Centerfield

Nonpartisan Elections in New York

Former LA Mayor Richard Riordon endorses proposed nonpartisan elections in New York City

All city and county elections in California are nonpartisan, and have been for more than 90 years. Nonpartisan elections often lead to more choice and greater participation, and those are reasons enough for New Yorkers to vote on Tuesday in favor of eliminating party primaries in city elections. My experience shows another benefit of nonpartisan elections: they encourage nonpartisan governing.

In my two terms as mayor, I had only a few ideological disputes with the City Council, unions and businesses. I selected my staff on the basis of ability, not party loyalty. We then put the interests of Los Angeles before those of any political party.

Beyond Los Angeles, the evidence is clear. California's mayors and city councils tend to work together better than its legislators and governor because mayors do not enter office on a partisan ballot. Candidates elected in a primary limited to members of a political party, like the state legislators, are forced to the extremes as they appeal to the most ideological partisans.

Update: Howard Dean stands accused on flip-flopping on this issue, according to Dean Independents.

Uncivil Discourse

Drezner highlights today some comments from a couple weeks ago by Josh Chafetz of OxBlog. They serve as a nice summary of what's wrong with the political discussion in the blogosphere and elsewhere.

In my experience, most of what passes for political discussion or debate fits this profile:

This really amazes me. Are people really so sure of themselves that they simply cannot acknowledge that anyone who disagrees could be intelligent? Have they no humility whatsoever? Of course we all think we're right -- if we didn't think we were right, we'd change our opinions until we did. Maybe I'm just naive, but it really does amaze me when people claim that everyone who disagrees with them (on topics where general opinion is relatively divided -- I'm not talking about largely uncontroversial opinions like "slavery is wrong") is either malevolent, stupid, or both.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that, on almost every issue, there are people on both sides who are both intelligent and well-meaning? That doesn't mean that neither side is right, or that you should give up arguing for your side. It just means paying the other side some respect, listening to their position, trying honestly to grapple with it. I'm not saying that there aren't malevolent and/or stupid people out there -- but they're on both sides of every issue, and on almost no issue is everyone on one side stupid and/or malevolent. It's fine to point out when someone is saying something stupid (or when someone is being malevolent). If they're malevolent and/or stupid often enough, it's fine to conclude that they, as people, are malevolent and/or stupid. But to conclude that everyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto malevolent and/or stupid ... well, I envy your certainty, but you frighten me. That kind of certainty is precisely what extremist movements of all kinds -- left and right -- are made of.

Redistricting: News From the Front

I'm new to this site; I am a network software entrepreneur trying to start a new company. My politics are moderate, pro-war Democrat. A group blog appeals to me because I don't have to feel like my blog is dying if I don't keep a minimum posting level, and this blog has some nice, thoughtful rants that match my politics and thinking well. So this looks like a good spot for me to rant. I want to thank Rick and the current team for giving me a space, and I hope my stuff doesn't totally bore you.

Because I live in Austin, in the CENTRAL TEXAS district redistricted to REACH THE SEA (that takes a bit of doing in Texas) (Doggett district both old and new, for other Texans reading this), I want to comment a bit more on the redistricting.

I was intrigued to see that DeLay's first priority was gittin' Austin (maps introduced by other Republicans didn't do that). Not central Dallas or Houston (other liberal Texan areas), but Austin. Guess we're more threatening, possibly for our moderacy... It's the same fear, of course, that the Taliban feels toward all of us.

This might backfire on the Republicans, depending on if our candidates think of it. The Republicans have won big by being less threatening than Democrats since Bush became Governor. Bush didn't allow this kind of screwup. In the meantime, Democratic candidates were slavering at the mouth about how Bush has doomed democracy (there's a good idea, NOT: make most of your message be about how evil a man with sky-high local approval ratings is). But now that Bush is gone, it's open season for smallness from both parties.

If Texas media and candidates remind people about this during the elections, the GOP could pay big, by losing independent and moderate Democratic voters.

Here is an excellent American-Statesman article by local humorist John Kelso on the subject of what he wants to see in a Congressman. In another column on the subject, he pointed out that, like the infamous district in North Carolina that came to the Supreme Court a few years ago, Doggett could run down all his constituents by driving along one highway with his doors open.

The Middle Road

There's an interesting new blog called The Middle Road sponsored by New Hampshire and Iowa public radio. It features a blogger in each state who is currently uncommitted to any candidate. Mickey, from Iowa, describes herself thusly:

I consider myself a radical centrist -- MODERATION OR ELSE! Seriously, though, I figure I'm smart enough to look at both sides as well as the whole picture and to know things are not always as they appear. I take my own position on every issue, without any bias but my own. Sometimes it jibes with the Democrats, sometimes with the Rebuplicans; but it doesn't always jibe with either side of the equation. It entertains me to watch intelligent Democrats become horrified by things a Republican does, then write off a Democrat doing the same thing as insignificant. Ditto the Republicans, of course. It blows my mind when Republicans berate Democrats for too much legislating, then demand that we have laws against such things as homosexual marriage or flag burning. It is equally galling to me when a Democrat stands on a pulpit demanding free speech, then denies that the people booing him or calling him "unpatriotic" have the same right to free speech.

Bravo!

Campus speech police want it both ways

The Volokh Conspiracy (yeah, those guys again) are all over the banning of a conservative fringe group's speech at Roger Williams College. The money quote:

So the university is trying to stop groups from expressing viewpoints that the university concludes contain "hate" or "create a hostile environment" (note again the lingo of hostile environment harassment law, spreading from workplaces to universities and beyond) for certain groups -- which presumably means messages that "seriously alarm" groups, "slander" them, or are "sexually, racially, or religiously offensive" (since that's what the University seems to view as "harassment").

Somehow, the university claims that this can coexist with "the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree," but obviously there are certain points of view and certain disagreements that the university wants to banish.

Read the whole thing. Good stuff.

RANT ALERT!
This is an issue where I find it hard to be centrist, if it means saying that some censorship is OK. I understand the motives, and the group being censored sounds pretty unappealing, but if you believe in free speech and in your ideals, racist dumnmies don't scare you because their ideas are just apallingly lame, fungus that can grow and fester in the dark and damp, but that withers away in the warm light. The most frustrating part is that free speech is textbook old school liberal stuff, and yet a college that should be a keeper of the scrolls acts like it hasn't bothered to read them in WAY too long.

Can one be a moderate with these kind of values?

Centerfield received the following thought-provoking email:

I've been throwing back n forth this idea of being a moderate. The values I grew up with are pretty conservative, but I'm a quasi-environmentalist from a social perspective. Other than that, I can't really tell where I stand on the political spectrum. I'm anti-abortion, pro-gun, and being a Christian myself, I have problems with people who take the "separation between church and state" clause a little too literally. (Guess I should explain that: IMO, Christians who serve in political office shouldn't be kept from publicly declaring their beliefs, and I think think Nativity displays and crosses on public property shouldn't be banned. Now, someone like Roy Moore trying to uphold his Christian beliefs over the law of the land, I have problems with.)

I guess my question here is: can one be a moderate with these kind of values?

I think liberals and conservatives balance each other out with the issues they support, but when one tries to make the other look bad because the fringe groups on that side are taking extreme positions, that's when I get sick of the lot of them and would rather go with the moderate position. I seem to be one of many who feel this way.

