggested upthread, the party proposed in this article is essentially a moderate democrat party in all but name); thus, in a (give-or-take) fifty-fifty nation, any third party which is successfull is going to be taking votes away from the party which it most closely resembles.

Granted, it's only enough to suggest nascence, as the power is that of a spoiler, and the trend doesn't at this point suggest sutainability of a single 3rd party. But what it does suggest is increased numbers of dissaffected voters. There's really no reason, IMO, to think that these dissaffected voters must eventually be re-absorbed into one of the existing dominant behemoths.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to be presenting the same non sequitur I complained about yesterday evening. Yes, there are a large number of disaffected voters, and yes, it is unsupportable to assume that they will be absorbed or reabsorbed into one of the existing dominant behemoths. But why on Earth would one assume - much less conclude that the foregoing proves - that everyone in that pool of disaffected voters are ripe to join up to this notional third party?

Surely, every person here has sat in a meeting where every person agrees that what the company is doing is the wrong thing, but having agreed as much, every participant has a different remedy, many being at complete odds. This is no different. One keeps seeing polls saying x% of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction - great, but what do they think the right direction is? I'm willing to bet that if they asked the question differently, that seemingly monolithic bloc of people who think we're going in the wrong direction would splinter into a huge number of different opinions on what the right direction is and how we get there. Like I said above, Tina Fey and I may agree that we think the Bush administration has made some major mistakes, but that doesn't mean we agree on what the government should be doing or who should lead it.

Posted by: Simon at April 21, 2006 04:57 PM

I think the reason why Pat and Simon don't "get it" is because neither of them are disaffected members of the electorate. They're both Republicans who are basically happy with the system. On a deep ideological level, they're conservative.

[relax Pat, this is mainly directed towards Simon, but I didn't want him to feel ganged up on ;).]

And thus, they already don't want a third party -- and that's why their arguments are so baffling.

It's as if this centrist party were some sort of ideal hot chick, and us "heteros" out there exclaim: "But is a chick of such hotness possible? Does it make pragmatic sense to pursue such a chick? Or are we doomed to forever being dateless losers?" And it's like Pat and Simon are gay or something. Sure, maybe the Republican party could shave more often or do more housework or something -- but overall they're content. (I'm feeling naughty today ;))

For instance, this notion from Simon that one must choose one or the other. William James, founder of PRAGMATISM, you dumbos, said long ago (paraphrasing): "Fact are good. Give us lots of facts. But so are principles, give us lots of them." IOW, he basically said that most people want a little of both -- and don't believe the BS that "choose this day whom you will serve. You cannot serve both God and mammon."

Americans say, "Hell no. We'll be rich and religious! We'll just breed very small camels and make very big needles! Jesus will never fault us for this."

And that's what you guys don't get. For instance, sure everyone wants cheap and great healthcare. But you guys are like: Choose one or the other. Really cheap healthcare or really great healthcare. A centrist would say, "How about decent healthcare at a reasonable price?"

Sure it ain't easy, but you partisans don't even try. It's like you put on black-white goggles that prevent you from seeing the vast terrority in the middle that most people want. But it's not your fault, guys. God made you that way :)

And gosh durn it Simon, take that stick out of yer butt! Why must you always be ante this and ante that? A fortiori and blah, blah, blah. So gosh-darned serious. "The Democrats are at war with the constitution." Lighten up, dude! I can be intense and overblown, but I try to mix it up a bit. It's like you're a binary-sexual or something.

Posted by: Adam at April 21, 2006 07:06 PM

And that's what you guys don't get. For instance, sure everyone wants cheap and great healthcare. But you guys are like: Choose one or the other. Really cheap healthcare or really great healthcare. A centrist would say, "How about decent healthcare at a reasonable price?"

Not at all. In fact, quite to the contrary. I want cheaper, greater healthcare. In fact, I think we can have both. Where I disagree is what policy choices will get us there. And when someone (Massachusetts) adopts policies which look like they will write a blank check for future taxpayer dollars and do nothing to help contstrain the exponential growth of healthcare costs, then I'm going to say something about it.

Centrists may say "how about decent healthcare at a reasonable price" but what I don't see you doing is defining what constitutes "decent" or who gets to decide what constitutes "decent". Nor do you define "reasonable price".

I would also suggest, Adam, that your post is itself evidence of the problem of a "centrist" party. Eventually, it will become just as partisan as the current parties. I am not the one who insists on labelling anybody on here as "left" or "right" or "center". You, and others here, do feel free to use such labels and, having attached the label, you assume many things about the labelled person's thoughts based on that label.

