RSS Feed MenuThe term the “vital center” was coined of course by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. 60 years ago. We tend now to think of the postwar era as a time of consensus and cohesion in American politics. Yet there were never more strikes in the United States than in the year 1946. The 1948 presidential election featured third and fourth party runs by an avowed segregationist and a Communist fellow-traveler. (They each got substantially more than a million votes.)
Today by contrast, 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. Political scientists continue to debate why this is so. (See for example Morris Fiorina’s fascinating new book, Disconnect.) What we’re concerned to ask is 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. Among our contributors: Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, John Avlon, former chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Les Francis who served as Deputy Chief of Staff in the Carter White House and Michael Lind of the New America Foundation.
The questions were as follows:
1) Would it be possible or desirable to create a broad consensus on the basics of public policy, either domestic or international?
2) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally agree take positions that trouble you?
3) On which domestic issues and international issues do people with whom you generally disagree take positions that you welcome?
4) Which issues are so important to you that you cannot envision compromising on them?
5) Conversely have your political adversaries ever made arguments so compelling that they made you reconsider or revise long-held positions?
6) How can civility be brought back to political discourse?
Stay tuned during the day, as the answers go up one by one.
* * *
Mark Lilla, Focus on Coalitions Not Consensus
Consensus is a political end in tribal societies; it is not and should not be an end in democratic societies. Liberal democracy requires contention, which in turn requires a real deliberation and coalitions that can actually govern.
Steve Bell, Developing a Centrist Consensus is Critical
As the nation faces the consequences of its domestic spending policies, a centrist-driven effort to fundamentally reform entitlement spending and the tax code is the only answer to a growing domestic and international threat.
Les Francis, Centrist Politics Needs a Better Educated Citizenry
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 political opponents had become one’s enemies. If there is a solution to this problem it lies in increasing civic literacy.
Michael Lind, More Competitive Districts Could Restore Political Civility
As long as Congressional incumbents are protected by partisan gerrymandering which gives most Democrats and Republicans safe seats, there is little incentive for politicians and their journalistic allies to appeal to swing voters.
Christine Todd Whitman, Voters Need to Support Their Local Moderate
The public has to send the message that policy is more important than politics by supporting officials and candidates who argue from the center and are willing to reach compromises.
Bruce Bawer, Escaping the Left/Right Straitjacket
If the right is David Frum and the left is, say, Howard Zinn, count me as a conservative; if the right is Sarah Palin and the left is Bill Moyers then put me down as a liberal.
John Avlon, Stop Ignoring the Centrists in Your Midst
A broad consensus on policy already exists among the American people – it’s just the two parties and their respective activist classes who are the ones most deeply divided.
anniemargret // Feb 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm
sinz: It is only within the last decade that the explosion of political website and political ‘talk shows’, and political talking heads have exploded. Witness the popularity for Fox News….
Sure, there have always been ugliness in politics. Nature of the beast.
But the penchant now to garner ratings for these shows have completely submerged any real chance at truth . To sit back and say, oh well, it was always thus and always shall be, capitulates to the problem. NO ONE is served by this, neither conservatives or liberals.
As far as the Internet goes, yes I agree. There is more ability to scout around and find a more reasoned approach (like Frum’s blog!) hee…
But. There are legions of folks who do not use the Internet. Libraries are filled to capacity with people who still must go there to get on the Net, because they have not yet bought one for their homes, or still have not yet learned efficiently how to use one. Seniors are a large segment of this population . And they are not Grandmas sitting on the porch anymore, as you well know. But they still rely on TV and radio and newspapers for their news…..and it’s skewed.
anniemargret // Feb 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Abortion and gay marriage *Should* be openly discussed, rationally without emotional hysterics. Fair-minded folks can figure out ways to discuss these very important issues without resorting to finger-pointing and demonization. Very few are really on the fringe of these issues. Most want solutions, but it’s up to our leaders to be brave enough to lead the way.
mike farmer // Feb 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“Of course, pretty much every American favors some limited form of socialism, but does not favor government ownership of all industry. The Republicans have been making hay by blurring that line for years now. Unfortunately, laws of unintended consequences will have their day in court.”
