Centerfield

Hmmm... 13 of 31(40+ %) Board members are college students. Online convention. A bit of a demographic skew... Can we vote via a text message from our phones?

Posted by: c3 at May 30, 2006 03:07 PM

This sounds worthwhile to me. However, it sounds a little bassackwards. Identitfy a platform first. Then, if I roughly agree with the prioritization set forth, I could be on board.

But if the priorities chosen are IMO out of whack, I don't care who's on the ticket or what supposed political ideal is being served.

Skepticvally, the fact that this trumpets a spread via college campuses and the input of young people is not something I expect to be a big positive, and it may drive things towards an agenda that I think is foolish. College students, facing supporting themselves, are known to be at their most communitarian as graduation looms, not to mention at their least appreciative of fiscal responsibility. If this agenda stresses things like big spending programs (we need to make education better and protect the environment at all costs, man!), then I am out.

If it stresses balancing government responsibilities with the people's willingness, and ability to pay, then I am in. If it says "lets start with SS, medicare, and healthcare," I am in. If it says, let's tax the powerful corporations to pay for better schools, better SS, and to guarantee healthcare, I am out.

Posted by: bk at May 30, 2006 03:16 PM

As a college student, I agree that we can be very communitarian. But, as a college student I also see how we are disillusioned with our enormous national debt and America's declining competitive standing, I see us angry that we haven't found any solution to the social security or healthcare woes. I see us frusturated that the issuesd we hear about are mainly abortion and gay marraige. These are important issues, but they can only be debated so much. I wouldn't count the movement out because college students are involved.

College students have time and passion - two things that can become increasingly diluted as individuals age. College students also have a great understanding of the internet. These factors make college students an asset to Unity08, because they have the time and motivation to try to change the government, and the internet is their tool to do so.

Finally, college students won't hijack the agenda if Unity08 succeeds in getting millons of average Americans involved. And Unity08 can only succeed in the long run if millions of normal Americans are involved.

I can't wait to see how Unity08 develops. Its time for moderate Americans to bring politics back to the issues that really matter. America's domestic and international strength.

Posted by: mlesica at May 30, 2006 05:14 PM

After reading this thread, I browsed the Unity08 website in search of a specific set of line items on their 2008 agenda. I realized that Unity08 has something bigger than everything else on the agenda: unity. People like you, bk, and me decide the other stuff in the online community when we become delegates and determine the Unity ticket.
This movement emphasizes compromise and cooperation, two qualities "politics-as-usual" could use a big dose of. And I especially appreciate its distinction between "crucial issues" and "important issues." I'm tired of politicians ignoring "crucial issues" because they can beat the other guy on a campaign that exploits the "important issues."
College students definitely have a lot to offer the political process. Why not let some of the brightest minds in the country (who have access to the best research facilities, professors, and each other) have a turn? My guess is something good will come from it.

Posted by: JES at May 30, 2006 05:37 PM

College students have time and passion - two things that can become increasingly diluted as individuals age.

That well describes the senior population and I would dare say they've been quite relucant to allow debate on the costs and benefits of senior programs (i.e. SS and Medicare) Posted by: c3 at May 30, 2006 07:57 PM

I suspect that many here do not equate mere on-line voting (more secure than Diebold or American Idol?) establishing what a "centrist plank" is -certainly within modern historical perspectives. One could create a center party, which this sounds like. Passion does not necessarily decrease with age and experience counts for the greater part of policy reform.

While I am in favor of an Independent Party that could field both Republicans and Democrats, such a party must still must seek and justify endorsement by the greater Centrist coalition which should reflect a centrist criteria for policy, not a center-mark arrived at by open polling of all ideologies by students.

And what is a centrist plank? Historically, one finds that a clear Liberal Consensus joined with a Conservative support for capitalism, legal precedent-over-activism and prudence in national security matters. Centrism emerged from this pragmatic balance between divergent ideological approaches shaping most modern presidencies of both parties and acting with sufficient force to promote centrist policy. Many have argued that for Liberals to move back towards centrism (not centerism or populism) and renew centrism they must begin to consider something like a Euston Manifesto.

