Centerfield

A distinction should be made between ideology and partisanship. There are more ideologies than parties in America, which I think, is the reason there are so many professed independents. An ideology, of course, is a set positions based upon ideals or principles. Partisanship is the mindless advocacy of "WINNING of WINNINGS SAKE," often at the expense of ideology.

Centrism in it's broadest sense is simply advocacy of all the ideologies OTHER than those rubberstamped by the major two. Centrism is not an ideology in and of itself, though. Just common desire to dissent.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at May 4, 2006 06:28 PM

Whoa. Don't be too broad in your dismissal of Partisanship. Partisan politics can help effectively define vague philosophies into tangible patterns and predictable alliances. All politics is about partisanship to some degree. I prefer to demonize “zero sum” politics if I need a scapegoat. Any interest that wins at the expense of another contributes nothing to the system. Good politics creates opportunity and finds solutions that advance everyone’s interests.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Smith at May 4, 2006 07:16 PM

It is certainly true that advances often arise from a dialetic between extremes, but I dispute that the critical energy or ideas for forward movement stems from ideologies.

In fact, oftentimes, we have gridlock and stagnation between warring ideologues until some centrist figure, full of energy, brings us forward.

My classic example is the synthesis of ascetism and hedonism realized by the Buddha which spawned a religion that swept a continent.

We must always be wary of conflating the mushy middle with the radical middle.

And in some ways the American revolution was based on a radical middle synthesis that both embraced the notion of humanity's right to self-govern and was wary of it. Look at the French revolution for a contrast. Or the fascists or communists.

Aristotle's and Confucius' moderate philosophy held great sway over their respective civilizations for centuries. In fact Christianity can be viewed as a synthesis of Jewish and Greco-Roman spirituality.

And to focus on MLK. He was a certainly a visionary, but contrast him to Malcolm X. MLK provided a radical middle solution that could bring BOTH whites and blacks on board.

And while certainly ideas ought often be synthesis between extremes, a great deal of creativity and energy is required to provide a proper synthesis -- other than a sterile half-breed. So it is a misleading picture to imagine that all the ideas come from one extreme or another. Rather, it is very easy to come up with an extreme solution. The real challenge is in the synthesis.

For instance, Bach is revered in part because of his masterful synthesis of supposedly conflicting national musical styles -- the French, the Italian, and the German. And Newton is revered for synthesizing celestial and terrestial mechanics. And Maxwell for electricity and magnetism. And today the great hope of physics is to find a way to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.

And now let us turn to the intractable conflicts often produced by ideologues: Iraq, Palestine, etc., etc. And examine our own political situation, while America faces many critical problems, our pols seems to just demogogue and demonize away.

So you see, centrism provides motion because it often provides a solution that the many will embrace.

So while I recognize the importance of dialectic, I think you offer a very misleading picture that downplays the creative and energetic role of the center -- which often vastly exceeds any of the wings.

Why? Because the wings, as I said, produce gridlock. The wings fight progress. The wings can only move forward if they moderate their views or are able to capture the center. It is very difficult to hop on one leg. The CENTRal nervous system must take command of those wayward right and left legs and move the body politic forward. Otherwise, we'll just fall on our faces.

A woman or a man alone are sterile. They cannot, by themselves, propogate the race. Only their union can.

Or imagine a chemical reaction. Each substance by itself and nothing happens. But mix them together -- and BOOM.

So while the raw materials may often be provided by the wingers, the energy and intelligence often comes from the center.

Posted by: Adam at May 4, 2006 07:24 PM

To take it in another direction.

Pat,

As I've alluded to before, I really don't have these temperamental preferences that you feel one must have (that you've mentioned elsewhere on this subject) -- towards say more or less government. I consider temperamental preferences to obscure the truth -- and I actually try to rid myself of those preferences rather than embrace them.

My fundamental principle in deciding a policy issue is: will this action (and all its consequences) enable the greatest degree of flourishing for the body politic or not?[flourishing loosely being defined as being maximally happily and productively engaged in society]

And to do that we don't need temperamental preferences -- we need very, very detailed analysis of the problem at hand -- as free as possible from contaminating temperamental preferences. (liberal or conservative biases)

In fact, being a conservative or a liberal -- is in my view -- often a function of intellectual laziness. It's to collapse what should be a results-oriented analysis to a "gut" feeling.

And so while ideas are good, and they may have a left or right feel to them, attachment to them is bad. We don't need more partisans or ideologues around -- at all. We need creative thinkers. A very creative thinker could come up with a brilliant left-oriented idea one day and a rightish idea the next. In some sense, we shouldn't CARE which it is. That distinction should -- in a sense -- fade from our minds.

I guess much of centrist conviction comes from my academic study which consistently reveals, as a discipline progresses, a collapse of warring camps. It's always like, "Yeah, back in the 70's (say for nature vs. nurture), or back in the 19th century, scholars divided up into the pro-this or anti-this. But today, we realize that such thinking was immature and overly simplistic."

And scholarship and science continues apace without the necessity for eternal warfare between the two poles, or even two poles at all. To go back to my male-female metaphor. Imagine if the husband said to the wife, "What do you know about raising a family. I think I can do it on my own." And vice versa. And so they each go into a corner, all by themselves, and attempt some sort of parthogenetic miracle. That's craziness.

So while one might argue that a male-female dialectic is important for a relationship (or a back and forth between two consenting partners of either gender ;)), and I would agree, we don't get anywhere if there's not COOPERATION between the two. I'd be in favor of a loving, reciprocal relationship between right and left (which really is centrism BTW), but when the two just scream at each other -- we don't get very far.

So, in my view, a good conservative can only be a GOOD conservative if he/she seeks a loving, honest and cooperative dialogue with the left -- and vice versa. Otherwise, they're just parasites on the body politic -- sucking it dry and funding pork projects.

Posted by: Adam at May 4, 2006 08:08 PM

Michael,

Obviously political parties are necessary but wouldn't you say that "winning for winning's sake," is their essential attitude?

My assessment is that these two parties DO stand for two different somethings (with variations at the level of state government), however, they don't REALLY trust the great mass of Americans with any of their core issues and instead push nice sounding pablum instead.

The campaign of Gov. Awnuld in this state is a classic case in point. Although I have come to appreciate what is essentially a socially moderate, Business Roundtable, and immigration control politics, it's NOT what he campaigned on, and I didn't vote for him in that free-for-all. All he said was, "give the government back to the people," like a thousand times, and coasted on his popular image without Californians really knowing what he was going to do.

