The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The Fetish Of Centrism

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

tfowler — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:58:41 -0000

OTOH, I think I agree with the overall point of your post, that for many politicians being "moderate" is much more political tactic, than principled stand.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

tfowler — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:56:53 -0000

I think its pretty hard to make a reasonable argument that Obama is a moderate. You could argue that he's doing the right thing for the country (or that he isn't), but he's been rather radical so far in his time in office.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

tfowler — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:54:55 -0000

I don't think moderate Democrats are majority pro-life, at least not if you don't define that so broadly as to include support for any restrictions on abortion, rather than its more normal definition of supporting outlawing of abortion in most or all circumstances.

As for against spending, well moderate Democratic voters might be against increased spending in the abstract, but they don't want any money that goes to them, or to programs they like, cut, and currently they largely support Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in their enormous spending increases. At most they might argue for a tiny trim here or there, but even if they get their way its an enormous increase.

Moderate Democratic national-level politicians, they aren't against spending, at least not when a Democrat is president.

They may be "shucking and jiving" to use your term, but that's a habit of politicians in general, not something specific to real or self-proclaimed moderates.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Caleb Das — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:45:57 -0000

It's McCain style contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism but without any issues to back it up. I think part of it comes from people's desire to be seen as having made the most inclusive/populist choice which is essentially what centrism in America claims to be. Not even left-wingers and right-wingers want to be seen as immoderate or radical. They want to ascribe their views to a larger percentage of the populace than is real. My arguably most radical friends, of all stripes, think this about themselves. I think this about myself though when it comes down to it, my points of view are not "centrist" at all. I'm pretty sure the numbers of actual "moderates" within the Democratic party are overstated.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Dan L — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:56:22 -0000

Depends on the situatio. A lot of the time, compromising is the most moral thing to do. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Sime — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:18:39 -0000

implicit in that is the notion that ideological motivation is more morally pure than political consideration.

Is it not?

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:18:26 -0000

Nah. There's a such thing as a principled moderation. But favoring farm subsidies, or opposing the streamlining of student loans isn't moderate. It's political. It's not that if you're moderate you're unprincipled--I'd actually argue Barack Obama is a moderate--it's that there are people who use that label as a cover for politics. That's my only point.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Tony Comstock — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:47:08 -0000

This post has been bugging me since it went up, and this morning I think I know why.

Implicit in the post and following comments is the presumption that the moderates are motivated primarily, even solely by the desire to get elected, while the more extreme elements are moderated by ideology, and implicit in that is the notion that ideological motivation is more morally pure than political consideration.

If that's what you believe, fine. But I seem to remember the shoe being on the other foot only a short while ago and back then ideology was a bugbear and moderation was fairly near saintly.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Sean B. — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:17:56 -0000

But the title of the piece is "Why Democrats Can't Govern", not "The Trouble With Moderation". Chait's main idea is that Dem platforms are too often antagonistic to big money interests that support them, while the GOP tends not to have that problem since their platform is often amenable to said big monies and allows for their uniformity of purpose. The problem isn't centrism/moderation, it's reps who use those terms as camouflage for not being able to hold to their principles. I have always valued moderation because I believe in many ways it is more courageous than more extreme viewpoints, as the extremist will ultimately never get what he/she wants and can rest assured that they can therefore be in a state of perpetual rebellion and always able to stand astride their portable soap box without ever having to worry about how their policies will hold up to the scrutiny of practical application.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:50:56 -0000

"moderate" Democrats aren't really moderate, they are conservatives. For all intents and purposes they are Republicans but for just a few issues. They are largely pro life, pro tax cuts, pro big business, hawkish on war, against spending unless it goes to their constituents. But they get painted as moderate so as to give them cover to obstruct President Obama "on principle". But here is the thing that nobody ever brings up, how many of Bush's budgets did Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, or any of the other ConservaDems ever vote against? As a matter of fact when did any of the ConservaDems ever protest the use of reconciliation to get Bush's tax cuts passed at a time when the Republican majority in the Senate was MUCH closer than it is now? These people are just shucking and jiving so as to win their next election, they aren't working in the best interests of teh country. Thats why I detest the bastards almost as much as I detest all the hypocritical Rethugs.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

James F. Elliott — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:34:44 -0000

Moderation as a tactic -- building upon incremental changes -- is great. It's how things get done in public policy when the legislatures are filled with competing ideologies and theories of governance. The problem with the U.S.'s fetish for "moderation" is that it's tonal. It's not so much that moderates have moderate goals -- it's all about how it appears in the media, how it plays to the local electorate. Someone who's unoffensive to all sides is going to have the most success when running for re-election. It's the "cut nothing, create nothing" status quo, and it prevents real innovation in public service from ever occurring.

For those of us who spend our time trying to implement public policy, it's an unending pain in the ass.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

dwhite10701 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:06:44 -0000

You can support all kinds of ridiculous policy as long as you call it "moderate" or "centrist." And frankly, I don't think anyone outside of Washington is really impressed with these so-called moderates. You show me someone who makes a big show of being a moderate, I'll show you someone who's been in Washington too long.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Bruce — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:39:46 -0000

link plz

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:19:35 -0000

The problem with that argument is I don't see any policy attached. There's nothing "moderate" about Nelson's position. It's just political. There's nothing moderate about Kent Conrad upbraiding Obama for not cutting the budget, and then arguing for farm subsidies. It's just cynical. There's nothing moderate about forming a cabal of allegedly centrist senators, and then not outlining a single policy your standing up for. It's just opportunistic and sanctimonious.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

R.oB. — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:18:54 -0000

I'm embarrassed to admit that I do have impure thoughts concerning centrism. I even visit centrist porn sites.

Re: The Fetish Of Centrism

freaktown — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:12:09 -0000

the atlantic's own ron brownstein had an interesting piece the other day. Basically, there are more "centrists"/"moderates" in the democratic party than there are liberals. the empirical data he cites supports this. something like 3/5 of democrats when polled said they wanted the party to go in a "moderate" direction as opposed to a liberal one.

also, taking into account the new "big tent" the democrats have built by winning in red states and conservative areas, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the democrats don't want to be dragged to the left and risk losing those voters.

liberals do play an integral role in the party, but they are a small portion of the party when compared to everyone else so it should surprise no one that liberals don't have as much influence on POLICY as conservatives have in the republican party.