To actually battle the Right and Left, centrists must create a new Liberal Consensus for Conservatives to reach out to. Dissing centrists at NYU is hardly centrist as yet these same students could easily manage internet polling for a Unity Party in their free time. Don't get me wrong. I love the student perspective and think the center needs more of a voice, but this is a bit different than calling unity, centrism. I suggest before proclaiming unity as centrism, one should first identify "centrist criteria" and what is actually important to the center of traditional centrists. Next, one must refashion the broken deal between liberty, equality, prosperity and security in a centrist manner. Often that is what goes on here I suspect. Without such an ideological step from the Left, and one from the Right, unity is suspect.

The risk is that by popularizing “centrism” (determined by internet vote of all who desire to vote) amid rumors of new candidates like Obama (whose positions are hardly known), runs the risk of false advertising and confusing messages. What if centrist positions reject both Democratic and Republican assumptions? Shall we change centrist principles because an open vote? Today's unity can be explored this moment by watching the immigration vote. Can moderate Republicans and Democrats come together or will they fold under "public" opinion as opposed to party pressure?

I repeat, voting doesn’t determine ideology. Truman wasn't very popular and JFK was far more centrist than Ted would ever admit. Eisenhower fought his conservative base and so did Clinton. Putting together a willing Republican/Democratic unity ticket will not necessarily yield a centrist plank unless it’s plank adheres to centrist principles. They can found in the evolution of our modern NSS, our Constitution, the preeminent consideration of the consensus of intelligence and scientific evidence, a criteria of "crucial" extrapolated from our history, our original founding documents and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. These items include human rights, equality and energy liberation (future prosperity) to health, proliferation and environment. Leaving this steady perspective to the vicissitudes of poll editing actual threatens centrism. Without the emergence of a new Liberal Consensus such as the one Bobby anticipates in the Euston Manifesto, such open “unity” can mutate the very objectivity and independent power centrism needs to be self-consistent as opposed to democratically induced ideological compromising between dissatisfied politicians willing to lead a Unity party.

I say call it a Center party, which may or may not become centrist. Right now public sentiment is to bolt Iraq. Clearly this is not a centrist sentiment. Lets see what Unity considers centrism to be. Let their postions come from their stated principles and not the mere tabulation of voter preferences.

Posted by: maxtrue at May 30, 2006 09:02 PM

I think my basic problem with the project (besides the whole "not another bloody third party) is encapsulated in the Unity 08 poll.

Merely agreeing that the status quo is undesirable isn't enough; Howard Dean and I might completely agree that there is something seriously wrong with America that needs fixed, but we will not agree on (a) what's needing fixed or (b) how to fix it. If you start from the premise of gathering together folks who think something is broken, I don't doubt that a lot of people will show interest, but then you get into the more contentious business of defining what's broke and how to fix it, whereupon that seemingly homogenous mass of disaffected voters will fracture every which way.

Thus, your poll suggests that "74% of Americans are 'dissatisfied' with the way things are gong in this country" - which sounds great until you discover that said 74% is split every which way about which way things SHOULD be going. 74% of the country might think we should be working to make America more secure and prosperous, but I promise you, you will not find broad agreement about whether we will do that by having a Congress that will approve or reject the Patriot Act and CAFTA. Sure, 82% agree that “America has become so polarized between Democrats and
Republicans that Washington can’t seem to make progress solving the
nation’s problems,” but what percentage of that 82% think that it's all one or the other party's fault? I assure you, well over 82% of Republicans think that we can't make progress solving the nation's problems because of Democratic intransigence, and probably 100% of democrats think that we're not solving the nation's problems because of a lethargic and corrupt GOP majority. 72% see education as crucial - what percentage believe the solution is vouchers, and what percentage think the solution is throwing more money at the problem? 62% see the national debt as crucial - what percentage are willing to abolish entitlement spending to fix that,and what percentage are willing to lose their job or at least some disposable income to raise taxes sufficient to meet entitlement requirements? 67% see energy independence as crucial - what percentage are willing to drill ANWR? What percentage are willing to pay $12 per gallon of fuel,all in punitive taxes (double that figure for anyone who lives in an urban area or on the east coast)? 30% see as abortion as a crucial issue - great, but of that 30%, 55% see banning it as crucial, while 65% see protecting it as crucial. 61% of Americans say the 2008 presidential election is “the most critical
election in years” - what is the major malfunction of the other 39% who think that it is not?

