Centrism is for Suckers?

[Lemur]

I grabbed a bit of a Paul Krugman article titled "Centrism is for Suckers," which grabbed me because, well, I'm a centrist. I've always felt that extremists, with their need for infalliability and their permanent outrage, are my natural enemy. Now somebody's saying that the moderate way is the sucker's way? Here's what I was able to grab:


The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

Here's the link (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/opinion/04krugman.html) to the blocked-out article. If anybody has access to the NYTimes web site (like I did back when it was my hometown newspaper), could you please pull the rest of the article and either post it here or IM it to me? I'd kind of like to read the piece, even though I suspect I will disagree strongll with it.

Thanks in advance -- this Lemur will owe ya one.

[Vladimir]

:laugh4: Home paper? The pieces are coming together. The problem with "centrists" as you put it is that they are usually moderates. Moderates have a problem with stradling the picket fence. This means that they usually shift from side to side as the wind blows and can generally be construed as having no backbone. The centrists are the American people. They choose between the extremes. That's why so often you see Democrat congresses with Republican administrations and so forth. That's your ballance. Politicians that are moderates are perceived as weak. This won't work when most districts in the US are gerymeandered to produce perdictable results.

[whyidie]

:laugh4: Home paper? The pieces are coming together. The problem with "centrists" as you put it is that they are usually moderates. Moderates have a problem with stradling the picket fence. This means that they usually shift from side to side as the wind blows and can generally be construed as having no backbone. The centrists are the American people. They choose between the extremes. That's why so often you see Democrat congresses with Republican administrations and so forth. That's your ballance. Politicians that are moderates are perceived as weak. This won't work when most districts in the US are gerymeandered to produce perdictable results.

Right out of 2004. Gotta give it to Rove, he's got his boys on point!

[Vladimir]

Right out of 2004. Gotta give it to Rove, he's got his boys on point!

Are you refering to me? I think you mean 1994.

[whyidie]

Are you refering to me? I think you mean 1994.


What happened then ?

[Lemur]

:laugh4: Home paper? The pieces are coming together.
You have pierced my secrecy, and discovered that I used to live in New York City. There must be fewer than thirty to fifty Org folks who knew that.

A gent I now work with is a raging Bushista, a true-blue, drank-the-kool-aid, Republicans can do no wrong, America was founde by Jesus personally conservative. It's fun just to hear him blame everything on "liberals," who are, predictably, anybody he disagrees with.

I can still buy the Times occasionally, and trust me brother, after a few months of reading the Milwaukee Sentinal, you start jonesing for a real newspaper. Anyway, I make sure to leave my copy on his desk when I'm done. I just love to hear him screaming about how the NYTimes is "destroying America." Good laughs for the whole office.

Extremists. They only get cuter when they get enraged.

[Vladimir]

What happened then ?

Well it seems like you're refering to Gingrich's takeover of congress in the early 90's but you mentioned Rove. You also didn't mention Dick Morris who had a much more dramatic impact on politics; successfully taking them from local to national.

I guess I just misunderstood your point. One of the bennefits of a two party sytem is that if forces them to moderate themselves because they can't take an extreme stance and expect to be elected. It seems to me that the American people seem to be doing a good job of "ballancing" the parties lately. The problem with the Democrats is that they don't offer much to vote for. The Kerry campaign et al were mostly against Bush and the Republicans. They didn't really give people a reason fo vote for them.

[Xiahou]

I can still buy the Times occasionally, and trust me brother, after a few months of reading the Milwaukee Sentinal, you start jonesing for a real newspaper.
And the NYT helps how? :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Hey man, at least when they fail they're trying. That's probably more than you can say for your local AP wire reprint service, uh, I mean "newspaper."

[Xiahou]

Horribly off-topic, but I don't regularly read any print newspapers. However, if I did- I wouldnt read them for any national coverage. It's covered much better elsewhere, so why bother?

Here's (http://www.timesleader.com/) one of our local rags if you're interested.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's probably more than you can say for your local AP wire reprint service, uh, I mean "newspaper."

'Tis so true. Though I wonder how the Sentinel helps.

While we're speaking of that, where did the term 'bushista' come from?

And you're right. Centralism is for suckers. It means the left of the right, and the right of the left. What are they going to agree on?

Crazed Rabbit

[Devastatin Dave]

While we're speaking of that, where did the term 'bushista' come from?


Crazed Rabbit
Its a term that commie Clintonistas use so they don't feel so guilty for being the 5th column of the US

[Kralizec]

I think it's a wordplay on "Batista", the US backed dictator that runned Cuba before castro.

[Kralizec]

Could be a wordplay on "Batista", the US backed dictator that runned Cuba before castro.

[Navaros]

There no such thing as "centrists".

