It is hard to consider myself part of the "sensible center."

[madfloridian]

Last year that was a major phrase being used, put forth by the various centrist think tanks. I always hated those words because they implied that any of us who were not in what the centrists considered the "center" were fringe.

I am finding it hard to say I belong to that sensible center because:

I believe in public education. The center now believes in turning over public schools to those who can afford to pay for them, to those who get money from billionaires and corporations. Trouble is that does not satisfy them. They want the public money also that has traditionally gone to public schools. To get it the charter schools have a saying that they are exactly like public schools..they just don't have to follow all the regulations.

There's a word for that....deregulated schools. Wonder if that works like deregulated corporations that caused our economy to wobble and be on the verge of crashing.

I believe that the two programs, Social Security and Medicare, are now part of the lives of seniors who have paid into the programs all their working years. I do not believe they are to be put on the table and dabbled with while the defense budget remains sacrosanct and billionaires get their tax cuts extended.

The sensible center has put them on the table, and if we don't like it we become the enemy. I find that odd. These programs are Democratic legacies, yet now we are not supposed to criticize when the president calls for "shared sacrifice". We are supposed to share sacrifice with billionaires and wealthy corporations? Really?

I believe that women have the right to make their own choices about their reproductive health care. Instead of going forward the last couple of years, we have stalled or gone backwards. I don't hear our party leaders speaking up very much on the rights of women.

They have instead adopted the right wing framing, and they are sticking with it. And women will suffer dearly because of that sell out in order to win.

NARAL has charts if you are interested about how most states have such restrictions now that women are in danger if they need an abortion or face great harm to their bodies.

NARAL maps and charts

These think tanks have gotten the media and leading Democrats using such terms as "sensible center". When we catch on and call them out, they change them to a similar talking point. Here are some examples of last year's sensible center movement:

From Open Left archives, I love this article.

The sensible center outraged by the "sensible center"

He was speaking of the deficit commission and the outrageous suggestions coming out of it.

As I've said before, Brad DeLong is well to the right of me politically. Matt Miller, too. (Miller used to hold down the "center" in KCRW's "Left, Right and Center" back in the mid-90s when Arianna Huffington represented the "Right", before the "Left" Robert Scher completed the work begun by Al Franken... ah, but I digress....) Point is, Miller can actively participate in some pretty intense, creative, and ultimately mind-changing debates, and still not think anything terribly novel or surprising.

But what's now being done by Obama and his appointees in the name of "sensible centrism" is about to give poor Matt a heart attack. This is yet another, highly significant data point in the argument that Obama is not only not a progressive, but not even centrist or "third way" neoliberal as they were once understood. Of course, I would argue that the "third way" never actually had any sort of firm foundations, and so sharp rightward slippage under Obama is not really all that surprising.

He has put Social Security on the table to be negotiated about with right wing extremists. I can't go along with that as being sensible or centrist. It just is neither.

Andrew Cuomo is said to have seized the sensible center. This is after he has threatened public employee unions openly.

How Andrew Cuomo seized the sensible center

Cuomo has shown himself to be the rarest of political animals: an effective and popular champion for the sensible center.

Plenty of politicians promise to rise above the usual left-right warfare, but few succeed. Typically, they try to pass off straddling on divisive issues as bipartisanship - and wind up as wafflers who alienate everyone.

Cuomo, by contrast, staked out bold positions on both sides of the traditional Democratic-Republican divide - then diligently set out to recruit votes from the other side.

Unfortunately that appears to be the goal of the party now, to "recruit votes from the other side."
Those like me who strongly believe in public education, the right of women to choose their medical care, and that Social Security and Medicare are to be guarded and protected....are not the concern of the party now when it comes to tallying up priorities.

I remember a column by Michael Gerson in 2009 on how the "sensible center" held in health care reform.

On Health Reform, the Sensible Center Holds

It is among moderate and conservative Democrats, along with independents, that concerns about spending and the deficit are rising sharply. In March, Democrats of every ideological brand overwhelmingly believed more spending was essential to improve the economy. Now 48 percent of moderate and conservative Democrats put a greater priority on cutting spending to lower the deficit -- a view shared by 56 percent of independents.

So how are these moderate elements being treated by the Democratic establishment? For the most part, with contempt. Liberal interest groups, and even the Democratic National Committee, are running ads targeting Democrats with moderate views on health reform. It is the Chicago-style political hardball that some political operatives imagine is sophisticated but is often counterproductive. Do Sens. Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson really need to be lectured by their party's left wing on the interests and views of their constituents?

That is the true belief of the right of center in the party....that we who are "liberal" have a dubious right to question elected officials.

It is that way now even more so. We are seeing everything that was once considered sacred put on the table to be sliced and diced in the name of bipartisanship.

If that is the sensible center, I fear I am not part of it.

I came to DU in 2002 as a very moderate person with a strong Southern Baptist background. I must have sounded very odd to people here at times. But I have moved from being fearful of using the word "liberal" to being proud to call myself one.

The way to be one of the good guys here now is to be willing to accept whatever our leadership offers. If we don't, we risk being called "haters" or worse.