Your Centerfield blog is fascinating to me, in that it offers that balanced perspective that I'm looking for. But, well, I still have to ask: can anyone truly call themselves a moderate? What kind of issues does someone have to support to call himself that? Maybe it depends on the individual's upbringing? His morals and personal values? I've seen enough broad stroke painting on both sides to realize that one size doesn't fit all. Am I crazy to think all this?

Thanks, if anything, for being a sane voice in a sometimes polarizing political climate.

Where is the Middle?

We've been discussing the war in Iraq at some length here today.

I think it boils down to this. The left and right essentially own this debate now.

The nine Democratic presidential candidates are caught up in an anti-war and conflict-minimizing rhetoric. It's very clear the activists in the party feel that way, so everyone feels pressured to combine angry anti-war rhetoric with various views of how we can minimize our contribution either in manpower or money.

We centrists just don't have a big presence among Democratic primary voters.

Meanwhile, on the right, it's pretty close to "the president is good and right about everything". The right side of the blogosphere is dominated with that theme, minus some sane folks like Drezner and Tacitus.

Where is the middle?

The middle, to me, is a recognition that we are strongly committed to Iraq, that we have to succeed for reasons of our own well-being (winning the war on terror), as well as meeting our obligations as an occupying power.

The middle isn't shy about sending men and money. And, more importantly, discussing strategy alternatives. The middle is represented in those informed policy debates we see on the PBS News Hour, or, in abbreviated forms, on other news networks.

The middle shows up when experts discuss options, not when partisans debate "the two sides" of this issue.

We talk about things like training more Iraqi police, or, as Col. Patrick Lang suggested the other night, bringing back a couple of carefully screened divisions of the Iraqi army. How about deploying more intelligence resources to help us focus in on the Iraqi resistance? Take half the guys who are currently looking for WMD in Iraq and put them on the trail of Baathists and suicide bombers.

None of these "ideas" or "options" make their way onto the stage at the Democratic debates. Nor do they squeeze in, somehow, among those who spend most of their time passionately defending the president.

Notice that we don't have a candidate in 2004 who represents these options -- strong and serious commitment to Iraq, combined with a broad and realistic assessment of our options there.

Any such candidate, if he exists, is not getting the support of the party faithful, and will therefore not win his party's nomination.

So, yes, the left and right own this debate. Anger on one side, and loyalty on the other, are the dominating factors.

bogus rationale

partisanship regarding iraq not only stymies debate, but the petty need to take partisan jabs whenever possible undermines otherwise valid observations/arguments by making the audience far more skeptical than is perhaps warranted. example (not a particularly good one, just the one i ran across this morning): reading tim noah/chatterbox at slate, who notes that former senior clinton foreign policy experts
"are constrained from protesting the war's bogus 'weapons of mass destruction' rationale because they, too, thought Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons." chatterbox apparently couldn't resist labeling the WMD rationale "bogus," yet must admit that the "clintonistas" (his word, not mine) also thought such weapons existed. so the rationale can only be bogus if we don't care what the administration believed, but instead only look to whether those beliefs were correct in hindsight (leaving aside that the jury's still out on that question). but that's not generally how we judge rationales, as chatterbox effectively concedes (another possibility is that the bushies knew something the clintonistas didn't, but chatterbox doesn't imply that, nor would such an assertion be consistent with the fact that most everyone else thought iraq still had WMDs).

the point is this: regardless of who's right or wrong on the merits of the rationale, chatterbox effectively answers his own question (why don't the clintonistas criticize the war? because they buy the WMD rationale) and then ignores the answer, perhaps because doing so permits him to label bush's proffered rationale as "bogus." not a big deal really -- there are many, many other grounds to criticize the war and reconstruction that aren't intellectually dishonest or hypocritical (e.g., even believing that iraq had WMDs, even if your standard is not imminent threat but something lesser, we could have worked with the international community to further isolate and constrain the prior regime, or we could have planned better for reconstruction, or we shouldn't be building bridges in iraq when people sleep homeless on the streets of dc and every other city in this country, etc.) -- but it throws me, makes me wonder what other subtle bias lurks in other otherwise straightforward stories/articles/posts/etc.

Looking at the Alternatives

I went through a period recently of wondering whether Clark or Edwards might be the right answer in terms of a candidate who could be a good leader, while also being capable of beating Bush.

I have complex feelings on Edwards' candidacy, and this new piece from Terry Neal in today's Washington Post seems to capture it:

Whither John Edwards?

I also have a sense, honestly, that there's only one reasonable, solid centrist choice in the Democratic field. One person making good decisions and acting like a seasoned, thoughtful leader. It's not Edwards or Clark.

Mission Accomplished

Kerry, Clark, and Lieberman all tore into Bush in the little flap over the "Mission Accomplished" sign that the president disavowed responsibility for yesterday. Lieberman did it best:

"Today was another banner day in George Bush's quest to bring honor and integrity to the White House," Lieberman said. "If he wanted to prove he has trouble leveling with the American people, mission accomplished."

Yes, we have a president who can't even take responsibility for his own carefully choreographed photo-ops.

what does this survey tell you?

Via the Volokh Conspiracy, I ran across a report on a survey that revealed that American college students are now more conservative than the general public:

More than two-thirds of the students surveyed are registered to vote -- and eight in 10 said they would vote in 2004. As a whole, 18- to 24-year-olds are less than half as likely to vote as college students. Perhaps surprisingly, 31 percent of college students identify themselves as Republicans, while 27 percent call themselves Democrats and 38 percent independent or unaffiliated.

"College campuses aren't a hotbed of liberalism anymore," Glickman said. "It's a different world."

The general population is significantly more Democratic -- about 36 percent of Americans consider themselves Democrats, 27 percent Republicans, 20 percent independents or third-party loyalists, and the rest have no preference, according to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

Go ahead and read the whole thing, it's interesting stuff. But note that this is the sort of thing that can be reported in a variety of ways depending on the wing nut doing the reporting. I'm not the guy that's going to bemoan a decline of liberalism on campus, because that's got a lot to do with chickens starting to come home to roost. My point is that if you're not a partisan, maybe your reaction should be "Hey! Look at all the independents!"

ignoring context

the distinguished mr. heller's discussion of possible ANSWER treason highlights what is, to me, the current central failing of the (far) left, which opposition to the iraq war and reconstruction (pardon me, colonization) has revealed. mr. heller asks, somewhat rhetorically, whether treason is bad. but treason, like the left's faith in multilateralism or opposition to war generally, is an empty concept without context. working to undermine or to oppose one's country or sovereign clearly is not a bad act if one's country or sovereign is itself bad, evil, illegitimate, whatever (which is also why following orders is no defense), leaving aside for now the questions how we judge regimes or who gets to judge. similarly, fighting to defend one's country/community/family against aggression generally is deemed acceptable, even if only a necessary evil, leaving aside (1) those who would die (and watch their children die, wives and daughters raped) rather than sully their souls by fighting back, which is a defensible, coherent position to which few humans adhere, and (2) whether there is ever justification for striking first. similarly, multilateralism only makes sense if you respect the multitude -- few would argue that hitler or pol pot should have veto power (or even a vote) regarding whether their conduct should be denounced or opposed -- leaving aside whether the UN as currently constituted is worthy of our respect (someone explain to me again why we should let russia or china (or france) veto our policy choices, why syria gets a seat at the table but taiwan does not, why india is not on the security council but france and england are (though the EU should get a seat)). but the (far) left largely refuses to recognize these complexities, discuss openly the issues and policies at stake, so the (far) left effectively opts out of the debate and surrenders much legitimacy in the process.

why this is bad for all of us:
partisanship is little help in most policy decisions, because it must be true that neither side is right all or even the vast majority (say 80% plus) of the time. true, you could just collect up all the objectively correct policies (if you could make that determination) and place them in one fund, but the way politics is currently structured, the two parties are too beholden to various interests to be free to assess honestly the merits of various policy choices. and i also firmly believe we need both the aspirational left -- to push us to better society, life, etc. -- and the pragmatic right -- to provide a brake on the excesses that so often arise from utopianism -- so that MLK gets heard but stalin rejected, etc. so we need the debate, and if one side effectively opt outs, we all suffer.

