|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Yes to Moderation, No to CentrismPosted on Jul 27, 2011
What the country yearns for is moderation. What we hear about is the political center. But centrism has become the enemy of moderation. Moderation in politics is about balance. It means believing in a vibrant and innovative private sector and a government substantial enough to do what the private sector doesn’t and to enforce sensible rules for economic competition. It means incentives for success, help for those making their way up, and security for the sick, the aging, the poor, the unlucky. It means equilibrium between our love of individualism and our desire for community. This, in turn, means that reducing the budget deficit can’t rely only on cutting programs. Yes, taxes need to go up. All the polls I have ever seen peg the vast majority of Americans as moderate by this definition. Centrism is something altogether different. It’s not a philosophy. It’s a position based on calculation. It doesn’t start with fixed principles. It measures where everyone else stands on some political spectrum at a given moment and then frantically adjusts. Because centrism is reactive, you never really know what a centrist believes. Centrists are constantly packing their bags and chasing off to find a new location as the political conversation veers one way or another. Advertisement Worse, the right would junk majoritarian democracy altogether through misnamed “balanced budget” amendments that would not permit any tax increases without a two-thirds vote of Congress. This would lock in today’s historically low tax levies on the wealthy by immunizing them from any foreseeable election result. Yet the center’s devotees, in politics and in the media, fear saying outright that by any past standards—or by the standards of any other democracy—the views of this new right wing are very, very extreme and entirely impractical. Centrists worry that saying this might make them look “leftist” or “partisan.” Instead, the center bends. It concocts deficit plans that include too little new tax revenue. It accepts cuts in programs that would have seemed radical and draconian even a couple of years ago. It pretends this crisis is caused equally by conservatives and liberals when it is perfectly clear that there would be no crisis at all if the right hadn’t glommed onto the debt ceiling as the (totally inappropriate) vehicle for its anti-government dreams. It’s time for moderates to abandon centrism and stop shifting with the prevailing winds. They need to state plainly what they’re for, stand their ground, and pull the argument their way. Yes, they would risk looking to “the left” of where the center is now—but only because conservatives have pulled it so far their way. On the debt ceiling itself, I still find it hard to imagine that Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell will allow the country to go over the cliff. They should shelve debt-ceiling fights for the rest of President Obama’s term because there are better ways to argue about taxes and spending. If they flinch from taking on the tea party, even more trouble faces us. But when this ends, it’s Obama who’ll need a reset. At heart, he’s a moderate who likes balance. Yet Americans have lost track of what he’s really for. Occasionally you wonder if he’s lost track himself. He needs to remind us, and perhaps himself, why he wants to be our president. He could give four or five big speeches—preferably at community colleges in states facing economic trouble—laying out a clear, detailed and, yes, inspirational plan for what the country needs to do to regain its standing and its confidence. And then he has to fight relentlessly to take the debate away from those who think government’s only job is to diminish itself. His advisers are said to be obsessed with the political center, but this leads to a reactive politics that won’t motivate the hope crowd that elected Obama in the first place. Neither will it alter a discourse whose terms were set during most of this debt fight by the right. There’s nothing wrong with moderation that immoderate doses of conviction and courage won’t cure. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.  TAGS:
|
Greenland’s Great Melt Is Pinned On Climate Change
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Druthers, August 1, 2011 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
Centrism has moved so far to the right it might as well be on the other side of the moon.
Report thisEisenhower would be considered radical left-wing terrorist by the loonies loose in Washington tofay.
By TheCenterLane, August 1, 2011 at 2:08 am Link to this comment
My retort to Mr. Dionne’s rant can be found here:
Report thishttp://www.thecenterlane.com/?p=1330
By KP, July 30, 2011 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I like and support the ideas of moderation. But like oddsox, I have to ask, why so harsh with the definition of centrism? The arguements against centrism appear to be based on false premise. Almost as if Dionne makes a statement that assumes some other facts (the definition of moderation and centrism) have already been proven when they have not.