Yes, but even socialists don’t adhere to this definition of socialism, anymore, since it has been shown to lead to economic failure. The current definition of socialism is more in line with the definition of statism, and it has a lot to do with the definition of economic fascism — it’s government direction of privately owned companies. With enough regulations and wealth redistribution you can establish socialism without the government owning the means of production, as Mises pointed out. This is the direction in which America is headed. It’s been gradual with periods of huge advancements — what we called a mixed economy. Socialism in the 21st century, if the word retains any meaning, will be government management of the economy — not absolute central planning, but planning nonetheless, coupled with social engineering — the concept of “nudging”, unless nudging doesn’t work, then with big sticks.
kevin47 // Feb 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Democrats are sympathetic to socialism because Republicans have persuaded them to be so? If that’s the case, then why do they also have a positive view of federal government?
Sinz is correct. Political polarization is not new, nor is it any better or worse than it has been at various times throughout history.
Father Coughlin was once the most influential radio personality in American. Newspapers used to exist, literally, as paid instruments of political parties. Presidents use to win states with more then 90% of the vote.
Our senators used to threaten to kill each other, and did sometimes beat each other. Maybe more people would watch C-SPAN if that were still the case.
I will, however, call for a moratorium on cross-tabbed gotcha polls designed to make this or that party look stupid. 14% of liberals think Sarah Palin is a space alien! The ideology is a fraud! Stupid. Just stick to the horse races and issues, thanks.
mike farmer // Feb 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“The “vital center”–that area of policies where Dems and Repubs overlapped in agreement–has disappeared.”
It was inevitable that such a split would happen as progressives pushed further to the left. If we had had a period where the right was in power and made huge gains to the right, the same split would happen. There is a third way, but the current “center” is not it. The current center is simply a lower route to statism and socialistic policies. The third way is limited government and empowerment of the private sector to deal education, the economy, morality, healthcare, energy development and social problems. Many will say the private sector had its chance, but government intervention started from the beginning of the country and increased rapidly at the beginning of the 20th century. Plus, the 21st century is a different time and place, and we are no longer in a phase of capital formation and growing pains ofa new nation. Answers to today’s issues lie in the private sector. It will decades to move from statism to limited government, but the direction and turn around need to be started. We can start by ending all corporate welfare and developing a 10 year plan to close all overseas military bases.
Mandos // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Except that progressives *haven’t* made huge gains to the left—where is HCR? What left gains since have been made since the mid 60s?
GOProud // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm
David, it seems to me that you not only need some remedial economics coursework (given some of your earlier posts implying that corporations do not pass on taxes as a cost of doing business to consumers) but now, with this post, you and many thread commenters need a few days spent studying America’s early history.
Sinz and Kevin are both correct. Political polarization is absolutely nothing new to American politics –to argue it’s unique is to ignore our past.
The Founding Fathers were mired deep in the stew of partisan, politically polarizing, nearly paralyzing activities from the get-go. The MSM then –just as partisan and liberal then as it is now– ramped up the political passions of the day with the same kind of DanRather 1/2 truths, MSNBC distortions and CBS panderings –only limited to the press– that would make Robert Gibbs cry with joy today. And when the partisan antics of the liberal press wasn’t enough… Tommie Jefferson and pals would pile-on a few anonymous opinion fagots and burn the fire higher, longer and hotter into the night.
Jefferson and Madison made great efforts to fan the flames of partisan, political bickering and discord with the hope that it would bring about change in the Federalist administration of America –much like Kerry and Obama did 200+ yrs later. Nothing new there.