Is There Treason?

Ann Coulter has written a book called Treason which comes with the subtitle "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" It's currently ranked #253 on Amazon's sales list, but is #13 in its bestselling locality, Arlington, Texas. Is it a coincidence that the Ballpark in Arlington is the home of the Texas Rangers, the baseball team formerly co-owned by George W. Bush? According to liberal columnist Paul Krugman, questionable financial deals connected to the construction of the stadium formed the core of President Bush's personal fortune.

Coulter's wild charge that liberals are guilty of treason brings the whole notion of treason into disrepute. One of General Wesley Clark's contributions to the presidential race has been to debunk the notion that it is inherently unpatriotic to have opposed the Iraq War. Clark has called for a New American Patriotism which explicitly recognizes the right to dissent.

But what is one to make of this statement brought to our attention by Michael Totten?

The anti-war movement here and abroad must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.

It appears in a flyer (pdf link) prominently displayed on the home page of International ANSWER, one of the two groups which organized this past weekend's anti-war demonstrations in Washington. Does the author of the flyer, Richard Becker, support our troops? Clearly not. Is he unpatriotic? I believe so. Is he guilty of treason?

According to The U.S. Constitution

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

To the extent that Becker's unconditional support for an enemy during wartime remains solely within the realm of speech, it may technically not violate the legal definition of treason. But certainly, anyone who follows Becker's advice and provides tangible support, such as money or supplies, to the "Iraqi anti-colonial resistance" will be committing treason. Let's not quibble about whether such support would be "non-violent." Becker explicitly calls for unconditional support, which by definition includes the resistance's chief activity, violent attacks against American troops and Iraqi civilians.

There is one final question. Is treason bad? Willy Brandt, the late German Chancellor, worked with the Norwegian resistance during World War II. The charge of traitor followed him throughout his subsequent political career. He committed treason against Nazi Germany, and that was good.

But would Americans who commit treason by materially supporting the anti-American resistance in Iraq be doing good? The resistance consists of supporters of Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer who would no doubt execute many of those who collaborated with coalition troops were he to return to power. It also includes suicide bombers who use ambulances to murder Red Cross workers. Such treason would be vile indeed, and any American who follows Becker's advice should be prosecuted.

Dialogue: 'If I had a hammer...'

Jesse: What's that you've got, Ras?

Erasmus: My centrist toolbox.

Jesse: What makes a toolbox 'centrist'?

Erasmus: It has tools to solve problems, but, unlike the partisans of left and right, it has a variety of tools.

Jesse: Partisans don't have a set of tools?

Erasmus: Yes, but they have a very limited set of tools. And every problem is seen in the light of what tools they are accustomed to using.

For example, a partisan toolbox may contain a hammer. This works well when the task at hand is to drive in a nail. The problem is that they tend to think that every two-inch sliver of metal that needs to be inserted into wood as a nail. They don't notice it when presented with a screw. They just start hammering away.

Jesse: Don't they have a screwdriver?

Erasmus: No, but there's one in the other partisan toolbox. But these other partisans don't have a hammer, so they get really frustrated when confronted with a nail!

Jesse: Ha! I get it! Bet I know what you have in your centrist toolbox.

Erasmus: Take a look! [opens toolbox to reveal a hammer, a screwdriver and numerous other tools]

Jesse: Cool!

(originally posted to CivicDialogues.org)

In Search of a Credible Wartime Leader

I've been pretty critical of the president here, in this space, and more generally in all the snippy little comments I make about his Iraq policies or his approach to foreign policy in general.

What happens, though, when others, from the opposite side of the aisle, start offering plans of their own? A bunch of leading Democrats have been forced to offer specific and comprehensive proposals on Iraq. You can't run for president in the middle of a war without a plan. And each candidate is having to respond to specific events and choices made in the course of this war.

Which makes it all very interesting. It seems an especially effective measure of the strength and integrity of these candidates. Responding to wartime events -- expressing an opinion regarding choices that are made which will affect the lives of our young men and women in uniform -- is a pretty decent test of the kind of leader you will become.

I was impressed, in the period immediately following the combat phase of the war, with the level of commitment this field brought to the rebuilding effort. All the major candidates seemed to understand that opposing the war did not translate into opposing the rebuilding effort.

Defeating and removing a regime gives you all the basic responsibilities for security and reconstruction. If you broke it, you bought it. The strongest anti-war candidates, like Dean, were posting detailed reconstruction plans to their websites and talking about our "sacred trust" in Iraq and our commitment to see it through.

In hindsight, though, there's a whiff of politics here. Talking about our commitment level is one way of saying "look what the president has gotten us into". It's also a way of pointing out how undercommitted the administration was -- how inadequate our troop levels were and how unprepared we were for the immediate postwar environment.

Howard Dean advocated strongly -- passionately -- for sending more troops to Iraq. Remember that?

There seems quite a contrast between these early views and the recent vogue of minimizing our involvement.

For example, the decision by 7 of these 9 candidates to oppose the president's $87 billion reconstruction package. Yes, it's a lot of money, and yes, the president is playing politics with this request -- asking for a lot now in an effort to avoid having to ask for more next year, in the heat of the election.

You can make other arguments regarding this $87 billion. And the Democrats do -- they did last night in the debate. Suppose you oppose the plan as leverage -- as a way of forcing the president to choose a more reasonable policy in Iraq? Aren't you doing the right thing for your country then?

Not likely. The real-world consequences of defeating the president's reconstruction funds are quite different. It would lead, most likely, to a further alienation with the international community -- fewer countries supporting us in the recent UN vote, less reconstruction money at the donor conference, and a sudden deepening of worldwide skepticism regarding our commitment to Iraq.

Beating Bush out of his $87 billion is not likely to lead to an international renaissance on Iraq -- bringing us together in a new era of shared responsibility. If that's the Democratic vision on Iraq (and it is), they chose a grossly inadequate tool. In fact, they took a big step in the other direction.

I'm not inclined to credit the 7 of 9 Democrats who took this position with any sort of reasonable policy on Iraq.

They're doing something politically viable. It gets applause lines all night long, and fits quite nicely with recent public opinion polls showing opposition to the $87 billion reconstruction package.

It's politically attractive, but not good for the country. Which makes it a nice test of a candidate's judgment, strength, and willingness to lead.

Is There A Center On Abortion?

I'm not sure there is a centrist position on every issue, and it seems to me that abortion is one where it is difficult to be in the middle. Certainly, the competing sides take binary positions. For the pro-life side, conception is the bright line. Some on the pro-choice side may hold that life beings at birth, while others consider the fetus to be alive but without human characteristics until late in a pregnancy, but for the leaders of the pro-choice side, abortion is an absolute right not subject to negotiation.

I've been thinking about this in connection with the recent pro-life victory on what they term partial birth abortion, but what opponents say cover far more than late term abortions.

