« We Don't Need No (Traditional) Education | Main | My Life »
November 28, 2006
Centrism
Regarding Kevin's admonition to avoid rejecting centrist policies out of a dislike for those who peddle them, he's quite right. It's never particularly clear what a centrist policy is, a point I tried to make here. Some ideas that are defined as centrist -- or even conservative! -- solutions are quite good, the Earned Income Tax Credit being a great example.
What's necessary here is, silly as it may sound, to separate ideas perceived as centrist (say, on the economy, policies seeking to achieve equity aims through market mechanisms) and what Atrios would call "wankery," the deployment of such ideas to undercut more useful solutions or marginalize progressive voices. Guys like Sebastian Mallaby, Robert Samuelson, and David Broder make a play at pushing marginally useful, technocratic ideas as a way of dismissing progressive ones. In these instances, the idea is subordinate to its perceived position on the ideological spectrum. When "centrist" ideas become a navigational device rather than a policy proposal, that's wankery. And it should be opposed. When a good idea emanates out of a centrist, or even conservative, source, that's a good idea.
November 28, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Isn't their something of the perfect being the enemy of the good in this strategy?
Presuming you like a given progressive policy, but it simply doesn't have enough support to be enacted, their are two choices, either fight tooth and nail for it, hoping that circumstances will change, or choosing a lesser, but still better than the current situation, option.
People that are 'centrists' would probably favor the later, while ideological progressives (or conservatives on the opposite end of the scale) would see a compromise as betrayal.
Once in a while I think a program or principle probably deserves unwavering loyalty no matter what the opposition is, but most often I expect that more real world results can be achieved by being willing to embrace gradual change.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 28, 2006 1:55:10 PM
Would you agree that the general discourse in this country would improve dramatically if we all voluntarily removed certain words from our vocabulary? Words like: left and right, liberal and conservative, even red and blue. You rightly suggest that these are just navigational markers that tell everybody from which angle they should approach the subject at hand. They actually impede reasonable discussion of important issues. If O'Reilly says "lefty", his audience hoots and howls before even hearing his point. It works the other way too, as we hear proposals labeled "right-wing", as if that in itself should end debate. We shouldn't be thinking about which ideas are leftist or rightist. We should be asking only which ideas are good or bad. That's what the country really wants.
Posted by: Kevin Walker | Nov 28, 2006 1:57:31 PM
It would be nice, also, to know whether, when people use the word "center," they are talking about the center historically or at this moment in time. The former strikes me as more important, and the latter more common.
Posted by: somecallmetim | Nov 28, 2006 2:03:42 PM
Dave sez "Presuming you like a given progressive policy, but it simply doesn't have enough support to be enacted."
I think a large point here is the opposite case - positions/programs/proposals that do have a large if not majority support, that get labeled as "fringe" or "non-centrist". There are big swaths of Americans in favor of progressive health care reform, not meddling with Social Security, and leaving Iraq quickly. According to the punditocracy these are fringe positions.
Posted by: John I | Nov 28, 2006 2:26:38 PM
The example I always use is housing vouchers. That was a conservative idea, originally opposed by liberals who thought they wouldn't work. However, they have worked, and, ironically, as they're proven themselves liberals have become increasingly supportive and conservatives have become the main voices of opposition against them. Today, housing vouchers are "liberal".
Frankly, most pundits don't understand what "centrist" or "liberal" or "conservative" ideas are. They just know what Democrats support and what Republicans support. And, of course, what far-let groups support and what far-right groups support.
This is why I think it's actually VERY important for liberals not to marginalize their extreme elements. They should be pushing them FURTHER left, frankly. If you have left-wing groups calling for a guaranteed annual income, then EITC expansions look "centrist" in comparison. It also allows policymakers to win the "we stand for something" argument by AGREEING WITH THE EXTREMISTS' GOALS, BUT NOT THEIR METHODS. They can say, "of course, every American believes in a fair day's pay for a full day's work. But this approach is too extreme, flawed here's a more centrist approach which everyone can support and..."
And for the areas where our proposals are being defined as radical, I think we need to fund groups who are MORE radical. This way, the best solutions will be the "centrist" ones.
Not the way I'd like to run government, but given that we have a media which is fetishizing centrism without understanding what it means, we need to start thinking a little more strategically.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 28, 2006 2:32:22 PM
"When a good idea emanates out of a centrist, or even conservative, source, that's a good idea."
How tautological of you. How do you know when a good idea is a good idea?
Posted by: Shoelimpy™ | Nov 28, 2006 3:06:28 PM
>How do you know when a good idea is a good idea?
