Wanted: Theories on why centrists attack the left more than they do the right

[BurtWorm]

I know why the left attacks centrists as much as they attack the right. From where I sit on the spectrum, the center looks like the right. It often acts in concert with the right. Its constant attacks on the left are a perfect example of what I mean.

If the center quacks like a right-winged duck, is it not a right-winged duck?

Please no flames. Serious theorists only. ;)

[VLC]

1. I don't know if that's true

But I suspect some of the "attacks" that do occur are because those in the center seem like they "get it" enough that they should be farther left and it's a disappointment that they're not.

[JHB]

2. Because most self-proclaimed centrists aren't in the center

What passes for "the center" these days used to be conservative, with those farther right relegated to the ranks of radicals and ranting cranks. These days they'll call you "radical leftist" , "socialist" or "far, far left" just for wanting the kind of economy we had when Eisenhower was president.

[AllegroRondo]

4. thats it

how many self professed "centrists" are actually just righties? Especially in what passes for news media in this country.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. I Agree. That's The Answer

There not sympatico with fully liberal views. They are more conservative than liberal. They just haven't been radicalized like the nutjobs on the far right.
The Professor

[Dr Fate]

89. Yup. Supporting multi-billion$$$ wars based on lies is FAR RIGHT, not moderate. n/t

n/t

[Cleita]

3. A perfect example of that was heard from Oprah yesterday when

she had Micheal Moore on in a show about our health care crisis. She used the word controversial when she introduced him but qualified it by saying that on this topic, health care, he was right on in his latest movie "Sicko". Say what Oprah?

I have found Michael Moore to be a patriotic American in using his movies to bring information to the public that was buried by the MSM. To call him controversial is an attack from the center as far as I'm concerned. He hasn't done anything controversial except maybe to expose the truth. If his movies were sprinkled with gratuitous sex, racism and invented facts then he'd be controversial, and why aren't Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly being called controversial for those very things? I never heard Oprah calling them that.

I was glad that Oprah was shining her big light on the health care crisis. It will get a lot more attention now that Oprah has spoken, but was that necessary to paint him as controversial, like he's some fringe looney most of the time? Michael is actually old fashioned. He embodies the working class ethic and patriotism of the fifties and sixties.

[B Calm]

72. They do the same thing to truck drivers. The other day

a motorist on an nearby interstate crossed over the middle of the highway and hit two semi drivers. The motorist was killed in the accident, that he caused. On the TV local news that night the first words out of the news reporter mouth was, neither truck driver were ticketed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. It's like the time Gore Vidal and Pat Buchanan were both commentators for

ABC, I think it was. After a while, they let Vidal go, telling him that he was "too outrageous."

"They had me on with Pat Buchanan, and I'm too outrageous?" he fumed in an interview that I saw.

[Generator]

77. Telling the truth is controversial in the land of lies

The Right Wing has told so many lies, that the truth is now controversial. That sums it up. The Petraeus thing does too. Also Fox News and Limbaugh have the POWER, god forbid anybody call them what they are. Propagandists that deserve to be.....you can fill it in as your imagination allows.

[sandnsea]

92. She was advising people to overlook biases

and their preconceived ideas - because he is right on Sicko. It's a way to get people to listen, to not roll their eyes and flip the channel - acknowledge the 'controversy' that's out there, and then swat it down. She did outstanding yesterday, start to finish.

[Cleita]

96. She could have done outstanding without using that word.

It only reinforces the biases and lies spread about him as being factual.

[sandnsea]

98. No she couldn't have

Do you think she should have used the first 15 minutes telling everybody why they're wrong about everything they've been told for the last 5 years?

If Bush happened to be right about a climate change issue, miraculously, how would Al Gore deal with that. He'd ask you to dismiss whatever else you think because THIS instance is right and what needs focusing on.

That's what Oprah did. It's the only way to deal with it if you want to get to the issue at hand.

[Cleita]

101. Why didn't she just introduce him as "movie maker and academy

award winner, palm d' or winner and so many others I can't mention, Michael Moore, who is here to talk to us about his excellent new movie 'Sicko' in which he addresses our health care crisis." With Oprah's voice she could have dispelled all controversy right there.

[sandnsea]

103. Half her audience would have switched the channel

Just like if Al Gore stood up at Moveon and introduced the wonderful George Bush and his exciting climate change proposal.

[Cleita]

115. I doubt it.

Oprah's fans are like a cult and will follow her over a cliff if she asks them to. They don't think for themselves like MoveOn's do. Have you ever read her mag? It's a how to book on how to be just like Oprah. She could have done well by Michael, but I don't think she likes him that much. She might as well have said, "Michael Moore is usually a left wing looney, but I do agree with him on his movie 'Sicko'". Michael, to his credit, let it slide because he is a very smart guy and knows that he's reaching millions when he's on Oprah. Look, what she did for Arnold. Incidentally, I haven't forgiven her for that.

[sandnsea]

120. That's ridiculous

I've seen as much herd behavior here as anywhere else. Specifically today with the 'phony soldier' attack. It cracks me up that the moveon bunch don't realize that there would be no criticizing Rush if Dems hadn't critized Moveon. There is absolutely nothing to indicate moveon would treat Al Gore differently than Oprah's fans treat her. Either one would have to introduce a 'controversial' figure with a caveat.

And no, I've never read her magazine.

[Jade Fox]

130. Yes, the word "controversial" sucks......

It's used to call into question someones validity, and to imply they are not quite rational. And it's always used on those who are supporting some kind of change, not just playing to the familiar and lowest common denominator like O'Reilly etc. I hate it.

[robcon]

5. It's simple: the left thinks the centrists could be persuaded,

and think the rightists are beyond reasoning.

[FredStembottom]

6. Short answer: middle class stampede.

No one in D.C. wants to go back to the days when a large middle-class had reasonable work hours which left us free to demand things from government.

My God we were pesky!!!

Even "Democrats" want to amass ever-increasing personal millions of dollars year after year - and taxes, "like, totally suck" when it comes to fulfilling this desperate wish.

Under the neo-cons, each millionaire congress-person is paid so very handsomely each and every pay-day. Letting Bush do as he pleases = increasingly(!) less taxes paid by the already wealthy.

It's magical - and so very addicting.

[Bonobo]

7. Defensiveness. Pure defensiveness.

[blm]

31. Why did Hillary publicly attack Kerry more than she ever attacked Bush publicly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

I think the centrists see themselves as the ruling class along with the corporatist powers in the GOP and they reflect that mindset in the way they treat the left.

They will side with protecting the secrecy and privilege of the ruling elite in more significant ways than they will ever side with the left and its issues.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[EFerrari]

8. Because the right tars them with our views?

In other words, if I wear a tiara to a hearing, the right can tar Nancy with belonging to the looney left.

[BurtWorm]

13. Why do they feel so *tarred* with the left's views?

If they despise the left so much, why don't they just go all the way to the right? Who needs 'em if they're going to be that way. I mean if decorum means more to them than ending this pointless war, then fuck 'em.

