Define The "Center"

[Gary Sisco]

All kind of talk in the US tends to use this notion of "center" in American politics. Some are said to occupy it, others are said to be to the right or the left of it.

My question is, What is it?

What are the defining political traits and positions that constitute this "center"?

[Brian Olewnick]

I'll take a stab at that. I'd use the term "soft libertarianism". This would mean: mildly against government infringement of (to use a general term) civil liberties and mildly against governmental economic restrictions and overspending. Of course, with regard to a given individual, these points of view are modified depending on the specific ox being gored but, in the larger picture, I think that's where a significant percentage of Americans (40? 50?) could be said to reside. This matches up roughly with the current aspect of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. I'd guess that, as a rule, "soft libertarians" are reluctant to enter politics (among other things, they're too busy working, raising families, etc.) so they're way underepresented within the political class, hence the difficulty (especially on the Republican side) getting into office. fwiw, I think this is precisely Hillary's target group in '08.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I'll take a stab at that. I'd use the term "soft libertarianism". This would mean: mildly against government infringement of (to use a general term) civil liberties and mildly against governmental economic restrictions and overspending. Of course, with regard to a given individual, these points of view are modified depending on the specific ox being gored but, in the larger picture, I think that's where a significant percentage of Americans (40? 50?) could be said to reside. This matches up roughly with the current aspect of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. I'd guess that, as a rule, "soft libertarians" are reluctant to enter politics (among other things, they're too busy working, raising families, etc.) so they're way underepresented within the political class, hence the difficulty (especially on the Republican side) getting into office. fwiw, I think this is precisely Hillary's target group in '08.

It's not so much that soft-libertarians are reluctant to enter politics but that it is difficult for a moderate to get nominated by the primary voters of either party.

Conservative Democratic politicians tend towards protectionism, so I'm not sure I'd call them soft libertarians.

I think there's an opening for a wealthy moderate to run as an independent for President but he might not be a soft-libertarian, witness Mike Bloomberg, the most talked about person in that slot.

[Gordon B]

Why did almost every obit of Milton Friedman call him a conservative?

He was a hard libertarian. If Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Frist are conservatives, then how could Milton Friedman be misrepresented as one?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

It's not so much that soft-libertarians are reluctant to enter politics but that it is difficult for a moderate to get nominated by the primary voters of either party.

Both, I think. The further ends of either side tend to be more activist politically.

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Conservative Democratic politicians tend towards protectionism, so I'm not sure I'd call them soft libertarians.

I think there's an opening for a wealthy moderate to run as an independent for President but he might not be a soft-libertarian, witness Mike Bloomberg, the most talked about person in that slot.

I haven't seen Bloomberg spell out any general economic prinicples but, off-hand, I'd think he'd fall into the soft-lib group (I'm very expansive in my definition, you see!)

btw, I think he'd be an interesting nominee.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

What are the defining political traits and positions that constitute this "center"?

A desire to maintain the existing plutocracy and protect corporate interests.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Both, I think. The further ends of either side tend to be more activist politically.



I haven't seen Bloomberg spell out any general economic prinicples but, off-hand, I'd think he'd fall into the soft-lib group (I'm very expansive in my definition, you see!)

btw, I think he'd be an interesting nominee.

Me, too. I was thinking about his advocacy of highly restricitve anti-smoking laws when I dismissed him from my definition of soft-libertarian. I'd still prefer him over McCain and Clinton or Romney and Gore.

[Pete C]

I'd certainly vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for that Clinton woman.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I'd certainly vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for that Clinton woman.

http://www.politics1.com/blog-0906a.htm
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- a billionaire business news mogul and Democrat before he was elected in 2001 as a Republican -- repeatedly denies he has any interest in running for President in 2008. "I am not running for President, for the record," is his standard response to reporters. However, the WCBS-TV reported that Bloomberg held a secret meeting last month with some top political operatives and money people for "serious discussions about the viability of a White House run." According to the TV station, participants included Democratic Leadership Council leader Al From, legendary Wall Street hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, New York City Schools Commissioner Joel Klein, three NYC Deputy Mayors, and others. One participant, speaking anonymously, said Bloomberg was both intrigued and skeptical about making the race. At one point during the dinner, Bloomberg purportedly asked: "How likely is a 5' 7" Jew-from-New York, billionaire, who's divorced, and running as an independent, to become President of the United States?" WCBS reported Bloomberg told the participants he "reportedly thinks he has another year" to make a decision on the race and -- if he runs -- he's "considering" spending hundreds of millions from his own deep pockets. Like I wrote back in May, I still believe the whole Unity 08 group is being assembled for Bloomberg.
Posted by Ron Gunzburger - 09.18.06 | Permalink | COMMENTS (59)

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

A desire to maintain the existing plutocracy and protect corporate interests.

