Centerfield

The political center is a moving target, always on the move and hard to hit. After the midterm elections the center has now moved decidely to the left. The country as a whole as moved ideological to the left a couple of yards. The Iraq War has been an end to one era and the beginning of another in American political history.

The Democrats have not completly grasped this and the Republicans have resorted to the old Reagan rhetoric of a generation ago. Bush in his state of the union speech discussed health care in America. The same old, same old with the only cure Republicans know is "tax credits." That is there solution to all societal problems.

This gives the Democrats like Obama alot field to play on for the next year and half. The American people know that tax credits won't help pay for their health care. The whole irrational cost of health insurance is so large that one cannot speak of it raionally.

Obama nows has his opportunity but I am convinced that he carries to much baggage to be taken seriously in a Presidential general election. He is the media darling of the moment but that won't last much longer. He advantage is he dosen't have much of a record but he rhetoric and policy proposals are hardly centrist.

danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: DannyLMcDaniel at February 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Was it really necessary to bogart on my thread by topping it with a separate post that could easily have been posted as a response within mine? You did the exact same thing to Matt below, _and_ you've been pounding your theme over at SF as well.

I think that's poor form. I'm bending over backwards here to be fair to your points, and you just keep pounding and bogarting bandwidth. Is every Obama post here that fails to throw him under the bus going to get followed up with a post-level rebuttal?

Oh, and BTW, asked and answered...We're NOT a party and we don't demand loyalty or encourage reams of litmus testing. Centrists retain the right to vote for a candidate that they don't believe is a centrist per se. You really ought to write that down, becuase you keeo defaulting back to "but he's not a centrist, how can you vote for him?"

Obama working with Coburn is a point in evidence that Obama can cross the aisle and find common ground. Your alleged mountain of incontrovertible evidence does indeed suggest that Obama will vote with liberals. But it doesn't show he's either insincere or incapable of working across the aisle.

You keep suggesting that his votes indicate his convictions, and that's fine, but you have not once addressed the notion I keep niudging at you, which is that his appeal to centrists lies in his approach. Some of us like it, and as a result we'll be window shopping. We know he's a democrat, and supports some liberal causes. It's been forthrightly acknowledged, so at some point can you let go repeating it?

Posted by: bk at February 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Yesterday Obama came close to Arkinism. Before telling the screaming anti-war gallaries in Chicago, "He's on their side", he said earlier in the day that 3000 soldiers have died in vain. Well, Arkin is a bit more biting, he would have said mercenaries.

I root for Obama to float like butterfly and sting like a bee, but he ought to know by now what the questions will be and how he must move left and right carefully to avoid getting dropped. His record is about 82.5 on the Liberal Richter scale, but then Lieberman, Clinton and Kerry also fall in that range. It does Obama no good as a centrist to advocate socialized healthcare which is more questionable than tax credits. It does him little good touting Amnesty without border control or large tax increases as a cure-all. Being a centrist does have some relationship with the words "between the extremes" nor is centrism simply an amalgam of contradictory extremist principles. To motivate voters, messages tend to be simple. Coming together as a mantra means rejecting the extremes, not playing to them. In this regard, Hillary does have a better record than Obama, whose centrist appeal appears to a somewhat media-generated experience and Obama’s self-marketing. True confidence means knowing what your positions are and not having to triangulate improvised answers. That is why Clinton’s comments yesterday seemed more consistent if not irritating to the Hate Hillary anti-war crowd. Since Obama has this group, he should stop playing to them unless his campaign is based on their ground forces.

These considerations are also why, as the conversation swings to Obama's comments on possible progress in North Korea, mounting evidence of Iranian success in killing more than 170 soldiers, he will have LESS wiggle room. The middle may very well decide 2008 and as a group, they are not easily fooled.

Since Iraq has been much of the focus I will first ask to consider a response to one enemy's public policy. here

Then I would ask Obama to find the flaws some centrist thinking from one of our allies. here His policies on Iraq, the Middle East and terrorism in general are vague at best. In a national election his family's religious values and history will come into play and he needs a clear and forceful policy for countering the remarks I linked above.