[EFerrari]

15. It's the subversion that must grate more than anything?

A political party has a structure and a pecking order. Tiaras and hot pink wigs sort of mess that up. :)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Jed Dilligan]

34. Shhh

You know we don't say those words around these parts.

[bryant69]

37. I'm not superstitious. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

39. I thought it was a rule. nt

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

90. self delete

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Why Do Those On The Left Attack Those Slightly To The Right Of Them Rather Than Those Much Further

To The Right Of Them?

[porphyrian]

That doesn't answer the initial question, but I'll answer yours.

Those much further to the right aren't in our party attacking us.

[BurtWorm]

14. Amen.

:toast:

You spoke for me.

[porphyrian]

17. I'm glad I got it right, then.

;)

[stimbox]

28. Bingo!

:bounce:

[porphyrian]

35. I don't understand how people still don't understand this.

They have to be doing it either intentionally as part of their strategy or as a knee-jerk reaction encouraged by those who are. And the tactic of attacking us then condemning our reaction to it reeks of the other party.

[stimbox]

45. sure does

considering that the dlc is like the other party, it shouldn't be that big of a suprise.
i've notice a trend around here lately for the dlcers to attack the left and then blame the repukes for causing the division in the party.
it's like bizarro democratic party.

[Individualist]

47. It's intentional

DLC tries to hide behind the label of centrist when, in fact, they support the neocon agenda.

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

[TahitiNut]

165. In one ear, out the other.

No matter how often this is pointed out, it's ignored. (Hell ... I'm an independent and I see it!)

[porphyrian]

169. That's why I believe it must be intentional.

And if it's intentional, it's an attempt to drive enough non-conservative members from the Democratic party that the conservatives can regain control of it, and I'm not going to accept that. I'm not leaving, either, but I refuse to mindlessly support people simply because they've registered as Democrat and I'm not going to quietly accept being marginalized and attacked.

[reggie the dog]

70. I attack the right

I attack the right wing. I also attack the center, but when I attack the centrist part of the Democratic party I try to do it in a way that keeps the party together. I prefer leftists like Kucinich but I have more respect for a centrist like Clinton who has changed her opinion on the Iraq war than I do for someone like W. or Gulliani who still support the war. On this site it may seem like I am attacking the center more because I can come into contact with the center here. The right is not here. The posts on Youtube are better in the sense that the left, center, and right all crash into each other in the comments section. When I am there I tend to pass right over the centrists and I attack the right wing. An example, I think 911 was an inside job. At utbe I argue with folks that deny that Bush used 911 to change the USA with the Patriot Act and deny that used it to justify a war. I do not argue with the centrists that think it was not an inside job, believe the official story, but acknowledge that W. and the Republicans used it to their advantage.

Here at DU I will take the time to try to point out my logic about why I think 911 was an inside job to folks who believe the official story even if they acknowledge that W. used it for his own gains because everyone here acknowledges that W. used it to his advantage.

[Dr Fate]

91. We do. And actually, we try to get the "centrists" to help us impeach Bush all the time.

Your post is flat out false.

The left wants to attack the far right all the time- but the "centrists" always end up siding with the far right and stopping us.

See Impeachment, Alito Filibuster, opposing the war in the 1st damn place, stolen elections, etc,etc,etc.

Every time the left want to take a tough fight to Bush, the "tough guy" centrists get tough on us instead.

[stranger81]

142. Of course they do. Because when it gets down to it,

the centrists don't want to stick their necks out, don't vigorously disagree with Alito, agree with the war on Iraq and don't believe any elections were ever stolen.

[Breeze54]

117. They go after all the warmongers.

If you're a warmonger rep, then expect to be protested.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. If you think that the center looks like the right it is easy to understand how you would be confused

into thinking that the center attacks the left more than it attacks the right.

[Dr Fate]

99. I'll bite. lets compare DLC calls for impeachment vs. DLC attacks on the left.

Lets compare examples of DLCers calling Bush a "liar" vs. examples of DLCers calling us "nut roots" and "far left wackos"

And then tell me that the center attacks the right more than it does the left.

You are wrong- and I've been BEGGING the "centrist" to stop keeping their powder dry for years...

[Demit]

12. I just read the NYT Mag article on Justice Stevens, who was put on the SC as a moderate Republican.

He says he has not changed his philosophy, and he is GREATLY bemused that he is now characterized as a liberal. He says that's how much things have shifted.

I think centrism is a made-up philosophy, basically meaningless. It's more concerned with an appearance of reasonableness than it is with the logic of whatever any particular issue is—as if there's always some Goldilocks perfect middle solution to every question. What logic could there be a in a centrist position on torture, for example? Centrists are front-of-the-house conservatives. Their function is to draw people in by putting a 'reasonable' face on what would otherwise be identified as radical conservativism.

[FredStembottom]

18. Excellent, DemItAll!

Your "appearance of reasonableness" is a very good distinction. Centrism = tri-angulation to far too many Dems.

And they are taking that type of "centrism" to extremes (>>>What logic could there be a in a centrist position on torture, for example?<<<)!:thumbsup:

[Richard Steele]

58. Yup, I think you've got it. nm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

124. The concept of the center is conservative. A "centrist" favors no change

[stranger81]

144. American centrism = capitalist pragmatism

and otherwise virtually value-free.

[Marr]

16. Have you ever thought to yourself, "I wish we could just ignore the gay issues this cycle and talk

about the economy", or something along those lines?

I think that's what it's like for "moderates", only they wish we could ignore most of the things more liberal people consider important.

I always get the feeling from people who call themselves moderate that they're really only liberal on social issues. They aren't all that concerned with labor or foreign policy, and feel that those fights are keeping them from achieving their goals. So they argue with people on the left, trying to convince them to just shut-up, that everything will be better if they don't push their own issues.

So I think that's why there's something a divide in the way the two groups attack one another. People who are farther to the left are saying, "let's do all of this", while people more to the right are saying, "let's just do these few things". One group feels betrayed, the other feels that they're being sabotaged by idealists.

[Annces]

20. Right

Democrats are not all on the same page.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Thank God

I'll find my own truth...

[slackmaster]

19. As a centrist, I think your perception is biased

People on the right tend to say the converse, i.e. they wonder why the center attacks them more than it does the left.

Left and right don't mean much to me. I attack authoritarian views of all stripes.

[Marr]

33. Some of this country's biggest authoritarians are sitting squarely in the middle of the spectrum.

People who backed the Patriot Act or don't seem to have a problem with the "Unitary Executive" are about as authoritarian as you get in this country today, and, in the Democratic Party, those people are considered "moderate".

[Jed Dilligan]

36. Don't forget their ongoing support for the War on Drugs.

A very moderate little path to fascism.

Fascism IS radical centrism. Conformity politicized.

[slackmaster]

56. Authoritarian is authoritarian

Left, right, or center; they all seem equally despicable to me.

