What does it take to draw a centrist pundit out or retirement? Some pig-headed comments seem to have done the job just fine. by The Indepublicrat
(centrist)
Friday, March 5, 2010
Early in the 2008 primary season, when Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton were the strong front-runners of their respective parties, the Indepublicrat handicapped the race and fell in behind John McCain and Barack Obama. That dead-on level of prognostication (a.k.a. "dumb luck") marked the short but successful career of the Indepublicrat as a political pundit. It was the perfect exclamation point to end on, and really what more needed to be said?
Another reason for retirement came when the one-in-a-million dream match-up of McCain and Obama, two moderate-centrist flag-bearers, turned out to be somewhat less ideal than expected. The Indepublicrat anticipated a high-minded and respectful campaign between these two, based on personality and the relatively short distance between them on many policy issues. The Indepublicrat was in for a major let-down. And following that, what could have been a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington never quite materialized.
It really has been a depressing couple of years to be an eternally optimistic centrist political philosopher. 2010 finds the U.S. government as polarized as ever, with the rhetoric on both sides turned up to eleven. But these are the times when moderate voices are needed the most. So here I am.
What is a moderate voice? To judge by recent comments to my old articles, and additional comments likely to be posted to this one, there's some confusion on what it means to be a centrist.
Comment: Centrism is a product of one of two things... inconsistency of ideology, or indecisiveness about ideological beliefs.
Um, no. As independent thinkers, centrists aren't tied into the myth that an opinion on any one issue defines a person's entire world view. A fiscally conservative Republican who supports an expensive war could be considered inconsistent. A liberal Democrat in favor of abortion rights but opposing the death penalty could be considered inconsistent. But generally these inconsistencies are swept under the rug in favor of marching lockstep with the platform planks of one's preferred political party. Dare to disagree on any given issue, and you risk being labeled as a Democrat/Republican In Name Only, the dreaded DINO/RINO.
We also don't buy the myth that reconsidering, reexamining, or revisiting a viewpoint is a weakness. New information comes in all the time, good arguments are heard, new experiences are had, and some of it will undermine your point of view. When that happens, you have two choices: put your fingers in your ears and sing "la-la-la" or incorporate the new stuff into your viewpoint to find a better and more useful position. Most centrists aren't afraid to question their views from time to time, to find that some ideas are no longer working and need to be updated. We attain wisdom through a series of steps and missteps in a process that may take several decades. But nobody ever became wise by singing "la-la-la" and accusing others of being indecisive flip-floppers.
The Indepublicrat argues for independent thought. That includes thinking for yourself, independent of the people, parties, or organizations who might try to influence you with soundbytes, half-truths, and bias. Your thoughts on each issue should reflect the true complexities and conflicting priorities inherent in that issue, because nothing is as simple as it first appears. Having a consistent ideology requires you to decouple unrelated issues from each other. When you think for yourself using unbiased sources and the best information available to you, the resulting policy positions will be consistent, decisive, and well-supported.
Comment: Centrists are like cowards. They will be agreeable with anyone even if it's with the enemy.
Okay, wow. Really? Where to start on this one...
Extremists come in many different flavors but all share the same closed-mindedness and sense of entitlement. They will dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as stupid, crazy, uninformed, cowardly, traitorous, or otherwise unworthy of being heard. Engaging in these tactics says more about you than about your intended target, and what it says about you is that you are a total jerk. It's just sad.
The Indepublicrat respects anyone who raises the level of debate, even if we differ on ideology. Reasonable minds may differ, and friends can agree to disagree. If someone you otherwise agree with is being a closed-minded jerk, don't be afraid to call them out on it.
Comment: You are not a centrist - you are a liberal/conservative/socialist/etc.
This comment falls into the "if you're not a [whatever I self-identify as] you must be a [whatever I am diametrically opposed to]" school of thought. That's one of the things I dislike about that two-dimensional chart thing--it ignores the complexity within and outside of those two dimensions. Anyone who truly recognizes a balance between individual rights and societal obligation will come out as a centrist--but on any given issue that balance will lead to a decision on one side or the other and sometimes it will be a very strong lean in that direction. Centrists will disagree in a way that liberals and conservatives may not, but we're cool with that.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 92
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of The Indepublicrat only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
The Indepublicrat is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Call it left, right, centrism, moderation, or whatever. If it involves wielding the indomitable violence of the state to achieve political change, it is immmoral and unbecoming of a principled position on liberty.