I hope Obama has a quick learning curve, but I am not suggesting Obama find false dodges to get elected. I don't think his voting record is a fatal knife. There is nothing wrong as far as I am concerned about protecting the water, tightening gun controls on assault rifles, defending a woman’s right to have an abortion (within present guidelines), advocating stem cell research etc. The question is whether these objective require the socialist model or a more Clintonian one. To be a centrist I imagine requires the latter approach. It is in the area of national security; Obama runs the greatest risk (which he seems to gambling with at the moment). Primaries require certain tactics, but this primary will be over shadowed by real events. This give the Republican and Democrats advantages. If the Democrats look like they are praying for bad news as Obama leads the choir (while they control Congress) it will help Republicans win. Or Republicans ignore bad news because it is all the President’s fault or the Democrats they will alienate the middle. I suggest it would be wiser for Obama to think centrist before the nomination, because this primar,y candidates who are active members of Congress will have to triangulate world events, threats and opportunities while they run for the highest office. Edwards should be fair warning to playing the base.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 13, 2007 01:28 PM

Perhaps Simon just doesn't see a difference between "insincere" and "able to compromise and work across the aisle in order to get something constructive accomplished."

One could wonder if that inability to differentiate insincerity and ability to compromise is not at the root of a lot of the bad manners that we see in politics of late. (Anyone wanting a view of the future, if we go down that path, take a look at Bangladesh among others. If it's all "my way or the highway," every election can result in massive disruption of the entire government -- not just the parts that people might want adjusted.)

Posted by: wj at February 13, 2007 01:29 PM

Brian, I read Simon's post first (it was the top post when I clicked on) and decided to comment. Your point is well taken, but I'm sure Simon will have a clarification. I am saving my best ad momies for your post after finishing some work. Since I blather so much, it is best I dump some of it here.

Max

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 13, 2007 01:32 PM

I meant "ad homies" LOL

"insincerity" is photo-0p applauding our troop's sacrifice as you tell their parents they all died in vain. Want to bet Obama learned that last night?

Is it insincere to declare Iran will not get nukes, while privately saying they might as well already have one?

So you see, insincerity is rather ubiquitous, yes?

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 13, 2007 01:44 PM

I've been wondering where Simon has been. It's nice to see a good Simon-bk slugfest again. Entertaining as it all is, I would probably suggest agreeing to disagree. It's all really about how you choose (or, perhaps, CHOOSE - I'm not very into the all-caps thing) to frame a given set of circumstances. My personal lense is a lot closer to bk's on this one, as is usually the case in a Simon-bk battle. I guess I just don't enjoy beating my head against a wall as much.

Posted by: WHQ at February 13, 2007 03:01 PM

I have to agree with Brian; a front-page post that is really just a comment on an immediately preceding front-page post is poor form, at least when the obvious intent is to divert the debate.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 13, 2007 04:25 PM

Danny,

The political center is a moving target, always on the move and hard to hit. After the midterm elections the center has now moved decidely to the left. The country as a whole as moved ideological to the left a couple of yards.

I don't agree with any of that. The political center is ideological, not partisan, and there is no evidence that it has moved in the slightest as a consequence of the midterms. What is apparent from the midterms is frustration with the Congressional Republican Party and with President Bush - but as others have explained, that result can be as well explained by conservatives angry that the GOP's elected officers have betrayed conservative principles as it can by people jumping the fence. There's imply no credible evidence that the partisan center of gravity has moved, even granting, arguendo, that the "political center" means the partisan center.

The Iraq War has been an end to one era and the beginning of another in American political history.

I don't exactly agree with that, either -- I do agree, however, that the war in Iraq has now moved into its third phase, a phase that began

when the Democrats took back control of Congress. This war now proceeds at their suffrance and only at their suffrance, for while the President is the Commander-in-Chief of our military ... [I have previously explained that] "the President goes to war with the army that Congress gives him ... [Democrats now have] the Constitutional power to force this conflict to a close. They may explicitly defund the operation, or may do so sub silentio by simply failing to appropriate the funds for its continuation. If they fail to do so, that is a concession that the reality is more complicated than they were ready to admit before campaigning on bringing the war to an end."

I'm a little north of you in Indiana, so let me just say: drive safe tonight. I nearly bought it twice on the way home.

Posted by: Simon at February 13, 2007 08:16 PM

Brian, some of what you wrote in your post suggested reply points for which the comments thread was the appropriate forum; one particular aspect of it, in my view, demanded (and got) a post-level reply. Your comparison to Mathew's post is inapt, too - he posted it twelve hours before I posted my reply, and that, too, demanded a post-level reply rather than just a comment.