[Demit]

46. You could maybe help me then! What's the centrist position on torture?

[slackmaster]

55. That's really cute

Why don't you look it up on the Centrist Central Committee Web site?

[Demit]

59. Ah, another centrist who can't really explain what a centrist is, what a centrist believes.

Instead of deflecting the question by being trés cute yourself, try to answer it. Does a centrist have a position on anything that isn't described with "It's not too this" and "It's not too that"?

[slackmaster]

64. This may seem completely alien to you, but I will try

I don't buy into package deals. I don't let anyone else do my thinking for me. I form my opinions on every political question through a process of independent thought.

My beliefs are not driven by any pre-packaged philosophy. I have no loyalty whatsoever to any party, pressure group, or organization.

Does a centrist have a position on anything that isn't described with "It's not too this" and "It's not too that"?

The phrasing of your question suggests that you think centrism is a belief system of some kind. I don't believe it is. I cannot speak for all centrists or centrists in general, only for myself.

To me, centrism is exercise of free thought as opposed to a dogmatic attachment to any particular ideology. That does not exclude the possibility of coming to the same conclusion as someone else on one particular issue or another. Some good ideas come from the left. Some come from the right. If an idea makes sense to me, I don't care about the credentials of the person who thought it up. One from Column A, two from Column B, with five or more you get free egg roll.

I agree with MOST of the Democratic party's platform on most subjects. Most of the candidates I vote for happen to be Democrats. But that's not in any way because they are Democrats, it's because I think they are right.

Your question about a centrist's position on torture struck me as absurd. Ask me for MY position on torture (or anything else) and I'll probably give you a thoughtful answer.

Why not ask what the left wing position on torture is? Or the right wing position? You won't get a consistent answer because both the far left and far right have both used it and rejected its use as it suited them.

[reggie the dog]

74. personally I exercise free thought

and I want national health insurance, free universities, and a social welfare state that taxes the rich to help the poor. (you know the basic reason why Robin Hood was a good guy). I am a far left leftist in France and in the USA I am off the scale. Tomorrow morning I am going to a protest with games etc. used to highlight the fact that if you cut taxes you will in turn have to cut social services or go further into debt. The fact that I do not adhere to the ideology of the Socialist or Communist parties of France (Socialist is the main party of the left here) does not make me a centrist. It may for you, but for me it does not.

Left wing position on torture (depends on who you ask, ask Mao, Stalin etc. well you can guess the finish, ask Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi well....

Right wing position on torture ask W or Rumsfeld or Cheeny well, ask Ron Paul, or Eisenhower and well

[Demit]

86. You are the one who has identified yourself as a centrist.

On the one hand, you go to some trouble to describe yourself as what I believe a lot of people would just say is an independent, and be done with it. So you don't want to identify as a Republican or a Democrat; you don't want to admit a kinship with any political philosophy at all—that's an Independent.

'Isms' are systems of beliefs, with coherent doctrines and theories, whether you like it or not. This thread is about centrism, and your first post declared that you were a centrist. Centrists are followers of/believers in centrism, or else they wouldn't identify that way! I am simply asking you to explain to me what centrism is, if it is not at heart merely a way to be critical of ideas without offering any of its own.

By the way, extreme conservatives (and a lot of regular conservatives, apparently) believe torture is a dandy way to get information out of people they want to get information out of. At the moment they are calling them 'terrorists'. Liberals believe that torture is wrong regardless of the justification, because liberals believe that human beings have certain unalienable rights, and that fact doesn't change because of circumstance. I don't know what far-left liberals believe because I don't know what far-left liberalism is. Do you?

[slackmaster]

104. Torture is a tool of authoritarians, NOT conservatives

I think you and I are on different wavelengths regarding word definitions.

I'm willing to concede that I am an independent and not a centrist per your definitions.

I don't know what far-left liberals believe because I don't know what far-left liberalism is. Do you?

I think that's like using a color adjective to describe a number.

A far-left AUTHORITARIAN would gladly use torture.

[Demit]

118. Are you just being argumentative for its own sake?

There are plenty of American conservatives ON RECORD as supporting the concept of torture, in the here and now, as pertains to the War on Terror, and they identify as conservatives. Their conservatism has a decidedly authoritarian bent, but this doesn't suddenly negate their being conservatives.

If you feel there are far-left authoritarians in the U.S., you're going to have to name them for me, because I don't know who you're talking about. We don't have any Stalins here, nor anybody remotely close. I am sincere in saying I do not understand what is meant by far-left liberalism. If it exists in this country I don't know where. I am also sincere when I say I don't understand what your 'color adjective' simile means. I suspect it is your habit to convey that your comment has great meaning (if only one has the intelligence to deconstruct it) without actually saying anything meaningful at all. You are trying to be sly without the cleverness.

[ShortnFiery]

132. Yes, To Torture or Not To Torture?!? Enlighten me, what's a centrist's *thoughtful* answer?

After all, Anti- or Pro- Torture such an *ify* kind of subject. :crazy:

Moral bankruptcy anyone? :thumbsdown:

[Jade Fox]

133. You've just described most people on DU....

Do you think the rest of us don't do our own thinking and have purchased some sort of political "package deal"?

I don't want to get ugly here, but I find this post smug as hell. And you're lack of "loyalty to any party, pressure group, or organization" sounds mostly like isolation.

[slackmaster]

161. I deserve to be smug, because I'm a lot smarter than most people on DU

And you're lack of "loyalty to any party, pressure group, or organization" sounds mostly like isolation.

Try being born a confirmed brainiac like me, get an excellent education, then try interacting with regular people. Am I isolated? Hell yes.

:hi:

[RandomKoolzip]

167. "I'm a lot smarter....confirmed brainiac..."

:puke:

Good luck with this whole "elitism" thing - it's working great so far.

[reggie the dog]

71. I think

that that is it in a nutshell. Centrists (center left folks want a social system, center right folks do not and hate taxes) what makes them centrists is that they do not want radical change, they do not want to rock the boat. They have an ideology but have a softly softly approach to change.

[Dr Fate]

100. You oppose authoritarians? Then you support impeachment, right? n/t

n/t

[slackmaster]

106. As I said, I do not buy into package deals

My position on the Bush administration is that they are going to be gone soon enough that an impeachment is not worth the pain it would inflict on the country.

[Dr Fate]

109. As if I had to ask LOL! Never ask a centrist to take a tough fight to authoritarians.

They might get their fingernails dirty or their hair mussed- better just to "run out the clock"...

Sorry, but "running out the clock" isnt exactly oppositon to authoritarians.

[slackmaster]

112. The Republicans had egg on their faces when they impeached Clinton and lost

I'm not willing to take that chance. Running the clock out is a sure bet.

[Dr Fate]

114. Centrists love fake excuses. Fact check: Clinton was POPULAR.

Bush is the most UNPOPULAR president in modern history, and he presides over one of the most unpopular wars in history- a war that almost everyone knows was faked.