I don't know that there is a center on this issue, and I am pro-choice, but my centrist instincts make me amenable to some limitations on abortion, such as parental notification, and limitations on late-term abortions. Readers may correct me, but it seems hard for me to believe that a women would not know she was pregnant for 6 months. It seems reasonable to say that the first two terms are a period where elective abortion is allowed, but during that period, you have to make up your mind. In the final term, abortion would be allowed only for medical necessity. I would further accept the notion that such medical necessity be physiological and not include a "mental health" loophole one could drive a truck through. Presumably, few pregnancies change from "wanted" to "unwanted" in the final term, except for those involving the late discovery of genetic defects.

One other question is whether compromise moves the discussion forward, and helps resolve the issue, or if it simply moves the battle to different ground. If the pro-choice side were to "giving an inch" would that whet the appetite of the pro-life movement for further restrictions, or would it suck the momentum out of the pro-life side by undercutting their most appealing positions?

Redistricting: The Tool that Cuts Down Moderates

In most states, redistricting is down by the legislature and the governor every ten years, following the decennial census.

The heightened partisanship of recent years has led to Republicans and Democrats trying for partisan advantage in ways that damage moderates.

Look at redistricting in California and the South. Democrats in CA totally controlled the process, and they had a choice betwen a map that would (1) endanger some of its white incumbents by spreading a few Republicans in them (Dem-leaning districts perfect for moderates), which would let them create some new Hispanic majority districts or (2) creating Republican preserves and Democratic preserves which were dominated by either party. They chose the latter (MALDEF litigated on behald of Hispanic voters and lost).

As a result, the elections for the State Senate, Assembly and the the US House of Reps are basically foregone conclusions. They will be R or D, with few people wondering about the outcome. Changing a district that had enough of the other party so that you no longer have to worry about their concerns, mean that parties will trend away from the center, towards their political bases and interest group funding.

In the South, the Voting Rights Act and Republican political wishes lead to jamming as many (Democratic) minority voters into some districts as possible, to ensure that the remaining white majority district trended R.

The consequence has been to destroy moderate Ds and Rs in both areas. CA Ds and R and Southern Ds and Rs are as far apart politically as any people from the same state.

Now, there are districts in the South which have so few blacks or Democrats that the Republican rep can move away from the center. To illustrate, look at Texas, which is now redistricting again. The new TX plan will eviscerate moderate Democrats in the state. By creating new Democratic districts that are minority-dominated, the remaining TX Dems are so weakened that they are expected to lose between 5-7 seats. It creates a more liberal Democratic Party in the process. There is now no home for TX moderates in either party.

Here in CA, redistricting will frustrate Gov Arnold when he tries to deal with the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans in the country. Imagine trying to get 2/3rds for a budget from these guys.

Partisan redistricting, combined with sophisticated computer programs that let you sort voters more easily, has created legislatures without a center and are therefore not reflective of the voting population.

Is there another way?

In Iowa, they use a nonpartisan commission for redisricting. Taking away control from the legislature and Gov has resulted in tough districts that are not tossups. The number of 51-49 races in Iowa is more numerous than anywhere else over the past decades since this system came into effect. Having these guys work harder for their jobs has resulted in members far more attuned to centrist voters. And it creates moderates out of ideologues. For their own survival.

We Love Moderates

James Taranto has featured us on Best Of The Web. I suppose we should thank him, except this is how he puts it:

'I Hate Moderates'
Cheers to blogger "Frank J." for this delightful bon mot (ellipsis in original)

There is now a Centrist Coalition blog. I hate moderates . . . much more than even liberals. I bet Satan is a moderate; the best way to get evil accepted is to package it with some good. That's what moderates do; they're always like, "Oh! I'm so special because I don't take a firm stance on issues, and I see value in everyone's viewpoints." I bet right now a moderate is reading this and partially agreeing with it. Damn you!

Frank, you have a point. Not a good one, but it is barbed. It reminds me of the monarch who wanted to hire a one-armed economist as finance minister. The king couldn't bear hearing, "On one hand... on the other hand..."

Neocon Or Maverick?

Michael Totten asks himself whether he's turning into a neoconservative. Like myself he fits in better culturally with liberals

I love Amsterdam and similarly liberal places. I find conservative towns, like Salem Oregon where I grew up, to be suffocating and culturally comatose. Give me the dope legalizers over the morality police. Please.

I similarly love Cambridge, Berkeley and Santa Monica (good bookstores) even if I find their politics bizarre. Indeed, I have lovingly satrized them in my Camberwell Tales. Perhaps like myself and Joe Katzman, Michael's got a nugget of granola conservative in him.

Motivated chiefly by foreign policy issues, many neocons in the 1970's left the McGovernized Democratic Party to join forces with the Republicans. Unfortunately, the demands of partisanship tempted some of them to "get with the program" of the Republican Party on social issues as well, and this is where Michael draws the line.

So it seems that when it comes to foreign policy, I do agree with most aspects of neoconservatism, which, to my mind, is hardly different from 1990s neoliberalism. And I appreciate that the neocons are moderates on many other questions. They can keep the rest of it, though. And no one should expect me to sign on. There is no reason I should suddenly have warm feelings for Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly just because I want democracy to replace fascism in Iraq. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I myself identify more with a figure originally associated with the neoconservatives, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was demonized by the left for his report on the Negro Family and lionized on the right for his service as a combative Ambassador to the United Nations in the 1970's. But Moynihan never made the full journey from left to right, halting very nearly in the center, his commitment to New Deal programs intact.

The liberal and conservative poles of politics have a have a powerful pull, and it's easy to allow oneself to be drawn to them. The path of the maverick is a lot harder, but we need more of them.

Lieberman Taps McCain

Joe Lieberman's been trying to shake things up a bit over the last month or two, as his prospects for winning the Democratic nomination dimmed.

I think some of what he's done is counterproductive. His attacks on Dean in the debates weren't handled well, in my opinion. It's great to contrast your views, position yourself as the clear centrist alternative, but the attacks seemed a little too personal and, by all appearances, helped anger the party base even further.

Now we have something else almost certain to anger the party base. And yet I think it's a good thing.

A little playful speculation. Associating himself with a popular maverick of the center. Yes, the party establishment will hate it. But independents will love it. And independents get to vote in some primaries.

Lieberman has a bit of a playful soul that you've gotta admire.

Lowry vs. Yglesias: Who's responsible for 9/11?

Dan Drezner is doing his usual admirable job of refereeing one of the more heated accusations thrown back and forth between left and right -- the claim, offered in book form by Rich Lowry's new Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years, that the Clinton presidency is largely responsible for 9/11.

The American Prospect's Matthew Yglasias offered the counterargument.

And Lowry and Yglasias have gone back and forth since.

Interesting debate, but one with all the usual overtones of folks having basically made up their mind (because of existing political affiliations) before looking at the facts.

The argument continues in Drezner's comments section.

Tribalism Reigns

OK, after prodding from President Bush, a Republican Congress is inching towards the largest expansion in government social spending in many years.

President Bush is building a record of achievement on core Democratic issues such as education (collaborating with Senator Ted Kennedy on major education legislation that left conservatives fuming); trade (establishing protectionist measures for steel workers, farmers and others); and health care (the above-mentioned Medicare bill).

So is his centrist shimmying getting him anywhere with the loyal opposition? Hardly. Liberal Democrats will never accept GWB as President. Starting from the disputed election and through partisan brawls over taxes and Iraq, Democrats seem to really despise the man, despite his borrowing from their political playbook.