Posted By: The Indepublicrat
Date: 2010-03-06 23:34:36
Your principled position on liberty is to accuse other folks of violence and immorality. My principled position on liberty is to recognize that reasonable minds may differ and friends can agree to disagree.
As a fellow centrist columnist I agree with basically everything you said. Most ecspecially the part about being dissapointed with the current lack of bipartisanship in Washington. I think centrist are the type of people who are more pragmatic then then being regimented to standard ideological opinions in their philosophies and values.
I think there is a growing movement towards 'moderation' or 'centrism.' I consider myself a fiscal conservative/social liberal, but shy away from the Theory-Oriented absolutes of Libertarians, so I don't kow where I fit! I actually *just* posted my political positions on my blogsite, and asked my readers to vote i a poll as to where they think I land. Centrist is *not* a choice on purpose...I invite you to head over there and see what you think...
Posted By: The Indepublicrat
Date: 2010-03-07 10:56:32
Thom: I'd say that you are an independent thinker, which is a double-good thing that everyone should aspire to be, regardless of where they end up on any given issue. Why burden yourself with a label that doesn't quite fit? Call yourself an Indepublicrat instead! :D
Where you and I differ are places where I'd apply a "reasonable and compelling" test rather than going with an absolute. And even there, we tend to end up in the same place. For example: You seem to support same-sex marriage as an absolute right and matter of principle while I support it because there's no reasonable and compelling reason not to. I'm willing to listen to anyone who claims to have a reasonable and compelling reason for the government to step in but so far I've not heard anything that even comes close.
There's also a difference between principled positions and practical ones, like when it comes to issues like legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. You have an absolutist position while I see complexity and shades of gray. If you're proposing legalization you'd probably want to decide on a minimum age requirement, impose regulation on how and where the plants are grown, possibly restrict usage to private spaces and/or marijuana bars, make sure there are adequate penalties for doing unsafe things such as driving while under the influence, create a distinction between medical and recreational uses--and of course there would be new taxes involved and penalties for trying to get around those. When you're deciding what's best for a wide range of diverse individuals and for society as a whole, seemingly simple things become a lot more complicated and nuanced.
Though you didn't address me, I'm apparently the target of your comment, to which I'll gladly respond.
"Your principled position on liberty is to accuse other folks of violence and immorality."
The only one accusing here is you. I simply made a general statement. Instead of arguing in opposition, you built a strawman of sorts. No offense taken though.
"My principled position on liberty is to recognize that reasonable minds may differ and friends can agree to disagree."
Sounds more like a position on debating style. But oh well. No biggy.
"You say "to-MAY-to", I say "to-MAH-to"..."
No. More like: I say root and you say leaf. I spoke of the struggle between the individual and the state, while you spoke of the struggle between individuals (one, btw, that usually benefits the state and the beneficiaries of the state's violence). But again, no harm done here.
Posted By: The Indepublicrat
Date: 2010-03-08 07:45:19
Sorry, Dan, if I somehow misinterpreted your statement that leftists, rightist, centrists, moderates, or whatever tend to use the political system to wield indomitable violence in a way that you find immoral and unbecoming of a principled position on liberty such as your own. I should have realized that you intended something other than the very plain meaning of your words. No hard feelings!
I resonate more with being a centrist or Indepublicrat. I must admit though that labels of any kind are more often misleading than not. Just when I think I'm being very moderate, I find myself thinking that much more liberal ideas should prevail or that fiscal conservatism is needed at a particular point. I am passionate about my views but open to other ideas if they are well reasoned or if it is pointed out that there is a flaw (that I agree with) in my thinking.
"Anyone who truly recognizes a balance between individual rights and societal obligation will come out as a centrist"
I did notice this remark, and I must disagree. As a libertarian I may have societal obligations I feel I must participate in, but I do not believe government should be involved.
I simply think the best way for these "obligations" to be achieved are through private and personal means.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