Comparing this to the Clinton sex-scandal is apples & oranges and you know it.

As I said, you dont really want to fight authoritarians-you just want to stall & hope for the best- and I have news for you, running out the clock is NOT a sure bet if we lose in '08.

[slackmaster]

153. Dr Fate is indulging in a typical DU behavior

Rather than considering that my position might be the outcome of a careful deliberative thought process in which I weighed the pros and cons of impeachment and came to my own rational conclusion, he chooses to write me off as passive.

I know how to pick my fights, Dr Fate. Impeachment at this point would do more harm than good. If it was to have been done, it should have been no later than the fall of 2005.

As I said, you dont really want to fight authoritarians-you just want to stall & hope for the best- and I have news for you, running out the clock is NOT a sure bet if we lose in '08.

No, Dr Fate. Now we should be focusing on winning on '08. We can do that only by building consensus. Pushing for impeachment at this point would accomplish the opposite.

[TahitiNut]

166. The GOP 'centrists' almost NEVER attack their right wing!!

Sheesh!! When was the last time you heard Snowe, Collins, or even Specter give the GOP fascists any grief?

Cripes! Lincoln Chaffee was so marginalized in his own party, a guy who RARELY attacked the right-wing, he finally disaffiliated with the GOP and became an independent.

[B Calm]

168. The only thing in the center of the road is yellow stripes and

dead armadillos.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. Picture a stretch of road, two miles long.

You see way off in the distance, a man. You see, past him, another man. Both those men appear similarly far away, even though (despite the fact that you can't tell) the center one is as close to you as to the far one.

You have an extremely powerful gun, and intend to shoot anyone on the other side of the highway. The guy in the center's easier to hit.

[kenny blankenship]

22. See corporations? You can give us money - we'll attack poor people for you!

and environmentalists and peaceniks and their fellow travelers in all the various "rights" movements.

We're solid reliable fellows just like Republicans, and it will be money well spent! America keeps the illusion of being a democracy and you corporations keep control over the direction of society.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Don't Know

I do know that Rush and wingnuts hate centrists almsost as much as they do liberals...Just read what they think of RINOS...

But the only thing I like labels on are food and medicine...

[kenny blankenship]

25. self-delete

[Tesha]

26. In the past, we on the left have rolled-over more easily. (NT)

[OnionPatch]

29. I think it's because

while deep down they may be on board with a lot of our beliefs, the "mainstream" media has so much power that they use it to amplify the screaming from the right. They amplify the screaming from the right and portray it as the "mainstream", while the screams from the left are hidden in remote blogs in the internet. The centrists hate being out of the mainstream and and to prove they are the centrists they claim to be, they must, of course, jump on the big-media bandwagon.

[cgrindley]

30. Can you prove that this is in fact true? (nt)

[snooper2]

32. Because people think they are easier to convert to their ideals

Than some nut who thinks the Earth is 6500 years old....

[Jed Dilligan]

38. Radical centrism = fascism

Think about it. "We're so damned reasonable, anyone who disagrees with us is marginal and outside the social contract," is the consistent message of "moderates."

[aikoaiko]

41. As a left leaning centrist, I'll tell you why I do.

Its because the far theocratic right wing is repulsive and I want fellow centrists to be more attracted to left of center policies. But when lefties go to far (imho), then I argue with them (sometimes here) because its those policies that push people to the right.

A good example is my US Rep, John Barrow. Many call him a Blue Dog Democrat, some call him a DINO, etc. He won by 846 votes. 846 measly votes. But because of his centrist positions (some I'm not happy with) he helped get a majority for Democrats and put the people we wanted in charge of committees.

[Demit]

49. But that's it! Centrists aren't warning that when righties go too far they push people to the left.

It's as if the only thing the country has to be worried about is being on the left. I don't read about centrists protecting their centrist position by warning about going too far right. The hectoring all goes in one direction only.

[aikoaiko]

53. There are just right of center folks who bemoan the right extremists and the religious right

but its not in my interest to help the right correct themselves. But people like me who engage people in discussion at Democratic Underground work to keep the party from (imho) shooting itself in the foot.

And I don't see what I do as hectoring, but perhaps you've experienced it from others.

hec·tor (hěk'tər)
n. A bully.
v. hec·tored, hec·tor·ing, hec·tors
v. to intimidate or dominate in a blustering way.
v. To behave like a bully; swagger

[slackmaster]

65. Being pushed too far to the right is no different than being pushed too far to the left

Go far enough either direction, you end up at a place that looks kind of like Myanmar only without the jungle.

As a Chinese former coworker once told me, a left jack boot up your ass feels no different than a right jack boot up your ass.

[Demit]

67. I think you let your desire for a pithy metaphor get the best of your logic.

What, in the U.S., would the "left jackboot up your ass" be, exactly? What is the threat are you referring to?

[reggie the dog]

80. mao, stalin

just sayin'

[Demit]

87. Reggie, who would the Mao and Stalin be, in the U.S. today?

There is no one remotely approaching the position of a communist or socialist dictator. And there isn't one on the remotest horizon. There is indeed a threat of authoritarianism—there is indeed a man who is trying to give himself the powers of a king—but this threat is not coming from the left.

[slackmaster]

108. We don't have one, but we have a few apologists for left-wing dictators

Includinge ones who have tortured and murdered political opponents.

But let's not drag them into this discussion.

[stranger81]

145. stop drinking the kool-aid!! [n/t]

[slackmaster]

105. There is no such thing in the US, but far-left authoritarianism has happened many times

e.g. certain periods of the history of the Soviet Union, China, etc.

[reggie the dog]

78. exactly

why I accept centrists as part of the coalition which is the Democratic party. It is also a great example of the 50 state strategy. I am just sick of the media portraying the centrist wing of the Democratic party as the "default" wing, or the "only tolerabe part" of the Democratic party. No, the center and left are Democrat because they are not religious fundementalists. The center and left form 2 important parts of a coalition party that is here to combat neoconservativism. I say let the centrists run in areas where leftists stand no chance in hell, push a leftist ideology in congress and let the back bench folks vote how they wish trying to have a large enough majority that means only having to convince a certain ammount of centrists to vote with the bloc on any vote to get the vote through. The centrists could also push ideas they wanted, and could get them through if they convinced enough of the leftists. I am sick of the Democratic party being basically a centrist party. Damn it, it's a left/center party. If not then there is no left party in the USA (perhaps this explains why so many poor folks do not vote or vote republican).

[BlooInBloo]

42. Because they aren't centrists. Duh.

[baldguy]

43. Because the political spectrum presented by the corporate media is heavily skewed to the right.

Thus true conservatives are shown as being in the "center", true fascists are shown as being "conservative", and the true center and left-of-center is shown as "radical liberal lunatics".

It's a political red shift.

[ThomWV]

44. What a simple question, and the answer should be obvious to you

The answer is straight forward; by definition a Conservative resists change and a liberal invites it. If you are a centrist the liberal side poses a threat to your beloved status quo whereas the conservative side will simply let things stay as they are, which poses no threat.