This distinction between various fora is one that you should be well aware of; in this SF thread, some of your comments merited comment-level replies, while at least one demanded (and got) a full post-level reply. Thus, I have applied (and doubtless will again) the same reasoning that led to bifurcate the discussion here in at least one previous situation where you would presumably condede that no less so than here, I "bogart[ed] on my [own] thread[s] by topping it with a separate post that could easily have been posted as a response within" the previous one.

For the foregoing reasons, it should be apparent that your criticism is baseless, and it is therefore

Dismissed.

Posted by: Simon at February 13, 2007 08:29 PM

WJ:

Perhaps Simon just doesn't see a difference between "insincere" and "able to compromise and work across the aisle in order to get something constructive accomplished."

Willingness to compromise and work to get something done may be a virtue depending on what you're trying to get done. ;) What's a compromise on Iraq - half a surrender? ;)

I think the most concise way to put the point is this: Halfway between the middle and the left is not the center. Even if the person brokering the deal has a nice smile and some pretty rhetoric.

I don't have a problem with him being a liberal. I have a problem with the dishonesty of his adopting the rhetoric of national unity to erect what is transparently a façade for old-time liberalism (as even Nicrivera agrees that it is, in Brian's thread below), and I'm bemused as to why so many people who consider themselves in the middle are falling for it.

Posted by: Simon at February 13, 2007 08:55 PM

I suppose that whether half-way between the middle and the left is the center depends, at least in part, on how broad one thinks the center is. Or should be.

On a related point, Simon suggests elsewhere that, if people on the left think that Obama is one of their own, then he must be on the left as well. Logical, as far as it goes. But if people in the center also think Obama is in the center, why are they any less self aware (or less Obama aware) than people on the left? I don't have a personal stake on where Obama is, but the flaw in the logical consistency is an itch.

Posted by: wj at February 13, 2007 09:10 PM

WJ - I disagree on both points. No matter how broadly you define "the middle," it's an abuse of the English language to suggest that halfway between it and either extreme is within it. The exception would be swallowing the rule.

On the second point, that point would be fair if the evidence were in equipoise. But the evidence overwhelmingly points to Obama being a lefty; it's therefore rational for the left to conclude that he's one of theirs. It isn't rational to conclude - on the basis of nothing more than his own rhetoric, which stands in stark contrast to his voting record - that he's a centrist, and it's hard to make the case that he's even a moderate: as Pat put it here, when "the people we most often identify in anecdotal conversations as being 'centrist' politicians, such as Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others, usually do show up in the rankings with scores around the middle of the pack, showing that they do NOT rigidly adhere to the ideology of the interest group doing the rating ... [then] the fact that Obama has historically gotten very consistent and solid 'liberal' scores, is pretty suggestive that he, at core, identifies very closely with the values, objectives, and ideology of groups like the ADA."

Posted by: Simon at February 13, 2007 09:27 PM

Debates about where the center lies are probably doomed to fruitlessness. If we had a good ruler, and could measure the breadth and examine the distribution, it might be different.

If we wanted to try, probably the only way we could come up with something defensible would be to look at it on an issue to issue basis. Presumedly some sort of polling might be able to identify say the 50th in an ordered row of 99 voters, or place some numbers on distinct categories. In other words, comparatively speaking, we could probably describe a somewhat plausible spectrum a given issue. But overall? Fool's errand. Fine to discuss, but to argue over?

So why not to agree to notice that to some very substantial extent we're probably always going to be pulling stufff out our butts to argue about whether the center is hanging a little to the left, a little to the right or straight down, at least when it comes to some imaginary overall political spectrum that encompasses each indivdual's views as a single point. To construct such arguments, we're all going to decide what we want to believe and rationalize from there.

I mean, if we've demonstrated anything here, it's that. Right? The feedback I get tells me that I'm slightly (one hair?) to the right on the war, fairly left on many social issues, and I guess pretty close to the center on fiscal issues. At a wild guess!!

Simon, I'm still waiting for you to show us any centrists who are currently under the impression that Obama is a centrist. Obama has in one respect echoed our views by saying that our politics is small and divisive and that he wants to overcome that. Seems to me centrists are glad he's saying that, but we're not falling in love with him to the extent of suspending our judgement.