There is something wrong with that.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Probably because "the center" is largely a myth.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[madfloridian]

2. I don't think they listened to Lakoff.

Do you? There are some things that Democrats must believe in.

[Wounded Bear]

3. The center has been dragged so far to the right....

it is hardly recognizable any more.

I agree with you. What "they" are calling the sensible center looks strangely like a bunch of loony righties to me.

:shrug:

[theaocp]

4. Damn straight.

The way to be one of the good guys here now is to be willing to accept whatever our leadership offers. If we don't, we risk being called "haters" or worse.

I found this out yesterday in a humbling way. I will continue to be a cynic and pessimist. I'll never get thanks, but I think I'm ok with that. A votre sante.

[madfloridian]

13. Me, too.

I have had my share of the name-calling this week.

[Tesha]

5. Thanks, Mad Floridian; that was obviously written from the heart.

(It's a shame you're getting unrecs, but that's par
for the course these days.)

Tesha

[21st Century FDR]

6. 99 times out of 100, the positions marketed as "centrist"

turn out to be corporatist.

The top 1% of predatory capitalists are not the "center" of anything in this country, and there's nothing at all "sensible" about what they have been doing to this country for the last 30 years.

[StarsInHerHair]

7. plus if you suffer a miscarriage they now jail you in some States

http://josh-of-arc.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/17/3909456-pregnant-woman-jailed-for-having-thought-about-abortion

http://www.newser.com/story/112773/georgia-state-rep-bobby-franklin-wants-to-make-miscarriages-abortions-punishable-by-death.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/01/06/83951/-VA-Legislative-Sentry:-Have-a-Miscarriage,-Go-to-JAIL


& then a peek into Mexico http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=365687&CategoryId=14091

"Mexican Judge Frees Women Jailed for Miscarriages

MEXICO CITY – A Mexican judge ordered the release of seven women serving long prison term in the central state of Guanajuato after suffering spontaneous abortions, state Attorney General Carlos Zamarripa told Efe."

[madfloridian]

11. Such tragic stories. A crime if a woman can't prove it was miscarriage?

Life terms for miscarriages?

How did we get here? Oh, wait...because we started down that slippery slope thinking we would just go a little ways down it.

Doesn't work that way.

It's like raising the ages for Medicare or Social Security.....do it this time, do it again and again.

[StarsInHerHair]

20. yes & where are the bills being passed in 'blue' States to prevent religious

laws like this being passed?

[bvar22]

8. I USED to be a Sensible Center Mainstream FDR/LBJ Big "D" DEMOCRAT.

Now, I have been labeled a "Fringe Far Left Winger" that the White House says needs to be "Drug Tested".
I haven't changed.

I am STILL a Mainstream FDR/ LBJ Democrat.
The Party that is NOW going to start "adjusting" and "trimming" Social Security & Medicare has left me.
I haven't changed.

I STILL believe these things:

“As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world”
---FDR, 1944

I STILL believe in the above,
and will continue to fight for the above.
If the New Democrat Centrist party no longer supports those values,
that is their problem.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[Bjorn Against]

9. I would consider you to be part of the sensible center

From everything I read from you it seems you are sensible, and while I don't like the word center because there is no linear scale in politics your views do seem to be similar to those held by many Americans. It is those who call themselves part of the "sensible center" however that are not at all sensible, nor do they represent the average American. They are complete corporate sellouts, and we need to stop pretending they are centrists. You are much closer to a sensible center than anyone in the DLC is.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

12. I just saw this. They seem to be serious about cuts to SS

Joan McCarter writes: McConnell-Reid proposal puts target on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

"Greg Sargent has some key developments in the Reid-McConnell proposal that make it even worse. That commission it sets up? It's designed specifically to "reform" Social Security and Medicare....
--

The semi-good news is that it puts the onus on members of Congress to actually vote to cut Social Security and Medicare, which they hate to do. It's unclear right now whether congressional Democrats would line up with this. It could potentially mean putting off any cuts to Social Security and Medicare in this package, putting that vote off to later, when the commission comes up with its recommendations. But that's not entirely clear yet.

The discretionary spending cuts that Reid and McConnell are supposedly talking about are somewhere in the $1 to $1.7 trillion range. Cuts of that size in discretionary spending have to come from social insurance programs—there's literally no where else in the budget to go unless defense is decimated. Which ain't gonna happen. It's becoming increasingly clear that we're not going to get out of this current hostage situation without a big hole started in the safety net. The only clean option, McConnell's original proposal, seems to be a dead letter, and President Obama is not going to let this opportunity to make cuts pass him up."

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/giving-away-store-words

[hfojvt]

14. one of the good guys according to whom?

Nobody is universally liked here, but you have threads on the front page probably more often than anyone else on the board except maybe kpete who usually does not write her own OPs. So you seem to have a fan base, which means you have drawn a few detractors as well. It goes with the territory.

As for the sensible center. First, I dislike the phrase because I like idealists and passion. But there does seem to be a branch of extremism. Not everybody is in the center. On any issue there are extremes.

Take social security. You said you don't think it should be "dabbled with", but why not? Why is any change to Social security bound to be a bad one? Here's what Somerby pointed out weeks ago.