Its a pretty constant fear throughout society and its fueled by insecurity. One only feels threatened by change if they perceive that what they have will be taken from them. A progressive, by contrast, generally feels that change will bring a better good and so welcomes it with open arms.

[Mountainman]

48. First of all a centrist is not a conservative or a liberal 100% of the time.

I think of a centrist as someone who doesn't follow an ideology but is more of an existentialist.

So many here at DU are just like the freepers only 180% out of phase. If you aren't what they consider liberally pure you are a conservative.

I respect people who think for themselves rather than let Rush, Hanity or Air America tell them what to think.

[Demit]

51. OK, maybe YOU can set out what a centrist position would be on torture.

You are really only describing human nature, that propensity people have to depart from their avowed philosophy on occasion, to have contradictory feelings, to be inconsistent. But, sometimes, it's because a situation involves competing rights, and our personal instinct is to identify one more clearly than the other. Do you really care when people here attack you for not being ideologically pure? I don't. I might have a conservative feeling here or there. I'm a human being, and human beings are inconsistent. But I know what POLITICAL philosophy I identify with, because I have taken the time to think about what the two main political philosophies stand for, and I know which one I want to stand with. I know what kind of person I am, and the kind of world I want to live in. I think of Centrism as sitting on the fence, not wanting to commit, hemming and hawing and not having the strength of any conviction. Being kind of slippery, actually.

I've tried to identify what Centrism IS, and I haven't been able to. Maybe you can help me out. How does a Centrist go about resolving in his own mind an issue of torture? (Existentially or otherwise.) Serious question.

[Mountainman]

52. The way you say that, centrist position on torture is a red herring.

There is the human position that torture is wrong. It isn't a political position.

[Demit]

54. That's an answer? Seriously? Then I'm right about Centrism.

Won't commit. Won't address the substance of a question, sidesteps it with criticism of a side element, such as how it was said. Keeping its views (whatever they are) always and eternally correct. It seems that Centrists can only describe themselves by describing what they are not. There is no there there.

[Mountainman]

57. Sure I represent all centrists! You haven't said shit yet!

To me, centrist is a name you give some people. It is really mostly meaningless. It only has meaning in relationship to the right or left. It isn't a political position.


There is no centrist position on things as there is an identifiable right or left position as I see it. There is no centrist position on torture as there is no centrist position on the size of government.

[Demit]

60. Exactly. It is meaningless. It only exists to criticize. And the criticism is directed to the left

—in editorial positions of newspapers, in various pundits' newspaper columns, and now in this thread here. I would amend your statement: centrism only has meaning in relationship to the left.

[Mountainman]

61. I don't understand. "centrism only has meaning in relationship to the left"

[slackmaster]

66. I don't think there is anything to understand, Mountainman

It sounds like nonsense to me.

[Demit]

76. You said that centrism "only has meaning in relationship to the right or left."

I responded that I would say, instead, that it only has meaning in relationship to the left—because centrism only ever criticizes the left. It doesn't criticize the right. Additionally, it never bothers to make a distinction between 'left' and 'far-left'—if ever there is a pro forma attempt at appearing balanced, in a critique of ANY liberal position, it is with boilerplate criticism of some wacky far-right group or another.

In the public conversation, there is a distinction made between far-right conservatism and conservatism, but never a distinction made between far-left liberalism and liberalism. All liberalism is 'the left'. So there's your three groups, as they exist in the public mind today—or at least in the mind of the beltway pundits and think tankers and media groups determined to persuade the public mind: far-right conservatives, regular conservatives, and liberals.

When centrists don't fight this false choice—when they don't fight back against the right; when they don't proclaim that there is a liberal narrative distinct from a far-left narrative—they end up buying into the false choice. In a desire to inhabit a reasonable middle, they end up abandoning liberalism altogether and they become de facto conservatives. And thus the center shifts.

[reggie the dog]

83. right

here in France we have the center right party called the UDF, the centrist party (which is more alligned with the left) called the Mouvement Démocrat, as well as the right wing UMP party, the left wing Socialist party, the extreme right and left exist as well. The center is USUALLY alligned with the party in power here in Europe. The center often forms a coalition government with a party that controls say 40 % of the legislature, add in the centers 12% AND BINGO 52% MAJORITY without alienating voters by forming a government with the extreme parties.

[reggie the dog]

82. no position?

I thought the Republicans were the party of a big, all intrusive government (except in respect to taxes) and that the Democrats were for a slightly smaller, slightly less intrusive government while still not liking taxes;

may sound odd to you folks older than me, but I was born in 1979 and am just going with what I have seen in my lifetime.

[Snarkturian Clone]

68. Stop reading my mind.

Those were my thoughts exactly! :P

[reggie the dog]

81. I am all with you

and, independent of political parties, thinking for myself leads me to demand wage redistribution. It leads me to question why, in the richest country in the world, not everyone has health insurance. It has never led me to wonder what I could do to help the wealthy accumulate more wealth.

[Dr Fate]

94. In other words, "centrists" have "spine" against the Left, but not against Bush.

They are free thinkers when it comes to constantly disagreeing with the left & anti-war moderates, but they are also free thinkers when it comes to their multiple agreements with Bush.

And this helps us how?

[MadHound]

50. Because it irritates them to have their conscience(the left) bothering them all the time n/t

[hunter]

62. On the line between good and evil, the center is still evil.

Or a half truth is still a lie.

etc.

The centrists are on the road to hell. A few of them are escaping, but most of them still think authoritarianism is an acceptable form of government just so long as you find the right authority figures. They tend to get really cranky with those who disagree.

[reggie the dog]

85. depends on the country

Sarkozy is as much a neocon as Kerry or Hillary are, but he represents the right wing of his right party the UMP. Chirac, more like Eisenhower, was the left wing of his right party (same UMP) The centrist François Bayrou is about as far left as the Socialist candidate (Royal, who is on the righ wing of her left party, the Socialists)and both are about as left as Dennis Kucinich. (Royal is slightly further left on social issues such as legalizing cannabis (Bayrou just wanted depenalization)but they are simillar on economics). The rest of the Socialist party (Fabius, DSK, etc. are a bit further to the left than Kucinich (they push for a more left wing EU constitution and Fabius especially wants to start renationalizing things here in France.) The center is not a road to hell. I have much respect for the centrist Bayrou, the center leftist Royal, and the center rightist Chirac. They are all not neocons whereas Sarkozy is. If in the next election we find the Socialists in control of 45% of the legislature and the 10% centrist block wants to form a government with us I say great. If the Greens and Communists make up 6% I say great lets have a 61% coalition.

[Evoman]

63. nm

:shrug:

[jgraz]

69. Because it's never been about left/right. It's always been about top/bottom

And centrists like their position on top and feel threatened by the left. They know that all they have to do is cooperate with the right and they'll be allowed to hold on to their positions of power.