The very idea is an illusion.

"Centrists" has always just been a way for left-wing extremists to give themselves a "more friendly" label.

[whyidie]

Well it seems like you're refering to Gingrich's takeover of congress in the early 90's but you mentioned Rove. You also didn't mention Dick Morris who had a much more dramatic impact on politics; successfully taking them from local to national.

I guess I just misunderstood your point.


I wasn't very clear so its easy to see how that happened.

[Geoffrey S]

Just the left wing, Navaros?

Centrism, on a higher level I'd see that as opportunism, on a lower level of politics as uncertainty. I don't know. I hesitate between the option of choosing a political direction to head in and sticking with it through pretty much everything, or judging every matter on its own merits every time, sometimes finding a leftwing, sometimes a rightwing approach more productive. What I'm not certain about is what carries more advantages: sticking to one side of the political spectrum as a matter of course carries a risk of being unrealistic and can lead to rediculously partisan politics, but the other option can lead to far more indecisiveness and would be fatal for leading politicians.

Personally, I'd say that judging things on their own merits every time is the better option for the general public and lower level politicians, but being politically steady is necessary for the higher level politicians to implement some form of consistancy and reliability on a national level and to continue policies over a period of time. Policies often run into periods of years, and the politicians managing such policies need to be steadfast to protect them.

Certainly any form of centrism disappears when politicians come to power, almost out of necessity, since it's essential for politicians to place themselves opposite another set of political views to create a contrast to define their views to the public.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could be a wordplay on "Batista", the US backed dictator that runned Cuba before castro.

Or on Peronista -- regardless of specific derivation the goal is to cast G.W. Bush as a tin-pot dictator-type leader who's running a military junta instead of a valid government.

Batista qualifies, as does Peron, and Peron is probably more front and center for the current crowd thanks to Andrew Lloyd Weber.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On to the topic...

Centrism is not inherently wrong, and extremism can create problems, but the weakness of many centrists is indecision.

There are those out there who have a clearly defined personal agenda that is, more or less, "middle-of-the-road." These folks are pursuing goals and working toward the future with that agenda in mind. This brand of centrism can be and is a positive political force.

However, far too many (most?) "centrists" are actually what Ben Franklin labeled "mug-wumps." These folk are straddling the fence because they are unable, unwilling, or too ignorant to make a set of decisions and establish their own set of goals. They wait for a concensus to form and float with the prevailing current. It is this segment that is most supsceptible to "panem et circum" tactics and works like a sea-anchor to slow change.

Most people who become politically involved tend to develop a set of goals that tends toward one of the polarized agendas, since these people are seeking results and have made decisions about what philosophy/approach they feel are most likely to allow for their achievement. The number of people who develop political awareness and establish a system of beliefs that is truly in the middle -- but actively so -- is, I suspect, fairly small.

U.S. Political history, by the way, is "centrist" only rarely and never for long. Strong polarization of the politically aware is much more the historical norm than is any "central" theme. Consider:

1760-1786: Leading up to the American Revolution and during that conflict, there were nearly as many Loyalists as Patriots/Rebels. Much argument and bloodshed, riven families, and outright guerilla war was enacted between the two groups. Many of the Loyalists were displaced when the USA won, rightly fearing for their lives if they stayed. Somewhere between 30% and 50% of the population tried their best to ignore the dispute and hoped it would go away -- mugwumps -- but there was no active "central" goal for which they strove (aside from the basic goal of getting through their daily lives).

1794-1820: Bitter political infighting between the pro-french Democrats and the Federalists (with campaign slogans and newspaper editorials that would all be, by today's standards, actionable to seek civil damages).

1830-1865: The slavery question drives people to distraction and then internicine warfare.

1890-1940: Ongoing differences between isolationism and interventionism; the political fights over the "New Deal." America is alternately imperialistic, isolationistic, bombastic, or spastic depending on events and swings in the national mood.

...which brings us to the 2nd Global conflict and the era of "modern" politics that follows. Politics never did stop at the waters edge, centrism was never a valued strategy for long or by many, and political diviseness is the norm and not the exception.

Centrism is for suckers, mostly, because most centrists are not politically active, and reaction allows others to dominate the agenda.

Centrists of the worlds unite, you have nothing to lose but your lethargy.

[Pannonian]

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect people prefer politicians to have convictions to the point of parody rather than straddle the divide and listen to both sides, since this makes decisions easier. If neither side completely appeals, one has to weigh up the pros and cons on each side and decide which points carry more weight, with the probability of being disappointed somewhere along the line. Whereas conviction politicians are easier to respect, since at least they make the decision making process easier by ruling themselves out of office. For this reason many moderate Labour and Tory politicians greatly like the extremists on the other wing, as do many ordinary people.