"Governing from the Center" is Just Warmed Over Conservatism

The "centrist" DLC is the true conservative "party" of the U.S. - as in the party dedicated to preserving the status quo, the most literal definition of conservatism. OTOH the Bush government was a government of the Radical Right, governing very much from its "base". It was a RADICAL government, not a "conservative" one. Hence Obama's victory represents only a political shift from the radical right to mainstream conservatism. From a progressive political perspective there is still an awful lot of swinging left to do.

Bringing on board conservative DLC retreads does not represent a "broadening of the base" nor an attempt to reach out to more "conservative" elements of American society who did not support Obama. The DLC retreads are Beltway insiders who are not the "basis" of anything except that of their well-heeled sponsors. Consequently, honest progressives should feel no need to "reach out" to a narrow group of Beltway elitists - they need to be consistently opposed from Day One. Instead, those that progressives need to reach out to are the so-called "conservative" working class who actually want radical change in the economic sphere, but cannot overcome cultural barriers to support someone like Obama (which, BTW makes Obama potentially an excellent tool for maintaining the divisions in the American working class). The "conservatism" of these are not at all represented by the very real conservatism of the DLC Democrats whose sine qua non is the unconditional defense and preservation of the capitalist system and U.S. imperialist hegemony.

A "centrist" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole.

At some point ya gotta ask the obvious...where's all this corruption coming from anyways.

Obama could be a failure. He hasn't even taken office yet and he's probably gonna fail. The change we need isn't gonna come from him because he's too DLC and the DLC is who got us into this mess. We all might as well just give up, eh?

_{on edit changed the whole gist of post.}

K&R
:thumbsup:

...at least with respect to Centrism, which is actually the mean between extremes. Nothing more or less. It does not mean stupidity, venality, corruption, weakness, or for that matter their opposites. It is actually a thoughtful rejection of the screaming loonies on both ends of the spectrum, and by the way is where most Americans hang out. Seeing as how we have majority rule hereabouts, I'd say we Centrists are on top, and all the folks on the fringes are just gonna have to suck it up and deal. OR, come up with a way to convince the many millions of us as to the correctness of said fringes (HINT: Bashing us does not make us disposed to listen to you).

Now: The DLC is NOT Centrist. Saying so does not make it so. The DLC is Right-Wing, but is more concerned with power acquisition rather than operating from a philosophy of governance. (Watch for them to magically turn to the Left if they can get more power that way.)


Another point:
"A "centrist" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole."

This assumes that our society has in fact failed. Since you have failed to prove that it has failed, I'd say that your conclusion is proven false due to faulty premises.

that you would put forth that prove our society to be successful?

By most indicators the US society ranks rather dismally in most significant categories. Maybe you have some indices I haven't seen.

As to where these contrived political poles are placed the drift in American politics has swung wildly to the right over the last thirty years (at least) in case you haven't noticed and so anything even near to the center in our current political landscape is not only far to the right when compared to years past but is wildly to the right when compared to most other nations.

As to whether the "centrists" are "on top" or "winning" etc., that is another matter that doesn't really speak to anything other than the capacity to use vested interests to bludgeon other forces.

As for "sucking it up and dealing with it", no thanks. Simply being in the majority does not make you right or just. There are too many examples of "the majority" exhibiting brutality to even honor such sentiments with a response.

The United States is a deeply flawed nation, no doubt about it. And its government has indeed slid waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far to the right and has in fact become something of a pariah nation, and deservedly so. And notice what is happening - the people (Left and Center) are initiating change. Not radical change, but a change to the Left is in progress as we write.

However, it will not go as far to the Left as some might wish, any more than it went as far to the Right as the Bushistas wished. In both cases, those in the wings misread the majority Center.

That you lumped someone like myself (who considers himself a Centrist and backed Kucinich in the primaries) with those nutjobs in the DLC shows a lack of understanding. Another case in point - your assertion that most working folks want radical change. None that I know want to overthrow the nation, storm the bastille, or any similar radical destruction of the social order. We want the nation to live up to its promise, not to replace the nation itself.

The poles drift, as does the mean between them. As you point out, these are not static. And while majority rule is no indicator of moral correctness, the fact remains that anyone who wants elected HAS TO govern from the center, since centrists are the majority.

will not even give us this, which the majority of Americans support even with the media and majority of politicians purposefully and grossly misrepresenting the issue:

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

There are many more examples.

