There has been arguments put forth by some and many in fact generally believe that the center of the nation is just a wishy washy in-between that merely wishes to either compromise or jump from one side to another. I do not believe it is either of those assessments, and I think the general view of the center being as such is a loss to whichever party that takes this point of view. Unfortunately, today it seems as if the party that does not understand this is, in general, the republican party.
The center is generally where the nation is at, and many democratic party members as well as strategists understand this quite well considering it’s how they were able to build a party majority. I think a major conception in that the center is wishy washy is not due to the center’s fickle nature, but due to the inability for either party at times to be able to adhere to the interests of the middle of America. In the recent elections for New Jersey and Virginia republicans with a generally conservative background ran, yet they did not run as conservatives with social issues and an anti-government message. Instead they ran towards the center, far from the vitriol of the Teabaggers and the birchers and birthers. They ran from Limbaugh and Coulter, and towards the idea of actually being able to do what their democratic opponents were having trouble with-basic governance. The majority of Americans don’t care about ideology and which founding father best represents the way to run government. Their principle in a candidate is simple, find someone who can actually govern in a balanced way. Now it is true that some areas are naturally more conservative or liberal in their views of government and that many attempt to put themselves in a “liberal or conservative†label mindset, but the reality is obvious with the northeastern elections.
The people want a general governance ability with stable economic growth and a government that provides balance between having a market with enough freedom to continue to provide growth and innovation while ensuring basic regulations to ensure that the growth is sustainable and stable. These are not possible on the extremes of either side, and when the party in power begins to start move back towards these poles, the ideology of the few versus what most of the general populace wants starts to show in lack of competence. The republican campaign managers of both Cristie in New Jersey and McDonnell in Virginia understood this importance and ensured that their campaigns reflected this reality and downplayed their divisive ideology. The middle of America seems to be wishy washy, but in reality the actual fickle behavior comes from the parties themselves and the struggles between those who want ideology over practical governance. When the party decides to go far-right or far-left, the center has not shifted from it’s basic principle but instead seeks the candidate and/or party that is willing to put aside ideology and embrace basic common sense centrist governance.
The Conservative Party that is based in sheer right-wing ideology was a perfect example in NY23. The voters didn’t want someone who adheres to a conservative ideology that is anti-government and as a result anti-governance and it showed with the Teabaggers losing this center-right district that had been in Republican hands for a long time to the democrats. Thus the center stands firm but the parties, due to their support bases emanating from the extremes, do not. It is true that there once was a time when the center’s firm stand was found in both parties, but today’s world is one where the democratic party is the only one with enough thinkers to realize how necessary it is to head towards the center with the republican party filled with those who seek to turn the party into what it was not meant to be, an ideological conservative party. What we need are more of these kinds of people willing to put the ideologues in their place and let them realize that this is the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party.
The elections not too long ago showed the direction of where a Republican Renaissance could take life, and under what circumstances. It may take a few more elections with Teabaggers losing the elections and the few centrist republicans who can actually survive the primaries being the only ones to win major elections, if party leaders who realize that original and basic republican principles rather than some extreme conservative political ideology are needed to win back the nation’s trust. Once we return to our common sense past of fiscal discipline and government competence and not be ashamed of not being part of the anti-government crowd can we once again win the congress and presidency. Once we reject voodoo economics of over bloated government on the far-left but irresponsible and ineffective debt inducing tax cuts on the far-right; radical views that seek to bring imbalance to the delicate government/market fusion and realize that the people don’t want extremism in their choice, but will choose the one who best fits that sense of practical, pragmatic governing competence with steady and stable economic growth and fiscal discipline. Sounds like something we Republicans used to be good at before we became an ideologically right-wing party. It took the democrats a long time to realize that they will not win as an ideologically pure party, and it may take some time in the wilderness for the GOP to realize this as well.
Email this post
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Martin,
Let’s just take one issue: abortion.
Tell me why the Centrist position is better than the Conservative or Liberal position.
Last night the Vice President was on The Daily Show. He said that while the Democratic Party had moderates, the Republicans didn’t have any. Boy is he wrong. He apparently doesn’t know who Christie is.
Mike,
I think I have already stated before how the term centrism is used for economics/government, not social issues. Running basic governance, not opinions on abortion. After that great debate we had, I would think you already know this
But government IS involved in social issues. Abortion is a legal regime, not a philophical one. I don’t think you can say, “Our Centrism stops here and then ???” It also becomes a very big gray area trying to determine what is a social issue and what isn’t. Or what about foreign policy?