I am a Republican, as I have made no secret. I am so by both upbringing and my adult belief that the party's support for judicial restraint, free markets, strong defense, and crime control is generally the right way to go to make our society better for everybody. I am disheartened by the Tom DeLay faction of the party, which became more concerned with maintaining power for its own sake rather than to accomplish good policies. I am equally or more ticked off that the Democrats, rather than being a responsible opposition party, have let their moonbat wings run rampant. This leaves the country with no real viable alternative to the Republicans. And no political party should have free reign with no viable opposition. The best results are reached from a healthy tension between opposing viewpoints.

So no, I'm not fundamentally pleased with the current status quo. But I do believe that a 2-party system, generally speaking, has been proven successful over a very long period of history in this country. Thus, my dissatisfaction with the status quo does not translate to support for a radically change in the nature of our political structure.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 21, 2006 08:10 PM

Oh Pat, you know I love you! I was trying to be funny but pack in serious points, not be mean. I think in psychological terms by nature; thus, the above was actually a quasi-serious attempt to understand why some are not enthused by a centrist party. It was mainly aimed at Simon's sanctimonius pronouncements.

There is a school of argumentation theory which advocates a pragmatic theory of fallacy. So while it would be wrong to say: "Don't listen to Pat, he's a Republican." At the same time though, it is useful background knowledge. If I notice this pattern, I feel it is useful to point out. So what I'm really saying is, "Centrists, Pat's a committed Republican, so we may need to take his opinion with a grain of salt on the issue of a centrist party."

After all, is it not natural that a partisan of one-party would by definition oppose another party?

You are right that a centrist party will need to be -- by definition partisan. It will need to have a little team spirit, a little we're-number-one to be successful. I don't deny that. We may loose a little, but for centrism to be successful it can't embrace everyone -- from Code Pink to Focus on the Family.

I look forward to a third-way, to a real robust alternative. It may be that we will need to distinguish between partisan centrists and non-partisan centrists in the future. We may even have centrist hacks! But at least there will be a party who are at least supposed to listen to the Middle. "Abortion activists have the Democrats, homophobes have the Republicans, but the Son of Centrism has no place to lay his head." ;)

Seriously, Pat, centrists are disenfranchised and form an ideological group all their own. We don't want to have be in bed with Falwell or Michael Moore. Why should the majority of decent Americans have to put up with this? Because Simon says -- that it's an immutable law of God? Whatever.

That's why I get so roiled up when you, Marc, and Simon oppose a centrist party. You guys already have a place who will listen to you. No wonder you're happy. You're needs are being met -- at least in part.

***

Now on to possible pragmatic objections.

As I said before, I don't think a party should be the first step. And I realize the electoral difficulties. But we do have three parties in the UK which has a similar first-past-the-post system. And, as Simon pointed out, third-parties actually have had effects -- maybe not the best ones, to be sure, though. Even so, were a centrist party to burst on the scene and then fizzle -- it could still leave a very beneficial and lasting impression. If it truly is centrist, it may not differentially favor one party or another. And if it's ideas are co-opted, so much the better.

Or it could replace one of the existing parties.

Bottom line: In my opinion, I feel compelled to mention these things because I feel you, Simon, and maybe Marc, don't have centrism coursing in your veins. You're not gung-ho partisan centrists who really have more allegiance to the center than to a party. This is not to say you're bad people, and that you should go away. I just feel very srongly that a centrist party could be a wonderful thing. You guys are somewhat akin to the rationalists and empiricists William James was blasting. You have that temperament. But many of us, have a deep-seated belief that we shouldn't be forced to chose.

IOW, I believe that there is third temparament --the centrist temparament, the majority temparament which is just being ignored. And when we try to enfranchise ourselves, you guys oppose it. And I can't help but feel that that's because your needs are already being met to some degree.

Posted by: Adam at April 21, 2006 09:40 PM

I feel your pain, Adam. Anymore when I go to DKos or Red State, I just get annoyed. I post here and there but not very often at all.

I've come to a point where I have a clearly defined view point that is odds with loyal partisans of both parties. Ofcourse, I may be overstating it a bit. But I've lost whatever semblance of that partisan tone may have been in me. You know, that style that also throws in platitudes that scream Lib or Con coupled with that inability to say the slightest thing without taking a jab at the other party or ideology...as if "they" all think the same the way and want the same thing and good and evil is clearly defined as being aparty to one group or the other.

Sure, I have views that can seen as moderately Left or Right it's of little consequence.

I'd sign up right away for a centrist party and proudly say I'm a member.