That 'majority of Americans' IS the Center. And as you just demonstrated, that majority is right much of the time (those 'many more examples'), so maybe you were too quick to dismiss us after all.

What is needed is to take the label of 'Centrist' away from right-wingers like the DLC. They are not the Center. We, the people, have the only rightful claim to that title.

Those who fail to see the difference between those motherfuckers in the DLC and the majority of ordinary people are doomed to frustration and marginalization. Those who CAN make that distinction and legislate accordingly can restore the promise of our nation.

i think that most people believe, as you do, that the "center" is where the most people are. i disagree.

i think the political scale right/center/left is about relatively fixed political positions, i.e., right=go backwards (toward monarchy/serfdom/slavery), center=stay where we are, left=move toward socialism.

i think is is much easier to discuss politics in these terms, or some other more erudite version, than to use popular opinion or the success of a particular political force at a given moment as one's guide. this has the added benefit of allowing valid comaprisons to other countries.

One thing I find interesting about your post, and would love for you to expand upon, is the the third sentence:

"i think the political scale right/center/left is about relatively fixed political positions, i.e., right=go backwards (toward monarchy/serfdom/slavery), center=stay where we are, left=move toward socialism."

On the one hand, there is mention of 'fixed' positions, and then we have a set of definitions that are based on motion. I am missing something there, can you explain further?

the scale is fixed, the people move along it.

You may need to govern from the center in order to get RE-elected, but the majority, or a large chunk of it, tends to support whatever happens.

"In late spring 1966, just before we began bombing Hanoi and Haiphong in North Vietnam, Americans split 50/50 as to whether we should bomb these targets. After the bombing began, 85 percent favored the bombing while only 15 percent opposed. The sudden shift was the result, not the cause, of the government's decision to bomb. The same allegiance and socialization process operated again when policy changed in the opposite direction. In 1968 war sentiment was waning, but 51 percent of Americans opposed a bombing halt, partly because the United States was still bombing North Vietnam. A month later, after President Johnson announced a bombing halt, 71 percent favored the halt. Thus 23 percent of our citizens changed their mind within a month, mirroring the shift in government policy. This swaying of thought by policy affects attitudes on issues ranging from our space program to environmental policy and shows the so-called 'silent majority' to be an unthinking majority as well. Educated people are overrepresented among those straws in the wind." "Lies my teacher told me" pp 307-08

...depending on who controls information flow. The variance in support is not just because of blindness, but rather ignorance of the truth behind the events cited (and many, many others, for example Operation Iraqi Liberation). As facts came out (look at the changes in reporting on the Vietnam war over the year of 1968) and the majority becomes informed, their opinions do change, and quite rightly so.

That is a crucial element ignored by the author of the piece. People tend to trust those they put in power, UNTIL they have reason to do otherwise. It is up to those of use who are informed to give the rest of the country the picture.

"When people are asleep, we must all become alarm clocks" (J. Biafra)

Is that next to the thundering Wurlitzer of the media the poor little alarm clock rings and rings but only a few can hear it.

I never stopped being an alarm clock, now I've just changed the group I'm trying to wake up.

..and have adopted the same strategy. Also, I 'ring' in different media than I used to (which pretty well overextends and mangles the Alarm Clock metaphor).

And as we have seen, the few who DO hear sometimes become alarm clocks themselves.

And its government has indeed slid waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far to the right and has in fact become something of a pariah nation, and deservedly so."

That sits very oddly with the concluding sentence in your previous post:

"This assumes that our society has in fact failed. Since you have failed to prove that it has failed, I'd say that your conclusion is proven false due to faulty premises."

As for:

"However, it will not go as far to the Left as some might wish, any more than it went as far to the Right as the Bushistas wished. In both cases, those in the wings misread the majority Center."....

You claim to be a supporter of Dennis Kucinich. Well, in the context of the US and the UK, and most countries in the rest of the world, most people would be fine with Dennis and his policies, and consider them pretty left wing. I can't imagine what you consider to be the far left, unless you mean Denmark or Norway - and most people would be even finer with that! ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CENTRE RIGHT! Or did you mean atheistic Communism?

As for Norway, Wikipedia doesn't even MENTION a political party! But a BBC article states that it is centre-left (red-green alliance) after the defeat of the centre-right faction (i.e. probably akin to Dennis's political views) in 2005. It is the first majority government since the mid 1980s.