I also think that it is distressing that such a high percentage of people are apparently sick of politics, incapable of engaging with the issues, and basically just want someone who is above politics to steam in and fix the problem. This is something that has been tried before, although I can appreciate why the lesson hasn't been learned since the old newsreels carrying the story were all in German. There is something patently false (and profoundly dangerous) in the idea that there is a single platonic "right" solution to every problem that exists out there independently of politics, and that all these beastly politicians are doing their best not to happen upon.

Every cent and every second wasted on promoting a third party (a third party which will either fail, do a grave disservice to democracy by creating a plurality presidency, or supplant one or theothermajor parties) is a cent and a second wasted at a time when there is an urgent need to use both to steer the two major parties back towards the center.

Posted by: Simon at May 30, 2006 09:30 PM

I've seen the Euston Manifesto brought up a couple of times now. It sounds great, but unfortunately the devil is always in the details. High minded principles are always easier to advocate than implement. With the exception of a few items (open source and Guantanamo) it reads like a endorsement of the present administration's foreign policy. The difference is that Bush is willing to make the hard choices (rightly or wrongly is for another thread). I can't see where this feel good document offers any solutions whatsoever.

Posted by: Dennis at May 31, 2006 12:51 AM

Whenever I point out that ideology does have its good points in developing positions amongst which good compromise can be found, I am always shouted down by centrist partisans who assure me that centrism can come up with good policies all by itself.

Then something like this comes along and proves me right all over again.

is it possible for a centrist platform to exist? Sure. But I wish somebody would stop saying how possible it is and just start writing one, with real specifics, real rubber-meets-the-road policies. As Simon notes, the number of self-proclaimed centrists may drop precipitously once that happens.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 31, 2006 09:03 AM

The negativity in the comment section regarding Unity '08 is disheartening. What kind of a centrist message is "do it my way or I want no part of it?" I think the effort is a needed one.

Posted by: Mathew at May 31, 2006 10:19 AM

Mathew, what sort of message is: "we don't know what we stand for, but we'll let that internet-thingie come up with our policies for us"? The only thing on which the Unity '08 people claim to be united is their dissatisfaction with the status quo. As Simon suggests, that's not sufficient basis on which to found any campaign more successful than Ross Perot's.

Must we stand behind all movements labelled "centrist"? That is the essence of partisanship, which many on this board frequently disavow as a bad thing in and of itself. Must we sign up now, before knowing what policies the group will adopt? Suppose the unified internet makes immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan a plank in the platform? Do we have to commit to that up front?

Posted by: PatHMV at May 31, 2006 10:39 AM

The negativity in the comment section regarding Unity '08 is disheartening.

See, I'd call YOUR comment negative. What sort of response is that to constructive criticism? I want policy first, and high-minded ideals spouted by anointed apostles comes in a distant 2nd. That's a VERY centrist message, if you take centrism to to be what manifests itself here on a day to day basis.

What kind of a centrist message is "do it my way or I want no part of it?"

It's a principled message that policy matters. The disenchanted disenfranchised jacksonians in the middle, those who have little voice, are the ones most skeptical of high-minded rhetoric. No one with any common-sense real-world saving is going to climb on board the "this time it will be different" 3rd party train that promises little more than that it will represent the people better. What will it do. Give us policies we can support. High minded rhetoric coupled with a popular leader is just religion.

I think the effort is a needed one.
I think it sounds good in theory. I'll support it if it manifests sensibly in practice. My inuition tels me that the people most eager to turn centrism into a party with groovy rhetoric and nifty candidates are the ones who really just don't get it. The sooner centrism becomes a party-centric erffort, the sooner its adherents begin committing the sins we've spent so much time bemoaning.