The Dems are generally a government-unions party with coastal preppie liberalism thrown in. The Reps are simply a Corporate Access party with the main obsession there being one of tactics: Beat the Dems so that you don't find government actually enforcing the laws on Corporations.

There are other ideologies to be represented most of whom would never vote for one of the two parties, but desire a third party to give them a voice.

As in all things I could be wrong about this, however, my prediction is that the GOP has become so much a status quo party that a combination of fiscal conservatives and cultural populists are going to overwhealm it. You'll therefore have a PC party and a non-PC party (Politically correct).

I see a situation whereby the pro-labor Democratic Center is exchanged for the Pro-business Republican Center, with probably a far-left socialist party and/or a pro-life party left over from those who dissent from this switch.

So you'd have two "Centrist" parties, one anti-interventionist, anti-government, and anti-elite and the other thoroughly elite, philanthropic, pro-government and pro-business. Theoretically with a significant fusion of Pro-business moderates the Dems or a Republican rump could see the far left reduced to the cities and third party status.

The GOP, I think will break apart with Social fundamentalists and moderates parting ways. Without major party status what would the Social Funds do: moderate their social views? become pro-government? less pro-business?

I see at least three parties in the next decade, possibly four, the moderates vs. Independent Conservatives in the suburbs, the Socialists in the inner cities, and a social fund party maybe left dominating Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Georgia, and being a major third party in Texas, SC, and NC. I think the "Outer South," of the Nixon years will leave the South politically: Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at May 4, 2006 08:39 PM

Partisan politics can help effectively define vague philosophies into tangible patterns and predictable alliances.

And that is mainly the bad thing about it, IMO...especially the part about patterns and predictable alliances based on vague philosophy.

A partisan operative would give a small but glowing grin at that statement. It makes his job so much easier because irrational and meaningless rhetoric can conjure up that "vague philosophy" and keep quite different groups with different agendas voting for the same guy.

That said, I understand the gist of the original post and I agree. I often find great yet seemingly politically impossible ideas coming from libertarians of all stripes. Charles Murray's "in our hands" is fine wxample in terms of social welfare. A truly interesting tax reform idea comes from geo-libertarian Georgists proposing Land Value Tax plans. "The Golden Key to Continuous Prosperity : How to Vote Yourself a Tax Break (Without Any Reduction in Government Revenue)" by Steven B. Cord is an example.

Posted by: John at May 4, 2006 08:52 PM

Adam,

Unfortunately, politics kind of gets in the way your vision doesn't. Having any more than one party leads to division for division's sake unless they were relatively equally-balanced against one another and handed-off power periodically after intellectually-honest campaigns. Without the balance, one or the other simply tries to undermine the other with cheap tricks because power is an aphrodisiac.

I appreciate the sentiment, however. I've always thought that the mean-spiritedness of our two parties was unnecessary. Mostly the product of cultural opposites left over from the intra-party battles within the Democratic Party (Dixiecrats vs. Progressives) of that last century.

I envision a more constructive relationship (see my post above) whereby a moderate pro-government party enacting modest, but progressive ideas for social justice and the personal well-being of the poor and d-abled, exchanging power with a more anti-government populist party which sought to scrap if they became too expensive or didn't function as they were intended.

It would be like two people, one a draftsman sketching plans, one after another, and the other a sculptor who files away the flecks and excesses of the plan.

Perhaps this is naive, however, something like this definately seems down your ally.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at May 4, 2006 08:56 PM

An escape from flatland might look like this:

Imagine voter Jon Doe. Let him rate his ideological preferences by giving him ten ideological arrows that intersect at 0. On a scale from -10 to + 10 he places himself along each the ten arrows. One arrow is big government v small government. Another arrow is religious belief v secular humanism. Another arrow is isolationism v interventionism and so and so forth. The ten points in Doe’s ideological sphere define his position both in terms of his ideology and his reactivity to individual issues( for example: -2, +10, +6, etc...). We know what Doe’s most important issues are and how he thinks about them.

In the two party system, each party tries to convince imagined "binary aggregates" that "partisanship" will result in political control most likely to further, or not further Doe's ideological preferences. Bush appealed to Doe on national security issues though such a claim might not be true. Doe must analyze both the truth of such security claims and whether the other party is more likely to do the better job concerning Doe’s overall ideological preferences.
The problem is that when you examine the three dimensional ideological aggregates of voter profiles you no longer see two major distributions. In fact, I think one sees more aggregates around a smaller centered circle while the average of all profiles yields a different center. Two clear aggregates was always a myth of both party’s leaderships instead of simply the consequence of the filtering realties of a two party system oscillating between years of dominance and submission.
Centrists have ideology, but the over-riding principles seem to be 1. the sanctity of data 2. the importance of reason and engineering sound solutions instead of increasing the chaos 3. an acceptance of the general principles espoused in the Constitution and 4. a practical realism in regard to global reality and support of a NSS that recognizes the implications of such a reality in terms of American self-interest.
As far as the political poles creating valuable ideas: I don't buy that in general. The pole bases "use" ideas to promote their claim to certain "populist" ideologies. The Democrats once advocated ending tyranny through foreign intervention. Now they shout a different tune. The Republicans once argued for less government. Now a Republican President says 750 laws are not for him to follow while this administration supports a House Bill that will allow CIA and NSA to arrest any felon based on warrentless searches (?). I think this is a case for unprecedented government power.

I find many people surprisingly consistent and Centrist. Many moderates have long felt marginalized. Even Libertarians do not like seeing poorly feed children or brackish drinking water and many Liberals are loath to let Iraq slip into madness or letting Iran acquire nukes. There was a time when the parties appealed to the center. Now the appeal is towards extremes. During these times, Center becomes a needed force in itself with an expedient ideology worthy of devotion: keeping the rudder focused on our greatest threats. It is a passion and a duty I fear many on the right and left feel is exclusive to only their ideology, that they "believe" is best for America. It is small wonder that in times like these, both the left and right as witnessed by the daily bandwidth of blogs and media often attack the center as Democrat or republican lites. If both political bases continue to stumble, the center will be the backbone for an Independent to win.

Posted by: maxtrue at May 4, 2006 11:35 PM

Ideology serves a purpose, such as politics in general serves a purpose. As with anything, there must be balance. There are times when ideology must be set aside, as well as politics.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 5, 2006 12:10 AM

I think fmodo is right. But you also need the center, somebody doing deals to make it really happen.