President Clinton drove Republicans nuts doing the same thing: appropriating the language of welfare reform, tax cuts for the working class, accountability in schools, and reinventing government.

The President’s appropriation of elements of a liberal agenda have raised nary a peep from Republican conservatives. GWB’s relations with liberals AND conservatives have not been affected by these tacks to the center-left.

Our reaction to the man is still determined largely by party.

This is a shame. Because it indicates that any president that moves towards the center is not viewed as authentic by the opposing “tribe”. Most of my Dem friends hated him from the day the FL election was decided by the SCOTUS. Can anyone describe a centrist policy that GWB could adopt to bring Dems around? Or a Clinton policy that would have brought Republicans around?

Crime And The New Urbanism

Crooked Timber has a fascinating post on urban design and crime, linking to a report by British police condemining New Urbanism as "criminogenic."

New Urbanism hopes to fight suburban sprawl through a return to dense development. I'm against sprawl, but it's important to recall why people moved to the suburbs in the first place. The interstate highway system, started under Eisenhower, "pulled" people out to the suburbs by giving them a quick way of living in the spacious countryside while commuting to jobs in the city. But many families, like my own, were "pushed" out to the suburbs by the explosion in crime in the 1960's.

This is an example where one value favored by liberalism is in conflict with another. While liberalism does not "cause" crime, conservatives tend to favor "law and order" while liberals favor the rights of the accused and raising the bar to conviction in criminal prosecutions to reduce the chance that innocent people are convicted. Loosened constraints on sex and drugs is also more associated with liberalism than conservatism.

But when public spaces became chaotic in the 1960's, many people took it upon themselves to create private spaces where they could be safe. People achieved safety through distance from the urban chaos. A more recent trend to privatize space is gated communities.

My "centrist" position is to favor the restoration of public space, but to recognize that crime control is essential in that effort. Violent crime in the United States is now at a 30-year low, which bodes well for the future of urban living.

Thanks, Glenn

Welcome to those of you stopping by via Instapundit. Centerfield is a collaborative weblog of centrist voices, and we welcome new contributors. We're open to Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. Our blogroll randomizes whether left or right links come first. We currently have more anti- than pro-Bush voices; thus, we're keen on recruiting a moderate Republican who supports the President so we can have intra-blog debates.

We intend to link promiscuously to bloggers who discuss centrism whether favorably or unfavorably, so send us your links!

The Centerbot

I've adapted the Clarkbot to serve as a Centerbot, a Perl script which searches Feedster for blogs which use the term "centrist" and presents the results in a format suitable for posting.

I'm delighted to discover a new centrist blog, Centrist Intelligence, which seems to have started, if I'm reading this right, early this morning! Next, the Log Blog has some interesting comparisons between the Clark and McCain campaigns.

Finnegan Begin Again
From: Centrist Intelligence  October 22, 2003, 02:10 am
Excerpt:

I have not previously attempted to write a weblog, so I shall now do just that. Like the man who climbs the mountain for no other reason than that it stands before him, I find myself compelled to pen my thoughts about politics. First among my duties...

Paralells between the Clark campaign and the McCain Campaign of 2000
From: The Log Blog  October 16, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

It occurred to me today that there are a number of similarities between the campaign of General Clark and that of Senator McCain in 2000. The most striking is their apparent centrist approach. General Clark has not said a lot about many specific issues..

The Clark Sphere: Centrist Coalition's Clarkbot
From: To Sir With Love - A Wesley Clark Blog  October 21, 2003, 19:10 pm
Excerpt:

Stirling Newberry reported: "Want to know what is going on around the blog space related to Clark? The Centrist coalition has "Clarkbot" which gathers the day's posts - but be forewarned, it's everything and Clark bloggers aren't shy about weighing...

Centrists arise!
From: CivicDialogues.org  October 21, 2003, 20:10 pm
Excerpt:

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Amitai Etzioni writes: So how did the Demo-crats get elected? By running on a centrist - not liberal - message, as Bill Clinton did in 1991. He took the Democratic party toward the political center, drawing...

The Radicalization of the Brookings Institution
From: The Decembrist  October 21, 2003, 15:10 pm
Excerpt:

One of the more mystifying side-stories of the Watergate scandal was Nixon's directive to firebomb the Brookings Institution in Washington. It's mystifying because to anyone in Washington in the last two decades, Brookings has hardly seemed a left-wing..

So I went reading through the "civil" war articles and I found myse
From: Bearblue  October 21, 2003, 12:10 pm
Excerpt:

So I went reading through the "civil" war articles and I found myself thinking - for some of those so called differences - "and you think that's a bad thing?"What's really interesting to me is that it goes back to something my political science teacher..

Democratic Cultural Elites
From: Judicious Asininity  October 21, 2003, 00:10 am
Excerpt:

The Sophorist points out one of the disconnects that the current Democratic party positions have with mainstream Americans: James G. Lakely writes "Democrats rethink gun-congrol stance" in the Washington Times: The perception that Democrats are hostile..

Who is Gregg Easterbrook??? Really???
From: SashaCastel.com  October 20, 2003, 20:10 pm
Excerpt:

Gregg Easterbrook is a think tanker at the Brookings Institution, a more or less centrist / status quo-ist (i.e. center/left)...

There Is No Candidate X
From: Jay Reding.com  October 20, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

John Derbyshire worries that a third-party candidate could hand 2004 to the Democrats. I don't think there's even a remote chance of that happening. 1992 was very different from today's political climate. Clinton was running as a "new Democrat" - a...

On Moderates And Ideology
From: Insults Unpunished  October 20, 2003, 11:10 am
Excerpt:

First my apologies to Chris for quoting his whole entry, but he might die some day and I don't want to lose this one. I should have written about this before: the contention that you have no ideology is foolishness. Everybody has an ideology even if...

Swoon
From: Lorenzo  October 20, 2003, 02:10 am
Excerpt:

You are "Welcome to the Caribbean, love."You're more than a little world-weary, but alsointelligent and you keep your head when thingsget dodgy. You're everybody's favoritedrinking buddy, but your stubbornness does getin the way sometimes. Which one of..

democrats rethinking anti-gun positions
From: Sophoristically Speaking  October 20, 2003, 01:10 am
Excerpt:

James G. Lakely writes "Democrats rethink gun-congrol stance" in the Washington Times. Excerpt: The perception that Democrats are hostile to the rights of gun owners has damaged the party in the last two elections and will do so again in 2004 unless they

Transformational Politics
From: Blog for America  October 20, 2003, 01:10 am
Excerpt:

The Washington Post runs a story this morning on how political players are contemplating the sea-change that your participation in our campaign represents: Howard Dean's success raising money and mobilizing voters has provoked a growing debate among...

Dean-Clarke
From: Gavin's Blog.com  October 19, 2003, 19:10 pm
Excerpt:

Andrew Sullivan: For Wesley Clark to become Howard Dean's running-mate. It would be a great, centrist Democrat-Republican ticket I had this discussion a few weeks back after the seminar in the US Embassy. Jim Ledbetter and Ben made the very...

The gigglesnort test
From: Signifying Nothing (Mixed feed)  October 19, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

Matt Stinson tears into CalPundit for his risible suggestion that he, Paul Krugman, and Atrios are “moderates” (see also John Cole). Allow me to add my two cents. Newsflash to Kevin (and anyone else in punditry under the misguided impression.