Right now, for me, what does it mean when I say that I'm a centrist? It means I'm committed to fairly-arrived-at compromises that are good for our country, and will not support one party or the other reflexively. Your platform, your plan, your bill, your policy? These things will only ever receive my support if they have intrinsic merit...the cult of personality and partisanship is not my bag, baby.... We're not going to be different by being the same. Shiny rhetoric championed by pretty popular charismatics is being the same.

I'm all for defining important and crucial issues and developing policies. But ultimately if I don't agree with the priorities and specific policy prescriptions, I won't support them unless they represent a substantial improvement over the status quo.

Posted by: bk at May 31, 2006 10:49 AM

Partisaship is not my bag, baby... Good one, Brian. Nailed the attitude which seems to be held by a lot of people.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 31, 2006 12:03 PM

Inherent contradiction--"uniting indpendents."

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 12:10 PM

Jonathaqn Alter story metioning Unity08, and offering a few thoughts on open-source netroots politics.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 12:13 PM

I see that today is Typo Day for me.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 12:40 PM

The problem with any third-party effort is that without a dedicated infrastructure already in place, creation relies on a "cult of personality" scenario like we saw with Ross Perot. As noted on WeekendPundit.com, barring a surprising big-name ticket (along the lines of McCain-Clinton) this group will either fizzle out or become a puppet under another Perot-type of political wannabe. The only viable way to start a third party is to split one of the two parties, including the infrastructure. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way the political arena has been set up by the two parties.

Posted by: Jerry at May 31, 2006 12:48 PM

True enough in the post-WW1 era. Before that, third parties were essential parts of the Democratic and Republican coalitions, banding together in temporary unity. And since then, third parties have had a major impact on elections. Indeed, three out of the last four presidential elections have had third party candidacies that garnered more votes than the "spread" in crucial states. (Nader, Perot, Perot.) And let's not forget Wallace in '68.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 01:08 PM

Inherent contradiction--"uniting indpendents."

Yup, my point exactly. So you agree on an approach that accepts that not everyone is going to agree, or you beat the dead horse over and over again, split hairs, and continue to get the type of leadership that is currently in power. At least Unity '08 is actually proposing an alternative.

Must we stand behind all movements labelled "centrist"

No, but you should stand for at least some of them.

Posted by: Mathew at May 31, 2006 01:45 PM

Democratic pluralism. Been singing that song for years. Wingers and True Believer partisans pretty much by definition don't know the words or the tune, and thus are unable to even hum along.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 01:50 PM

I want policy first, and high-minded ideals spouted by anointed apostles comes in a distant 2nd.

I get the sentiment, but public policy is DOA without the appointed apostles, the problem is that there are none spouting rationale, middle-of-the-road ideals.

That's a VERY centrist message, if you take centrism to to be what manifests itself here on a day to day basis.

Again, I get it, but what is the point of constructive criticism if there is no actual plan for change? The talking gets old without an actual plan to do something about it. This is an organization that is attempting to do something that a little over a year ago many on this site endorsed by proposing and supporting the idea of a Lieberman-McCain or Kerry-McCain ticket. I am not saying they are perfect, I guess I just thought or was hoping that the immediate reaction would be more supportive. I think the big picture was missed, big time.

Posted by: Mathew at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM

The negativity in the comment section regarding Unity '08 is disheartening. What kind of a centrist message is "do it my way or I want no part of it?" I think the effort is a needed one.

OK now everyone, hands together and..."Kumbaya my lord Kumbaya..." ;-) Posted by: c3 at May 31, 2006 02:40 PM

Yup, my point exactly. So you agree on an approach that accepts that not everyone is going to agree, or you beat the dead horse over and over again, split hairs, and continue to get the type of leadership that is currently in power.

Which is why my suggestion is that we focus on changing the process, not on a "centrist" party. Centrism should be about the approach to governance, not the substance. Unity '08 seems like much more of a declaration of a new party rather than reform of what has caused the parties to become so ideologically riven from each other.