But let’s just go back and take economics. How about deficit reduction? What is a Centrist position on that? Why is it better than the conservative one?
In keeping with what I stated before, social issues should be relagated to the respective region’s belief. My focus is on the economics/government aspect.
But you place too big of an importance on social issues. The social wars did not flare up during the last round of elections. While they may make an occasional entry into races, the last races just go to show how economics/government and the ability to properly run it are more important to the masses than social issues. And it is my opinion that the social wars while not gone, are simmering down, and that social issues will definitely take a back seat to the primary economic and governmental concerns.
Well a centrist deficit reduction is better than the conservative one because it is rooted in reality in contrast to late 20th/early 21st century conservatism.
To reduce deficits, one must cut spending and if necessary bring back some taxes. H.W Bush did this and put us on the road to ending the deficit, something that Clinton ended up taking credit for as he continued some of the basic policies on debt reduction. Now this centrist position may lean left or right, maybe more spending cuts and a bit of tax increases, maybe some spending cuts and more tax increases. Either way, it’s an idea that emanates from the center out and in contrast to hardcore liberal or conservative ideas, has actually succeeded.
Why is this better than the conservative idea of today? Because conservatives today believe in massive tax cuts that put the budget in a tailspin towards greater deficits in the idea that they’ll make it up with consumer spending. W. Bush was conservative because he followed this ideology and this was the main reason our budget went into the red.
Logical theory, but put into practice whether it was Reagan or W.Bush and it is clear that this does not work. That is a hallmark of conservatism today;it along with the opposite ideology of liberalism has abandoned basic common sense.
See – there’s this notion that Centrism is always ‘grounded in reality’. I would also call it settling. Conservative belief in tax cuts is based mostly on a starve the beast approach. Liberals believe in giving the beast more than he can eat. You’re saying the pragmatic apparoach is to starve it a little and ask it to go on a diet. That does sound sensible but the reality is that the government always spends what we give it. So if we raise taxes at all, it will spend the oney, not reward us with an equivelant spending decrease. In that respect I think the conservative approach is the best one.
Look back through history and you will see that reality in fact proves that a balanced economic/governmental plan of tax increases and spending cuts actually got us a relatively balanced budget, the aforementioned H.W Bush and Clinton model serving as merely the most recent going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt’s fiscal balance leading to a balanced budget as well.
The conservative approach of starving the beast is exactly the problem because that method calls for an abandonment of fiscal responsibility by driving the budget into the red. It was a radical idea that overturned centrist based conservatism of old and embraced the same voodoo economics that is shared among the far-left. Again, these ideas have been put forth by presidents and we have the last 100 years to look back to see what has worked and what has not.
The conservative approach failed both in its separate and strangely contradictory ideas of “starve the beast” as well as “people will spend like crazy and we’ll make the money back” just as the classic liberal position of “just spend and deficits don’t matter” also failed in fiscal responsibility. It is an idea that has failed.
Mike:
The centrist approach to the deficit/budgets should be very simple: we need to have a metrics-based approach to government programs. When programs are created, we need to create them with measurable goals instead of political platitudes (for instance, feed x number of individuals/families, for x number of months/weeks/years, instead of “eliminate poverty!”). On a pre-determined basis Congress needs to perform a review to determine the return on the people’s investment. If there is no ROI, or if it performs below projections modify or eliminate the program accordingly.
The problem with government, as I see it, is that liberals and conservatives want to govern based on ideology. And that’s easy to do because you can slap “Low Taxes” or “Stop the War” on a bumper sticker and it makes people feel like they’re doing something. Managing a multi-trillion dollar operation like the US government take a lot more than just bumper sticker politics. It takes real innovative thinking to create a government which does the most good for the most people, while operating with the constraints of being (1) low-cost and (2) unobtrusive. You can’t package that kind of skill in a “conservative” or “liberal” package.
That’s why it’s so important for us, as a party, to have an ideology based SOLUTIONS not dogma.
I’d like tosee someone draft a mission statement for the Republican Party of the 21st Century.
While I agree with Mike that Conservatives believe in a “starve the beast” approach that leads to high deficits, I take issue with his claim about Liberals “giving the beast” more than it can eat. We want a government that helps make people’s lives better and pays it’s bills. No more.
And also, too many people are blinded by the single issue of abortion while ignoring the rest. The republican party has used abortion to keep it’s grip on the evangelicals. But even though Bush had a majority in Congress for six years, we still have abortion.
Travis,
I think YOU should draft that mission statement for the GOP.