Mention is made of the free education up to and including university level, but I don't recall seeing ANY reference to a free national health in Wikipedia's entries for Denmark, Swededn or Norway. It's such a GIVEN!

Where I think you are correct about most people wanting government from the centre is in terms of social conservatism. But all talk about the poliical positining of the American public is, imo, moot, to say the least with the current economic outlook and the seismic change Peak Oil is going to entail. A correspondent to the right-wing Daily mail in the UK, who gave every indication of being an expert, thought it likely to be 40 years before the world economy was back on track; but that with the lower power delivered by maximal alternative energy sources, it would be a quite different kind of world in terms of industry and economics generally.

...And the fact that Kooch is currently considered to be far-Left is itself a product of that rightward shift amongst the governing and media classes. In fact, by mid-to-late 20th century American standards, he is quite moderate. Like myself and most Americans, Kooch has refused to abandon his core principles.

"Far Left" to me are those who want to nationalize damn-near everything, shred the Constitution (although they were pissed when the Bushies did it) and impose the society that they envision on the rest of us - notwithstanding the immorality of such an attitude, or even its lack of success when tried elsewhere throughout history.

For me, the ideal model is much like the social democracies of Northern Europe, without the Big Brother elements that characterize their cousins in, say, the UK. That is in line with the policies that the majority of Americans endorse when asked fair questions in polls, and is also in accord with our Constitution.

It's about who gets to define where the "center" is.

To me, a definition can only be applied after understanding the reality it labels.

What then, is the "center" on that issue?

...peoples' party identifications(and the parties' positions on the political spectrum) do change over time, so I am less concerned with that as a metric. In other words, Dem/Reep is only somewhat relevant with respect to Right/Left/Center identification. One example - Zell Miller (D), clearly to the Right of Olympia Snowe (R).


I am more interested in the population as a whole. Upthread there was another stat cited that showed a clear majority of "Americans" favored Universal Health Care. That is, to me, a much more useful indicator of where the Center is and what it thinks. People, just people, without further classification and polarization to muddy the waters.

from the Republicans' pre-election play-book.

He's learnt nothing about Obama, has he? Or perhaps he has, and fears the proressive directions he'll take.

...and his proposed policies are what the majority wants.

this depression is only going to make that more certain. Get used to the idea.

Already, Obama has committed to considerabe expenditure on the rebuildng of infrastucture, for which Rooselvelt was accused of being a Socialist.

Roosevelt was far from Socialism, to put it mildly.

set to move on a lot more by the look of things, as I said.

By my definition of Center, if the majority moves farther Left, they are still the majority and thus the Center (by the numbers). And we do indeed see signs of that movement. Hopefully it is moving faster and farther than I perceive.

Among Centrists, I am at the left 'edge', if I can phrase it so. It'd be nice to have more company! :D

A "centrist" is just someone who isn't or wasn't paying attention. You are correct when you say that most Americans make up this demographic.

I pay a whole helluva lot of attention, thank you. The fact that I am not in favor of a wholesale re-engineering of our system of government does not make me ignorant, lazy or uninformed. I believe in our constitution and majority rule, incremental change through consent of the governed.

Sure, the center has a lot of other people who don't understand or are stuck in their own little bubbles. The same can be said of both wings.

...and Republican protofascism is indeed a failure to recognize and address systemic problems. That most Americans are similarly ignorant does not make this less true.

But it is not.

That's how all the talking heads mean it, whether or not they're smart enough to know.

The kind of "centrism" they're suddenly advocating is just warmed-over conservatism.

...by ill-informed folks, or those who have an interest served by re-labeling us.

I have never called GWB the 'President'. Nor do I call NeoCons 'Conservatives'. If the label does not fit, it doesn't fit.

If a million people say the wrong thing, it doesn't make 'em right. It just means a million people are full of shit.

...unless the perspective of the speaker is defined. When both the major parties are on the right, a "centrist" could be pretty conservative. An absolute political spectrum, though, would include everything from royalists to fascists to anarcho-syndicalists to commies, and other things the talking heads have never even heard of or understood.

The pundits' demands for Obama to govern from the 'center," then, is really just a plea for easy pigeon-holing--and always, of course, under the thumb of the corporations.

...which to me seems pretty damned Rightish. Their perspective is indeed different from mine. Good point.

If the whole spectrum is considered (which geeks like me do), the Center will be broader and more diverse. Those who like absolutes and easy answers DO try to pigeonhole the Center, as they do the fringes. Makes for good sound bites, but bad public policy.

Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

Honestly?

Seriously?

No shit?

If by "capitalist system" you mean a system that consistently gives more consideration to capital than to labor, that places profits above people at all times and on all ways, that promotes the desires of the few over the desperate needs of the many, that favors the few at the expense of the many, that measures everything by profit, that forces us all to live in the "free market" and even see ourselves as a commodity, then yes I think it is entirely reasonable that we should expect that "capitalist system" to be dismantled.

and if they think Americans are Not aware of their Bull crap they are very mistaken

I heard one Congressman say on Kudlow that the people are about to walk on Washington

and he is right

Interesting

"Conservatism" implies an ideology and this isn't about ideology. It's about doing the bidding of the moneyed interests who pay for your campaigns and give you and your friends nice incomes when you exit the revolving door into the private sector.

It implies that Capitalism is being corrupted by some 'greedheads' or 'bad apples'. Capitalism, by it's very nature, produces 'bad apples' in abundance, encourages them. Conservatives are capitalists because capitalism is the status quo. In another time conservatives would be monarchists and capitalists would be progressive.

We slowly inch towards socialism, too slowly.

it's utterly silly to insist that the DLC is this mega powerful monolitic entity. It's neither. There are progressives who belong to the DLC. And its power is no where near what it was in the nineties.

Calling Obama a conservative is just absurd. YOU don't get to make up shit and go unchallenged. What is Obama? I'd argue he's a very tough guy to pigeon hole though small, dull minds always try to fit things into neat little slots.

If faux progressives think Obama is anyone's tool, you're in for a rude awakening.

Honestly, I think so many of you little self-proclaimed radicals, paid zero attention during the campaign.

Now I get to sit back and watch your outrage. Kind of amusing. No, make that very amusing.

What counst is whether Obama lives up to his campaign promises. If he doesn't, I'll be making my voice of opposition heard. If he does, I'll be voicing my support. On issues like Afghanistan, where I disagree with him, I'll say so.

Nice double standard you got there. NOT! :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The lying hypocrite is you and everyone knows it. You just proved it in your post above.

Look how you took the opportunity to call me names which you do every single time you reply to my posts.

How ungolden rule of thee. :eyes:

peace.

but it's something that most people who parrot that line, are doing for themselves. And yeah, that's an opinion.

....you've got a problem.

I went from disabled and homeless to employed and healthy (well, as healthy as I am gonna get) during the Clinton years.

I also think that Bush took the opportunities presented by some of Clinton's policies (NAFTA for instance) and turned them further to the Right, exacerbating the impact. President Gore would not have done so. Nor would he have undone so many of Clinton's more progressive initiatives, as did the Bushistas.

I never liked Clinton, but then who cares about liking? He did a good job with what he had to hand, and I appreciate it.

Ross Perot was right, and you can't understand that, after all these years.

and a "centrist" (right-of-center) corporate party.

Is it any wonder the middle class is dying? Is it not inevitable that the working class is all but dead?

:kick: & R

So you think centrists are simply..fools?

Lets go one step further and ask "What's a progressive, anyway?"

someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole.

We're cookin' now..

They're tools, but willing, clear eyed.

Now progressives, those who think that capitalism can be tamed, that we can have peace and maintain the imperialists posture, they're fools.

I see myself as a very sharp one. :D

Actually, I was thinking of a , but yours is a helluva lot funnier.

I remember my daughter, in the 9th grade, asking me about the Compromise of 1876/77. I told her it was a betrayal of Lincoln, it re-enslaved black citizens of the former Confederate states, and it was based on election fraud (with bogus Florida electors and the Democrats of the time giving away the victory). She wrote this on an exam and got zero points for the question. After taking some grief, I asked the teacher what was wrong with her answer. I was told that "compromise" was always a good thing and her answer was too provocative.

That's the logic behind "centrizmo" - gotta see both sides (like there are only two), work with others (oh, fascists who stole two presidential elections), and get along (like we did for 8 years, what did that get). But the underlying mechanism behind is is erasing evidence right in front of your face to achieve a goal that makes no sense and can only be realized through voluntary amnesia.

Great line: "A "centrist" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole."