To fix a problem, you MUST understand why it became a problem to begin with. Why have politics become so nasty over the past 20-30 years? What significant changes have happened with the law and the body politic to bring over that time period which might have brought about those changes?

As Brian notes, you can call for "unity" all you wwant, but we all have deep, strongly-held disagreements about some fundamental issues. Take a "crucial" issue for Unity '08, nuclear proliferation. Will the Unity platform be in favor of military force to prevent it? If so, under what circumstances? Will it have a Carter-esque aversion to force despite major provocation, or a Reagan-esque free Grenada appreciation of force?

And on the issue of abortion, it won't be quite so easy to demote its importance. Will the Unity '08 president appoint judges more or less likely to overturn Roe and Casey? Over 50% of the American people favor making abortion either totally illegal or illegal with a few exceptions. That's a majority who seem to have pretty strong feelings about it. Are you going to convince them all that it's not a "crucial" issue?

Posted by: PatHMV at May 31, 2006 02:44 PM

On a serious note: I'd expect centrists do be "tough" on a new "Unity" party. We get platitudes/absolutes from the wings of both parties already. We are intensely concerned about the what will work and the details of how it will work. I think that's why many centrists have an affinity for McCain. Clearly by his politics he's not a centrist but a conservative. AT the same time he seems 1) interested in getting things done; doing things that will work 2) not unwilling to talk to the other side of the aisle to get things done.

Posted by: c3 at May 31, 2006 02:44 PM

The Washington Post's blog, The Fix, has a post about Unity08 with lots of discussion.

Posted by: Rick Heller at May 31, 2006 02:45 PM

Mathew:

what is the point of constructive criticism if there is no actual plan for change? The talking gets old without an actual plan to do something about it.

That's an interesting point to offer in defense of Unity 08, given that the overwhelming criticism here (and elsewhere) has been precisely the declaration that a plan to do something about "it" is precisely what Unity 08 is missing.

Posted by: Simon at May 31, 2006 02:53 PM

I wish to note that they specifically disclaim that they're really going for a permanent third party. They're going for uniting enough of the disaffected middle around some core issues to force the major parties back towards the middle, and back to pragmatic leadership. Cool.

But since they don't take any actual position on the issues they tag as "crucial" (and are somewhat selective about them in regards to their own polling) I don't see that they're really working on anything but a "throw the bums out" populist approach. Or a "slap the Demicans/Republicrats back to attention" thing.

Best of luck to them. I'm for anything that drags us (collectively) back from the wing dominance and towards the democratic pluralism that is the heart of functional modern democracy.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 03:13 PM

I agree with Tully both that the stated ideal sounds good and that is also has the odor or populism.

And I endorse Pat's point that centrism is very much about how to better approach governance, not advocacy of specific takes on issues, For example, the fact that many of us here can disagree but are willing to keep talking, and the fact that so many of us are on occasion willing or even eager to declare that we don't have many good answers and are willing to keep looking. And even, on the very rare occasion, that one of us might admit that we were mistaken or overstated our case.

Posted by: bk at May 31, 2006 03:38 PM

No comments yet on the role of media in the current political mess?

Have we all agreed that web organizing and blogging have supplanted the traditional, "massive cash leads to massive media buying" that has corrupted politics?

I'm already liking this simply because it by-passes the donors and the media handlers and heads back to grass roots organizing!

Posted by: RL at May 31, 2006 04:47 PM

We are not divided by our disagreements, but by our refusal to negotiate resolutions to those disagreements.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 31, 2006 05:37 PM

The Media were confused over Perot. I proudly wear my old Perot button, not as an example of political asymmetry, but as a symbol for independence from political crap. Unfortunately, "Crazy", by Patsy Cline, was confused by the Media to apply to political crapism----- which, of course, it was.
As a Centrist, the button will become a tie tack located mid-sternum, not exactly heartwise.

Posted by: eds at May 31, 2006 05:44 PM

We are not divided by our disagreements, but by our refusal to negotiate resolutions to those disagreements.