Posted by: John at April 21, 2006 10:40 PM

I guess one of the concerns I have about a centrist party is that it concedes the existing parties to the wingnuts. Most Republicans, for example, are NOT homophobes, unless you definitionally include everybody who opposes "gay marriage" as homophobes, in which case referenda results suggest that almost all Republicans plus a very hefty number of Democrats qualify. The very far right is staunchly opposed to homosexuality, but most of the rest of the party has nothing against homosexuals and are perfectly willing to live and let live. They may not want them to be considered a "protected class" and given special protections against firing and the like, and they may not want the subject discussed much in elementary school, but that's about it. Even President Bush was in favor of "civil unions" which would be substantially equivalent to marriage, just with a different name.

A centrist party, if (somehow miraculously) successful, would leave 2 parties of unmoderated wingnuts who would have little incentive to reach for the middle at all. And who would the realistic opposition party be? What opposing political party would hold the centrist party's feet to the fire to deliver on campaign promises, end corruption, etc.? If the centrist party is made up of, say, 50% of the population in the middle, then the 25% on each side that remain in the traditional parties would have no chance of winning.

And when there is a centrist party, then the political conversations will include centrist partisans "taking a jab at the other party or ideology". When you talk about parties rather than issues, labels rather than substance, you will wind up with something resembling what we have now.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 22, 2006 03:25 AM

Simon, I don't assume some great heterogeneity of this disaffected group. I'm simply pointing out that there seems to be a comparatively high level of disaffection. If so, this means that there's a larger than usual pool for a 3rd party to draw upon.

The lack of heterogeneity is evidence of the challenge, it's not proof of impossibility. I continue to think that centrists can do their best work by staying as a coalition that sides with neither dominant group and works to synthesize each sides insights and edit out their most partisan and unrealisitic leanings. I think we have MORE credibility by not becoming a party and not fielding candidates, but rather by pointing decent ones from both sides. Becoming a party fundamentally changes the nature of the dog we have in the fight. As an advocating coalition, our dog is better government, improved compromise and facing important issues more sensibly and hopefully more quickly. One we become a party, our dog becomes accruing and sustaining the sytemic political power of incumbency in official positions.

So I might not join a centrist party, but I'd be far more inclined to work with it. And I really don't think that the obstinate bipolar nature Simon sees is an indomitable natural law. I think that's silly.

Posted by: bk at April 22, 2006 10:45 AM

In the end, there will be Centrists (or whatever they like to be called) who will want to start a third party and there will be those who will want to move one or both of the two major parties toward the center. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, so there is no need to approach the situation dichotomously. One can make the argument that the energy being spent on one approach would be better spent on the other. Maybe so, but I would argue that the energy spent trying to convince those pursuing one approach that they should be pursuing the other is far more wasteful than either attempting to start a third party or trying to influence the two existing major parties. Perhaps we will always have a two party system when a steady state is reached, but the short transient periods in between may contain more than two, of which only two will survive. Those two do not necessarily have to be the two that now exist. As Simon pointed out, American politics has always settled on a two-party system, but not always consisting of the two we now have.

Posted by: WHQ at April 22, 2006 11:23 AM

FWIW, I think I'd probably be more interested in joining a centrist party if it showed the promise of being able to supplant one of the two dominant ones. Regardless of whether a centrist party supplanted the GOP or democrats, it would mean that we'd have opne party where the lunatics weren't reunnibng the asylum.

Right now, my opinion is that the democrats are in greater danger of being supplanted. The most likely scenario I can see (and it's not likely per se, simply the only one I can envision off the top of my head) is that the left would align behind a Naderesque or Deanish standard bearer while an independent would attract moderate republicans and hawkish, fiscally conservative democrats. If and when things shook out into the allegedly more stable "desired" 2 party state, I think the further left would emerge as the likeliest suspects for marginalization.

Posted by: bk at April 22, 2006 01:39 PM

I agree with WHQ that neither approach is mutually exclusive. And if fact both would be complementary. The party would be the vehicle through which power is expressed. And the independent groups would maintain the non-partisan discussion and advocacy groups.

You are right Pat that the fringe groups would be more fringy AND that they would be permanently out of power -- which is the point.

And you are also right that there would be no opposition PARTY. If we have a corrupt centrist in office, vote him or her out, and replace him or her with a non-corrupt CENTRIST. The races would be between centrists. We wouldn't be choosing on the basis on ideology we would be choosing on the basis of skill, competence, and character.

And that is why it is important to have non-party groups as well. So that if the centrist party still was giving money to the corrupt incumbent, the centrist group could field another challenger.

Just think of the great diversity of conservative organizations now -- radio, party, activist groups, magazines, television. Ideally centrism would eventually become like this. In the beginning, it does, however, make sense to focus the CC's efforts. As I've stated repeatedly, you and I both agree that in the short-term we should aim to influence the elections by focusing on supporting moderate candidates. But if another organization was starting a centrist third party and it looked like it had legs, I would support it as well.