Washington was so disgusted by the partisan, politically polarizing nonsense after 8 short yrs that he withdrew from public life in what many thought would be a life-time selection as President. Much like Geo W Bush, Geo Washington withdrew to a silence that, by its very nature, made most men wish they could enjoy Washington’s remain in office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/bush-billboard-looms-over_n_454056.html
Hamilton was slaughtered in cold partisan blood by one of the most scandalous, purient partisan purveyors who ever held the title “democrat”. And Mr Burr wasn’t alone on the far Left. In fact, the antics of the far Left in our country’s early period was so bad, so divisive, so injurious to the body politic that it took the Alien Friends and Sedition Acts to try to quell the excesses of the far Left. Jefferson was so outraged by the attempt to muzzle the far Left he talked openly of secession and the right of the states to nullify federal law –something he shared with other, later slave-holding traitors.
So please, if you think partisan bickering or political polarization is something new, get a grip. And take a few of the local trolls here to a course on American history while you’re at it –you all could profit from not being so ignorant, so openly.
sinz54 // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:02 pm
GOProud: Sinz and Kevin are both correct. Political polarization is absolutely nothing new to American politics –to argue it’s unique is to ignore our past.
But you omitted my other point:
Some issues are much harder to compromise on than others.
For over 30 years, we have been caught between the Dem Party’s insistence that freedom to choose abortion is a basic empowering right of women–and the GOP’s insistence that abortion is murder.
If someone believes that personhood begins at conception (because their religious leaders have told them so)–then that person won’t compromise on abortion, or embryonic stem-cell research either. And so, if he feels that America is guilty of a ghastly mass slaughter of millions of babies (and THAT’s how I’ve heard pro-lifers describe the current abortion policy), he’s going to make the stoppage of that into his absolute top priority, not to be bargained away for a tax cut or a new road in their district.
It’s easy to say “Oh, well, let’s just ignore all those ideological activists”–but it’s those ideological activists who are powerful forces within their respective parties.
It’s not like liberals and conservatives arguing over tax policy, where quantitative negotiation is possible. If one side offers a tax rate of 10%, and the other side offers 20%, they might meet somewhere in the middle around 15%. But abortion is viewed by BOTH sides as a moral absolute.
In all American history, the only other issue that has been so divisive is race, another hot-button social issue–and as you know, that issue led to violence in both the 1860s and the 1960s. In the end, it took armed force to help settle it in both periods.
Frankly, after 40 years of this abortion nonsense, I’m sick and tired of the entire abortion issue. It has distorted and unnecessarily polarized American politics, despite it being incidental to the MAIN issues that threaten the future of America.
kevin47 // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:59 pm
“Frankly, after 40 years of this abortion nonsense, I’m sick and tired of the entire abortion issue. ”
Such is the luxury of those who favor the status quo. I’m sick and tired of the gay marriage issue. Isn’t that convenient for me, since my position stands to benefit should the issue simply go away?
Both issues are controversial, but both speak to fundamental questions about autonomy and ethics, as do most controversial issues. That’s part why ideologues on both sides fight for their respective causes.
anniemargret // Feb 10, 2010 at 8:04 am
sinz: “Frankly, after 40 years of this abortion nonsense, I’m sick and tired of the entire abortion issue. It has distorted and unnecessarily polarized American politics, despite it being incidental to the MAIN issues that threaten the future of America.”
I agree with you here. But it is a still a polarizing issue no matter how much people wish it to go away. We still have one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates in the developed world, and a high abortion rate. So Americans of every stripe must pay attention.
But you are also correct, sadly, that there are extremists on both side of the issue, neither of which wants to discuss this state of affairs with rational, calm, and deliberation. Instead it is charged with religious overtones, which is not a bad thing in and unto itself, until it starts to ignore reality and facts . The other side, those extreme ‘feminists’ that you earlier railed against, give abortion a flip of the wrist, with such casualness, often causing many women to opt for abortions as a means for birth control.