[PDenton]

75. centrist dominant political philosophies

The dominant political philosophies of centrist are usually pragmatism and empiricism. Ideology is usually the function of the right or the left. Centrist are less dreamers or puritans, and look for practical solutions that can be implemented quickly. Very few people are genuine centrists, because a real centrist would have no genuine aspirations or visions for society or government.

[mmonk]

79. Because they are conservatives.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

[earth mom]

172. Bingo-conservatives quacking loud and clear. nt

[nealmhughes]

84. Actually, it is about framing the issues, which in plain speak is done by the Right, reduction to

the LCD and an emotional appeal to tradition, authority and custom.

In other words, the arguments that get heard by the great unwashed are those which are propogated by the Right through the public airwaves and in print. One actually has to work to find out the news from France or the UK or even Canada in the US. Working is too tiring to get by with no wage increase for five years and sykrocketing food prices as is than to have to ingest "foreign thought."

All one has to do is reread Kant's "What is enlightenment" again and figure out why the Right frames and the majority go along with it. It is intellectual laziness according to Kant.

But to take the onus completely off of the people, one must just as well consider the majority of the sources; i.e., the MSM has a loud megaphone and the left is a lone guy at a keyboard.

One final thought, the center and right pay a lot better than does the Left as a rule.

[Dr Fate]

88. I'd love to see some of our "centrists" pull their tough guy, John Wayne act on BUSH for a change...

...as it is, it seems reserved for "the nut-roots" (AKA, the people who were 100% correct on Iraq)

They act like big bad dudes when they are strutting around DU calling people names and lecturing everyone on how to be Loyal DEMS (Yet they supported Lieberamn (I-3rd party)

Where is the "centrist" tough guy, fighting spirit when it comes to taking on Bush or Joe Lieberman? Nowhere to be found.

They are too pissy-pants and frigtened of Bush/media to even mention impeachment- but BOY will that attack those "crazy" anti-war, anti-Bush DEMS.

I love your OP!!!

[IsItJustMe]

93. They are scared. It's that damn simple. Those righties are nuts. Jesus talks to them and tells

them to go and start wars. If that isn't scary, I don't know what is.

[Dr Fate]

95. I cant decide if they are frightend of Bush, or if they just pretend to be.

Maybe they really do actually AGREE with him.

Frightened, fooled, or in on it. Those are 3 choices.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. In Political Science They Taught Us To Operationalize Our Terms

Here's some terms...Maybe the O P can operationalize them:

Communist

Socialist

Fascist

Liberal

Progressive

Conservative

Centrist

Liberterian

Anarchist

If we're going to call each other names and separate ourselves into factions we might as well know what they mean...

[Dr Fate]

102. Actually- the "centrists" named themselves that, not anti-war DEMS or the OP...

Before that, they tried to say that supporting wars based on lies was somehow "moderate".

At one point, they called themselves "New Democrats" or DLCers.

Your post has a point, but to be fair, It is they-the "centrists" themselves who saw fit to separate themselves from the pack with a new label, not the OP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. I Don't Like Labels

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Maybe Centrism Is Like Promiscuity

A promiscuous person is someone who has one more partner than you and a centrist is a person that is to the right of you on your pet issue.

[Dr Fate]

116. Multi-billion $$$ , endless wars based on lies is hardly a "pet issue"

It's the defining issue of our lifetime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. George Will, William Buckley, David Duke, And Pat Buchanan Oppose This War

What are they?

If that doesn't demonstate how absurd these little labels are nothing will...

And nowhere did I say what is and isn't a pet issue...

[jpgray]

107. Because the right has more power and influence in the system

When media corporations go after the dollar (as did Redstone in the Rather case), and one party/ideology is in a position to return on that dollar, guess who they will be biased in favor of? The answer is to bury the GOP completely. Remove any chance for the media to gain (and oh boy have they gained) from support of right-wingers by giving the GOP an unworkable minority, and hand that ideology an incontrovertible victory in 2008. It's just a first step, but it is an important one. With a major political party in effective minority position which is very pro-corporate, the media and the economic power bases in this country will swing to that group as often as they can. Answer? Eliminate that party, then focus the pressure on the remaining centrists to move left. With that big right-wing jackpot waiting in the wings, this very corporate country will never willingly allow the creation of a serious progressive majority.

[Prophet 451]

110. Movement politics

I suspect it's because the influence of Reagan/Bush in your country and Thatcher in mine, has redefined the centre so alarmingly far right.

What would once have been considered far-right ideas (i.e. that welfare causes poverty) are now mainstream so the image you or I have of centreist politics, while accurate thirty years ago, is now quite far left. In other words, today's centreists tend to be centreists only by the modern definition of the term, not by it's traditonal definition.

[ozone_man]

119. The center is relative of course.

But given a reference point, the right represents that part of the spectrum which is more greed based and the left that portion that is less greedy, more humanist. I suspect that the phenomenon is mainly a defensive mechanism that kicks in to justify their moderate greediness, their moderate corporate economics, their moderate wars, their moderate environment, moderate global climate change of a few less degrees warmth. The right doesn't threaten that life view, while the left does.

So, it is an indefensible position, when we talk about moderating things like wars or the environment. At that point, it becomes necessary to attack those who criticize those positions. How irresponsible it is to demand a single payer health care system! And so the moderate Democratic candidates have a lite version of it that is sure not to offend the Republican base, yet won't deliver the health care system that is needed, that all other developed countries have.

Or how silly it is to suggest that we pull all of our troops back from Iraq. Let's plan to withdraw in five years, or maybe 10. Part of the incentive in staying longer in Iraq is to secure the oil for U.S. multinationals. Even Alan Greenspan divulged that tidbit in his memoirs. So, it starts to become more clear that the line between Republicans and Democrats blurs, that they merge into one corporate party, making moderates closer to Republicans in many ways than to the left. Go by what they do, not by what they promise.

I guess we can also use cases to bolster the argument. But, I'll leave that as an exercise. ;)

[scarletwoman]

121. Because the left is the only real threat to maintaining the status quo. I thought everyone knew that

"Centrists", by their very nature, are most intent upon NOT rocking the boat, NOT going against the prevailing current.

True leftists, on the other hand, understand that the current is flowing in a very bad direction and want to block and redirect it.

sw

[JVS]

123. Because a lot of people on the left pledge their loyalty no matter what

The might as well put signs on their backs saying kick me

[jpgray]

127. A lot of leftists refuse to participate in a flawed system, and therefore have zero influence

To use old-timey terms, in my mind if you're not committed to defeating fascists in every way possible, you aren't a leftist at all. Once that's done, time to take on the social-fascists.

