Centrist Politics Needs a Better Educated Citizenry

American public opinion in almost every way we can measure bunches up toward the moderate middle. Yet increasingly the tone of politics seems to invite and reward extremism. FrumForum examines whether it has to be so. We have asked a range of individuals who identify themselves as centrists (or are so identified by others) some questions about their politics.

*  *  *

1) Would it be possible or desirable to create a broad consensus on the basics of public policy, either domestic or international?

Clearly, creating a “broad consensus on the basics of public policy….domestic or international” is not only desirable, I would argue that it may well be essential to the long-term health (perhaps even survival) of any representative democracy, including our own. Without such a consensus, achieving legislative agreement on policy goals and the means of reaching them becomes difficult, if not impossible. As important, administering – and paying for – such policies, absent a supportive populace, becomes problematic.

Whether or not it is possible to create such a consensus in today’s political climate is another question entirely, and I must say that I am increasingly of the view that it may not be. And, needless to say, I worry about the possible consequences of such a development.

2) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally agree take positions that trouble you?

As a centrist Democrat – indeed as one who is, in President Obama’s words, “…not an ideologue” – I find that I am  frequently at odds with many of my Democratic friends and associates, not to mention several members of Congress and other party leaders.

But the area in which I am most likely to disagree with folks in my party is national security, broadly speaking. And that troubles them as much as it does me; it has led to many very lively discussions, and to a few that got downright ugly!

During the late 1960s and early 1970s I was an anti-Vietnam War activist.

I was also one of those who thought that U.S. foreign policy was warped by Cold War perceptions and considerations. I was clearly on the left when it came to such matters.

And while I am in the process of reassessing and perhaps recalibrating my views on the Vietnam War (I continue to think it had tragic consequences, but I am much less sure that it was 100% wrong), I do know that I was severely off-base when it came to agreement with statements such as America having a “communist psychosis” were concerned.

Democratic development work and extensive travel in Central and Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union was coming undone – and since – led me to conclude that everything said by western Cold Warriors had been true, and then some. That realization has led me, in turn, to be very skeptical of Democratic doves insofar as international terrorism is concerned – and that was before 9/11. I am an unalloyed hawk when it comes to the need to combat Islamic jihadists, and I am afraid that posture puts me in the minority in my party.

By the same token, I am very much in synch with liberal Democrats when it comes to a belief in the transcendent importance – both moral and strategic – of human rights, and to the practice of “nation building”.

3) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally disagree take positions that you welcome?

While I think Congressional Republicans way too often engage in shameful demagoguery – and no small amount of hypocrisy – on such matters, I am somewhat more likely to be in agreement with them on national security issues than with Democrats.

I also have become, over the years, more skeptical of the federal government’s ability to both conceptualize and execute change in many areas of human endeavor. While I believe that we need enough government to do that which is either necessary – or perhaps even desirable in some cases – we should approach each instance of that by asking tough questions about the actual need, the costs and possible unintended consequences.

I am also likely to listen carefully, and sometimes be convinced by, constructive and thoughtful conservative arguments about tax policy and levels of government expenditure. And by “thoughtful and constructive” I do not include the Tea Party activists, Sarah Palin or the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

4) Which issues are so important to you that you cannot envision compromising on them?

I believe deeply in civil rights (for all Americans), civil liberties, the value of public education (while also being critical of its performance in too many ways), the need for public investment in infrastructure, and a rational national energy policy. I believe that the federal government has a legitimate role in ensuring or enhancing all of those issue areas.

I also believe in international engagement, protecting our nation’s security against all external threats, human rights and the need to help other peoples secure the rights and security that Americans too often take for granted.

On so-called “social issues”:

• I support choice when it comes to a woman’s right to have an abortion (it is one of the most personal and therefore ought to be most private of decisions), even though I admit to some concern/confusion over public funding and parental notification;
• I oppose mixing the religious with the secular, and am a staunch advocate of separating church and state;
• I support the right of gays to marry – in fact, I think we should have “civil unions” for everyone and then let various churches decide who to marry – if church “A” wants to show tolerance and acceptance while church “B” wants to propagate bigotry, go ahead and let the “marketplace” decide who and how many will affiliate with either.

I am not likely to compromise on any of these beliefs, but will remain open to conversations about how best to effectuate any and all.

5) Conversely have your political adversaries ever made arguments so compelling that they made you reconsider or revise long-held positions?

I think that in some of what I have written above I have indicated areas where my opinions or stands have evolved or changed. While I can’t say that “adversaries” have brought about those changes, I fully acknowledge that people who held views different than mine – say on certain national security or international questions – have influenced my thinking greatly.

6) How can civility be brought back to political discourse?

This is, by far, the toughest question posed for the simple reason that we may have to consider the possibility that the answer is an unsatisfying one. In fact, I have a growing fear that it may not be possible to return civility to our political discourse for the simple reason that there are way too many factors working against it, and very few real forces working for it.

The explosion of sources of information – the multiple news and opinion platforms on the Internet, cable TV and radio (and the competitive forces that afflict all three mediums) is part of the problem.

The way political campaigns are run – and the people who run them – represent another huge problem. As I am fond of saying, today’s political operatives/consultants only care about getting to Tuesday night, and they don’t give a hoot about Wednesday morning. In other words, campaigns are solely about winning – often at any cost (ethical or financial) – and almost never are they waged with an eye toward governing.

The way legislative and congressional district lines are drawn ensures polarization of the policymaking process, and therefore contributes mightily to the poisonous nature of political debate.

Somewhere along the line we allowed, in the conduct of campaigns and in their coverage by the media, the notion to creep in that one’s opponents had become one’s enemies.

That, in turn, has led to a situation where office holders – especially in the Presidency – are literally delegitimized before they are even sworn into office. I believe that this phenomenon first gained traction when some Republicans and their talk radio echo chamber refused to ever accept Bill Clinton as worthy of the office of President. Most Democrats, I am sorry to say, regarded George W. Bush as an illegitimate President, and behaved accordingly throughout his two terms in the Oval office. Now Barack Obama faces exactly the same problem, with some adhering to the stupid contention that he was not born in the U.S. and is not constitutionally qualified to serve as President.

It may sound naïve, but I am convinced that the only answer to all of this – if there is one – is a better educated citizenry. We simply have no choice but to increase civic literacy in America. Unless we do that, the Republic is imperiled.

Click here to read other contributions to this symposium.