Like with Kings. But even when kings didn't help out those less fortunate among us; those in need; the lowly; revolt was in the air all too often. If all a king cared about were his knights and landed gentry, then, revolt or boycots became a tool to rid us of them.

So there needs to be programs to help the needy, the ill, the weak or we won't allow kings to exist. We'll also weaken from within, crime will prevail and all will begin to suffer if we allow the weakest among us to.

A full blown liberal comment. But there does need to be a middle road traveled, and agreed upon oftentimes, as both sides of the spectrum - those on opposing poles - go way too far overboard with their own agenda's, as has this administration.

[Uli]

Pete and me are in the center. Ollie and Gordon to the right of us, PD to the left.

[Sandi22]

I remember when "Conservative" wasn't just another word for "Radical". Pre Newt days.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Uli

Pete and me are in the center. Ollie and Gordon to the right of us, PD to the left.

Why stop at five people?

[walto]

Who's PD?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by walto

Who's PD?

PW.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Uli

PW.

Where's Walto?

in your L-R

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Where's Walto?

in your L-R

I consider him pretty centered.

[Gary Sisco]

I guess I'd pretty much agree with Brian. There is so much at least tacit acceptance of the status quo in that picture, however, that, to me, it locates the center within what would be called in any historical fashion, the right wing at least of political thinking.

I guess I'd say, since forced to use the language of the time, however absurd, that the center is represented by the left wing of the Repugnant Party (I'm thinking the likes of Jim Jeffords and a few others) and the right wing of the dims (Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman, etc).

The strangest part of it for me is the large differences that exist between much of what's left of the Dim's activist base and the party itself. They don't track together, if their elected figures and their practice is compared to what the base itself supports and wants. The war is the biggest but far from the only example. Most of the dims' base is antiwar but it's the opposite case in most of its elected figures.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Uli

PW.

Pitching Wedge.

It's found between the 9-Iron and the SW- Sand Wedge.

[GoodSpeak]

Take my politics and move to the right just a bit and there you will find the Center line.

[Dr Dave]

I consider myself a Centrist. I am in favor of moderate government intervention into everyday life, e.g., setting behavioral standards (murder is wrong, and you'll be punished if you kill someone; fraud is wrong, and you'll be punished for misrepresenting yourself; etc.). I believe it is actually possible to run good schools funded with taxpayer money. I like using the Interstate Highway System, and don't think it would have been built except through tax receipts. I don't think the U.S. military ought to be outsourced.

I also think the Federal system is wretchedly corrupt and inefficient, but do not believe that denying it funding will solve the problem.

I think "hard" libertarians should all be made to live in Lagos, Nigeria, so they can get a feel for what it's really like to live in a "free" unregulated society.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I consider myself a Centrist.

What are your main beefs with liberals?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I guess I'd pretty much agree with Brian. There is so much at least tacit acceptance of the status quo in that picture, however, that, to me, it locates the center within what would be called in any historical fashion, the right wing at least of political thinking.

Well sure, but in any general discussion like this, it makes sense to talk about the reality in the US. Also, history is fluid so it may well be that the "center" (in the US) shifts over time, in recent years to the right.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

What are your main beefs with liberals?

In a word, protectionism. I'm very wary of the post-Rubin "populist" Democrats.

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

My question is, What is it?

It's what "will not hold".

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I'd certainly vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for that Clinton woman.

Something stinks of sexism.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

In a word, protectionism. I'm very wary of the post-Rubin "populist" Democrats.

Dr Dave hates the idea of an American middle class.

he is one of the multitude of dumbass Americans who thinks Wall Street has his back.

[Sandi22]

They say there's no denying that Hillary Clinton has done a bang up job of representing New York in the Senate. They say she is adept at working both sides of the isle and of not being exclusionary, that she knows how to get things done.

I don't like her hawkish views, but hey, she's a female and probably feels the need to present herself as one tough cookie. Not sure of this, but it sometimes seems this way. I also don't like how it can appear as though she is pandering to the right wing Christian lobby. I know she had thought of becoming a minister earlier in her college days, so she hasn't come to these ideas as a Johnny come lately, they might truly be her own thoughts, but I don't feel comfortable hearing such coming from her.