Bingo. I might state it a bit differently. We are divided by the refusal of the wing bases to permit any compromise between extremes. Abortion is a perfect case in point. The majority of the public believes that abortion should be legal and available, but restricted in some respects.

But one wing base wants complete unfettered legal availability of abortion-until-delivered, and the other wing base wants any intentional destruction of any fertilized ovum defined as homicide. And both wing bases rhetorically and hyperbolically treat any movement away from their extreme positions as total disaster, and fight it tooth and nail.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 06:47 PM

Perhaps I am mistaken but most modern Presidents have been labeled centrist. There is no one mold but I think centrism is more than just a non-partisan approach to issues. If one tries to distil the general characteristics of "centrist" Presidents, we find a general acceptance of the old “liberal consensus” and a consistent conservative appreciation for national security and (until now and under Reagan) a fiscal prudence.

As the liberal consensus fell apart in the seventies and the Republican base became more powerful in guiding Republicans, centrist policy stumbled. Still Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton were all centrists. Now we have a polarized political process with many crying out for democratic pluralism. Bravo, but that does not mean such efforts will enable centrism. I have mentioned Euston because for centrism (principles and positions we can list on another thread, but are identifiable) to influence policy and government, certain political ground conditions other than just a desire to compromise must exist. Bobby has pointed to the need for a new Liberal consensus at his blog and Euston does address the fundamental breach in the liberal consensus that Viet Nam tore open. It may seem soft on details now, but I think the reaction from the Left clearly shows its worth.

On the other hand, many liberals (even the centrist ones) see the need to constrain the Right. Forgive the shot gun here but this simply does not solve the leak problem in a Constitutional manner. I doubt Sandra would have concurred. More power to the government to silence whistle blowers? How can Libertarians be pleased with this? Just think that a year ago this ruling would not have happened without Republican power.

I can tell you that some in services like the NCIS wonder where they would go if witness to information superiors do not want to hear. I am not saying that has happened but don't Americans want the investigation into Haditha be censor-proof? Without clear channels and protection for our civil and military servants to vet witnessed abuses or false statements, we loose a critical check of governmental power. I believe modern Presidents have supported that view in their "centrist" attitude, despite the need for secrecy. The highest oath of civil servants is to our Constitution and any speech that is intended to prevent its abuse ought not to be constricted. How is this not a centrist principle?

The reason why Republicans and Democrats can unite as centrists is that certain principles that characterize (or did once) each are vital to a centrist world view. From the left we had the liberal consensus and from the right we had free markets (capitalism), prudent self-interest in economic and national security issues, and lean government. Democrats may refashion a new liberalism consistent with geopolitical reality and the principles of the first liberal consensus (roughly outlined in Euston). Republicans might apply less ideology in promoting principles they seemed to have abandoned (constraining governmental power, dampening activist courts, curbing uncontrolled spending and costly adventurism, preventing prevention leading to blow back, rejecting polarizing family values etc.). Then the climate might be right for centrism to resurge into applied policy. Centrists these days feel somewhat independent, if not ignored. I support more democratic pluralism but I sense that continued internal purges in each party must bear some centrist fruit before we can expect some intelligent policy reform to take hold of our national course.

Posted by: maxtrue at May 31, 2006 07:17 PM

Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
Finally, a party for me.

Truly fiscally conservative.
Truly culturally progressive.

Posted by: helltoupee at May 31, 2006 07:35 PM

Perhaps I am mistaken but most modern Presidents have been labeled centrist. There is no one mold but I think centrism is more than just a non-partisan approach to issues.

Hear hear! But you'll never convince anyone of the opposite party of any of the presidents cited--any of them. It is a hallmark of post-Vietnam politics that the other side's winner must ALWAYS be a loathsome objectionable extremist. But the reality of the office forces extensive pragmatic concensus.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 07:37 PM

True Tully. Those extensive pragmatic concerns form the center of centrism. With the rise of the Republican Right and the collapse of the Liberal Consensus, each side's winner IS usually villified as the extreme.

But centrists aren't fooled.