See this is (IMHO) the problem here. Basically, the mainstream punits / intellectuals function as an ideological filter. The vast majority of policy choices are CHOICES - i.e., your perception of their relative goodness is heavily influenced by which team you're playing for. An obvious example is the way congress structured the government's relationship with the pharma companies in the medicare drug (company) benefit bill. Its much less the case that you can find some perfect bipartisan "good" policy, and more the case that you've got opposing interests who are lobbying for different outcomes favorable to them. There are some cases where its just obvious that the public interest points in a direction - but those are not consensus since most of the most glaring ones the mainstream opinion is dead-set against.
The broders of the world basically have the job of pretending that policies that hurt the business community are inevitable, and its impossible for the federal government to choose to help old people have affordable prescription drugs at the expense of drug companies. Anything that hurts the business class "lacks consensus", isn't "realistic", etc. Exhibit A of this (bipartisan) phenomenom is how a majority of the country support a real national healthcare system but its not thinkable by mainstream politicians.
The obvious task here is to mainstream things that the Broders are downplaying, like national healthcare or withdrawal from iraq. Just because they're playing their usual games doesn't mean we have to play along.
Posted by: chad | Nov 28, 2006 3:41:43 PM
centrism isn't about idealogy or strategies surrounding the, or, at least that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about lacking any view at all outside of winning at all cost. Lieberman in his run this fall to my mind is the perfect example of this. He changed opinion on Iraq weekly. He gave meaning to the words flip flopper. The central problem with centrism is that one can not figure out what it is. It's an amorphic mass that moves as you touch it. I prefer, when talking about this issu, to distinguish like this- I am a moderate, not a centrist. The former indicates the process by which I make political decisions. Incrementalism, finding pragmatic decisions (as you say, get something, even if you can't get everything), not very strong idealogically (I believe neither in the inherit good of the state or the private sector- each has to prove itself on a continuous basis), respectful of religion but dont want to be controlled by someone else's faith, a follower of the Powell Doctrine in foreign policy, etc. These are all moderate positions (or they used to be). The centrist has no such divider- the problem becomes that by adding the centrist into the big tent, their first goal is to push out anyone else in the tent that they perceive will not help them win. Webb is more conservative than me, and I don't want to pus him out. Kucinich, the former Paul Wellstone, etc, are on the other end (and so is the new center Bernie Sanders), and I don't want to push them out. However, the centrist by definiton would. In other words, the centrist brings up the most important factor in politics- trust. Do we trust them not to screw us over? Hence the recent conversation about Lieberman's new chief of staff or communication or whatever bullmoose is suppose to be.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 28, 2006 4:15:50 PM
Does it ever occur to you that the last successful Democratic candidate for the Presidency was a centrist? You liberals might have more luck if you didn't, ya know, go around screaming how things aren't liberal enough for ya. The reason our government is the way it is is to foster cooperation and compromise for the greater good of the whole.
Posted by: Shoelimpy™ | Nov 28, 2006 5:19:45 PM
The reason our government is the way it is is to foster cooperation and compromise for the greater good of the whole.
Unless of course, it's a Republican in power, then it's for the greater good of the Republican party.
Shoelimpy and his ilk spew all the banal platitudes about liberals shutting the fuck up and how "moderation and bipartisanship are important" after they've had their rabid dominionist asses handed to them. And if they ever have control again, they'll turn the steering wheel hard to the religiocorporatist right yet again, protesting all the while that their hard turn is really toward the center, and anyone to the left of Dean Broder's shifting triangulated center is really a pop-eyed slavering bolshevik.
Please, spare us the shtick. At least Richard Viguerie is honest about where he is on the spectrum.
Posted by: paperwight | Nov 28, 2006 5:24:28 PM
The example I always use is housing vouchers. That was a conservative idea, originally opposed by liberals who thought they wouldn't work. However, they have worked, and, ironically, as they're proven themselves liberals have become increasingly supportive and conservatives have become the main voices of opposition against them. Today, housing vouchers are "liberal".
Huh. I don't know much about this, but it does illustrate what I wanted to say in this thread.
I would like Kevin, or anyone else, to point out examples of genuinely good ideas that were rejected because they came from some so-called "centrist" like Mallaby, Broder, Lieberman, etc.
I would hope that everyone is aware of the way that the arguments against the Iraq war were rejected because the people making them were "too extreme," or in Duncan's melodious phrase, "dirty fucking hippies."
Even now the great centrist minds of DC cannot bring themselves to fully admit their error and the accuracy of the war opponents.