Slavery was brought to a boiling point as an issue by extremists, but it took a great centrist doing very clever deals, doing what he could with the stuff of practicality to make it happen - one A. Lincoln.

The success of a very important strand of Open Source thought, the Free Software Foundation's Gnu Public License, which forbids redistribution of software under that license without providing source code, is due to both fanaticism and deal-making. Richard Stallman (RMS) is a fanatic who believes software should be never be sold and should always come with source code. He wrote an important programmers' utilty called a compiler. The way a compiler works would've meant that every program written using his compiler would've been under the GNU Public License.

Centrists told him, correctly, that nobody would use his compiler if he didn't fix that problem. Unlike most fanatics, he listened, and did a deal: he provided a special case that fixed the problem and let developers using his compiler be free to choose their own license. If he hadn't made that decision, I believe the GPL would not have caught on beyond a handful of programs that RMS and a handful of early believers wrote. As it is, it's an important fork of Open Source licensing thought.

Posted by: Jon Kay at May 5, 2006 01:04 AM

"ideology" is another innocuous word that we should be able to use and understand only in the sense in which it is supposed to be understood. It means the set of beliefs/ideas of a given group. When used properly, I have no doubt that centrism is indeed an ideology, and that's not troublesome to me. There is nothing wrong with having an ideology, which is a good thing, because individually, wll all have one.

Ideologies are not the problem. It's the particular nature of some ideologies that's troublesome. Ideologies, as defined, and the ideas and beliefs of a given group. Their nature is driven by the culture of the given group. What many ideologies are prone to is the following....the group culture becomes hierarchical and authoritarian in nature...the beliefs become unchallengeable dogma...those who challenge the dogma become heretics...the beliefs become ossified...poor matches for changing reality and the insight of some group members.

IMO, it's about critical thinking. Can you hold even you most treasured beliefs in a conditional form, so that you might entertain re-examination and changing of ideas if additional information suggests the wisdom of this? Is your ideology founded on reason, or on faith?

Partisanship? In my understanding of the term, it means that you support one group over another all the time, right or wrong. It's tribalism...you join a tribe (or you grow your own tribem such as a family or extended family), and you always support them. I think blind partisanship is an illness upon the system.

Posted by: bk at May 5, 2006 09:07 AM

I agree with both Pat and Brian here. Everyone has an ideology of some kind--it's simply a way by which someone orders the world around him, the lens through which he sees political (and other} phenomena. The particular ideology that someone espouses is often, I think, a reflection of someone's temperament. The problem arises with world views that essentially exclude the possibility that they might be incorrect, such as Marxism or Nazism, or, left-wingers and right-wingers of various stripes. Belief in moderation is just as much an ideology as belief in scientific materialism.

I don't see any problem with identifying oneself as liberal or conservative as a means of identifying one's world view. While both terms are mushy in many cases--what's conservative in one period is liberal in another--they still describe general sets of principles to which one can adhere. You can say I'm not a liberal or a conservative because I believe in critical thinking and so on, but my sense is that most people do lean one way or the other. The difference is that people on this blog are more accomodating to disagreement--that's part of the centrist ideology.

I would be careful about using Lincoln as an example of the virtues of moderation. Even though he was a moderate, it wasn't his moderation that solved the slavery question, it was his iron determination to hold the union together without allowing slavery to expand that solved the problem through the Civil War. I wouldn't exactly call the Civil War an example of compromise and nonpartisanship.

In fact, this is one thing I have been struggling with. I believe in the virtues of moderation and compromise. On the other hand, as I read American history--I am nearly finished with "The Rise of American Democracy" by Sean Wilentz, a great book that I heartily recommend--it's hard not to be struck by the fact that it's the non-moderate positions that have forced progress. And, clearly, the moderate position is not necessarily the moral position. For example, the moderate position on slavery was represented by the Missouri Compromise, which essentially left slavery untouched in the South. The radical abolitionists represented the moral position as we recognize it today--slavery was wrong and should be wiped out immediately.

I'm certainly not saying that centrism is not, in general, a worthy endeavor--seeing both sides and working toward an accomodation. I believe, pace Barry Goldwater, that extremism in defense of liberty often is a vice. And, in fact, radical abolitionists, such as John Brown, did some appalling things. But I think we need to be careful about treating centrism as inherently ALWAYS superior in all situation to the passion and committment of partisans.

Posted by: Marc at May 5, 2006 10:01 AM

But I think we need to be careful about treating centrism as inherently ALWAYS superior in all situation to the passion and committment of partisans.

I'll accept superior most of the time ;)

Also, I am always very leery of the intimation that only the partisans can have passion and commitment. I think this idea results from people falsely imagining that a centrist can never come to a solid conclusion -- that a centrist must always be committed to such a level of self-doubt and self-scrutiny that he or she cannot hold strong views.

I think a centrist can indeed have strong, and even visionary, ideas about policy. It's just that the centrist, ideally, has FIRST engaged in careful reflection before energetically adopting a position and pursuing it. So while a good centrist would be still be willing to question their beliefs after having committed, I don't think it's accurate to view a centrist as so saddled with self-doubt that they can't accomplish anything.

IOW, I think, in a way, we can indeed have centrist ideologues and partisans. What differentiates them is that they have -- on an issue by issue basis -- carefully studied the data before embracing a solution. As opposed to a conservative who might view tax cuts as the cure for all ills. Does you neck ache? You need a tax cut my friend! Or a liberal who always feels that government should be applied.

Another way of framing a centrist is to view him or her as a maverick, as an eclectic. Certainly we have had very passionate mavericks.

Finally, the reason I think we see a lot more passion on the wings than the center is because of learned helplessness. Basically, the wings are so entrenched that the center has just given up out of despair. But huge amounts of potential energy can be derived from the center with the right conditions. Where there is something about which the center can crystallize.

I think this is what the CC is trying to do. To provide a vehicle through which centrist passion and frustration with the system can be channelled.

I think you greatly underestimate the large amount of pent-up frustration and anger in the center with the status quo.

Hell even Alan Greenspan thinks we need an independent candidate for president. Calls for a third party keep on coming.

So, again, I think we have to keep in mind that some of the greatest accomplishments of human history are majestic syntheses such as I listed above.