Clearly you think this is like the end of the fricken world or something. On your volume alone, it's getting pretty funny, maybe even hysterical, in both senses. Maybe you are trying to heroically save us from our doe-eyed selves. So let me speak for all of us by saying "Thanks but no thanks, we're big boys and girls."

You don't seem prepared to give up your ghost unless all of us here capitulate right now and admit your are correct that he's a liar and a liberal. Don't hold your breath, amigo. We'd miss you. Can't you just consider your view to have been duly noted?

Posted by: bk at February 14, 2007 08:34 AM

Debates about where the center lies are probably doomed to fruitlessness.

My objection to Danny's point wasn't the measurement he took, but what he was measuring. Even if we can't agree where the center is, we should at least be able to agree on what it is that we're looking for the center of. Danny's standard, it seems to me, suffers from a number of defects, not the least of which is that if the the political center of gravity is defined as nothing more than halfway between the two parties, in a situation where the Democrats went totally off the rails and skewed radically left (or more radically left, I suppose some might say) and the GOP stood still, and 99% of the population joined the GOP, in that scenario, the center of gravity would still be way off to the left, because simply by virtue of moving left, the center has skewed left. And vice versa for the GOP if your partisan instincts demand that hypotheticals must make Republicans look like the bad guys, whatever. It seems far more stable, to me, to rest the notion of the center on actual principles, which certainly shift and move, but that do so, at y'know, at a tectonic pace compared to the rushing tides of the partisan fray.

If a bit of pretty pretty rhetoric is enough, then I guess George W. Bush ran as a centrist (or a moderate) in 2000, but after the last six years, I think that if he ran for a third term on the platform he ran on in 2000, while it might have been reasonable enough to fall for the rhetoric then, it certainly wouldn't be now, because we can see the choices that he's made, and whatever you might think of George W. Bush, one thing that he isn't is a moderate (although given NCLB, BCRA, the prescription drug benefit, his position on immigration, and so on, maybe I'm wrong: I guess that you could probably make the case that Bush really is a moderate - it may not be a convincing case, but there's more evidence for that proposition than there is for Obama being one).

This "our politics is small and divisive" stuff is nonsense, and would be even if I really believed that "he wants to overcome" it (which, of course, he doesn't: as Pat noted here, the sincerity test is "which side prevails by giving it a 'fricken rest'" - if it would be the side they support, then the exhoration comes over as "just a transparent attempt to close out any more plays"). Take abortion, for example, the most contentious and divisive issue of all. In my view:

Whichever side you come down on, abortion is an extraordinarily important issue: depending on your convictions about when life begins, either there is a significant-sized (and growing) movement in this country to shackle women with a totally unjustified and massively draconian burden, or there has been a thiry-year holocaust that has claimed in excess of 40,000,000 children's lives. People complain that abortion is too divisive an issue - not me. It should be divisive. This issue is extraordinarily important. From time-to-time, when I'm talking to pro-choice people, I make this point: that I respect their passion for the subject, even though I don't agree with it, for the following reason. If I'm wrong about when life begins, the burden that I would impose on women is horrifying, and absolutely unjustified, and I am a gravely evil person for seeking to make such an imposition. But if you're wrong about abortion, then you are responsible for countless thousands of murders, and you are a profoundly evil person for standing by and letting it happen. This stuff matters. You need to have an opinion on this. If you don't have an opinion, either you don't understand what is at stake -- women's freedom; the freedom of unborn women -- or something is wrong with you.

I can respect someone who disagrees with me on abortion; indeed, in visiting [Althouse's] blog, I do so daily. But someone who professes neutrality? Who claims they don't have an opinion? I don't know what I can say in polite company about such a person.

Moral abdication is not centrism. It's possible to adopt a centrist or moderate position on aborion, but doing so inevitably takes sides. It gives away your view on the underlying issues. For Obama to suggest that abortion and similarly-divisive issues aren't important shows either a total lack of self-awareness or a total lack of honesty - remember my test:

The best thought exercise I try to use to convey this point to [people] ... who suggest that the culture wars aren't about important issues, is to ask how they'd feel about a law that banned all abortions, in all circumstances, at any time after conception, in any place, without exception, punishable with mandatory jail time. If your answer is anything other than "I'd be fine with that," you are just as invested in the culture wars as everyone else, you're just on the other side.