Report thisBy tolstoy, July 30, 2011 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
Another way to look at centrism is the dire need we have at this time for a genuine PEOPLE’S party, instead of a duopoly catering to Wall Street. Check out this new party now at a million and a half strong, seeking more members and declaring itself “centrist.” Every member is a delegate to form party policy and elect candidates for 2012 and challenge the establishment:
http://www.americanselect.org
Report thisBy oddsox, July 30, 2011 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
Well, I’m a Centrist and Dionne has it wrong.
I’m neither trying to offend people (the few or the many) nor afraid of it. I don’t triangulate my beliefs off the positions of others. I believe other Centrists share these traits.
Centrists can listen to both Right and Left and cherry-pick the best ideas from both. We’re the RINOs and DINOs about whom the party faithful complain, the Independents who wooed by the pollsters. We’re often labeled as “useful fools” by the Far Right or “ignorant bigots” by the Far Left. We’re used to criticism from the radical fringes and shrug it off.
3 things to remember about Centrists.
The 3-Ds, if you will:
—We’re Diverse. Centrists may honestly disagree on any issue from Abortion to Vouchers. That’s why Dionne’s call for Centrists to “state plainly what they’re for” and “stand their ground” is a pipe dream. Predictably, though, the majority of Centrists will gather around common-sense positions.
—We’re Disorganized. There will never be a Centrist Party, either as a formal entity (i.e. Green Party) or as a movement (i.e. Tea Party). Because of this, we’re also unfunded.
—We’re Decisive. And as partisan politics become ever more polarized, the ranks of Centrists continue to swell, and our power grows.
Centrists will choose who wins the 2012 Presidential election, as we did in 2008.
Because we have no leader, the politics of personal destruction have no affect on Centrists. Because we’re unfunded, lobbyist dollars cannot move us. Because we have no platform, media bias will not disturb the Centrist.
Dionne is right to fear us.
Report thisBy rjf7r, July 29, 2011 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
The problem I see in many moderates is that they are afraid to appear “left” or “right”. Thus they are strongly attracted to “centrism” as a way of being neither “left” nor “right”. I’m afraid that Obama is one of these people.
Report thisBy severed2009, July 28, 2011 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment
Sometimes moderation fails, as it did in our Civil War. Preserving the nation
half slave and half free (the moderate course, taken for decades) just kicked the
can down the road; if anything in history is inevitable, the eventual failure of
moderation here was. A truly radical course, much more radical than war,
would have been to forcibly buy the slaves from the slaveowners and set them
free with a grubstake. If the nation had clearly foreseen the horrors of our
bloodiest war we might have adopted this course (which would have been
cheaper than the war).
Obama’s moderate stimulus failed, too, as predicted. It added moderately to
our debt to moderately soften the downturn, and we are happy with the result
only because things could have been worse. And, worst of all, it left the basic
disagreement over what we should do, which is still paralyzing the country.
Our normal ongoing political system has been unable to attempt to solve this
disagreement in any way other than political battle, modern American style.
The political battle involves raising money for TV advertising and direct mail
and events designed to build and demonstrate enthusiasm—all of which
involve intensifying the disagreements and scaring and enraging your side in
hopes that you side can do this better than the other side and win.
A radical course would be to look for ways to get people to look at the facts—
the bad facts about their side and the good facts about the other side. Once
people start doing this they will see that no one knows how to deal with our
problems. We do not understand enough about how our economy or our
society works and about other possible ways they could work. For example, it
is an absolute disgrace that economists do not agree on the basics of how the
economy works and do not feel disgraced by this failure and moved to make it
their first priority to find/develop/invent critical experiments that would decide
the issue one way or the other.
We allow arguments over what sort of bandages we need, to distract us from
Report thisfinding out the nature and extent of our injuries. Our basic problems, which
are worldwide, are that we are destabilizing our environment and heading for a
population crash, that we have more money to invest than good places to invest
it, and that we have more people ready, willing, and able to work than we do
jobs for them. So we get global warming, runaway population growth,
economic scams and bubbles, and growing long-term unemployment. Our
fiscal difficulties are a result of these factors and cannot be dealt with (except
by kicking the can down the road) without facing our real problems. Neither
moderation nor centrism will do.