Finally, one of things about wingers that frustrates me is their insistence that we only have two choices when in fact there is this huge space of uncharted territory to explore.

Posted by: Adam at May 5, 2006 12:51 PM

Very interesting thoughts here.

I think the real argument shouldn't be about where the ideas come from (the center or the extremes) but how they interact.

It has always struck me that the people that are the most comfortable being described by the term Centrist are ex-Republicans or children of ex-Republicans who disdain the GOP's rejection of the Progressive Concensus.

The Progressive Concensus as I understand it is this (for the last 100 years): In order to preempt Socialism in this country the GOP would accept whatever increases in the scope of government passed by the Dems as long as the right to Private Property was preserved. They reserved the right to streamline it, but all the new areas into which government (and specifically the Federal Government) intruded were to be maintained.

Although Centrists do oppose Socialism it seems to me that it isn't an ideological opposition but a technical one, that being that destruction of the Capitalist System would destroy the engine which government can use for their programs.

The real focus of Centrist ire is the GOP, because it used to work neatly enough within the Progressive Concensus, but has repeatedly threatened rhetorically to leave it.

What believing Centrists really want then isn't a third party, but a new moderate second party replacing the GOP to maintain the Progessive concensus and keep the Dems from jumping off into full-throated Socialism.

That way every election can be about what government CAN and SHOULD do rather than whether it should do anything at all.

There are others, myself included, who have a problem with that. They consider themselves independent but have some qualms with the Centrist lable. The main focus of their ire is the GOP as well, but for the OPPOSITE reason. That being the GOPs continued advancement of the Progressive Concensus.

I have no problem with one party being staunchly moderate. I DO have a problem with TWO moderate-to-liberal parties. (After all isn't that also part of the Centrist program: Effective government programs undermining the appeal to Socialism?)

I think it is credible to believe that a party system with one moderate and one Conservative party is more conducive to constructive Centrism than a party system with one Moderate and one Liberal party.

As long as Moderates have to get Conservative support for tempering big government liberalism they will be undermined by essentially hostile interests.

If, however, a genuinely populist Conservative party were to emerge, Centrism could be founded upon a stronger basis. Sure devout liberals will be a thorn in your side, but depending on the effectiveness of your program liberals could be brought around to support a Centrist party if numerically it was the only way to defeat a genuinely Conservative alternative. In many ways they could also be a very useful foil, as well.

So the real battle isn't between the Dems and Reps but rather in the Center over the redefinition of the Party structure since the late 60's and accelerating into the 80's.

By allowing the Right to leave the Progressive Concensus, Centrism could be advanced thru a new party system.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at May 5, 2006 01:41 PM

Interesting thoughts, Cavalier. I think there are many "flavors" of centrists, and I actually think there are a fair number of ex-Dem centrists as well. Especially given the current attempt on the left to purge all save the true believers.

I'm thinking more of three parties, a left, right, and center one. In my view, the center party would be a big tent party that would attract all those who feel closer to the center than to the wings.

Posted by: Adam at May 5, 2006 02:30 PM

What happens after you've "engaged in careful reflection before energetically adopting a position" but the position you adopt is diametrically opposed to the one adopted by your fellow centrist?

The problem is not that all ideologues are unthinking wingnuts. Many of them (ideologues, not wingnuts) HAVE engaged in careful reflection before adopting their positions. It's just that different education, experiences, and religious and philosophical beliefs have led them to different conclusions about fundamental aspects of human nature. Those sincerely-held, well-thought-out differences lead them to different policy conclusions. "The Communist Manifesto" and "The Road to Serfdom" are both careful reflections... but they are diametrically opposed to each other.

By the way, if you want "centrism" to be something else besides compromising between opposing beliefs, you need to NAME it something else. You can't have a "center" without having two sides, by definition. "Center" can only exist in relationship to 2 extremes.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 5, 2006 03:04 PM

Great points, Pat. We assume that all partisans are unthinking. But that's not necessarily true. Adam assumes that "careful reflection" will automatically lead one to adopt a moderate position between two extremes. But that's not necessarily the case; as I discussed before, a moderate positon on slavery in the 1850s meant restricting its expansion up north but allowing it unfettered in the South. However, one could just as easily upon careful reflection have decided that the appropriate position would be to oppose slavery in general. That would have been a radical positon at the time, but not an unconsidered or irrational position.

And, as Pat points out, at some point, discussion and compromise have to lead to something concrete. Not every issue is decidable simply by bringing "facts" to bear. For example, being for or against gay marriage isn't a matter of developing the relevant facts; it's a matter of a person's particular principles and way of seeing the world.

Posted by: Marc at May 5, 2006 03:40 PM

Thank You for your thoughts, Adam.

While I do think there are a fairly large number of moderate Centrists among Democrats I hesitate to think many of them would be ex-Democrats, because as Democrats have left that party most of them have done so out of a dissillionment with government and/or with Liberalism, something I don't think most Centrists have.

I think we're agreed on the three party system. One Centrist, One Conservative, and a small liberal leftover in the inner-cities.

Pat, I will concede to you the Centrist lable which I have already admitted some discomfort with if you will concede that there are a large number of defectors from the two parties for reasons other than their "extremism." Perhaps call them Independents.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at May 5, 2006 05:12 PM

What happens after you've "engaged in careful reflection before energetically adopting a position" but the position you adopt is diametrically opposed to the one adopted by your fellow centrist?

Have a careful discussion with the centrist in question and try to harmonize your views. If that fails, that's okay. My sense is that, after a protracted debate, you could get 80% of self-described centrists on board with a policy solution that they could all live with, and 60-70% that they all would strongly endorse (say out of a group of 100).

As the fact that not all conservatives agree does not vitiate conservatism, likewise with centrism.

See, we need more than careful reflection contaminated by personal feeling and experiences, we need to have a vigorous discussion replete with experts on the topics at hand. That's one reason why Tully's such an asset. Many times when data is brought to bear on a question, many possible options evaporate.

And let's examine the example of human nature and gay marriage. Human nature is what it is. And gay marriage will have definite effects. I agree that many times all the facts are not in, and we just have to guess as best we can, and that these guesses will influenced by temperament and personal experience. Fine. I don't dispute that. But you act as if this a good, or god-given way of preceding.

Quite the opposite. Since we don't know whether conservatism or liberalism is true, and as such people are forced to base their opinions on "gut feeling," the proper course of action is to collect more data to resolve the issue, not just resign ourselves to a dumb perpetual struggle! ;)

These questions are answerable, fellas. Certainly policies do work better than others.