As the OP makes clear, politics in America have moved radically right (with McCarthyism, with Nixon, with Reagan, and with the second Bush), without ever returning to any previous "center". As a practical matter, what that means is that the "center" between war and peace is more war, the center between the erosion of constitutional rights and no such erosion is the erosion of some rights, and the center between the massive growth of the military budget and no growth is some growth. If you think about it, it has always been this way. What was the "center" position on slavery? It was for the continuation of slavery but without its spread to new territories. What was the "center" position on segregation? It was "separate but equal".

In comparison to these fundamentals, questions such as the exact magnitude of continuing war or how competently it is run, appear to be quibbles.

As a practical matter, what that means is that the "center" between war and peace is more war, Nope. Rather, it is 'just wars' as opposed to 'wars of conquest or convenience'.

The remainder of your examples were similarly tendentious, to put it mildly. As a Centrist, I am:
Vehemently opposed to the removal of ANY of our rights,
A stong believer that the growth of ANY budget category should be tied to what is neccessary,
Opposed to slavery in any form, anywhere (it still exists, you know),
Appalled by segregation,

None of which fit into your framework.

Yes, the center shifts, as do the extremes. Humans are not static, nor are their groupings. However, Centrism is NOT simply the absence of conviction: it is the grouping of convictions shared by the majority.

Why should it matter what you "believe", unless you are willing to stand behind it? If you are vehemently opposed to the removal of "ANY" rights, then you are against the compromises on FISA, you are against the Patriot Act, you are for the prosecution of criminals and particularly the prosecution of war crimes as we all have had that special obligation since Nuremberg. If you are for those things, ahead of all expediency and politics mongering, then you are no centrist. If you are an apologist for real politik in place of those principles, then your "vehement opposition" is immaterial.

Centrism in the face of principle is precisely "the absence of conviction".

Wheras your last two posts seem to be more like projecting your vision onto me, which truly exposes your ignorance and in fact your lack of understanding of worldviews outside of your own, or at least those that you do understand. But Centrism clearly eludes you. And it's certainly not just you: we are seeing that lack of understanding repeatedly and in many places, which is why this topic is so timely, and I am devoting more time to it than is my usual practice.

Again: the Center is the mean between extremes, and such, extremists frequently fail to understand it. When that is the case, they fail when they try to manipulate it, harness it, or persuade it. The predominant 'understandings' of Centrism amongst those who misread it are:
"Centrists can't make up their minds", "Centrists are uninformed", "Centrists lack conviction". None of these are correct, any more than is "Leftists want to force your child to watch porn" or such nonsense.

One example: the majority of Americans want universal health care. That means that the Center wants health care. Not much indecision there. Another: the majority of Americans want our troops to come home from Iraq. That means that the Center wants our troops to come home from Iraq. Pretty firm stance, wouldn't you say?

The Majority of Americans (the Center) are NOT in favor of being forced to live on Collective farms like the Soviet Union in the 50's. Nor are they in favor of more tax cuts for the Rich, as the Reeps want. Two extremes, one from the Left and one from the Right, and you will find little vacillation from anyone in the Center on those matters.

So, the Center does not reject the taking of stands: it simply takes stands in the middle of the political spectrum.

a "centrist" sit in the Germany of 1936?

That was a totally different political, cultural and economic climate and one in which I have no experience.

He, just like most of us, was tired of the hyperpartisan fighting, and promised to change that. Yes, I'm sorry, but to make that happen, that does involve actually making a place at the table for the Republicans - build a new governing coalition that's all-inclusive, brings in input from all sides, and resulting in better decisions. As fun as it may be to be the dominant party in Washington for a change, if we just stomped all over the Republicans, we'll piss off enough people that we'll lose Congress in a short couple of years. We've got to be wiser than that. No, that doesn't mean we have to cave all the time and take Republican "bipartisanship" up the ass. But if we show the Republicans that there's something in it for them if they play ball with us, a surprising number of them will become reasonable.

Obama won on this program, did he? By promising an end to "hyperpartisan fighting"? By building "a new governing coalition that's all-inclusive"? By showing the Republicans "that there's something in it for them if they play ball"? Most people thought they voted for "Change" and a dramatic shift away from Bush policies -- Not a change in how they were implemented.

The easiest way to "lose Congress in a short couple of years" is to run on one program, in two separate elections, and then to implement another.

Fighting against criminal acts is what we call fighting for justice.

How does 'changing the tone' do anything to prevent further criminal acts?

What you state is quite vague, devoid of any concrete measures or substantial actions.

Well stated points.