You are right that I am proposing a very different way of doing business. But as Charles Murray said (paraphrasing): "if all I did was write things that had a good chance of being implemented, I would never write anything interesting at all."

We need to think big, but take small, practical steps until the snowball becomes the avalanche.

As I wrote before, the centrist party might well be the party to end all parties. Meaning it might usher in a truly non-partisan age where it was not party vs. party but individual vs. individual -- as the founding fathers desired.

Posted by: Adam at April 22, 2006 03:24 PM

Adam, you are correct that we agree on the initial steps, and that is of course why our debate on this topic is so good natured.

On the bigger picture, though, I would ask you to name one country or one state with a single-party system (including where other parties are allowed but have no real chance of electoral success) which is not utterly corrupt. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We can't control abuses as you suggest. It just doesn't work and has never worked in human history. Monopolies don't make for good capitalism, and they don't make for good political structures.

"Others look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not." That's a wonderful quote and has its place to move humanity forward. But if we try to fix problems without understanding human nature and how the problems came to exist in the first place, then the fixes won't work.

"Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."

Posted by: PatHMV at April 22, 2006 09:04 PM

Hmmm, I am not sure if you are sufficiently devoted to the party, comrade. May I see your papers? ;)

Adam, you are correct that we agree on the initial steps, and that is of course why our debate on this topic is so good natured.

Well, except for when I implied that you and Simon were gay. ;)

Hasn't Japan had almost one-party rule for a very long time?

But, I think the problems you refer to would only arise if we changed the constitution to say something like "only party members could run" or something like that.

I think there's some mathematical reason why our winner-take-all system generally produces two parties. So, probably my little utopian vision is unstable. BUT, BUT, BUT maybe this centrist party could be like Labour is in the UK. Or maybe it itself would break into two. HOWEVER, even if that were to occur, it could still have a major effect on our political way of thinking. It is not disputed that new-parties have come and gone in the US, so isn't it about time for a major shake-up, anyway?

Besides, I'm still not sure why my vision is so unsustainable. I mean totalitarian governments have had other means to prevent shakeup. As long as we could vote the bums out, and as long we don't, as I said, make major changes to the constitution, I'm not sure why it couldn't work. But it's really an academic point, as we would just have to wait and see what would happen.

Even if a centrist party were in the ascendancy for just a few terms -- if, for instance, it captured the presidency and one branch of congress for a while -- and then faded, I can see long-term effects.

Posted by: Adam at April 22, 2006 10:47 PM

This seems like a good thread to bring this up. Is any of you considering attending the meeting in NYC? I'm really interested in going, but mainly because I'd like to think I'd meet some of the people I've interacted with here. I'm probably in a better position than most since I live less than 2 hours from NYC, but I'm willing to encourage a level of effort not needed on my part.

Posted by: WHQ at April 23, 2006 12:50 AM

I've been thinking about going, WHQ, largely for the same reason. But as I'm in Louisiana, it's not a small trip in time and money. Still haven't fully decided.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 23, 2006 01:12 AM

I live in little ol' Delaware, so I'm not that far. About three hours. But I don't really have a car worth its salt. And I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I think I'd get lost, and I'm not that good of a driver. I've never driven in a city before.

Posted by: Adam at April 23, 2006 01:28 AM

Adam, if you can make it as far as southern NJ, I can get you the rest of the way, if I actually get to go, that is. I'm not completely sure at this point only because I have to do something with my kids. Changes in the health and geography of our sitters is increasingly hampering our movement.

Posted by: WHQ at April 23, 2006 03:44 PM

Thanks for the offer WHQ, but it probably wouldn't work out for me anyway. If I change my mind, I'll send you an e-mail. And if it so happens that you're going and the details would work out, then all the better. If not, that would be okay too.

Posted by: Adam at April 23, 2006 05:21 PM

It looks like I will be going, one way or another. If we can't get a sitter, I'll go sans wife. And I want you to drive up to Wilmington to practice. Once you get good at that, I want you to drive up to Philly to practice some more. Then you'll be ready for New York.

Posted by: WHQ at April 24, 2006 09:32 AM

Damn. Y'all have fun.

Random thoughts: A centrist praty could help swing party platforms towards the center. As Perot did. And has it occured to anyone that eve a centrist party would have it's own wingnuts? If ya move away from that bilateral symmetry thing, it's only logical.

Posted by: Tully at April 25, 2006 07:32 PM

Tully,

Centrist wingnuts???? kind of an oxymoron.

So I guess here at Centerfield our wingnuts are who?....Pat on the Right and Marcus on the Left??

hahahahaha. I'll that kind of wingnuttery anyday.

Posted by: John at April 27, 2006 12:45 PM

Terrence Gavyn Cesar Stephon Adonis Trystan

Posted by: Jarrett at May 1, 2006 01:54 PM