(And in fact, I think the evidence is clear that neither is wholly true (lib or con), and so that's why we have to examine the conservative and liberal solution on a case-by-case basis.)

And that's what wrong with politics in many ways. It's the wrong framework. Policy should be data-driven as much as possible. Even disputes about gay marriage are data-driven to an extent. Some say that gay marriage will have this or that effect. We can test that, and before implementing we can examine what we know from the psychological, economic, etc. to evaluate whether those predictive claims seem likely.

So what you see as a virtue in politics, is in my view, a deep vice. And yes, of course, one expert/philosopher may disagree strongly with another. But the jury system works pretty well, and, so likewise, I think we can attain about 80% agreement on most issues. (Meaning, bring experts before a well-informed and intelligent group and a consensus can emerge.)

By the way, if you want "centrism" to be something else besides compromising between opposing beliefs, you need to NAME it something else. You can't have a "center" without having two sides, by definition. "Center" can only exist in relationship to 2 extremes.

Definition are always tricky. You want a narrow definition, I prefer a broader one. It's a complex phenomenon and seemingly conflicting definitions can bring us closer to getting a feel for it. And center need not exist in relation to two extremes. Think a circle, or a sphere, or hows about an infinite-dimensional hypersphere. Okay, a bit pedantic, but the point is important. That there are more than two extremes in many cases.

In any case, though, I think genuine centrism can be adumbrated in the following way.

(1a)For simplicity imagine a line segment centered at the origin. A centrist roams all of ideological space that is the central, say, 60% percent while the wingers occupy the outer 20%, respectively, on each side. So a centrist need not be at the origin but should be somewhat close to it.

(1b)A centrist is one who roams all of ideological space but finds him or herself in the inner 60% when all views are averaged.

(2) A centrist embraces compromise and critical thinking.

I think a centrist should fulfill both (1) (either a or b) and (2) to be a full-blooded centrist.

And I think, for most people, most of the time, critical thought AND dialogue with those who think differently, namely (2) of the definition will lead to satisfaction of (1).

Finally, (1a) is a the moderate variety of centrist. (1b) is more the maverick.

If one only fulfills part (2) we have moderate and thoughtful wingers, but not centrists.

Good enough for you, Pat? :)
You have asked and so you shall receive.

And I should say, Marc and Pat, I think much of this debate centers over how valuable the wings vs. center are. I'm arguing that centrism contains 80% of the juice while the wings 20%. So I do indeed recognize that the wings can and have and do contribute something of value. But my thesis is that centrism beats them out. You perhaps reverse those numbers.

So we almost have photographic negative positions of each other. We do see the other person's point of view, but we just feel that we're still more right than the other guy.

So you see, I think centrism needs both a substance (part 1 of def) and a methodology (part 2). That's a more full-bodied vision of centrism. And one that we'll need to actually advance centrism to its fullest extent. We'll need to have actual policy agreement, not just methodlogical agreement. You guys seem to envision a more castrated definition of centrism.

BTW, Marc (and Pat), how many Republicans (or Democrats) did you vote for in the last election? You don't have to answer, but if your numbers are low or very lopsided -- I hate to tell you, but you ain't centrists, you're just friendly, moderate, thoughtful partisans. [unless over the long haul your votes average out. see part b of 1.]

I say this not to be mean, but to me, a centrist need be an independent. If someone is not an independent (or a partisan of a centrist party) one can't be a full centrist.

So, for me, a partisan claiming to be a centrist is like a married man claiming to be a bachelor. It's just plain nuts.

But don't get me wrong. Boy do I wish that politics were run by you guys instead of the guys we have now. We need more of you. (Centrists would be better, but I'll take what I can get ;))

I'm just making the case that, imo, there is a viable substantive vigorous centrist alternative and that this alternative is superior to the moderate partisan one. You disagree and that's fine.

Posted by: Adam at May 5, 2006 08:17 PM

Interesting remarks on this thread. Let's assume there is a criteria for Centrism and my Jon Doe's 3-D distribution of ideological preferences and hot-button issues fit it. Should Doe be a partisan about his ideological position? Should he say to others who share his criteria that they must resist Republican and Democratic partisanship in favor of allegiance to "Centrism"? This would be centrist partisanship, which I do believe is needed to combat the wild claims by Republicans and Democrats that their future success will even bring about the goals they claim to promote. I think Adam is right that centrism requires a certain partisanship. The "moral" imperitive is to be partisan centrists.

I think those holding centrist profiles far outweigh the Left and Right bases. While no two centrists might ever agree on all issues, clearly a criterion brings them together. What is holding people back from recognizing and expanding the political force of the center are in part, the hourly media induced fear-mongering claims by the 20% of partisan political bases that insist only a Democratic or a Republican victory can ensure "their" ideological fulfillment. Gee, I wonder why this logic works. They use the two-party reality to make their two-option case. Despite the lack of an Independent party with force, Congress has acted to balance the extremes. Why? They do this I think because the claim of "centrist" is something the Republicans feel they need now going into the election cycle with the poll numbers extremely low as a result of the public perception "they are not behaving more centrist". LOL

Republicans shouted foul at McCarthy (threatening new leaker laws) and now Goss is out. Bush wants a House Bill passed that gives the CIA and NSA the power to spy (without warrants) and arrest anyone observed committing a felony while Spector lists more than 750 laws Bush feels he can ignore. Congress is slowing MDA money until they prove some merit while increasing expenditure on systems our forces presently need. We do see a trend forming over fears about electability that appears to be moving Congress center. Is this however, something a new pre-emption can shake? The degree to which centrists show some partisanship, may decide if polarization becomes the political operative mode........again.

Posted by: maxtrue at May 6, 2006 11:37 AM

I think we're agreed on the three party system

I like the five-party system. Five parties a week leaves two days for recuperation. More seriously, once you get past two parties you're headed for coalition/parliamentary democracy, which has its own set of plusses and minuses. See below, Madison.

By the way, if you want "centrism" to be something else besides compromising between opposing beliefs, you need to NAME it something else. You can't have a "center" without having two sides, by definition. "Center" can only exist in relationship to 2 extremes.

Bi-polar thinking. Hey, there's only two kinds of people in the world, those that think there's only two kinds of people, and the rest of us. :-)

Madison was onto something that I keep preaching about on occasion. Those Founding Fathers were pretty bright people.

