Some thoughts on "centrism".

[MGKrebs]

I have been thinking about "centrism" some and why there seems to be some tension surrounding the subject. This is my amateur observation and I welcome further input and differing viewpoints. Please excuse me if this has been discussed before and I just missed it.

To me, the political spectrum consists of a range of ideologies, for the most part fixed or at least internally consistent. Somewhere toward the left you would have socialism, and moving to the right we find gradually diminishing variations of populist democracy. Somewhere toward the right you would find Libertarianism and, moving leftward, traditional conservatives and variations of smaller central government advocates. Of course there are myriad variations and shades and mixes of ideas, but they all have fixed positions on issues that don't change much over time. Many issues (although certainly not all) can be placed somewhere on that spectrum because we can identify and define whether something is closer to one ideology or another.

My thinking leads me to believe that centrism may not really belong on this spectrum at all. Centrism, as I understand it, involves trying to ascertain where "the middle" is, and crafting a message to respond to that middle, and identifying "the middle" means identifying where on the fixed spectrum that most so-called "swing voters" currently reside. The thing is, by definition, swing voters haven't bought into a particular ideology, so as a group they may be all over the place on that spectrum depending on the issue. Trying to find the center therefore is sometimes more like finding an average since few may actually occupy that center on any particular issue. I don't think you can really say that "centrists believe in X". I would suggest that it has little meaning except in the context of an election or polling. In other words, it is only able to be defined relative to something else. If the left is here and the right is here then the center is here.

That's not to say that centrism isn't a legitimate point of view, it's just that perhaps it's more constructive to think of it as a tactic or a strategy rather than an ideology. So when we have discussions about winning elections, centrists and ideologues aren't necessarily at odds. Someone who considers them self pretty much a socialist may recognize that utilizing a centrist strategy when it comes to universal health care may be more successful than advocating government takeover of the health care industry at this moment in time. By the same token, a centrist would hopefully recognize that ideologues aren't necessarily "wrong", it's just that for them, elections are only one mechanism for achieving the policies and furthering the philosophy. The philosophy will still exist next year and next decade, and there will be more elections then (hopefully!) and there are other means to further the philosophy besides elections anyway, as Lech Walesa might argue.

I think this might illuminate a little common ground leading to a more productive debate. I think it is when we try to discuss centrism as a political ideology or insist on ideology without regard to election strategy that we have difficulty resolving the discussion. They are two different things. I feel like I can be a liberal, and be true to my ideals, and accept that sometimes, in some races, the candidate I am most aligned with is not going to fulfill every aspect of my liberal philosophy. My support of this candidate does not mean I have abandoned my philosophy, but merely indicates that this is the best that can be done at this time. At the same time, I also believe that we have to be able to do more than one thing at a time. There must be some candidate somewhere who stands up for the ideal- for the principle- regardless of the odds. Perhaps the discussion should be more about when and where to apply a strategy or stick to an ideology rather than whether one or the other is empirically right or wrong. The goals of each are actually subtly different. Centrism is designed to win elections, ideology advocates specific policies. Ideologues would be well served to sometimes accept small steps toward their position, and centrists could benefit from recognizing that winning without substance might make it harder to win next time.

We all ultimately have the same goal- a better world.

Thanks to the proprietors for providing the forum to discuss stuff like this.

[Horse with no Name]

1. The problem with centrism

is that in THIS political climate,they have pulled us so far to the right, that center is still to the right spectrum.
I understand that I am far left and will almost never get exactly what I want, but I am willing to concede some for the greater good.

[Union Thug]

8. I agree. Nixon was a liberal by today's standards...

and this is nothing but bad news for working people.
The centrist dems are corporate dems, the dlc elite. They are the problem with the democratic party, and they are the ones playing the centrist card.

[MGKrebs]

10. Yes but centrism is really just a campaign tactic.

It is a response to how well one side or the other has been selling their message. The right has done a very good job of marketing lately and THAT is the shift you are referring to. I think that if those on the left strive to get their message out full time, off-year and on, 24/7, the centrists will end up looking a lot like liberals.

[BootinUp]

12. Its not only marketing

There have been economic and social changes over the last 30 or so years that have cuased people to listen to the rhetoric from the right.

[MGKrebs]

14. Like what?

I think a large part of the problem is that things were so good in the 90's that people got complacent about politics, and we let the right rant about imaginary scandals and conspriacies and societal breakdowns. The biggest social change I see is that the Repubs have been busy training people to distrust government and be fearful of everyone outside their own family and church.

[BootinUp]

16. Goes back further

To 60's 70's and 80's.