Back in the days of the Liberal Censensus things were a bit different. Just look at the news of May 31st in 1973 Liberal Republicans? The American people outraged by carpet bombing, massacres etc.

Centrists claim to apply an approach that considers the lessons of history. I also didn't hear as much from the American people over the 1.7 million Cambodian slaughtered in Viet Nam's aftermath. This was the crumbling of the Liberal Consensus.......

Posted by: maxtrue at May 31, 2006 07:56 PM

The consideration of history by partisans is as selective as their current citations of anything. Use what can be applied in any fashion, ignore or deny the rest.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 08:48 PM

bk, I don't think "communitarian" is bad in itself, as long as not to an extreme. The "me me me" of current politics sure isn't doing it for us now..

Posted by: JP at May 31, 2006 10:56 PM

Correction to above: the other side's candidate must always be a loathsome objectionable extremist. If they get elected, they become a downright demonic loathsome objectionable extremist. (Regardless of realities.)

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2006 11:30 PM

JHP, I absolutely did not use "communitarian" with the intent that it should be taken as a pejorative. I simply think it's an accurate descriptor. Certainly there is an element of altruism to it, and IMO all good people have such impulses.

I'd like to echo Max and Tully. In my years watching Presidents, I have noticed within the admins of the last few that I'm becoming far less inclined to say horrible nasty thing about them, positing venality and malice. Far more often, they garner my sympathy now. The necessity of actually governing and being the top person charged with looking out for the interests of the nation as whole makes ideology a luxury, while for congressman it often seems to become regarded as a necessity. The President and Vice President are, if I am not mistaken, the only people whose entire constiuency is composed of "the american people" as opposed to "the great state of south windbag" or "the honest hard-working folk of district 6."

IMO Bush, much as I've always disliked him, made efforts to do something resembling the right thing on both social security and immigration, and IMO different factions of congress have prevented even the putting of a shovel in the ground. Now I'll grant that the system is sort of supposed to work like this, that a lack of consensus really SHOULD lead to no substantive actions being taken. But the current levels of reflexive opposition by the party not holding the oval office are IMO a shame and a disgrace. And I speak equally of the GOp during the Clinton years as I do of Democrats under current circumstances.

Posted by: bk at June 1, 2006 09:39 AM

The necessity of actually governing and being the top person charged with looking out for the interests of the nation as whole makes ideology a luxury.

Great point. It's easy to be the armchair quarterback, but at the end of the day, it has to be a sobering experience to discover that it's you that has to make a decision that will affect the lives of several hundred million people, and your reputation in recorded history. Which, of course, is one reason why the Framers bequeathed us a unitary executive: so that there is one person where the buck stops, and that person is highly motivated to make sound decisions. Posted by: Simon at June 1, 2006 10:09 AM

New parties and major shifts in our politics have never been driven from the center. The Republicans supplanted the Whigs through the agony of slavery and civil war. Teddy Roosevelt's progressive Bull Moose Party ideas became main-stream party planks.

Which of these scenarios is going to play out in 2008? Is the current government extreme enough to make a "centrist" party the reform alternative?

There has to be a "Boogie Man" to start a new party. Is it going to be the anti-war movement, a green movement, a health care party? I'm sketpical that being "centrist" will move millions.

Posted by: RL at June 1, 2006 04:02 PM

I heard a radio news report on Unity '08 this morning during drive time. Having been involved in politics and government for many years (in an earlier life) it is very distressing that we have produced leaders who cannot find ways to solve the issues of importance. We rely on symbolic gestures and on the desire to throw "red meat" to one's most ardent supporters. There is no denying that politics is an imporant part of our country and the ability to govern. It gives all of us the opporunity to measure individuals against their competitors and those who have held office before them. Nevertheless, the ability to reach practical and pragmatic solutions to issues relating to energy, health care, personal liberties and privacy should never have become issues that only the fringes on both sides can claim as their own. Governance comes from the middle of the body politic and the time has come to realize that.

SJ

Posted by: SIJ at June 6, 2006 04:46 PM