This is yet another made-up problem about liberals, and we shouldn't give it any more momentum.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 28, 2006 5:47:25 PM
It should be pointed out, if paper doesn't mind me saying so, that the idea that an extreme conservative can define the middle is about as ridiculous as looking for definition of centrism from a communist. It's like the current discussion from the South only people who confuse arguments about the need to run everywhere including the South, but with a progressive bent, with running against the South. That's only true if you define the South as only being culturally conservative white male evangelicals.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 28, 2006 5:49:40 PM
I think Stephen's point is right, overall. The Bush Administration's initial approach to governing was "if it's Clinton, it's bad." Hence, the demotion of Richard Clarke; the generally ignoring Al Quaeda and terrorism; the denigration of "nation building", diplomacy, and building international coalitions; and the idea that FEMA didn't have to be run by a competent professional.
Every politician has to do politics in order to survive, but really, Democrats just seem to take the governing part more seriously.
I mean, DiIulio's early-on insight that this White House didn't do policy was a really key one. It's terrifying that White House staffers didn't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid when you consider how much of the budget we're talking about in those two programs.
An unwillingness to adopt effective policy because it's associated with Republicans just doesn't seem to be a problem for Democrats. Frankly, I think much more of their problem is an over-willingness to adopt bad Republican ideas in order to gain "centrist" credibility, and an under-willingness to adopt good "dirty hippy" ideas because they are afraid of being pereceived as extremist.
At the end of the day, "shit that works" actually matters. Republicans are losing because their programs suck, and their signature initiative--the war in Iraq to end terrorism--was a miserable failure. Too many Democrats jumped of that cliff, against their own better instincts in order to get "centrist" cred (I'm looking at you, Hillary). Being right is usually better than being centrist. Dems need to be a lot smarter about being right, and let the being centrist take care of itself.
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 28, 2006 6:07:48 PM
How tautological of you.
Except, you know, that it wasn't.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 28, 2006 6:16:07 PM
I have been waiting for a chance to paste this section from Geoff Eley Forging Democracy:
"Willy-nilly, the Mensheviks acknowledged this by accepting responsibility for government between April and October. But they never drew the further conclusions. They continued substituting for the social force — the liberal bourgeoisie — they believed the rightful bearer of the revolution. p 168
For Bolshevism in 1917, social polarization was the key. This was a dual process: the autocracy’s political isolation was increasingly overburdened by a deepening social gap inside the antitsarist camp between “privileged” and “unprivileged,” the “propertied” and the “people.” Even as political society coalesced into an antitsarist opposition, the working class pulled away from the privileged sectors into generalized confrontation with respectable
society."
Is this the right thread?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 28, 2006 6:19:03 PM
I think "anonymous" is on to something. Many people are drawn to a "split the difference" mode of thinking. It's arguably intellectually lazy, but outside of strict factionalism, it's probably the dominant mode in how most people deal with complex political issues. The right long has carefully nurtured its extremes, while liberals have allowed themselves to disassociated entirely from actual leftist views.
Posted by: idlemind | Nov 28, 2006 7:13:46 PM
Centrism often conveys “reasonableness” (as does “bipartisanship”), as though such views represent a middle-ground emerging from a carefully considered analysis of the pluses and minuses of policy prescriptions deemed “too extreme” (in either direction). But it isn’t difficult to frame a proposal as “reasonable” and then argue that anyone opposed to it is a dangerous extremist (e.g., “you have no civil rights if you’re dead”). Psychologically, I’ve found that appeals tapping into any of five core concerns—about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness—can be especially persuasive in this regard. Many conservatives have used such appeals to pursue a very narrow—but often centrist-sounding—agenda that benefits the few while leaving most of us worse off (I should add that most appeals of this sort are not intrinsically bad; that is, they can indeed be used instead to promote the greater good). Below is my list of the "top ten" right-wing appeals that progressives must be prepared to counter despite calls for greater centrism and bipartisanship. I provide details and specific examples in an online video entitled "Dangerous Ideas: How Conservatives Exploit Our Five Core Concerns" (http://www.eidelsonconsulting.com/blog/2006/09/how_conservatives_exploit_our.html)
Conservative leaders exploit our core concerns by claiming that:
1. Their current or future actions are necessary in order to protect the public from dire threats. (Vulnerability)
2. The policies promoted by others will create new dangers and thereby make the public less safe. (Vulnerability)
3. Their actions are necessary as a response to others' wrongdoing and in order to prevent even greater injustices from occurring. (Injustice)
4. Criticism of their policies is unjust and their critics are therefore the ones guilty of wrongdoing. (Injustice)
5. Their actions are required by the opposition's dishonesty and reflect their own integrity. (Distrust)
6. Those opposed to their policies are disloyal, misguided, or lacking in good judgment. (Distrust)
7. The people they represent are special, and their policies are based on high moral principles. (Superiority)
8. Those disadvantaged by their actions are contemptible and undeserving of consideration. (Superiority)
9. They persevere and succeed when faced with obstacles and their actions empower the people. (Helplessness)
10. Their setbacks and failures could not have been avoided, and they are therefore blameless. (Helplessness)
Posted by: Roy Eidelson | Nov 28, 2006 8:32:26 PM
The real danger of 'sensible centrism' is that often it leads to half measures and poor policies that don't solve the problem. The rationale of the sensible center appears to be 'let's do something to appease the masses so we can move on to something else.' I fear the centrist position for healthcare reform will be something like 'we give everyone a grand and then they can choose which HMO they want, and then we are done.' Money plus choice equals problem solved. The WaPo version of centrism appears to be based on the premise that if a compromise is not reached now, we could end up with a liberal policy that actually works thus making people favorably disposed to more liberal policies and then the world will end.