All Work and No Play Makes Chuck a Dull Boy
From: The Meanderings of Chuck  October 19, 2003, 14:10 pm
Excerpt:

Well, I went out last night and had a nice time. I kept a smile on my face, kept things light, and in general was just enjoying myself. I ran into "SdSuperstar" and his other friend, "CrazyHair". They were in high spirits and helped me to have a better..

Left of the Middle...
From: 13th Erisian Order of the Rising Sun  October 19, 2003, 12:10 pm
Excerpt:

Your political compassEconomic Left/Right: -6.75Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92Heh, that puts me more left and more anarchic than Ghandi. Looking at the "international chart" they have, I'm like a merge between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.Though,.

Matt Gonzalez Profile in SF Chronicle
From: An Activist's Life, by Thomas Leavitt  October 19, 2003, 00:10 am
Excerpt:

[Here’s another example of a) the Green Party’s maturation as a political vehicle, and in the kind of candidates it attracts (Tom Hutchings, down in Santa Barbara, is another), and b) the slow erosion of the Democratic Party’s lock on..

Civic Virtue, Part 1
From: Sleepless In Scandihoovia  October 18, 2003, 23:10 pm
Excerpt:

Clint Would Buy That For A Dollar

Random Thoughts from Bare Naked Ladies Blog Oct 12-03
From: mousemusings  October 18, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

Random thoughts: 1.Why does even the left-wing media say things like: “Howard Dean is the most progressive option for the Democrats (besides Kucinich)�? This occurs in both the Progressive and the Nation’s current issues. It’s time to take Dennis

The New Republic Harbors an Anti-Semitic Editor?
From: Tikun Olam-תקון עול×�: Make the World a Better Place  October 18, 2003, 00:10 am
Excerpt:

I've never liked the New Republic. One of my close friends used to call it the 'New Republican.' A cheap shot sure. But I never could figure out their editorial-ideological slant. That's why it made and makes me uncomfortable. That it why it gives me...

I am so glad I didn't vote for him . . .
From: Banshee  October 17, 2003, 20:10 pm
Excerpt:

This Marriage Protection Week is about the most insulting, offensive, and gratuitous thing I've seen in quite some time from a president. No, I haven't forgotten how much I despise Clinton, either -- but Bush surely is a crappy follow-up. Crikey, why...

Sizemore, Miller, Franken
From: MemeFirst  October 17, 2003, 14:10 pm
Excerpt:

Becky Miller, formerly Sizemore's aide, has this to say about Franken's book: It is an amazing book, and -- if you're a decent, honest, hard-working, patriotic, true-blue conservative who listens to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and watches Fox News --

Reviving the name Conservative Party of Canada, the Progressive Conser
From: Mark Fox's Weblog  October 16, 2003, 22:10 pm
Excerpt:

Reviving the name Conservative Party of Canada, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance are planning to merge to create a united right-wing alternative to the Liberal Party of Canada. The key reason for the merger: the fear that a more...

Centrist Coalition's Clark Bot
From: The Clark Sphere  October 16, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

Want to know what is going on around the blog space related to Clark? the Centrist coalition has "Clark Bot" which gathers the day's posts - but beforewarned, its everything and Clark bloggers aren't shy about weighing in on every...

Another Reason To Vote Against Ben Nighthorse Campbell
From: Colorado Luis  October 16, 2003, 13:10 pm
Excerpt:

Or at least, one less reason to vote for him. Wampum reports that Rep. Brad Carson of Oklahoma, a Democrat and an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, will run for Oklahoma's open US Senate seat in 2004. If Carson can get solid support from Oklahoma's

The New Stop-Dean Candidate: Howard Dean
From: epicrisis  October 16, 2003, 13:10 pm
Excerpt:

In The New Stop-Dean Candidate - Howard Dean. By William Saletan you can read all the "bad" things that Howard Dean has done. What the alleged centrists in the DNC say: Dean is too liberal What they mean: He scares the...

Slate's Saletan on Dean "All year, Howard Dean ...
From: Best of the Blogs  October 15, 2003, 23:10 pm
Excerpt:

Slate's Saletan on Dean "All year, Howard Dean has been gaining ground in the Democratic presidential race. And all year, Democratic centrists have been scrambling for a candidate to stop him. He's too liberal, they said. He's soft on defense, a Vermon

Meltdown
From: Sleepless In Scandihoovia  October 15, 2003, 22:10 pm
Excerpt:

Midterms Are Done. Much Like Clint's Brain.

Right Wing Leftist Media....
From: dwivian  October 15, 2003, 10:10 am
Excerpt:

People claim the media is the instrument of the left(right). They claim that the liberal(conservative) agenda is destroying the credibility of the news. And, they're right...You see, the media is very centrist, with slight leanings one way or the other..

Howard Dean: Progressive Centrist
From: Libertarians for Dean  October 15, 2003, 08:10 am
Excerpt:

William Saletan over at Slate has a few good words for the Howard Dean that people have started to discover. A George McGovern Dean is not. We still will love the foreign policy, but as his opponents try to attack him on domestic issues there are more a

Fw: Centrist not a dirty word
From: Virginia is for Clark (Richmond)  October 15, 2003, 03:10 am
Excerpt:

Apologize if I sent this earlier. It's being noticed by Clark supporters in Texas, so evidently, this columnist from the Virginian-Pilot is widely read. If you have a moment, email her (her address is below the column) and comment or thank her. They...

The PATRIOT Act Hits Home
From: Sleepless In Scandihoovia  October 14, 2003, 23:10 pm
Excerpt:

Guilt By Association Is Alive And Well

Dean Accused of Being a Centrist
From: Democracy Dave and Will of The People  October 14, 2003, 22:10 pm
Excerpt:

Dean Stops Dean?
From: Howard Dean 2004  October 14, 2003, 18:10 pm
Excerpt:

My, what a difference a few months makes....Slate's William Saletan on Dean: All year, Howard Dean has been gaining ground in the Democratic presidential race. And all year, Democratic centrists have been scrambling for a candidate to stop him. He's too.

Realignment
From: Jay Reding.com  October 14, 2003, 00:10 am
Excerpt:

Steven Den Beste has another long but valuable overview of the American electoral process and why it doesn't bode well for the Democrats in 2004. Indeed, as I've mentioned many, many times, I'm a big believer of Anthony Downs, who formally theorized and.

Autumn Is In The Air
From: Sleepless In Scandihoovia  October 13, 2003, 23:10 pm
Excerpt:

If You Can't Name Your Football Team's QB But Can Name All Nine Supreme Court Justices, You Might Be A Geek.

Trailing in the middle
From: Vern Beachy's Rave's  October 13, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

Lieberman and boredom... The New York Times did a piece about how the Joe Man (Lieberman) is kinda sucking in the Democratic Presidential race (duh). His name rhymes with boring (well, in a sense). Lieberman, the Centrist in the Middle of the Pack By...

Lieberman, the Centrist in the Middle of the Pack
From: Confessions of a G33k  October 13, 2003, 17:10 pm
Excerpt:

From The New York Times, by Edward Wyatt Many Democrats say Mr. Lieberman's prospects are diminished by the same factors...

Mobilizing The Center

My thesis is that there is an insurgent center in American politics that is rarely heard from, but can be decisive when it is. The grassroots movements supporting Ross Perot and General Wesley Clark exemplify this insurgent center. Generally, centrists are the least politically active individuals in the American political system. While polls indicate that more Americans call themselves moderates than either conservatives or liberals, the national conservation is dominated by the battle between liberals and conservatives, with moderates generally keeping their head down to avoid the crossfire.