Posted by: Simon at February 14, 2007 11:33 AM

Simon,

I think the fact that you only post at Centerfield these days to poop on someone else's previous post and continue what is in my opinion a weird and illogical rant, really sucks. I am willing to bet you were the kid that raised your hand in grade school after every question just so you could be the last person heard. That is why we have comment threads. Grow up.

Let's just tell the truth. Your are a partisan Repbublican unable to see the qualities of anyone who is not also a partisan Republican. I know, I used to be one.

Posted by: Starbucks Republican at February 16, 2007 01:21 AM

Mathew, that's a whole lot of ad hominem and not a whole lot of substance. I'll seriously consider a Democratic candidate if and when their good features seem to outweigh their bad, and when they're at least honest about what they are. I have a certain amount of respect for Hillary, because while she's no better than Obama on a policy level, she's at least honest about who she is and what she wants to do. You have to ask yourself: if this man is willing to look the electorate in the eye and mislead them about facts that we can verify, what does that say about how much we can trust him to be straight with him about the things we can't verify? As Bush discovered during the Miers fiasco, there is no single character trait that a President has to have that's more important than the ability to inspire trust; a candidate so willing to fritter it away cannot be taken seriously.

Lastly, I see no requirement for CF to turn into little more than a blue dog echo chamber, and presenting a contrary view at post level is a good way to prevent it from turning into one. Comments are sometimes the right forum, other times not.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 08:36 AM

I think the fact that you only post at Centerfield these days to poop on someone else's previous post...

Well, Simon, if you were fair-minded, you'd concede that, scatology aside, there's substance to this criticism. You're currently entitled to make such posts, since you do have posting privileges here. This even as you make the overwhelming majority of your posts elsewhere (at stubborn facts) which often involve the amplification of highly partisan Republican talking points.

Lastly, I see no requirement for CF to turn into little more than a blue dog echo chamber, and presenting a contrary view at post level is a good way to prevent it from turning into one. Comments are sometimes the right forum, other times not.

True. Me neither. But what does it mean if your only (and rare) visits to make posts serve what you view as your purpose to "correct" us? These posts or yours do exist in addition to the considerable and extended volume you've enjoyed at SF. We've duly noted your views. I don't believe that you really consider yourself a centrist and I don't believe you've expressed much respect for the notion either. Which is fine, it's just that you've found a much more comfortable home at SF flying your true colors as a partisan conservative.

Let me hasten to add that IMO you ought to be entirely welcome to continue posting here as often or as seldom as you wish. But you ought to realize that we are liable to view you as our token conservative ideologue. Correct away, keep us honest if that's what you feel your duty is. There's worth in that. But what Matt and I and Todd are saying about you is really just truth in advertising. The rareness and nature of your posts here tell all the folks paying attention that for the most part, you're not that interested in speaking to centerfield's audience, you're much more interested in speaking to stubborn facts' audience, which I believe is substantially more conservative, although still a cut above in terms of substance and civility.

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 11:28 AM

BTW, Mathew - know your conservative stereotypes! We're not the kids who wanted the last word in class, we're the kids who are cautious, rigid, close-minded and fearful. Duh.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 12:17 PM

[W]hat does it mean if your only (and rare) visits to make posts serve what you view as your purpose to "correct" us?

I don't view it as correcting. I view it as "balancing." And as to the idea that my "posts here tell all the folks paying attention that for the most part, you're not that interested in speaking to centerfield's audience, you're much more interested in speaking to stubborn facts' audience" - it is precisely CF's target audience that I have in mind when posting here.

the overwhelming majority of your posts [at SF] ... involve the amplification of highly partisan Republican talking points.

I'm amused at the suggestion that I toe the party line, which anyone familiar with my views knows to be patently false. I can't help it if the truth (or at least, the news that's interesting) happens to coincide with the Republican Party's agenda far more frequently than it does with the Democratic party's. I do concede, as I must, that I don't consider myself a centrist, but rather a moderate. But that is beside the point; what is at issue here is not my vote, but that of (supposed) centrists.

[Y]ou've found a much more comfortable home at SF flying your true colors as a partisan conservative ... Let me hasten to add that IMO you ought to be entirely welcome to continue posting here as often or as seldom as you wish. But you ought to realize that we are liable to view you as our token conservative ideologue.

What makes me laugh about that is that if you put me in a room with the posters from Red State, I'd be regarded as the token liberal. Small wonder that I empathize with Ann Althouse. Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 12:36 PM