Posted by: centrifrugal force | Nov 28, 2006 10:13:58 PM
Does it ever occur to you that the last successful Democratic candidate for the Presidency was a centrist?
A centrist who ran as a liberal and then broke all of his promises once he assumed office, yes. The two unsuccessful candidates who followed him ran as more conservative than he did.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Nov 28, 2006 10:43:16 PM
A centrist who ran as a liberal and then broke all of his promises once he assumed office, yes.
Baloney. We had this conversation once. Clinton turned out to be not much less liberal that your current favorite. He may not have been as liberal as you, but then he was a successful politician.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 28, 2006 11:03:38 PM
He may not have been as liberal as you, but then he was a successful politician.
What is the definition of success? Yes, Clinton got re-elected, but what lasting accomplishments for the good of the Democratic party can we point to? We actually want policies that advance the liberal viewpoint over the long haul. Just saying we won in 1996 doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Nov 28, 2006 11:30:44 PM
and of course, t he irony of this clinton debate is that he is labeled as "liberal" by the people you are trying to say we need to appease. Success depends on how you mean it. Short term- yeah, but long term? I don't know how anyone here can judge that. We know intermediate, he was so-so. I mean that with all respect, because I like Prez Clinton, but the reality is that what is his legacy?
Posted by: akaison | Nov 28, 2006 11:32:38 PM
I don't want to get into the Clinton details again, but I'm interested in whether you have in mind some more successful Democrat president from the last generation, by whatever definition you prefer. Hmmm. Not many choices there.
One Clinton policy that's relevant here is "don't ask, don't tell," a policy that was criticized strongly on both the Left and the Right, a compromise, a half-measure of the kind criticized here, but one that will unquestionably lead to full acceptance of gays in the military. Good or bad? I think good on the whole.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 28, 2006 11:55:45 PM
"One Clinton policy that's relevant here is 'don't ask, don't tell,' a policy that was criticized strongly on both the Left and the Right, a compromise, a half-measure of the kind criticized here, but one that will unquestionably lead to full acceptance of gays in the military. Good or bad? I think good on the whole."
Sanpete - I'm not sure you understand. It's not clear that Don't Ask, Don't Tell really created much change in the military - it basically means that homosexuals are removed once they are discovered to be homosexual - which is what happened before. I don't know of anyone who's really interested in this work who thinks it was a significant improvement over the old policy. As for their eventual full acceptance - there's no reason to think that follows from this policy. It seems much more likely to follow from the broader social movement, which isn't really helped or hurt by this policy.
This highlights something - Clinton did a bad job trying to change the original policy. he was the wrong messanger, as someone who dodged the draft and opposed the war. The conservatives and military decided to break him, and this was a good way to do it. He then adopted this "centrist" view, which was basically political cover from almost complete retreat. Not necessarily a bad choice (other things were more important, and achieving the original goal was not politically feasible), but it was a dodge.
Clinton had a lot of political charm, and he also benefited from circumstances. It's not at all clear that he was loved because he was a centrist.
Running a left-wing Liberal would not play well in the country, but these labels are mostly about aesthetics. People often apply them that way. Lots of the Democratic Senators who just won races are labeled "moderate" on aesthetics.
Posted by: MDtoMN | Nov 29, 2006 12:50:56 AM
"Running a left-wing Liberal would not play well in the country, but these labels are mostly about aesthetics. People often apply them that way. Lots of the Democratic Senators who just won races are labeled "moderate" on aesthetics."
Do you have a problem with the aesthetics of politics? It's the price you pay for living in the cable news/internet world, bub.
Posted by: Shoelimpy™ | Nov 29, 2006 12:54:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