By mackTN, July 28, 2011 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment
“Centrism is something altogether different. It’s not a philosophy. It’s a
position based on calculation. It doesn’t start with fixed principles. It measures
where everyone else stands on some political spectrum at a given moment and
then frantically adjusts.”
THANK YOU, MR. DIONNE! Centrism is a strategy designed to absorb the
opposition and, for Democrats, make the Progressive/Left Wing impotent.
There are no principles that govern Centrism; it’s a regurgitation of Clinton’s
Republikrats stance.
Moreover it provides no benefits for the PEOPLE. It only benefits politicians who
are counting votes for reelection. And as it has played out, concession
(pretending to be compromise) is its primary tool
Representative Giffords was, on the day she was shot, engaged in a meet and
Report thisgreet to sing the praises of “centrism” to her constituency. Progressives reject
Centrism, especially since it apparently results in $4 trillion dollars in spending
cuts including gutting the Big 3.
By CenterOfMass, July 28, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
“At heart, he’s a moderate who likes balance. Yet Americans have lost track of what he’s really for. Occasionally you wonder if he’s lost track himself.”
I call “bullshit”. Obama is not the people’s guy, he’s Wall Street’s guy. That was demonstrated from the moment he appointed Geithner and Summers, and it has never ended. There is no need to wonder, even occasionally.
Nothing more to see here, move along, move along. You too, Mr. Obama.
Report thisBy LT, July 28, 2011 at 9:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“Because centrism is reactive, you never really know what a centrist believes.”
Yes, you do. A centrist believes everything is fine for ME, so let’s not rock the boat. A centrist believes in maintaining the status quo.
Report thisBy SoTexGuy, July 28, 2011 at 6:14 am Link to this comment
I do see the distinction the author draws between moderation and centrism and
think it is applicable to Obama’s actions. Here’s more that touches on a ‘centrist’
or facile and malleable Obama From CounterPunch:
“... the Obama revolution was over before it started, guttered by the politician’s
overweening desire to prove himself to the grandees of the establishment. From
there on, other promises, from confronting climate change to closing Gitmo, from
ending torture to initiating a nationalized health care system, proved even easier
to break.”
Read it all http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07272011.html
Report thisBy Billy Pilgrim, July 28, 2011 at 4:17 am Link to this comment
Fuck moderation. We need a revolution.
Report thisBy marian griffith, July 28, 2011 at 2:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Robespierre115
The article clearly explains the difference between trying to find a compromise and trying to find a position that ‘offends’ the least number of people. Sometimes the two are the same, and sometimes they are not. Right now with one side of the discussion not interested in compromise shifting your position means shifting towards the opposition and letting that define the terms of the discussion.
Right now the only politically sane course of action for the democrats would be to state clearly what -they- want to achieve. Not presenting a compromise (one already skewed wildly to the opposition’s side in the hope to appease them) and watching helplessly as they start dragging that compromise all the way into their unyielding position.
If presented with an immovable object you either need an unstoppable force (the voters removed that option from the democrats when they decided to ‘punish’ Obama for making too view or the wrong changes). Or you present an equally immovable object of your own and let the tugging war commence.
Two weeks ago Obama and the democrats had the moral high ground. They made clear their willingness to compromise. That willingness was thrown back into their face by an absolute refusal by the opposition to negotiate (i.e. open up some of their points for compromise). Instead of retreating in confusion at that point they should have said: the republicans are clearly unwilling to talk about solving this problem. These are -our- inflexible demands. Until the republicans are actually willing to enter serious negotiations there is no point to continue these talks. They can reach me at any time of the day at the White House.
Report thisThat would have put the burden back on the republicans and made clear that only willingness to compromise was going to get everybody out of the current mess, instead of giving them the impression that they could play chicken with the democrats over the economy and the democrats would yield first and give them everything they asked for (which they did and that still was not enough).
By Robespierre115, July 28, 2011 at 12:39 am Link to this comment
Centrism IS moderation you post-modern clown!
Report this