The problem with centrism for moderation’s sake
Andrew posted this video in response to David Frum’s call for a center-right conference to provide counterweight to CPAC which has become the epicenter of doctrinaire conservatism. Recall when Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson was booed offstage by CPAC attendees for saying that the New York Times was a good newspaper and that conservatives should emulate its news model. Anyways, here’s Frum:
If moderates are to flourish, they need an infrastructure to support them. The Democrats worked hard in the 1980s and ’90s to showcase their centrist governors. They invented superdelegates to balance the left-wing activists who had saddled them with unelectable presidential candidates. They altered their primary schedule to enhance the clout of must-win states in the West and border South.
Republicans can learn from these examples. But first they have to say it loud and say it proud: The time has come to restore the center to the center-right coalition. Maybe it’s even time to start a new convention so the centrists can meet face to face at least once a year, just as their conservative colleagues do. CenPAC, anyone?
This is a sensible idea, and I imagine there are a good few moderate Republicans who would join up. My only qualm with the concept is more with the terms “moderate” or “centrist” themselves. Simply because someone isn’t fully in line with all the proper talking points that the GOP expects, or that talk radio conservatives like Limbaugh or Beck demand out of thinkers or politicians on the right does not mean that one is a “centrist.” If anything, that term seems either a convenient way to take the easy, comfortable middle road or, conversely, to sling around as a pejorative in order to marginalize political opponents. One man’s centrism is another man’s radicalism, or something to that effect. Either way, I don’t think the debate is really between “moderates” and “conservatives” so much as it is between reasonable people and people who are in it entirely to win.
In this sense, the reasonable people may be very conservative – Paul Ryan, for instance, is hardly a “centrist” but he is in every sense of the word a reasonable man whose politics are well grounded in first principles. Bruce Bartlett has added to the conversation not by being a “moderate” but by coming up with new and relevant ideas. Conversely, there are those on the right with very little grounding in conservative first principles who take so well to the rightwing populism of the day that no one would ever consider them to be “centrists”, even if philosophically they are anything but principled conservatives. A certain former governor of Alaska leaps to mind.
The fault lines on the right these days are too many to count, and just as difficult to parse out. I think Frum is on to something here, but I think the problems run much deeper than merely a battle between two points on the political left-right spectrum. I’m leaning toward placing equal blame on establishment – and indeed “centrist” – figures in the movement, and on the recent uptick in aimless populism manifested not just in the Tea Parties but increasingly on the right since the Iraq War. Until both these elements can own up to their shortcomings and work to bridge the gap, I don’t think there’s much hope that anything terribly interesting will emerge out of CPAC or Frum’s imagined CenPAC. The right has lost its center, no doubt, but it won’t necessarily find it by simply being “moderate” any more than it will find its way through purity tests.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The point is to show how views on the right can coincide with centrist behavior. Reagan didn’t sugar-coat his views. He simply took the views of the center and showed how they could be achieved with methods from the Right.
Democrat party members, and the left have done this. They’re not wrong in stating that what we’re doing today in health-care is a mess. However, I think they’re misguided in thinking that the role they think Government should play is reasonable.
The problem is that the Right isn’t doing a good job showing people that there is a viable alternative to the nanny state. We don’t need purity tests. We need relevance to current issues.
The right has allowed the left to define these issues and then they fail to show how to do them differently when the left comes up with all too predictable answers.
Excellent points, Jake. I think that’s exactly right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your Readers might consider joining our new Centrists Group at Linked In and might like to look at my new blog for and about Centrists, The Rest of U.S.
Extremists have become so loud, they’re deafening. And because they shout in perfect sound bites, the media birddog their every rant, however irresponsible or outrageous.
But we believe the political tide’s about to turn with a vengeance. No matter their party affiliation or lack thereof, Americans are disgusted with those who harass to harass, obstruct to obstruct, tear down to tear down. Compromise, consensus, bridge-building, and respect for differing viewpoints have been the hallmarks of American life as long as there’s been an America. We’re certain they will be again.
Please read: The Rest of U.S. – Who We Are and What We Stand For
http://newcentristera.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-rest-of-u-s-who-we-are-and-what-we-stand-for/
If you like it, please circulate to your family, friends, and colleagues. Or perhaps to your favorite extremist!
[...] practical problem-solving.” He’s right, up to a point, but his own record suggests that centrists as well as ideologues can be part of the problem, rather than part of the [...]
[...] enough practical problem-solving.” He’s right, up to a point, but his own record suggests that centrists as well as ideologues can be part of the problem, rather than part of the [...]
[...] enough practical problem-solving.” He’s right, up to a point, but his own record suggests that centrists as well as ideologues can be part of the problem, rather than part of the [...]