Part of the reason we rarely hear from centrists is that they care chiefly about whether the country is going in the "right direction" and don't concern themselves with who is leading it there. Thus, centrists become involved in politics more often during bad times.

Times were hard in 1992 when I become involved in the Perot 1.0 campaign (before he proved himself an eccentric by dropping out of the race and then dropping back in). It was fascinating to observe people react to media coverage of Perot and self-organize local groups in response to his call. The draft-Clark movement reminds me strongly of the early Perot movement, with people self-organizing support groups with little centralized direction. In both cases, the normally apolitical center was ripe for mobilization. It only required the catalyst of a plausible standard-bearer.

It is this insurgent center that we at the Centrist Coalition are interested in fostering. We have not endorsed any candidates (though several of us like Clark) but we do hope to highlight candidates and movements at both the national and state levels that seek to move the country forward in the "right direction" The centrism of the wishy-washy, the deal-makers, and opportunists is not what we're about. If you are interested in helping us moblize the center, please contact us at blog@centristcoalition.com

A serious suggestion for General Clark

It seems that he has lost his voice. Ah, the joys of politics, right, General?

Seriously, GET A VOCAL COACH!!! Constant public speaking requires more breath support from one's diaphragm -- it makes the vocal chords do less straining. A few simple exercises daily will quickly become habit.

(I'm sure someone in the campaign will see this -- please pass it along to the powers-that-be!)

A Gathering Storm

Due to their pack mentality, the press often gives you the sense that there's a "gathering storm" of one kind or another. Reporting is so consistent and repetitive that you figure whatever it is must be pretty bad.

Sometimes the underlying reality is bad, and sometimes it isn't. It's hard to distinguish between the two based solely on what you see in the media.

Consider, for example, the reporting back during the combat phases of the Iraq war. Our troops made rapid progress, but resistance was also stiffer than anticipated, and there appeared to be some danger that our forces were overextended and that supply lines might not be adequate.

Read the press reports from the first week of April, about the time of this blog entry. You'd get the feeling we were firmly ensconced in a quagmire -- when, in actuality, we were on the brink of defeating Saddam's army and overthrowing the regime.

The Bush administration wants us to believe, of course, that current reports from Iraq fit this pattern. Things appear bad because the press always covers the latest bombing or combat fatalities. If it bleeds, it leads -- which tends to push out reporting of positive developments.

Unfortunately, I suspect the gloomy scenario is in this case the correct one. I think we have a real gathering storm. We've been tiptoeing ever closer to the edge for the past several weeks, and I sense, now, that we are falling through those first disorienting stages of a nasty downward spiral.

Why is the bad news "right"? And the good news "wrong"? For several reasons.

First, the pace and effectiveness of guerilla attacks is increasing. Just this morning we hear of two new attacks that killed a total of 4 American soldiers and wounded 9 Americans and 5 Iraqis.

Second, an influx of thousands of foreign Muslim radicals is fueling what has become a consistent, daily terror bombing campaign. Iraq has become the preferred destination for jihadis, and they clearly have the means and will to direct suicide attacks at any available target.

It's hard to see how we block this threat. Israel has been responding aggressively to terrorists for decades now, but they never seem to eliminate them. The brutal truth about terrorism is that it occurs at times and places of the terrorists choosing. They don't stand up and fight in conventional battles, which makes them hard to combat in any direct military sense.

Third, we are seeing distinct opposition and clashes from the majority Shiite population. It isn't just Saddam's leftovers in the Sunni triangle anymore. Young Shiite hotheads like Muqtada al-Sadr may have limited support, but there seem to be more of them emerging. The biggest clash yesterday was with gunmen gathered at the offices of a leading Shiite cleric in Karbala.

There's a growing phenomenon of leading clerics forming militias, some clashing with occupation forces, and some now fighting one another.

In short, we are firmly ensconced in the hornets nest. They're starting to crawl all over us, and some of them know how to sting.

These developments don't mean that we can't win in Iraq. It just means we ought to think in terms of a dramatic new course. We need to change the fundamental dynamic or risk watching Iraq descend into chaos.

'He who has ears to hear'

While we're on the topic of how the Bush administration tends to be ideologically inbred (see previous two posts, for example), this op-ed by Thomas Friedman appearing in the New York Times stresses the importance (or 'virtue') of being a good listener. Here's Friedman:

Had this ingrown administration ever exposed itself to people even mildly opposed to its policies, let alone foreigners, it might have avoided some of its most egregious errors. Had it listened to its own Army chief of staff, who had served in Bosnia, it might have put more troops into Iraq, as he advocated. Had it listened to its own State Department, it might not have recklessly disbanded the Iraqi Army without having enough U.S. troops to fill the security vacuum.

Listening is also a sign of respect, and it is amazing how much people will allow you to say to them, by way of criticism, if you just bother to go listen to them first. I heard Richard Brodhead, the dean of Yale College, give some very smart advice along these lines to incoming freshmen the other day. He should have been talking to the Bush team.

"Above all," Dean Brodhead told the students, "don't limit your associations to people who agree with you. . . . I read that American political parties are concluding that the old electoral strategy of first playing to the core adherents and true believers, then reaching out to the independent or unpersuaded, might now be passé, and that parties will succeed best by continuing to appeal to the party base. This may be good politics, but I doubt it's good for the quality of thought that will result from politics. Who do we suppose will be able to deal more constructively with the challenges of our time: people who have only ever experienced preaching to the converted, or people who tested their understanding against the countervailing understandings of others?"

I believe that listening in this sense is a trait always possessed by the wise -- almost always lacking in the foolish!

(also posted to CivicDialogues.org)

North Korean Intentions

There's all kinds of theories about North Korean motives.

Some think their belligerent attitude is calculated to gain maximum concessions on security and economic aid. Others think they're not interested in a negotiated settlement at all, and simply plan to build a nuclear arsenal.

Supporting the former position is Secretary Powell's public discussion last week of the possibility of offering North Korea some kind of security guarantee -- e.g., an agreement that we won't invade them, which is one of their key demands.

Supporting the latter is North Korea's decision a few days prior to kick Japan out of the six-way talks aimed at resolving the crisis. And, more importantly, their statement today that they intend to "physically display their nuclear deterrent force", widely interpreted as a reference to actually testing a completed weapon.

An underlying, decisive reality to this crisis is the time factor. The North is moving slowly in talks and throwing up all kinds of roadblocks. Meanwhile, it's been 10 months since they expelled IAEA inspectors and began reprocessing (they say) some 8,000 spent fuel rods that were previously under 24-hour IAEA surveillance.

There's some physical evidence to suggest they weren't kidding. Like this:

A U.S. intelligence official said Monday that atmospheric tests by the United States last month detected the presence of krypton gas over North Korea. The gas is produced when used nuclear fuel is treated to separate out plutonium, a key ingredient for one type of nuclear weapon.

This quote appeared in news articles three months ago, and the intelligence official is referencing data already a month old at that point.

Thus, it has been four months, minimum, since the North Koreans began reprocessing spent fuel rods. And intelligence estimates have always pointed to a timeframe of about six months for the North Koreans to build new weapons.

And how about this report from July:

North Korea has conducted at least 70 "high-explosive tests" of devices used in nuclear warheads at a secret site about 40 kilometers northwest of its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, South Korea’s intelligence chief said Wednesday.