[BootinUp]

2. Bill Clinton has been making

campaign speeches for various candidates. I saw one recently where he addresses the basic problem with ideology.

This page second from the bottom
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=11

Former Pres. Clinton campaigns for Joe Sestak, D-PA, Candidate for U.S. House. Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral and former member of the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council, is running against Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA).
10/5/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min.


Basically that you can't solve problems if you start from an ideological solution instead of arriving at the solution through analysis of the facts.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Yet it's ideology that causes you to seek solutions for some problems

in preference to solving others. Should we seek to protect our access to the world oil supply or put resources into new energy research? There are also values issues--e.g. which is more important, freedom or security? A more even distribution of resources or allowing competition? Etc.

[MGKrebs]

6. This sounds like a question of scale.

My ideology is "a better world for everybody", and I think it is important to keep that in mind when considering how to solve problems. But I can easily see how ideology can blind people to facts.

I heard somebody on the radio today trying to downplay the human-influence component of global warming. In the end, he said something like "these are the same people who are anti-capitalist". That is a case where he has taken a position because he needs to counter people that he perceives as aligned with those who he sees as his opponents, even though he admitted no real knowledge of the subject.

On the other hand, considering a problem without a sense of what would constitute "progress" is useless. There must be some sort of ideology to contemplate a productive solution, no?

Am I crossing swords with Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton? Yikes.

[BootinUp]

9. I agree

As another post above points out, an ideology can be the basis for or devlop from morals. Bill was talking about extreme ideology.

[Warpy]

3. The center is being claimed mostly by conservatives.

The real center lies elsewhere.

The real center, 87% of it, wants a substantial rise in the minimum wage, and they want it yesterday.

A majority say Iraq was a mistake and a majority wants us out. They only differ on a timetable.

The majority knows the health care system in this country is DOA. Single payer as a solution is gaining popularity. The majority wants universal health care insurance and again, they want it yesterday.

The majority think corporations have too much power, that CEOs are looting their companies, that too many jobs are going overseas, and that the country is going in the wrong direction.

That is where the center is, folks, not out there in conservative la la land.

[madfloridian]

4. The problem with the kind of centrism we have seen in our party...

is that isn't in the center, where most of the people are. It is every bit as ideological as anything on the "left." It was set up, this kind of centrism, in the late 80s to rid the party of dependence on the "traditional" groups like minorities and labor unions...groups that were not providing enough money.

It has been carried to the extreme in many ways, dependent on corporations. Because of this centrism we have bombed the country of Iraq into the dark ages, and may have been/may be on the verge of bombing another one.

It is the kind of centrism that says go along to get along and not make waves. But there is an ideology. That ideology is to transform the middle east for our benefit. The centrists in our party call it "progressive internationalism." Or at least that was the most recent terminology...it might be "jidhadism" now.

The tragedy of this kind of "centrism" is that it has nearly driven "moderates" like me away from it. I waver in the world between being "liberal" and "moderate." I don't deal very well with extremes on either side. I just don't fit.

And this kind of centrism has become extreme,so much so that it called the people in the party who opposed the war "fringe activists."

It is why we are bogged down in Iraq with no good way out.

[omega minimo]

7. Centrism = Rebpublican Lite

Youre' right-- it is a vacillating postiion, riding the wake of the majority power, always listing away from personal responsibility :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

11. centrism viewed only as a tactic

just as an aside and perhaps a little OT, i would start by arguing that the political spectrum does not really exist at all ... or at least, in the US, from a pragmatic point of view it does not exist at all ...

but let's return to the key premise in the OP: that centrism is more a tactic than an ideology ... viewed through that lens, it would be possible to separate values and beliefs and policies and ideologies from electoral tactics ... centrists, then, if the premise were accepted, could label themselves as "the pragmatic ones" while they might label ideologs as "not pragmatic" ... we see the "purist" label used to attack DU's ideologs all the time ...

and, perhaps, if the goal were unity and the fusing of these warring constituencies, it might be a useful model ...

the problem, though, is that i don't think the model brings any harmony ... ideologs, in my view, at least in the current climate, see themselves as change agents ... they are seeking something other than the status quo ... they are trying to "LEAD" towards that which is not currently accepted as "mainstream" ... they don't want to go where everyone already is; they are choosing what may well be the "not common wisdom" in an effort to bring real change ... centrists, even if viewed solely as tacticians, will oppose the risks involved in making changes ... by definition, centrism as a tactic implies "following the parade"; not leading it ... centrism turns the old maxim about "if you build it they will come" on its head; their maxim is "if they've built it, we should go there" ...