That's one reason why Tully's such an asset.

Unless I'm in vehement disagreement, in which case the last two letters of the last word magically disappear! :-D (But thanks...)

Posted by: Tully at May 7, 2006 12:09 PM

Adam,

I frankly don't understand where you get the idea that all partisans must be extremists. There are plenty of partisan Democrats or Republicans that are not extreme. Harry Truman was the best example--he was an extremely partisan Democrat but was certainly not a left-wing extremist. Partisanship (within reason)is NOT the same thing as wild-eyed crazies with no ability to think.

As for me, I have voted for Republicans in the past--in fact, my first vote--whem I was a much more partisan Democrat than I am now--was for a Republican for governor of Tennessee. (The Democrat, Ray Blanton, won and subsequently went to jail for selling pardons. I claim prescience.) But I generally do vote for Democrats because their views more closely align with mine. Moreover, I find the current Republican Party far less congenial than I once did, for a variety of reasons. And I'm sure Pat would say the same thing on the other side. If that makes us unduly partisan or not capable of critical thinking, then I guess we would have to plead guilty. But I think you are making a mistaket to equate being an independent with being a critical thinker. I suspect some independents (and, obviously I'm not talking about you or anyone here) simply don't pay much attention to politics and have no well-defined views. What you seem to be implying is that everyone should approach voting as a tabula rasa, in which a person's history, temperament, experiences, and values play no part--just some sort of cold, analytical reasoning. I think that's unrealistic--someone may think that he or she is making a judgment based on the specifics at hand, but I would bet we are all constrained by the dead hand of the past more than we would like to believe.

I'm not arguing against critical thinking. But you seem to be saying that you can't be a critical thinker and also have a defined position on political issues. I disagree with that. Would you say that someone that believes in less free-market and more government activity and has thought about the issues is not a critical thinker because his views align with the Democratic Party? Thomas Jefferson had specific beliefs that were diametrically opposed to Alexander Hamilton. Did that mean these were not critical thinkers because they could not find common ground on many issues?

BTW, I think it's sort of amusing that I am a poster child for partisanship because I'm actually not very partisan. I don't look at the Democrats as being heaven-sent to save the planet or that the GOP is the devil incarnate. And I don't think Bush is evil--but I do think he is a bad president.

Posted by: Marc at May 8, 2006 11:38 AM

Sorry Marc, I do have a tendency to get all fired up about things. I was primarily to reacting to Pat, in essence, claiming that the center was devoid of energy and ideas. He even put centrism in scare quotes. For shame! ;)

He said: "ideology provides impetus and energy and direction which "centrism" does not."

No, I do not think that all partisans need be extremists or need be unthinking. In fact, I do think it is appropriate at times to swing left or swing right as the circumstances dicate.

I guess why I have chosen you and Pat as the poster children of partisanship -- actually I think Simon takes the cake on that one -- is that you two always insist seem to insist on the need for ideology (by which you seem to mean liberal or conservative perspectives) and always seem to view centrism as a void, empty of both energy and ideas.

IOW, both of you embrace a rather traditional view of politics, one that I think is detrimental to the cause of centrism. Rather than seeing centrism as a potential source of ideas and energy in and of itself, capable of actually leading society forward, you two seem to view it as merely a way to minimize wing extremism. I see centrism as much more than that.

For a random example of a centrist leader, take Elizabeth I. She sought to forge a compromise between protestantism and catholicism and led her country to golden age that we still celebrate today. After all, some of her subjects wanted her to take a stand; after all, what choice could be more stark, more binary than protestantism or catholicism? Sounds similar to the wing rhetoric we hear today.

Clinton too can be seen as such a leader. My basic point is that while the wings can provide interesting perspectives, I view the center as being more important because it alone can bring an entire country on board and it alone can synthesize liberal and conservative ideas -- and I view a workable synthesis to be a far more challenging enterprise than adopting a straight liberal or conservative view.

Posted by: Adam at May 8, 2006 12:33 PM

Adam, you continue to read what I write as somehow attacking centrism and denying either its legitimacy or our need for it. I am not. I make these comments in response to attacks against all partisans and ideologies.

In all of your examples in this thread, centrism did indeed produce progress... by finding a third way between the extremes in society. That is, indeed, invaluable, and the hope for such is why I participate in this site. I make those comments in specific reaction to your description of centrists: "It's just that the centrist, ideally, has FIRST engaged in careful reflection before energetically adopting a position and pursuing it." As I pointed out earlier, there are, in fact, a whole slew of differing world views out there, legitimately held by rational, intelligent people. Those world views, those fundamental beliefs about human nature, influence how each of us evaluate competing policy proposals.

You are correct that we will often not move forward if the wings produce gridlock. But we will also not move forward if we are not being pushed (even if in conflicting directions) by those parties. Your Elizabeth I example shows that. She produced a compromise between extremes. It was a decent compromise, perhaps, and may have moved the country forward, but it did not take place in a vacuum. Without the competing pressures from rabid Protestant partisans, perhaps Mary's pro-Catholic, anti-Protestant partisans would have stayed fully in power, brutally repressing any dissent from the Church. It was rabid Protestants who provided the impetus and demand for action.

Of course, giving in entirely to the Protestants would not have been good, because that would have merely led to a return to the brutal repression of Catholicism practiced during and after Henry, when celebrating Mass was a capital offense.

Neither the Protestants nor the Catholics were fully right, and neither should have had their demands adopted in toto. But that doesn't change the fact that they were the ones providing the energy and impetus to bring about change. Centrist forces then ably and admirably steered a proper course.

So I promote this outlook because it seems to me that those who propose a Centrist Party do in fact deny the legitimacy or wisdom of having any type of ideology, however mild. Centrism as I see it is a wonderful and quite beneficial method to resolve harsh and painful conflicts in the body politic. But it cannot stand alone.

Look at Marc and I. We're in almost complete agreement on this topic, though we would likely disagree a great deal on many substantive political issues. But we can sit down and work out compromises because of the centrist method of which we both approve. I recognize I'm not always going to get my way, he recognizes he's not always going to get his way, so we argue about it, hash it out, and find some solution we can both reasonably live with. That's the value of centrism.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 8, 2006 05:06 PM

By the by, Elizabeth I in fact did repress Catholicism pretty thoroughly during her reign. Her apparent third way solution soon after she took the thrown in fact led to Catholicism being forced underground quite thoroughly by the end of her reign.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 8, 2006 05:09 PM

Obviously, there is a certain sense in which competing interests provide the grist for the mill of the centrist. And so, as fmodo put it, the wings do serve a certain necessary ecological function.

