I’m actually a fan of the political compass. Not perfect, but better than the old left and right deal, IMO.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, was discussing the political spectrum, in his book, the Political Mind. He rejects the entire premise of a left to right view of political ideas. The whole of our political position is mix of liberal and conservative views, and what defines us is what we focus on. Not quite single issue voters, but close. If a priority for someone is immigration and domestic policy, their views on that issue will dominate their political position.

I’m not sure if I totally agree with this idea, but, it sure makes sense to me.
Thanks for this post.

That’s a great point. I can’t believe no one else has made it. Kudos. Whenever one of these “centrist” commentators comes on NPR to endorse whatever the status quo is that day – the fluidity of their “centrism” seemingly on display for anyone to see – I keep waiting for some genuine voice of reason to interrupt. But of course, they never do.

It may just be that any institution, like any organism, exists first and foremost to perpetuate its own existence. Hence these people serve a valuable function within mainstream media institutions: their presence creates the illusion of independence, while reassuring those in power that said news institution is no threat to them. That’s miles away from serving the actual public, of course, and that insularity is both their reason for existing and the reason we need a new word to describe these faux centrists.

I had a mini-disclaimer in the second paragraph sort of saying this, but I’ll elaborate:

I have nothing against being a moderate or being reasonable, obviously. My beef is w/ the specific strain of “centrism” and “sensible” sort of politics advocated by the four columnists pictured at the top. Their brand of beltway wisdom always functions as a bludgeon against liberals – and liberals only – to get them to move towards a more center-right outlook, because that’s where these columnists are at. It’s an insular and arrogant attempt to bound off debate based on their own ideology. (Though they would surely protest that they’re above ideology.)

I consider myself a liberal on most things, but I hope that I don’t use that as an excuse to stop thinking – i.e. be reasonable – about issues. I definitely don’t think liberals have a monopoly on truth, and I think there can be ‘reasonable’ people on all sides of the aisle. Though granted, conservatives haven’t really put their best foot forward in that regard lately.

So, I guess when I defend ideology, I’m defending a more neutral version of the term – analogous to a worldview. And I think anyone who has thought for a while about politics is bound to have a worldview, right? So, I take claims by centrists/independents/moderates to above ideology with a grain of salt. The key is just to not let that structure become a straightjacket. Not an easy task, admittedly.

That is precisely the kind of “extraordinarily pompous” attitude to which Joseph refers: To infer that somehow those who find themselves more often on one end of the extremely narrow (and right-shifted) spectrum of U.S. politics are somehow being “unreasonable.” It’s only the “reasonable” centrist who’s the real individual, critical thinker, who doesn’t just “go along with the team.” It is only the centrist rebel who arrives at his position by applying his own sense of reason filtered through his own sense of morality and his understanding of socio-political dynamics.
Really?

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/24/fareed-zakarias-manifesto/

One reason Obama is so appealing to so many is that he appears to ‘rise above’ the partisanship. I’ll admit it’s one of the reasons i had stars in my eyes the last time i stepped into the voting booth; but as you skillfully argue, that particular spirit of cooperation we take at our peril. Some things are worth compromising on; and some, like the economic (and biologic!) health of the majority of Americans, are not.

Corporate interests have continually chipped away at the standard of living of the middle class for 30+ years now – lobbying and deregulating and packing legislation with hidden agendas to raise their profits at the expense of our salaries and indeed our very lives. Where is the spirit of compromise in their actions?

My only critique for you is one that i need to follow myself: to refrain from the engagement of pit imps like Dupray. You know he hasn’t corrected the erroneous number in the 9-12 post because that’s irrelevant to his nefarious deceptive cause. If you notice, the first two comments on that post are links to two other con-blogs. Need I say more?

I suspect there has to be a distinction made between “centrist” who simply accommodate to better improve their own positions, as you suggest in the article, and “reason” which looks for the right answer without using ideology as a base.

I’ve never been comfortable with hard core ideology as I’ve always viewed it as a way to simply avoid thinking through an issue. My “side’ is for X therefore I’m for X. That doesn’t mean that I can’t see the right and the wrong in the issue versus playing the center for the purposes you suggest- although I certainly agree that there are centrists who do so.

I wonder if you agree that “reasonable” is a better option for “centrist” or if you think there is any difference at all?