the result of these "follower tactics" is a rejection of those calling for change of any kind; especially ideologically-based change ...

as for the "political spectrum", i'm deeply concerned this becomes little more than a divisive distraction ... for example, is it "left" or "right" to argue that a balanced budget is the only sound fiscal policy and that bankrupting the national treasury is insane? is it "left" or "right" to argue that the Congress should represent the best interests of the country and the American people and that when government becomes dependent on corporations for campaign money, the ideals on which the country was founded become tainted? is it "left" or "right" to say that mega-corporations should not receive massive, no bid contracts and that an almost total lack of oversight is not serving the best interests of the country? i think, too often, that calls for responsible government and good governance are portrayed as "left wing"; it's total nonsense ... we should be trying to enlist support from all Americans to restore our democracy to the one envisioned by the country's founders ...

the solution i see, and it doesn't necessarily disagree with the OP's theme about centrism being more a political tactic than a set of core values and beliefs, is that within the Democratic Party, we need to talk through exactly what our values and beliefs are ... this should be done, at least initially, in a vacuum that ignores the political realities ... the goal would be to see if we can reach a fundamental accord on what we would like to achieve ... i believe much of the hostility we've seen would be significantly toned down if we could get to this point ...

if we could, the second phase would then address the political practicalities ... some might see certain goals as permanently unattainable; others would argue that a long, slow implementation might be possible; others would want change to happen immediately ... right now, it seems we make almost no progress defining our values ... we're so entranced by the politics that we forget to identify exactly who we are and what we believe in ... if we had a sense that most of us were more-or-less on the same page in our values and beliefs, perhaps then we might make a little progress working out the political strategy ... when the political strategies dominate, they fail to convey what MIGHT BE an underlying unity in our systems of belief ...

our entire political process is very badly broken and it's going to cost each and everyone of us very, very dearly ... the rest of the world is not standing still while we battle among ourselves ... and our great problems, like global warming, remained largely unaddressed and almost unaddressable ... this cannot continue ... we are in very desperate times ... too many believe that America will always be on top ... it is not so ... while we are distracted by runaway brides and gay congressman and foreign leaders calling bush the devil, the glaciers are melting, the rivers are running dry, global wars are continuing, deadly weapons are being produced almost everywhere, our alliances are shattering ... truly, we are blind fools digging our own graves ... centrists will not paint these dark pictures for you; these pictures are too depressing and they turn people off ... the thing is, though, these are the truths we need to hear ...

[MGKrebs]

13. Establishing values...

Here in Georgia, despite all the Republican scandals and despite the polls showing big gains for Dems all across the country, we are unlikely to make much progress here this year. I believe that this is because there is almost no Dem party infrastructure. For 130 years, the Party was run by the governors office. There was little need for precinct captains or phone banks or large scale grassroots activity. Democrats always won and candidates were left to run their campaigns as they saw fit. But now that Republicans CAN win, we find that just leaving it up to our Dem candidates is not enough.

As you say, there is no set of identifiable values that defines all Dems and that separate them from Republicans. The Dem Party has practically zero visibility between elections so again we are nearly totally dependent on the candidates resources to sell their message. Our candidates have to be excellent fundraisers, charismatic leaders, and sophisticated linguists to have any chance of success because- outside of Atlanta- there is virtually no "base" for them to start with. The only thing people know about Dems is what the Republicans tell them. I think Howard Dean is moving in the right direction with the 50 state strategy and the "Democratic Vision" door hangers from this summer. I have been told that our state party doesn't WANT a permanent platform, but if we are going to build a constituency for our candidates to speak to, we will have to agree on some values we can promote even in March of off-cycle years.

Maybe that's the real problem- ideologues want to establish these values, but centrists might resist since the current perceived "center" might not share all of those values, however, I am confident that the values we could establish would be broad enough to cover all but the most dedicated partisans. Like: affordable healthcare, environmental responsibility, economic opportunity, educational excellence, and community participation. At that point, we are no longer differing over the goals, just how to get there.

Yes, I think my goal was to take a step toward, if not unity, at least a more productive debate. The ideologues are talking about the destination and the centrists are talking about the mode of transportation. A clearer understanding that a different mode of transportation doesn't change the destination might be helpful I hope.

[bemildred]

15. Very astute.

There is no center. If you stick to one issue, you might be able to do a poll and argue that the "center" is the median or modal position. But when you consider the entire assemblage of political issues, there is no center at all, and persons who claim the "center" are really asserting that their position has greater legitimacy than everyone elses.