However, a centrist party would not need an ideology in a strong sense. That would be their selling point. They would need to formulate goals, but the goals would be of a non-ideological sort: strong economy, strong schools, clean environment, honest government, etc.

And when these goals conflicted, they would aim to balance them as much as possible.

Obviously, the party would have to adopt concrete policies to arrive at these goals. But they would rummage through the whole toolbox of options rather than confining themselves to liberal or conservative solutions.

Now, admittedly at times, preferences would creep in. But the goal is for policy to be driven by data and outcomes rather than by ideological preference.

I see nothing incoherent about such a party. They would stand for flexibility, efficiency, competency and fairness.

Were you to go to a psychotherapist today, they would most likely be eclectic in orientation. They would fit their tools to you rather than you to the tools. Most people would rather go to a psychotherapist that was versed in all techniqes rather than just say, humanistic or psychodynamic.

The same goes for the body politic. You wouldn't go to a surgeon who insisted on having one hand tied behind his back and neither should the people be forced to choose between left-handed or right-handed surgeons who inflict grave damage on the body politic. Heck no, they should sue both parties for malpractice and vote centrist!

We have had great centrist religions, philosophies, composers, and rulers. We can therefore have a great centrist party.

As to partisans being unthinking: we have two options here for rational partisans. They may be rational but only see one side of the picture (in which case either their mental or experiential capacity is limited), or they may see both sides of the picture but only selfishly agitate for their own (the sleazes) . . . . or or or they may actually be right. But as a committed centrist, I would deny that ;)

[See Pat, centrism truly can become a party. If you notice, I have just showcased a taste of -- gasp! -- centrist demonization of the other. I am such a naughty boy ;)]

Posted by: Adam at May 8, 2006 08:06 PM

BTW, the clearest way to show that something is possible is to provide examples of it. There have existed great centrist statesmen, therefore we can have them. Centrist parties have and do exist, therefore such a thing is possible. Now how such a thing would work in the American system is an open question, but. . . .

Bottom line Pat: sure maybe maybe maybe SOME partisans might somehow serve SOME unknown purpose, but even so, centrists are still WAY cooler. ;)

Posted by: Adam at May 8, 2006 08:17 PM

I don't think this refutes centrism at all. Centrism in one sense is finding a middle ground between extremes, but it's also a commitment to considering things rationally and calmly. In that sense, the extremists are not unnecessary, and yet they are not needed.

Posted by: JP at May 8, 2006 11:44 PM

Adam,

Your assumption seems to be that parties are simply conglomerations of the most extreme wings on each side. But that is not how American parties have traditionally formed. In general, they cover a wide array of beliefs and attitudes, albeit with a very general like-mindedness about ends and means. Sometimes, the more extreme elements obtain a relatively great amount of influence, such as the Democratic left in the seventies and, (I would argue), the Republican right today. But that doesn't mean that the parties are nothing but zero-sum institutions. For the most part, both parties traditionally coalesce around the middle left and middle right. To me, the problem is that the parties, as institutions, have become much weaker, thereby allowing groups on the fringe to have more influence. Moreover, changes in technology allow groups to bypass the party apparatus and go directly to the public. So, I disagree that the parties are the problem; I think the parties would more likely be forces for moderation if they were stronger.

I still think that your idea of people starting from ground zero and coming together to form "rational" policies is unrealistic. You have to start from somewhere. Pat and I, as he said, would disagree on a lot, but at least we would know where each other is coming from and have a general sense of the parameters of a compromise. But our respective parties, at their best, facilitate these types of solutions. If we were just arguing with each other, I doubt we would get anywhere other than having an interesting debate. What you seem to be saying is that people would simply examine the facts at hand and somehow work out the most rational policy. But without knowing what each person considers rational, this just seems like a recipe for deadlock. Facts, after all, are contestable in many cases and certainly their interpretation is. For example, let's say that there is a figure that X percent of the US population lives in poverty. One person might say interpret that as ONLY x percent live in poverty, while another would look at that as a lot. So, facts don't get you anywhere without looking at values and underlying assumptions. Certainly, I agree with the idea that people should coalesce around a position that is based on rational analysis. But I think that's a lot harder than you think without some initial basis.

I'm not opposed to a party that is centrist in nature, but I think that it has to have some substance to it. And that's going to require more than just good will.

Posted by: Marc at May 9, 2006 11:02 AM

I still think that your idea of people starting from ground zero and coming together to form "rational" policies is unrealistic.

First, it is meant to be an ideal towards which we ought strive. Second, it's not that unrealistic if we don't strive for consensus but merely sizeable majority (60%-70%) and it is even less unrealistic if those who aiming for the compromise are centrists -- as in a centrist party.

You're right that people will differ on how much povery is acceptable etc. But on issues where there is a tradeoff -- say business vs. environment -- whereas liberals or conservative might favor one side or the other, I think most Americans and most centrists have the shared values that they don't lean heavily towards one side or the other.

So your fallacy is that we are obligated to preference one side over the other on many issues. But this ignores the preference of most Americans and most centrists to steer a middle course as best they can. For instance, most Americans prefer diplomacy and want us to stay unentangled but at the same time want a president hawkish enough that he or she is willing to employ military options. Most Americans don't want an uber-hawk or a super-dove, they want a shrewd hawk-dove that uses whatever policy is most likely to suceed. They don't want a bully or a wuss.

This I think is a major blindspot of yours and of most partisans, they really can't fathom a middle of the road position. You'll for instance try to turn Iraq into a binary option -- to invade or not to invade. But even those seemingly binary options are not binary at all. For instance, I agree with Brian that Bush should have both been willing to use serious military force against Saddam but also been far more shrewd and graded about it. Gradually ramp up the pressure against Saddam; he fails to comply, blow up one palace, and gradually ratchet it up if necessary.

My point is that there are really very few binary options in the world. For instance, a centrist might simultaneously embrace stricter abortion regulations but push hard for more explicit sex-ed and for greater availabilty of contraception. There's almost always some way to balance out one binary choice with another.

So, in fact, centrists do indeed have strong preferences -- they prefer to have get the best of both worlds whenever possible. Wanting your tea at 50 Celcius is just as concrete a preference as wanting it at 0 or 100 degrees.