And there’s the rub. Birth control. The single greatest answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortion . There are those that do not want kids to hear about or even use birth control, much preferring that they risk that their kids are always going to do the right thing. Very few kids in the heat of a passionate moment, will have enough will power to resist. They are in a virtual onslaught of sexual images everyday in their lives, in all media, but then we expect them to remain chaste and pure till they reach the age of 25 or even 30 when most of them are now marrying. It’s a foolish goal.
The others who casually dismiss abortion as a form of birth control are equally wrong. Abortion should be the last choice for women not the first. If both females and males were taught sexual responsibility from the first, with the huge ramifications when they don’t, and widespread and affordable availability for birth control was an option, unwanted pregnancies would be reduced, and abortions would become rare.
But you’ve got Sarah Palin on record saying that even if her daughter had been raped, she would not opt for abortion. Which is fine moral stance, but not everyone will make that choice, given that most people will never be adopting these poor neglected children sitting in foster homes.
We must solve this problem. It has huge impact on society and a huge impact politically. People both liberal and conservative who are willing to compromise should get the conversation going instead of sweeping it under the rug. It’s like the balloon which you keep trying to keep down – it just won’t stay down.
Kudos to Scott Brown, by the by on this issue. Or any Republican who doesn’t give this very grave issue the simplistic religious wrist flip without discussing real facts and problems. This country needs more of this type of moral courage.
kevin47: The ‘gay marriage’ issue is much easier. It is a civil rights issue.’ Even Cheney understands that.
sinz54 // Feb 10, 2010 at 9:47 am
anniemargaret: If both females and males were taught sexual responsibility from the first, with the huge ramifications when they don’t, and widespread and affordable availability for birth control was an option, unwanted pregnancies would be reduced, and abortions would become rare.
What should be the “huge ramifications”?
In the old days, there was an excellent deterrent for unwanted pregnancy: Shotgun marriages. If the young man knew he had to either marry his pregnant girlfriend, or else her outraged father would blow his head off, he would be much more careful about sex.
Now we can’t do actual shotgun marriages today. But we can do something modern: Parents should tell their kids that if their sexual activity results in pregnancy, the parents will refuse to pay for their kids’ college education. Once the girl is a mom, or her boyfriend is a dad, they should get a job and support their new child.
I would tell my son: “You see those young guys working as stock room clerks and cashiers and baggers at the supermarket? That’s YOUR FUTURE, if you become a dad any time soon. No college, no college degree, no Ph.D. Just a stock room clerk trying to support his son.”
balconesfault // Feb 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
But we can do something modern: Parents should tell their kids that if their sexual activity results in pregnancy, the parents will refuse to pay for their kids’ college education. Once the girl is a mom, or her boyfriend is a dad, they should get a job and support their new child.
Sure. Because every parent is ready to make decisions for their kids that will statistically ensure that they (and their grandkids) will have a lower standard of living.
Have you had kids, Sinz?
stanford1 // Feb 10, 2010 at 11:40 am
The “vital” center is completely lost because, in reality, conservatives and liberals are so inconsistent – it’s impossible to claim one side or another. I cannot abide either (and I’m not by any means a centrist). If we were to consider the original extremes of left & right as:
extreme liberty / anarchy || Absolutism/Totalitarianism
Then, where are we and what is the middle? The problem here is that “conservatives” lean toward the left on economic issues (smaller gov; lower taxes; free trade), but to the right on social issues (laws against-gay marriage; certain drugs; etc.). Whereas, “liberals” lean toward the left on social issues and the right on economic issues. Both are entirely inconsistent. Both trend toward totalitarian views on some issues and libertarian views on other issues. Often without realizing their inconsistency.
