Stop Ignoring the Centrists in Your Midst

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.

*  *  *

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

Yes, on both counts. What’s most frustrating for me is the fact that in many cases, a broad consensus on policy does exist among the American people – the two parties and their respective activist classes are the ones most deeply divided.

Let’s take that most passionately held culture war third rail, abortion.  Roughly 20% of Americans believe that there ought to be a constitutional ban on abortion.  And roughly 20% believe there should be no restrictions on abortion.  Sixty percent of Americans are in the middle – which is as close to a durable consensus as ever likely to be achieved in a democracy.  They believe broadly in reasonable restrictions to reduce the tragedy of abortion (such as a ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification and incentives for adoption), while recognizing that ultimately the woman involved must make this decision, not the government.  There is a broad common ground that can be built upon even on this most difficult issue, but there is a lack of political will that stems from the all or nothing attitudes of influential interests that holds both parties hostage.

Likewise, let’s take the most contentious contemporary foreign policy, the War on Terror.  The United States (and most of the civilized) world are at war with radical Islamist terrorism.  It is a non-optional conflict.  In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, there was broad consensus even beyond the initial wave of shock and anger.  The nation was united around the invasion of Afghanistan, which occurred more than two months after the destruction of the World Trade Center.  Even strident liberal Democrats like Howard Dean supported the effort, and it’s unlikely that different actions would have been taken at that point had Al Gore won the 2000 election.  It was the adventurism into Iraq, a war of choice, that put a wedge between the American people that only grew wider as the costs grew and the conflict dragged on.   Of course, there will always be extremes on either sides who will oppose all U.S. military actions or reflexively encourage militarism – but we should do more to first define and then build on common ground.  The Obama Administration’s centrist foreign policy team – led by Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton and NSA Jim Jones has offered a step in that direction with their Afghanistan policy to date.  Overall, we need to remember some Cold War wisdom – partisan politics ought to end at the water’s edge.

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

One of the reasons that I count myself among the 40% of Americans who declare themselves Independent is that it frees me from affiliations with the extremes of either party.  I often agree with both centrist Republicans and centrist DLC-style Democrats – and here’s the big secret hiding out in the open: they generally agree with each other.

Strip away the polarizing pressures of congress and partisan politics you’ll find an emerging centrist consensus surrounding principles of fiscal responsibility, strong national security and individual freedom.  Centrist Democrats struggle with liberals in their party about the need to pursue deficit reduction, balanced budgets and low-tax policies that encourage private sector job growth.  Centrist Republicans are derided as RINOS for their support of pro-choice policies, gay rights, immigration reform and even balanced budget mechanisms like Pay-Go.

If you approach politics wedded to the Democrat or Republican parties, this question has special resonance, because it is focused on what you don’t like within your given coalition or what you agree with in the opposition.  If you don’t view politics simply as being a left vs. right contest, it ends up giving you more freedom to speak your mind while standing up to the extremes on both sides.

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

We can’t compromise on issues that represent an existential threat to the United States.  For me, the primary threats of this time in history are from radical Islamist terrorism and the unprecedented deficits and debts we face in the wake of stimulus overspending – and, more importantly – the costs of entitlements with the baby boomers on the cusp of retirement.  The world’s greatest debtor nation cannot remain the world’s greatest power indefinitely, especially with China as our banker.  There is a great deal of room to debate and determine the best means to confront these threats – but we can’t compromise on the need to confront these non-optional challenges.

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

Most often in reminders that absolutist positions are unwise.  For example, in and around college, I was stridently pro-choice, which caused me to insufficiently appreciate complexities of the debate.  Thinking about the policy solely in terms of politics and abstract principle can cause you to forget about the real people involved.  Good people can disagree on difficult issues.  Likewise, I’ve found that it’s always easier to demonize people you don’t get to know personally.  One of the happy surprises of my adulthood is developing friendships with people whom I disagree with about politics very publically.  It’s a wake-up call and a reminder of one of my basic principles – one which politics can obscure – that there is much more that unites us than divides us. It’s also a reminder of what Teddy Roosevelt once said: “decency is the most practical form of politics.”

How can civility be brought back to political discourse?

First, by recognizing a constructive assumption of goodwill in the opposite party, especially in a president’s administration.  For too long we have indulged an impulse to try and delegitimize each elected president on purely partisan grounds.  The my-team versus your-team mentality ends up ignoring the most important thing – America itself.   This permanent opposition campaign is cynical and self-destructive for our country.

Second, members of both parties need to call out the extremes in their own party more.  There is a tolerance for extremists on your own side, in the theory that “they may be crazy, but they’re our crazy.”  Actions or statements that would be condemned if they came from Democrats are dismissed by too many Republicans, and vice versa.  Bush Derangement Syndrome was tolerated and even encouraged by folks on the left who enjoyed the partisan gain they got from the unhinged anger – and then that precedent is often used to justify inexcusable outbursts of Obama Derangement Syndrome that are in danger of being mainstreamed within the GOP.  When the fringe starts to blur with the base, as is happening now, it should be a primary concern to responsible party members.  The “no enemies on the right” attitude puts partisanship over patriotism.

Third, on the most practical and mechanical level, redistricting reform would do more than any other policy change to increase civility in our politics.  The rigged system of redistricting has essentially ended competitive general elections in most congressional seats.  This has pushed the power in our politics from the center to the margins.  In a 10% turnout closed partisan primary, 5.1% of the population makes a majority.  This is a paradise for activists but it leads to unrepresentative government, which is far more polarized than most citizens.  Non-partisan redistricting reform would make more politicians accountable to all their constituents, not just the angry activist class and their party’s respective special interests.  Redistricting reform with open primaries and competitive general elections would have a calming effect on our contorted civic discourse.  It would empower the center rather than the extremes.

Click here to read other contributions to this symposium.