She has at times, an abraisive quality, her trying to appear as the tough one on issues; this I believe can do her harm when she runs. She'll have bigger and better spin doctors going after her if she runs for the presidency. She'll end up looking worse than Freddie. She has already been partially tarred and feathered, and they must just be itching to finish the job.

[Paul B]

Hillary just always seems to be taking a poll-based position, never one based on her own ideas. She's too afraid of being caught out in a mistake down the line, and so she hedges her bets. Might be fine for a senator, and I'm sure she's done a decent job in New York--but those qualities don't cut it for a presidential candidate. Bloomberg hasn't been perfect, and I don't agree with everything he's done, but he shoots straight and when he's wrong (as with his support of a west-side stadium) he just moves on regardless of public opinion. And he's kept New York on track without any of Giuliani's fire-and-brimstone crap.

And I'm with rollhead about the middle class--I don't see anything wrong with the government protecting jobs here in the U.S. Read Louis Uchitelle's "The Disposable American" for a sobering look at where we're going on that front.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

In a word, protectionism. I'm very wary of the post-Rubin "populist" Democrats.

God forbid that a politician might do something to support working class Americans.

Two projects aim to save middle class

By HAROLD MEYERSON
First published: Monday, November 27, 2006

When voters went to the polls this month, they registered not only a revulsion with the Republican regime but also a profound -- almost un-American -- anxiety about the nation's future. They ousted incumbents who wanted to stay the economic course, choosing instead Democratic challengers who questioned free-trade orthodoxy. In the exit polling, a plurality said they believed that life for the next generation of Americans would be worse than it is today.

All wings of the Democratic Party seem to understand the extent of America's economic problem. The architects of Bill Clinton's economic and trade policies, as well as their more liberal critics, all agree now, in the words of Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, that "the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth -- and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking."

The era of globalized free trade that Summers and his iconic predecessor at Treasury, Robert Rubin, sped on its way, Summers admits, has benefited many Asians and, here at home, has been "a golden age for those who already own valuable assets. ... Everyone else has not fared nearly as well."

Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.

But are these solutions remotely adequate to the problem? Even its proponents seem not to think so.

"Let us be frank," Summers wrote in a Financial Times column. "What the anxious global middle is told often feels like pretty thin gruel. ... (More) education (can't) be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month."

When Rubin was pressed by the Nation magazine's William Greider in June as to whether he thought the project's proposals would arrest or offset the global convergence of wages, he said, "I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the answer to that question is no."

For the Democrats who now run Congress, not to mention those planning to run for president, the fact that the party's economic gurus have devised a policy that they themselves believe isn't up to the challenge at hand can't be greatly heartening. Happily, this is not the only project whose work the Democrats will be able to access. Last June, in response to the Hamilton Project's creation, a group of some 50 liberal economists loosely affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute began work of their own. Their project will be unveiled in January.

The fundamental difference between the two projects -- that is, between the two primary schools of Democratic economics -- is that Rubin's largely believes the rules of the market to be immutable and sound (though it's precisely the rules of the market that are depressing American incomes), while EPI's, in the words of economist Mark Levinson, "rejects the notion that what has happened to this economy is inevitable. Policy can turn this around." (Full disclosure: Levinson is an old friend.)

For starters, EPI's project will call for a pay-or-play health insurance system (employers can cover their own employees in private plans or pay taxes into an expanded version of Medicare that will cover everyone else) and for a retirement system in which employers can offer their employees pensions or, with their employees, pay into a system administered by Social Security. It will suggest a series of policies to decouple globalization from downward pressure on wages -- adding some enforceable labor standards, for instance, to the rules of the World Trade Organization.

Less cosmically, economist Jeff Faux pointedly asks, "Why should middle-class taxpayers fund Harvard to dream up new products that will be made overseas? We need to condition greater R&D funding to production here at home."

Over the next two years, both projects will barrage the Democrats with their ideas. At times their perspectives may converge. (Rubin seems to be edging closer to acknowledging a need to re-establish workers' rights to join unions.) But the creation of EPI's project balances the scales in the Democratic universe. The Hamilton Project is the policy voice of the party's largest business donors. In the project to be unveiled in January, the party's voters get a policy voice, too.

Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly. He wrote this article for The Washington Post.