At the same time, both want to paint the other as oppressive & totalitarian; sometimes on the same issue. It’s absurd. Take abortion. Both want to claim the side of “liberty” (“the right of the liberty of a woman to choose” vs. “the right of the liberty of life for an unprotected child”), and paint the other side as oppressive. Of course, conservatives don’t help their cause when they want to couch their views in their religion (this never works, pragmatically or politically – and I’m deeply devoted to the Bible; and would be viewed as a conservative in that area). When a conservative puts gay marriage, for example, into the religious realm, the liberal is all to happy to let them. They can easily paint them as a religious and oppressive zealot who wants stringent laws against individual freedom. And, in many respects, they are right on that count. The whole tact of trying to outlaw gay marriage is ridiculous. It captivates a coterie of religious zealots, but it neither furthers the cause of liberty nor even the cause of the biblical conservative (that issue is best left to individual, one on one discussions, not to the courts or the congress). It only puts up barriers to honorable disagreement and discussion.
Until conservatives come to grips with this problem, with their inconsistent application of liberty, with their inability to distinguish between a truly public issue and a private, religious one, and until they break down these barriers – they will never succeed.
kevin47 // Feb 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm
“And there’s the rub. Birth control. The single greatest answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortion . ”
In theory. Well, in your theory. In reality, in spite of exponentially increased awareness of, and access to, birth control, abortion is still alarmingly common. A rubber may be a rub, but it isn’t a magic bullet.
“The ‘gay marriage’ issue is much easier. It is a civil rights issue.’ Even Cheney understands that.”
It’s also unethical. Even Barack Obama understands that.
This is why issues like this are so polarizing. To you, it’s simple. Gay marriage is civil rights. Civil rights are good. It’s in your bones. Any counterargument arrives as an attack on your fundmental presuppositions. How you think about gay marriage speaks to the very root of your progressive ideology.
It’s not that you see no role for communal ethics in shaping law. I assume, for example, that you support tax deductible donations as a general principle. But ethical considerations take a back seat to civil rights. Not so for many conservatives who are passionate about this issue.
Also not so for libertarian conservatives who strongly believe individual states should be able to decide, or who believe government should have no role in marriage whatsoever (full disclosure: this is my position). What you call civil rights, they call government seeking to justify intrusion into what remains a principally religious institution, in an attempt to codify the cultural zeitgeist.
sinz54 // Feb 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm
PracticalGirl: the gerrymandering that allows this was ….a political creation, and….it points to the difficulty of recovery: Politicians are in charge of the “changes”
The first step is for activists to raise the consciousness of the American public on this issue.
Right now, most Americans don’t think much about how their districts are gerrymandered. Most of them couldn’t draw their own district on a map. And the issue doesn’t even show up in public opinion polls.
But if the Tea Party activists or some respected independent figure (like General Petraeus, if he decides to go into politics) hammered away on why this kind of political manipulation is unnecessarily polarizing America and leading to endless gridlock, it might just resonate with the voters.
And this is one area where the Tea Party activists and minority groups could find themselves on the same side. As soon as it’s explained to blacks and Hispanics that gerrymandering created districts with huge minority populations in which the Dem candidate for the House always wins–but which gives all those voters just ONE vote in the House, equal to what a sparsely populated white district out West gets. (An example is NY-16, representing 400,000 blacks and Hispanics with just ONE vote in the House.) This reduces the power of minorities, as well as enabling the Dem Party to take them for granted.
sinz54 // Feb 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm
kevin47: Such is the luxury of those who favor the status quo. I’m sick and tired of the gay marriage issue. Isn’t that convenient for me, since my position stands to benefit should the issue simply go away?
My position doesn’t stand to benefit.
Read my other posts.
I have asserted that Roe v. Wade was a mistake.
But if the whole abortion issue just faded and Roe v. Wade remained settled case law, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
You don’t choose to fight or die on every single issue. You set priorities.
And for me, abortion is so way down on the list of America’s priorities that I really don’t care what happens:
Roe v. Wade remains settled case law? OK by me.
Some future Supreme Court overturns it? Also OK by me.