[JVS]

152. Refusing to vote for bad candidates within the party is not refusal to participate.

In fact it is participation and it is necessary to get the "Social-fascists" out of the party. BTW, the KPD, which had become the SED by then had control of a state on German soil in 1949, the SPD never gained the chancellorship in the West until 1969, so I don't know why you keep hearkening back to that era to make your point, unless you're simply trying to take yourself to a place a centimeter before Godwin's law's borders. The KPD/SED was better able to enact their policies than the SPD. Because they were smarter :P

[jpgray]

154. I'm sure that was great comfort for the few party leaders who survived

:P

I mean, Noske was awful, but taking the cue from Comintern in those days was bad news for both German and Japanese socialists/communists, because (surprise!) the fascists turned out to be a lot worse than the collaborating SPD coalition. Not that their choice wasn't morally justifiable, but practically it was pretty dangerous to allow the Nazis a run at the government in hopes everyone would find them ridiculous after seeing them in action.

[JVS]

156. SPD party leaders didn't survive either. And if so, got to watch the "former" right wingers..

run their country for 25 (and most of the time since then too. SPD is the historically weaker than CDU/CSU) years. And actually, I believe that KPD leaders were willing to die in order to create a socialist state, so they probably wouldn't have been so upset. BTW, you have now tripped off Godwin's law. Besides, if you want to fault the KPD, look at the SPD's discraceful and violent collaboration with the right wing in 1918 to explain why the KPD didn't much trust them to lead effective opposition. They were Social-fascists.

[jpgray]

157. But even in this extreme example, holding off fascist rule with an ugly coalition has value

The SPD as you say was extremely reactionary, but the ultimate in reactionary policies will always be the specialty of true fascists. The Democrats aren't as bad on the SPD, and the GOP is far worse than either. Rather than go the Nader route of "look how much Reagan did for the environmental movement!" while ignoring the systemic damage Reagan did to all our branches of government, we should put off or defeat -true- fascists in every way we can. If we had IRV, a viable third party, or a responsible media, we'd have other options. Right now, we just have the Democrats if we want to keep GOP asses out of seats of power.

[JVS]

159. The SPD's problem is that "respectable" German society already had decided long ago that they were..

not to be trusted. They thought they could change that by being more moderate, but the electoral politics in Germany at the time were based on long-standing party allegiance. There was no way that they were going to get the votes, and most of the more conservative parties wouldn't have wanted to collaborate with them.

[shance]

125. How in the world do you define a "centrist"?

Or "left" or "right" for that matter?

Go ahead Burt, define them.

Please.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Somebody Up Thread Said That Your Position On The War Defines Where You Fall On The Ideological

Spectrum



If that's the case where do David Duke, Pat Buchanan, William Buckley, and David Duke fall on the ideological spectrum because they all oppose the war..

There's just as much anti-war sentiment at Stormfront as there is here... The motivation is certainly, certainly different...

[Jed Dilligan]

128. One thing's for sure

It's not politics as usual right now... Whatever your position you are in for some strange bedfellows.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

129. That Was My Only Point...

You can't put folks in neat little boxes unless you're a mortician...

[Jed Dilligan]

131. Nonetheless, really aggressive centrists remind me of rank-and-file Nazis

more so even than the weirdos of the religious right. The rush to conformity, the desire to have the "adults back in charge," the scoffing dismissal of anyone outside the norm are the most frightening tendencies in American politics. Hitler ALWAYS identified himself as a moderate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. I Don't Like Labels

Talk to the generic "me" and ask me how I feel about the great issues of the day and then label me if you want...

I just don't like setting up bogeymen or dividing us , unnecessarily into groups... I am sure we have areas of agreement as well as areas of disagreement... I suspect you and I agree on a lot more than we disagree on but I am positive we don't agree on anything...

It reminds me of the old axiom on running a business, "if two people agree on everything, one person is not necessary."

[Jed Dilligan]

170. You're not who I'm talking about

They know who they are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. I Know You Weren't, Bro

eom

[burythehatchet]

158. Centrists have very few convictions except the desire to win.

[entanglement]

134. My take on matters as a semi-serious theorist...

Here's a table that *roughly* summarizes the beliefs of the various camps. (This classification is not intended to offend anyone, and is a product of my own political beliefs and experience. Remember that some people's political views defy easy classification. There are outliers in each group.)



As you can see, most of the liberal criticism leveled at moderates involves items (a)-(e). They are virtually indistinguishable from RWers on these matters. However, moderates are significantly more progressive than RWers on social matters and generally more rational. OTOH, you can see that liberals themselves are open to criticism from a leftist-socialist perspective. :)

entanglement

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. You Have Right Wingers In The Imperialist And The Corporatist Camp

Pat Buchanan and David Duke are isolationists and not imperialists yet folks would say they are right wing... They are both anti-war...

Also, on your graph you have magically made "anti-semitism" disappear and the only instance of it occurring is "imaginary"...

You also have rightists as being ignorant of history... I don't think Pat Buchanan is ignorant of history...I suspect his knowledge of history is as good as any leftist... He just draws the wrong lessons in my humble opinion...


Take a Stalin...He was anti-semitic which should put him on the right wing but he was resdistributionist so that should put him on left wing...

Even though you admit some folks defy easy classification you set up a system where everything you like and think is good is possessed by folks you believe think like you.

[entanglement]

155. David Duke is a white nationalist and they come in all flavors

with very little in common except shared racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. Which is why my 'key' mentions they're not being considered here - you'll find their *other* political beliefs all over the spectrum.

Stalin was anti-ANYONE who he thought was a threat to his power. His rule of terror applied equally to just about everyone, Jewish or not (including very close friends and lifelong associates). Further, Stalin did not have a *racialist theory* concerning the Jewish people which dictated his actions, which IMHO is a crucial component of anti-semitism. So, no, I don't think Stalin was an anti-semite. (OTOH, the Tsar of Russia and the Boyars actively encouraged pogroms against Jews. The 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' was a Tsarist forgery, for instance.)

On the matter of Pat Buchanan, I agree - but he is not at all a representative right winger (neither a religious extremist nor a neo-con). They don't call him a paleo-con for nothing - not too many like him.

And last of all, I certainly don't imply that anti-semitism is imaginary. It's absence in these columns is simply explained - i.e., it does not figure as a major political belief of most groups in America today, left or right except White nationalists. Had I made a separate column for them, you would have seen it there.

:)
entanglement

[yardwork]

135. I think that this country has moved so far to the right, centrists ARE the right.

The right is now the extreme right.

The only hopeful sign is that a number of countries around the globe are moving further to the left.

[Perry Logan]

139. Today's young voters are the most Democratic generation in U.S. history.

It's just the media that has moved to the right, so naturally they tell you the whole country has gone winger. But it was never true, and is even less true now.

[Skidmore]

137. Centrists want their lifestyle with as little change as possible.

They want to hang onto those institutions which grease the skids for the maintenance of their lifestyles. Shifting further to the left may mean letting go of perceived security afforded them by anchoring them in the dogma of the right.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Because the people on the right are the people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

What's the point of trying to argue, much less reason, with anyone that dumb and/or in denial about reality?

[Perry Logan]

140. Let's face it, the left attacks everybody. The centrists are just fighitng back.

[stranger81]

141. my theory -- common belief in the primacy of capitalism

as the preeminent value in civil society.