The South Korean intelligence report for the first time estimated the number of tests that U.S. intelligence reports had said the North Koreans were carrying out to develop the technology for detonating nuclear warheads.

It seems likely the North Koreans are building a nuclear arsenal, and that talks won't conclude until after the point when they've completed at least part of it.

The outcome is basically being decided by facts on the ground, even as the talks drag on.

Congress

The American Prospect has a piece on the difficulty both parties are having in recruiting Congressional candidates and refers to David Broder's article on Old Bull Democrats who by contrast are sticking it out in Congress.

Meanwhile, here is the email from a Texas Republican operative gloating over redistricting

Polling Baghdad

Gallup is in Baghdad, doing polls. And the Iraqis want to talk, at length.

Gallup, one of the nation's best-known polling operations, hired more than 40 questioners, mostly Iraqi citizens directed by survey managers who have helped with other Gallup polling in Arab countries. Respondents were told the poll was being done for media both in Iraq and outside their country, but no mention was made that the American polling firm was running it.

To conduct the poll, Gallup did interviews face-to-face in people's homes chosen at random from all geographic sectors of the city, and more than nine in 10 agreed to participate, at least double the response rate for many U.S. telephone polls. Pollsters in the United States have an increasingly difficult time getting cooperation from people called on the phone.

One thing you could say about Saddam. He never based his policies on what people where saying in the opinion polls.

Attracting New Voters

Tom Oliphant draws a lesson from the California vote, and writes in the Boston Globe that other Democrats should lay off Clark for only just joining the party if they want to attract new Democrats.

The fact that Clark has yet to express an opinion about a single issue as a candidate, including Iraq, that puts him outside the party's mainstream did not impress Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman. The message they sought to convey is that the guy is not legit.

This is nuts. That attitude narrows the appeal of the party instead of broadening it. It amounts to rejecting a convert as well as a recruit. It's as if the big-name candidates want to win voters who are taking the precise journey Clark has taken, but insist on their own superiority because they supposedly have been right all along.

(cross-posted with Independents For Clark)

How Bush plans to win

What is Bush counting on to bolster his re-election chances?

Answer: An improved economy.

He's hoping that the natural business rebound will be noticeable to the voters by next summer And he will claim that it's a result of the tax cuts!!!!! (He's already done this -- and it's obviously one of the GOP talking-points.)

Yes, this is a fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But this fallacious argument, when amplified by millions and millions of campaign dollars, just may be enough to elect him.

It seems to me that moderates (who I hope are not fooled by the trickle-down myth!) have a stake in formulating an effective response -- one that is both true and easily communicated.

But I have no idea what that is. Suggestions welcome. (Stirling?)

Olympic Bipartisanship

The feel-good legacy of the 2002 Winter Olympics leads to this act of mutual bipartisanship, as the Republican Governor of Massachusetts endorses a Utah Democrat.

As for Romney's decision to take sides in the Salt Lake City elections, aides said that, because of their work together, the governor has a ''very special'' relationship with Anderson, who endorsed him in the race for governor last year.

''Sometimes personal friendships transcend politics,'' said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's director of communications. ''That is certainly the case with Mitt Romney and Rocky Anderson.''

Insurgent Center Defeats Deal-Making Center

Centrist Arnold Schwarzenegger defeated centrist Gray Davis in California yesterday. Liberals and conservatives polarized around the election, but as a previous post discussed, there really wasn't that much in the way of policy different between Davis and Schwarzenegger.

Both are centrists. But Davis was an example of a "deal-making centrist" who centrism was perceived to be one of compromise, and splitting the difference, without any real policy-making goals or principles. Arnold ran as an insurgent centrist, an outsider who would break the grip of special interests. It remains to be seen whether Arnold will be a competent governor, or a running joke. But what happened in California shows the potential power of an insurgent center in this election cycle.

Update: Check out RogerLSimon

We are not witnessing a Republican victory. The Republican Party in California remains a minority party. Most of the Republican true believers voted for McClintock. What we are witnessing is the beginning—the early movement--in the death of the two-party system as we know it. This is a revolt of the pragmatic center.

Republicans For Bush

Bush-Cheney '04 has started an official blog.

Young Republicans For Clark

Always on the prowl for centrists, I may have found the next generation at Young Republicans For Clark. I received this note from Andy:

==================================================
** YRs 4 Clark Needs YOUR Help **

Clark IS big tent and he's presidential. America needs
his leadership. But, before that happens, Clark needs
bipartisan support. That's what YRs 4 Clark is all
about.

If you're 18-40 years young in the U.S., and want
Wesley Clark to be your president in 2004, we need
your help. Join the YRs 4 Clark YahooGroup today at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yrs4clark/

Online grassroots CAN help generate additional
attention and interest in Wes Clark's bid for the
White House.

Appearing at a recent town hall meeting, Wes Clark
said: "I'm gonna bring a lot of people into the
[Democrat] party." Wesley Clark defines "big tent."
He's not an ideologue. He deserves our support,
regardless of ideology. More importantly, America
needs Clark. We need Clark's experience, determination
and leadership.

No one says it better than Wes Clark: "We're firm in
our intent, we're clear in our purposes, we're
mustering the resources, building the nucleus, drawing
the support of people from all across this great
land." And, that's what matters most -- bringing us
together, not pulling us apart.

Join us at YRs 4 Clark group and make your voice heard
today! Check us out at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/yrs4clark/

--Your friends at YRs 4 Clark
yrs4clark@yahoo.com

Clark may prove that 'centrist' is not a dirty word

The Wesley Clark Weblog points out this fine opinion piece published in the Tallahassee Democrat with some advice for centrists

A savvy candidate will brandish, rather than hide, an aspect of his background that might render him vulnerable. Think Ronald Reagan's age ("I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience") or Jimmy Carter's roots and vocation (Southern peanut farmer, Washington outsider).

Looks like Clark has taken the advice

Rather than parsing his past Republican support or pretending that he's been a yellow-dog Democrat all along, Clark has touted his vote for Reagan and played centrism to his advantage, saying, "I was going to be either a very, very lonely Republican or I was going to be a very happy Democrat and you know what, I'm going to bring a lot of other new Democrats into the party."

It may work

To middle America, unnerved by political polarization, "centrist" is not a dirty word; it's a welcome return to sanity. Says Stephen Medvic, professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, "The notion that someone isn't a diehard partisan, a lot of Americans will like that aspect of Clark's candidacy."

(crossposted at Independents For Clark)

CIA vs. White House

Howard Fineman gives the most coherent summation of what's become the leading theory in the Plame scandal on the left side of the blogosphere. Basically, he says, it's a war between the CIA and the White House:

But why did Tenet send Wilson to Africa? Maybe he just thought he was sending the most qualified guy. But the neo-cons and their allies came to see it as a conspiracy to ignore the truth — especially after Wilson, last July, went public with the essence of his findings, which was that the yellowcake rumors were false.

The moment that piece hit the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was all-out war between the pro- and anti-war factions, and between the CIA and its critics. I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.

And on Tenet’s part, it was time for payback — whatever his past relationship with the Bush’s had been. First, he and his agency had been humiliated, caught by the White House trying to distance themselves from the president’s speech. Then the CIA was forced to admit that it had signed off on the speech. Now one of its own investigations was coming under attack, as was one of its own undercover staffers.

If true, this will get very ugly, with casualties no doubt on both sides.