In either case, all Americans remain free to advocate for or against the practice of abortion.
kevin47 // Feb 10, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“Then, where are we and what is the middle? The problem here is that “conservatives” lean toward the left on economic issues (smaller gov; lower taxes; free trade), but to the right on social issues (laws against-gay marriage; certain drugs; etc.). Whereas, “liberals” lean toward the left on social issues and the right on economic issues. Both are entirely inconsistent. Both trend toward totalitarian views on some issues and libertarian views on other issues. Often without realizing their inconsistency.”
I’ve spent some time thinking about this conundrum myself. However, wouldn’t centrism then be defined as an attempt to reconcile either ideology to itself? If that is the case, then centrist movements really live on the fringes.
If I can successfully that marriage ought not to be a civic enterprise, that abortion threatens our most fundamental firewall against tyranny, and that we ought to legalize marijuana, I have bridged the gap, but could scarcely be called a centrist. It seems to me that being centrist means embracing, and even delighting in, cognitive dissonance.
Sinz,
You still believe abortion should be legal in most circumstances, unless I misunderstand your position. Since you favor the status quo, as a matter of law, it is unsurprising that you find the Roe v. Wade debate so banal.
balconesfault // Feb 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Sinz: Some future Supreme Court overturns it (Roe v Wade)? Also OK by me.
If you’re looking forward to every seat in every state legislature in the country to be fought largely over abortion rights … you’ll love it if/when Roe v Wade is overturned.
This reduces the power of minorities, as well as enabling the Dem Party to take them for granted.
It’s funny when half the time Republicans argue that Dems are too beholden to minority issues … and then argue that Dems take minorities for granted.
Kevin But ethical considerations take a back seat to civil rights. Not so for many conservatives who are passionate about this issue.
So do you consider gay couples to be acting in a way that is fundamentally unethical?
What you call civil rights, they call government seeking to justify intrusion into what remains a principally religious institution
You don’t see liberals demanding that government mandate that Christian Churches have to baptize children of gay couples, do you? Or that priests must perform last rites on gay couples? Or that Orthodox Jewish synagogues allow transvestite male jews to do a Bat Mitzvah instead of a Bar Mitzvah?
Or that Catholic or Baptist or whatever churches even perform gay marriage ceremonies?
Those would all represent government intrusion in a religious institution.
Demanding that all the rights that are conferred on married heterosexual couples be available to married (or united or whatever) gay couples is a civil claim … and thus properly a matter of civil rights.
And the ways laws are written across America, it is virtually impossible to guarantee this civil equality under the law without allowing gays to become married.
kevin47 // Feb 10, 2010 at 1:41 pm
“So do you consider gay couples to be acting in a way that is fundamentally unethical?”
Yes.
“You don’t see liberals demanding that government mandate that Christian Churches have to baptize children of gay couples, do you? Or that priests must perform last rites on gay couples? Or that Orthodox Jewish synagogues allow transvestite male jews to do a Bat Mitzvah instead of a Bar Mitzvah?
Or that Catholic or Baptist or whatever churches even perform gay marriage ceremonies?”
In isolated cases. If gay marriage becomes a matter of settled law, the advocacy groups that have poured millions dollars and hours into the cause aren’t simply going to go away. Some legal scholars for the gay rights movement have tipped their hand in this regard.
Using gay marriage law as precedent, I cannot imagine a scenario in which they wouldn’t pursue these demands. In particular, I think you will see lawsuits demanding pastors perform gay marriages. That issue will be the next battle.
“Demanding that all the rights that are conferred on married heterosexual couples be available to married (or united or whatever) gay couples is a civil claim … and thus properly a matter of civil rights.”
It is a matter of civil rights, but the very fact that our government recognizes heterosexual marriage introduces other factors. Civil equality is only one consideration.
Or that Catholic or Baptist or whatever churches even perform gay marriage ceremonies?
Those would all represent government intrusion in a religious institution.
Demanding that all the rights that are conferred on married heterosexual couples be available to married (or united or whatever) gay couples is a civil claim … and thus properly a matter of civil rights.
And the ways laws are written across America, it is virtually impossible to guarantee this civil equality under the law without allowing gays to become married.