"There are three choices on Medicare, Schumer said. Republicans want to end the program as we know it. Democrats want to “preserve the benefits but change the delivery systems and not let some of the providers, like the drug companies, get away with so much.”

...

In what ways is Medicare entangled with our deficit problems? Do we actually have a deficit problem? Should we just return to the Clinton tax rates? We’d love to hear such questions discussed on the merits—but you don’t get that from Maddow.

What do we get on the Maddow program? In the last two weeks, we’ve gotten a series of silly discussions in which Maddow seems to posit two choices about Medicare, not Schumer’s three. According to Maddow’s apparent framework, Democrats can vote to kill the program, or they can vote to leave it completely alone. Maddow has shown very little awareness of the third choice Schumer described. Nor does she seem to know that Schumer was right in his remark about party agreement. Rightly or wrongly, major Democrats do seem to agree on the approach Schumer described—an approach in which benefits remain unchanged while costs of the program are lowered."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060311.shtml

Now, it seems to be to be a "non-sensible" position, first, to be unable to differentiate between various plans, and second to start shrieking "treason" or "heresy" whenever any plan is discussed. To demonize anybody who proposes, or even considers a change seems extremist to me. That does not mean the program cannot be vigorously defended, but if it is defended by intolerance and irrationality, then it has crossed a line into "non-sensible".

As far as negotiating with extremists goes, unfortunately, if extremists have been elected into positions of power, then a certain amount of negotiating is probably necessary unless you can get the public to pressure them (unlikely given the realities of their finances and their reliably conservative districts.). Unfortunately the only person that Obama has chosen to take out with Nation of Islam death squads is Victoria Jackson. That may send a message to others, but until that happens, they have the power that they have and must be worked with. Obama or Cuomo cannot transform into The Rock Obama and just tear their arms off, although sometimes that would be nice.

[madfloridian]

15. I know all those arguments for putting them on the table.

I just don't believe that is the whole story. There is too much evidence otherwise through the years. Let's face it, Medicare is essentially already privatized through the Medicare Advantage plans.

As to changing Social Security right now with some of the most extreme Republicans and Teabaggers on the scene.....there is nothing right about that. It can NOT end well. Our party is putting seniors under huge stress right now, and it is not healthy for those nearing SS age either.

What they are doing is harmful, and they do not know how to communicate well at all. Obama has now made it possible for the GOP messaging to sound like they are the ones protecting SS. Now that's bad.

As to quoting Somerby to me?? Not a good idea at all. I respect Rachel Maddow, and her intelligence and honesty put Bob Somerby to shame.

And as to THIS nasty little comment of yours...and I will quote your exact words..

Nobody is universally liked here, but you have threads on the front page probably more often than anyone else on the board except maybe kpete who usually does not write her own OPs. So you seem to have a fan base, which means you have drawn a few detractors as well. It goes with the territory.

You think that my post was about "popularity"? You really think that? Detractors? You simply can't believe that post is about a party that has apparently left so many of us behind? A party that lectures its "left" constantly for wanting it to stand up to things?

Two big digs in one paragraph, plus using Somerby's quotes in reply to me...not a bad day's work.

[hfojvt]

17. now that does not seem like a sensible reply

"nasty little comment".

You took that comment as nasty?

As for what the party does versus what DU does, your OP's final line was this "The way to be one of the good guys here now is to be willing to accept whatever our leadership offers. If we don't, we risk being called "haters" or worse."

"here" meaning DU and complaining, seemingly, about what some DUers call you.

Or maybe it is not you specifically in the sense that one group calls the other "Obama haters" and the other calls the other group "Obamabots" or "hippy punchers".

The other part about some sort of Somerby vs. Maddow seems like a long way from discussing the merits of what was said.

I see this as a little bit of tribalism. That there are only two tribes, the liberal tribe and then all the other enemies - first, the other tribe, which is insane and evil, and then the centrist enablers who are heretics to the liberal holy word.

Again, that does not seem to be a sensible position. To declare, or perceive that everybody who does not agree with you is an enemy. To be unable to argue the merits of your positions and to resort instead to attacking the intelligence or the character of those who disagree, like myself or Somerby.

[madfloridian]

18. Oh, wait....."tribalism"?

You really said that?

[Zorra]

16. rec

[madfloridian]

19. Obama used the words "shared sacrifice" again today.

I am tired of sharing sacrifices with billionaires. I wonder who told him to use the words "shared sacrifices" because it is not working.

"Simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all our parts. That means spending less on domestic programs. It means spending less on defense programs. It means reforming programs like Medicare to reduce costs and strengthen the program for future generations. And it means taking on the tax code, and cutting out certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans.

Now, some of these things don’t make folks in my party too happy. And I wouldn’t agree to some of these cuts if we were in a better fiscal situation, but we’re not. That’s why I’m willing to compromise. I’m willing to do what it takes to solve this problem, even if it’s not politically popular. And I expect leaders in Congress to show that same willingness to compromise.

The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share – or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get."

http://articlesofinterest-kelley.blogspot.com/2011/07/saturdays-address-by-president-obama.html