I really can't think of anything where we are forced to choose one side or the other. Can you?

For instance, centrists could favor tough penalties for criminals but also favor greater emphasis on rehabilitation. Or only favor the death penalty in certain cases. There's no reason whatsoever why we can't combine liberal and conserative policies on an issue to arrive at desired outcomes.

Centrism is certainly not as incoherent as the parties we have today.

These positions are just as concrete as the false choice often offered by partisans. It is extrememly rare where one is forced to go to one side or the other. Usually, you can have a little of both sides.

Posted by: Adam at May 9, 2006 12:23 PM

To me, the problem is that the parties, as institutions, have become much weaker, thereby allowing groups on the fringe to have more influence.

I agree completely, Marc. Personally, I blame campaign finance reform for a lot of that. I've been meaning to sit down and write a lengthy analysis of it, but life keeps getting in the way.

As I keep pointing out in the campaign finance threads, money WILL be spent to influence the elections. You can't stop it. At best you can hope to shape what institutions get to spend it. Campaign finance reform gives us the 527s, where money flows not to candidates and parties (who have incentives toward moderateness by the need to build coalitions) but instead to small, single-minded interest groups who must, by law, be completely free from control by the candidate. The candidate gets all the benefits of their attack ads and takes very little of the blame. If we instead allow unlimited contributions to the candidates and the parties (with full and immediate disclosure), then the parties themselves will work to shut such extremists down by sucking up all the money for their own purposes.

Adam said:

I really can't think of anything where we are forced to choose one side or the other. Can you?

Neither Marc nor I are suggesting that anyone should be "forced to choose one side or the other". Far from it. We both advocate listening to other sides with an open mind and making reasonable compromises based, as much as possible, on evidence of what will actually work. We're in favor of "taking a little from both sides". But right there is our point. There are, IN FACT, "sides". The sides are not just wingnuts but are based on different approaches to life and different views of human nature. The sides push, and then the middle helps craft the middle ground compromise (where compromise is appropriate).

You describe centrist policy goals:

They would need to formulate goals, but the goals would be of a non-ideological sort: strong economy, strong schools, clean environment, honest government, etc.

Those are the goals of most people in BOTH parties. The difference is very rarely on the ultimate goals. The difference is on what concrete policies are going to get us to the goals. Take "strong schools". I'm all in favor of them. I think vouchers are the way to get there. And I can show you studies to prove it. The teachers' unions can show you studies to prove that private school kids don't do any better than public school kids when controlled for socio-economic status. What's your centrist policy? Do we have enough data to make a good policy yet? Or do you decide that voucher proponents are just partisans not willing to listen to evidence? Or maybe the teachers unions are the nasty people who are willingly blind. The answer is neither. Both sides genuinely believe, with support from evidence, that their proposed policy will make for stronger schools and better educated children. What is your centrist policy on that? How is your centrist policy derived in the absence of the agenda-pushing competition between the two competing proposals? If both sides shut up right now about it, what would centrists do? Just go on with the status quo?

We definitely need strong forces toward centrism and moderation in this country. But we need passionate ideologues, too.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 9, 2006 03:15 PM

Taking the example of the teacher's union. I would indeed expect that their advocacy is blind. And I would also expect that all of their press releases would purposely obfuscate and distort the data. They're committed to an outcome regardless of the data and will fight tooth and nail any reasonable compromise. Like any other of a whole slew of interest groups.

If they were just dispassionately presenting their perspective in an honest way and humbly allowed the elected representatives to make a decision based on a cool analysis of both sides of the presentation, I might feel differently. All a centrist needs to hear is teachers' saying we want to keep our jobs and enshrine mediocrity, and the voucher people saying we want to funnel public money into religious schools that will indoctrinate our youth ;), and then they can shut up and the centrists can get to work.

I don't know much about education or public policy, but I'm in favor of chunking the unions, chunking tenure, but paying more money to attract better teachers. I oppose vouchers though. I fear it would split the money and, as I alluded to above, fund religious groups' indoctrination programs. We should also try to copy whatever the Japanese and Europeans are doing. Longer school year, etc. Of course all this is expennsive, so let's try to cut our entitlement spending to compensate.

As I see it, I would rather that the sides exist in the abstract rather than have people embody this one-sidedness. Meaning, a centrist could imagine a conservative solution and a liberal solution in his or her mind. Now those partisans would behave ;) I can also see the use of summoning to centrist deliberations honest scholars from conservative and liberal thinktanks. Oh hell, invite the staff of the nation and the weekly standard and we'll take notes.

I guess the problem is that I think the wings ought be subservient to the center, subservient to the greater good of society as opposed to seeking power at all costs and spinning and distorting as much as possible. The problem with a lot of conservative and liberal pundits is that they're, well, hacks. Meaning they're not trying to present the whole case, they're purposely being one-sided.

I think I realize why both of you agree with each other; you're both -- yup -- lawyers, whose role in life is to be purposefully one-sided for a living ;)

See, my training is in science, and soon philosophy, so I don't approach problems the way you guys do. Maybe your approach has merit, but if so, I think we need a way for the judge, embodying the centrist, to declare partisans in contempt of court and lock-em up at the first sign of spin or deception. And how about rules of evidence too. Everytime Nancy Pelosi or Bill Frist demagoues or spins, I'd like to be able to push a button to shock 'em. So I will agree that partisans can serve a purpose, provided they wear shock collars and learn how to heel to their masters ;)

Seriously, I think most partisans are either cynically pursuing their good at the expense of other groups or just have poor insight into the merits of the other side. I'm sure there are a few good partisans, but ugh. It's like one good partisan out of every 100, or 1000. (Now, certainly partisans can be good PEOPLE. But I think most liberals don't really have a good grasp why someone would be conservative and the same with conservatives. I don't think most partisans have a deep insight into the viewpoint of the other side or could it present in sympathetically. And I doubt most partisans have subjected their views to a very high level of scrutiny. I demand a ruthless level of self-scrutiny. And so I set the bar high.)

One thing I've learned from this blog is that politicians lie and lie and lie. As do interest groups. So I do view most partisans are either liers or deluded. Okay, I'll let the moderately partisan slide a little. But at least I view the party bases that way.

And I agree we do need some passionate ideologues -- just of the centrist variety ;)

Posted by: Adam at May 9, 2006 05:11 PM