Making the Case for Centrism
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 07:53:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Making the Case for Centrism
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Making the Case for Centrism  (Read 1375 times)
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 29, 2004, 11:02:47 AM »

Something I though some might find interesting to read:

-----------

Real politics keyed to centrism

BYLINE: BILL THOMPSON Of The Post and Courier Staff

BODY:
"The middle of the road is all of the usable surface," remarked Dwight D. Eisenhower 60 years ago, "The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters."

Today the former president might have observed that there are too many Republican congressmen and too many Democratic congressmen, and not enough U.S. congressmen. Partisanship can be stifling, compromise liberating. In the art of politics, as in the art of living, a centrist view is one of balance.

And it could be our salvation, according to New York Sun columnist John P. Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How the Vital Center Is Changing American Politics" (Harmony Books).

Avlon, son of John and Dianne Avlon of Charleston, worked on Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign and served as chief speechwriter and deputy communications director for former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

At a time when our polarization seems intractable, Avlon sees ample evidence that centrism is "the rising political force in modern American life." And he doesn't believe it's wishful thinking.

Fifty percent of American voters define themselves as political moderates, and two-thirds say they favor political solutions that derive from the center of the spectrum, notes Avlon, who also serves as president of Prides Crossing Executive Communication. Independents now outnumber Democrats and Republicans, he adds. And Clinton and George W. Bush each employed centrist strategies to win the presidency.

Candidates of the future will be obliged to do the same.

"It's absolutely true that in domestic politics Congress is more partisan than in any time in the recent past, but at the same time, the electorate has gotten more centrist," Avlon says. "There is a huge disconnect between the sensible center out there and those representing the extremes on either side. Given a choice, 66 percent of Americans prefer centrist solutions.

"It works almost like physics; every action generates an equal reaction. Intolerant voices at one end provoke intolerant ones on the other. This is why it is so important for the center to realize it has such a strong heritage and a role to stand up to extremism on both sides. It's about providing a sense of balance with backbone, because special interests have disproportionate influence."

Avlon's book documents the history of what he terms the defining political movement of our age. "Independent Nation" is arrayed as a series of short, engaging political biographies that offer insight on (and analysis of) the successes and failures of pivotal centrist leaders during the 20th century. He defines centrism rather broadly, embracing everyone from Clinton to Teddy Roosevelt.

Avlon's goal is to demonstrate that centrism is more than simply a winning tactic, but an example of enlightened self-interest on the part of a nation, one that reflects "the will of the people by putting patriotism ahead of partisanship and the national interest ahead of special interests."

Our political leaders must follow this course, Avlon insists. "It's the most principled way of governing in the interests of all people. They have to. Our form of government depends on it. It's balancing idealism and realism. Idealism is the fuel that democracy runs on. If it gets lost, American exceptionalism gets lost. And we still are the great experiment because we resist the temptation to follow demagogues.

"You need to learn from history. What I really wanted to lay out is this history of the heritage of the vital center of American politics. It goes back to the Founding Fathers' conception of the country. They didn't want a highly partisan government, but one that would focus on the best interests of the citizens. Very few effective leaders are ideologues. The center is under attack, however, by rigidity and humorlessness and dogmatic attitudes that are the fingerprints of extremism. As a country we've generally favored evolution over revolution. We must continue to do so."

------------

from:

http://www.independentnation.org/reviews/real_politics_keyed.htm
Logged
cwelsch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2004, 02:15:19 PM »

Great, "balance," make sure everybody is always a little unhappy.  Like socialism.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2004, 02:16:19 PM »

Great, "balance," make sure everybody is always a little unhappy.  Like socialism.

Comparing centrism to socialism?
Logged
cwelsch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2004, 02:19:51 PM »

In terms of being unhappy, yeah.  Socialism just strikes me as attempting to mitigate the dangers of the world through centralization.  Centrism is attempting to mitigate the dangers of politics through compromise.  While politically they're distinct, they both end up being, well, painfully boring.  The human spirit needs excitement, achievement, happiness, etc.

Centrism and socialism are both attempts to eliminate the valleys of life.  Well, if there are no valleys then there are no mountains.  Just big flat plains, so-so, not horrible, not wonderful.  Like a kind of political purgatory.  Just a big blah.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,409
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2004, 02:29:02 PM »

In terms of being unhappy, yeah.  Socialism just strikes me as attempting to mitigate the dangers of the world through centralization.  Centrism is attempting to mitigate the dangers of politics through compromise.  While politically they're distinct, they both end up being, well, painfully boring.  The human spirit needs excitement, achievement, happiness, etc.

Centrism and socialism are both attempts to eliminate the valleys of life.  Well, if there are no valleys then there are no mountains.  Just big flat plains, so-so, not horrible, not wonderful.  Like a kind of political purgatory.  Just a big blah.

How do you know it's not a steppe? Wink
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2004, 03:46:16 PM »

Centrism is attempting to mitigate the dangers of politics through compromise.
Politics is all about compromise. From the ancient Greeks to modern states, from national goverments to the board of a local chamber of commerce, there is little else.

If I put three people in charge of something and the three have different goals, two of the three will work out a method to gain some their goals. That's compromise, and it's politics.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2004, 04:08:35 PM »

Centrism is attempting to mitigate the dangers of politics through compromise.
Politics is all about compromise. From the ancient Greeks to modern states, from national goverments to the board of a local chamber of commerce, there is little else.

If I put three people in charge of something and the three have different goals, two of the three will work out a method to gain some their goals. That's compromise, and it's politics.

Precisely.

Compromise is generally necessary for humanity to function since we would otherwise end up with a scenario in which one side of the two will be completely unhappy. Endeavouring to find a solution which satisfies both sides might be difficult, but much more desirable to ensure social harmony. In that light it's an entirely pragmatic viewpoint.
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2004, 10:33:51 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes a tremendous amount of sense to me!  I am not at all happy feeling like the country is too polarized to reach consensus and do what we must, or even what we possibly could by working together.  It is so easy to hate.  Real strength of character comes when you achieve adulthood and are able to control your emotions, see the larger picture and compromise to reach workable solutions.

freedomburns
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.238 seconds with 12 queries.