[qdemn7]

147. Bingo....

You nailed it! :toast:

[qdemn7]

146. Ask yourself this:

Why have we never had a hard Left political party successful in any respect in the US?

Because the Left is regarded as a bunch of utter and complete lunatics by many in this society. Leftists are considered to be Anarchists, Socialists, Marxists or Communists. Conservatives and Rightists certainly think that way. Some Centrists think that way. Politically, you do not succeed in this country by growing your base, you succeed by co-opting other groups. There is no way in hell that Centrists can co-opt or Conservatives or Rightists by adopting Leftist positions.

Now as to WHY the Left is held in contempt? Because much of Leftist ideology centers on redistribution of wealth and / or property. In this country, in this society, wealth / property is regarded as power and / or security. You do not succeed by telling people you are going to strip them of their power and security. Especially if the perception is that you are going to give it to someone regarded as inferior, lazy or simply unwilling to help themselves.

How is that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. That's An Interesting Take

I read Charles Lindblom's "Politics And Markets" in grad school... In it he argues for a planned economy and opines that "the future belongs to those who plan." But before he makes his argument for a planned economy he confronts the fact there has not been one nation that has had both a socialist economy and a democratic political system.


Folks will bring up the U K, France, West Germany, or even Sweden but they are still essentially capitalist economies with a robust welfare state...

[sendero]

149. It's really simple...

.. we don't EXPECT the right to do right, but we expect Dems to. We work to get Dems elected, we put our faith in THEM.

When they constantly fail to do right, or even close, we get mad.

Is it REALLY that fucking hard to understand?

[burythehatchet]

150. Centrism is the politics of no convictions. Just win no matter what.

[Totally Committed]

151. The DLC and RW "Authoritarianism": The Trouble with the DLC

The Trouble with the DLC

Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Monday, August 13, 2007 06:08 AM

Glenn W. Smith examines how a strategy pursued for decades by advocates of "centrism" has suppressed appeals to progressive values.

Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests – oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

These industrial authoritarians figured out how to dominate Democratic messaging. When DLC chairman Harold Ford lost his cool in his Meet the Press encounter with Markos Moulitsas on Sunday, it was clear just how determined they are to continue their domination.

Most of the messages delivered to voters were delivered in the course of elections, not between elections. It took a good deal of money. They had money. So their movement aimed at influencing those messages, making sure no alternative visions or values were discussed. Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine – think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks – that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.

Their campaign model intentionally inverted the logical plan, in which you would maximize your base vote and get just enough votes from outside the base to win. The centrists wanted to win with just enough base voters and the largest possible number of votes from outside the base.

With the centrist strategy, the base got a little mail and a few GOTV phone calls, the "swing voters" got messaged.

The development of so-called "coordinated campaigns" grew out of and advanced this strategy. Coordinated campaigns were pioneered by shrewd strategists in the South. Using efficiency as an excuse, the strategists developed coordinated efforts in which candidates for statewide office would pool resources to pay for base voter programs. These programs were usually light on message. It was all "get-out-the-vote" and very little "we stand with you for these values." Aware that white voters in the region were bolting the Democrats in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, the plutocrats wanted to reassure white voters that the Democrats remained loyal to their interests. The bulk of campaign money – television ads for instance – were targeted to more affluent, white audiences.

It's not difficult to see the consequences of this strategy. Progressive base voters, especially in African-American, Latino, and other disenfranchised communities, were abandoned when it came to Democrats voicing their values. Democrats could appeal to voters in the so-called middle with technocratic policies, promises of competence, and wonkish mumbo jumbo that either: 1) avoided values altogether; 2) Or, appealed outright to the authoritarian, "strict father" side of white suburban voters. Crime is a great example. The industrial authoritarians promised super-heroic crime-fighting sprees that would even embarrass Republicans. Forget the root causes of crime, like inescapable poverty, illness, crumbling schools, the disappearance of hope.

Another consequence was the meek response to GOP voter suppression. These Democrats seldom challenged the Right's voter intimidation and suppression efforts, including the parade of police that prowled polling places in minority areas, phone banks into black precincts that gave incorrect polling locations or threatened arrest for those who might vote in the wrong place. Oh, there was the famous felon-purge of the voting rolls, used by Karl Rove in Texas in 1982. It had to be withdrawn after a non-felon, very white candidate turned up on the list.

Why so little concern for the progressive base? A growing progressive base was viewed as a threat to the industrial authoritarians for the same reason it threatened the GOP. Also, fears of being painted by Republicans as the party of Civil Rights made the industrial authoritarians exaggerate their distance from the true heart of their party.

As time went on, of course, their strategy became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It got harder and harder to boost turnout among minorities. Who could blame such voters? No one was listening to them, no one was speaking to them. If you want to have some fun, get a member of the Democratic consultant class to honestly tell you how many African American polls or focus groups they have conducted relative to their opinion research among the so-called "swing voters."

At the Rockridge Institute we look for better ways of expressing progressive values, but we also analyze various reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere. Our work is not partisan, but the partisan structures that effect expression of core democratic values must be examined. There is no doubt that a critical reason is that the industrial authoritarians used their election-cycle monopoly of message to erase messages that spring from recognition of our social responsibility for one another, for the maintenance of an empowering government that protects while allowing every citizen a chance at flourishing. There was no egalitarian messaging from Democrats because those in charge of the messaging were not egalitarians.

The rise of the progressive movement in the early years of the 21st Century challenges this monopoly. The movement is listening to progressives of all kinds and colors, and it's driving new messages of hope between and right through election cycles. MoveOn, Huffington Post, DailyKos, new think tanks like Rockridge, growing local and state progressive organizations, all of them influence the opinion environment outside the old monopolized vehicles.

And a funny thing is happening. The core values of progressives are appealing to Americans of all kinds. It turns out that many of those so-called swing voters share these core values. They were longing to hear them expressed just as those formerly identified as the core progressive base were.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. If they don't, they may face the creation of truly universal health care, for instance. And then what in the world will their friends in the insurance industry do? Why, they won't have the money to keep the industrial authoritarians in power.

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/13/the-trouble-with-the-dlc

TC

[BurtWorm]

162. Very interesting.

Thanks. :toast:

[LWolf]

160. It seems obvious to me.

Centrists attack the left more because the left is the enemy. They have more in common, and are more comfortable with the right, while the left represents a threat to their corporate ambitions.

[Orsino]

163. Mainstream American politics is right-wing.

With the Dems center-right and the GOP far right. With the corporations owning so much of the debate, the whole shebang looks pretty damned conservative to an outsider/leftist.

I understand why some say that there's no difference between the parties. I don't agree, but I understand.

[Odin2005]

164. Because the so-called "centrists" really aren't true centrists, at least on economic issues.

They are center-right economically, and are all over the place on social issues. All are "Free Market Fundy lite."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

173. They are invested in the status-quo and fear change.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine