Why a centrist strategy?

Why a centrist strategy? Hmm, Where to start? How about the 2004 election? Since that Democratic debacle, one navel gazing Dem operative after another has Monday morning quarterbacked the problems with both the air and ground game. The consensus in a nutshell: 1) Expand the map by being competitive in at least some red states. 2) In the words of Bruce Reed, "Crack the cultural code" by reshaping our rather condescending message into one that expresses respect for all American's values and priorities regardless of whether or not those adhere rigidly to our platform. 3) Stand for something! We have to be about more than merely not being the opponent.

On all 3 of these key issues, I submit that a bona fide centrist message, platform and yes candidate can deliver. What is a centrist candidate you ask? It may be easier to define what he or she is likely not. Centrist candidates are most probably not "behind the beltway", Eastern prep schoolers with liberal voting records and elitist life-styles. Or perhaps more to the point, they should not be someone easily labeled, even defined as such by the opposition. Whether or not John Kerry is the former, he sadly became the latter by election day. The rest is now history.

What then are valid centrist credentials? How about, say, a governor from a red state? And while were at it, perhaps one that has the gift of crafting a vision that speaks to folks across a broad political and ethnic spectrum from left to center right. And for good measure, add a dollop of moxey, like embracing at least some positions that dare to break out of the traditional party mold. Postions like reforming welfare or a balanced budget. Sound familiar?

Bill Clinton won red states. He also won significant numbers of evangelicals and a majority of moderates all while holding the support of the Dem base. Bill Clinton got it. The Democratic Party needs to re-get it. Here's to learning to use what works.

Cheers



Display:


Why stop at that? (none / 0)

Why not go all the way? Shut down the Democratic Party. Let's all become Republicans and elect McCain.

And if that doesn't work (because McCain, in the 2008 GOP primaries, gets called a liberal Northeasterner so many times that people start believing it), try Pat Robertson in 2012.

by enfant terrible on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 09:57:30 AM EST

Re: Why stop at that? (none / 0)

 Don't forget McCain just criticized Rummy, which means he HATES OUR TROOPS!

Weenie, lefty,  McCain!

(whisper, whisper: his wife's an alcoholic and he had sex with a black prostitute.  Oh, and after all those years as a POW, he's not quite right in the head.)

by bellarose on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:08:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats need Newliberals not Centrists (none / 0)

A Newholeinmyhead would be even better. Right in the Center if that pleases you.
by enfant terrible on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:36:53 AM EST

How About An Informed Dialogue (none / 0)

Instead of presenting recycled propaganda points that have already been ripped to shreds by others, how about (1) reading Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant, (2) reading Chris' series of posts about why we don't need to move either left or right, but instead defend and expand liberalism and (3) responding to those arguments?

Until you do, there's really no point in reading or responding to anything you say. We're trying to advance the dialogue, not run around in circles chasing our tails.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:06:26 AM EST

Re: How About An Informed Dialogue (none / 0)

I agree.  We need to stand up for our beliefs and not apoligizes for them.  Nor try to pander to people who may disagree with us.  It's the pandering, and trying to look like a Republican that hurts us.

If we just say, "hey, like it or not, this is what I believe, and here is why", you win elections.  Why?  Because you win the people who fully support you, lose the people who fully are against yout, but you might pick up people in the middle just because you have CONVICTION.

However, when you pander/politic, you LOSE people in the middle who might be inclined to agree with you or only slightly disagree with you, because you look like a politician.

Take a stand, say why, and respect thoughs who disagree.  That's how you win.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics
by pacified on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How About An Informed Dialogue? (none / 0)

"First, a couple of definitions:

LIBERAL

A person who believes that we should work to do what's best for the American people based on facts, logic, and the current reality.  They are informed by all relevant sources and perspectives, but strive to make an independent decision.

CONSERVATIVE

A person who believes that what is best is found in religion, tradition, theory, ideology, or other belief system, and seeks to implement their world view wherever and whenever possible."

Instead of presenting your own theory of the universe, how about reading The Dictionary of the History of Ideas' excellent articles on Liberlism and Conservatism, so that you know what the hell you are talking about? (You've captured some of what these two complex traditions are about, but you've left out a whole lot as well.)

Until you do, there's really no point in reading or responding to anything you say. We're trying to advance the dialogue, not run around in circles chasing our tails.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:16:33 AM EST

centrist strategy???? (3.00 / 1)

What a mess, my shirt is my stained, my keyboard is wet and I have coffee dripping out my nose.
by Bob Brigham on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:23:05 AM EST

New Democrats (none / 0)

Since reading so much about not trying to appeal to conservatives, I will share what I know about the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY).  I'm at home now so I decided to pull out former President Clinton's monsterous autobiography, "My Life." It states on page 122 (paragraphs 2 & 3):
 Dr. King's death left a void in a nation desperately in need of his allegiance to nonviolence and his belief in the promise of America, and now in danger of losing both. Congress responded by passing President Johnson's bill to ban racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. Robert Kennedy tried to fill the void, too. He won the Indiana primary on May 7, preaching racial reconciliation while appealing to more conservative voters by talking tough on crime and the need to move people from welfare to work. Some liberals attacked his "law and order" message, but it was politically necessary. And he believed in it, just as he believed in ending all draft deferments.

  In Indiana, Bobby Kennedy became the first New Democrat, before Jimmy Carter, before the Democratic Leadership Council, which I helped start in 1985, and before my campaign in 1992. He believed in civil rights for all and special privileges fro none, in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout: work was better than welfare. He understood in a visceral way that progressive politics requires the advocacy of both new policies and fundamental values, both far-reaching change and social stability. If he had become President, America's journey through the rest of the twentieth century would have been very different.

 So, if we are the party of Kennedy, why not do what Bobby did and appeal to some of their base?
I often wonder what would have been had the following people not been assassinated: President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the great Beatle John Lennon. I would have voted for Sen. Kennedy but I'm only 20 so I was not alive then.
The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:25:25 AM EST

Move left, make room for a third party (none / 0)

I sicerely hope that the Bobby Kennedy democrats, or some modern version, can really pull the party to the left. Such a party would surely lose, but it would make room for a centrist third party that could win.
by Paul Goodman on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 12:24:15 PM EST

Re: Move left, make room for a third party (none / 0)

I'm what you'd call a Bobby Kennedy Democrat as he was the first New Democrat.

New Democrats are centrist Democrats but are mainly left of center.

I call myself a progressive centrist as I am left of center.  Some of us Red State Democrats do not win when running further to the left.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 12:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Centrist vs. The Left (none / 0)

At the risk of sounding like a complete dope (ok, nothing new there) could someone please explain what are the policy differences between Dem Centrists and  Dem Leftists?  

I was fine with Clinton, but I also like Kerry and Dean.  I don't see any extraordinary differences between these three men's policies.  Could someone with a better understanding of it please enlighten me?  

by bellarose on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 07:00:56 PM EST

Re: Centrist vs. The Left (none / 0)

I will take a stab at it, though I dont know if I am a centrist or whatever, I think I understand the mainstream.

  1. Welfare state: Centrist: the welfare state exists to strengthen the middle class and provide a middle class standard of living to the working class. Leftist: The welfare state exisist to help the poor and lower the rich so that we are all roughly equal.

  2. Taxes: Centrists: Taxes should be enough to cover the cost of the welfare state, no more. Leftists: Taxes exist to pay for the welfare state and to redistribute wealth and make people roughly equal in income.

  3. Race relations: Centrists: The government should step in when bigotry prevents equal rights. Leftists: The goverment should step in to bring the races into balance by taxing the white majority to make up for the damage caused by colonialism, slavery, racism etc. Affirmative action is a kind of tax.

  4. Foriegn Policy: Centrists: Ameirca should lead the world and gain the benefits that accrue to the leader. Leftists: America should expend energy to undo the results of colonialism and raise the third world to equality with the first.

  5. Environment: Centrists: Steps should be taken to make the consumption culture sustainable forever without stopping growth. Leftists: Preservation of the environment takes precedence over consumption and growth. Consumption and growth are also held by some to be anti-goods.

  6. Religion: Centrists: Religion is a private matter which should not be allowed to enter the public sphere, especially in a divisive way. Leftists: Typically antagonistic to the old religions in a preparation for a new kind of collective consiousness, weakly defined.

  7. Abortion: Centrists: Abortion is distasteful, but perhaps a necessary evil given the tendency for people to screw up in  a free society. Leftists: Abortion is a practical tool for undermining patriarchy and ensuring that women can pursue non-biological roles in society. Both: Enforcing abortion laws is a practical impossibility and is likely to cause more harm than good.

  8. Homosexuality: Centrists: Rights for gays a presumed to be covered under existing laws. Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue. A non-issue. Leftists: Gays need distinct laws to protect them from widespread discrimination and attacks snd allow them to freely operate in society.

  9. Trade: Centrists: Trade policy should benefit the middle class, tarrifs to protect jobs, trade to stimulate consumption and income. These goals can conflict. Leftists: Trade should be used to raise the standard of living of third world peoples. Trade should be used as leverage to bring laws of the third world to the level of the first world. These goals can conflict.

  10. Immigration: Centrists: Illegal immigration should be stopped. Leftists: Illegal immigration should be tolerated or legalized as it undermines white domination of the society. There is a presumption that illegal immigrants will become leftwing voters.

  11. Education: Centrists: The school system is a means of social mobility and undergirds the middle class economy. Leftists: The school system should become a means of political education or abolished. Both: The school system is a major source of government jobs.

  12. Military-Industrial Complex: Centrists: Preserves the global economy which undergirds the middle-class lifestyle. A somewhat inefficient component of the welfare state and somewhat inefficient source of government jobs. Leftists: Almost total antagonism.

  13. Energy: Centrists: Supports innovations that will allow the middle-class lifestyle to continue after the oil runs out. Leftists: Want a total non-fossil-fuel economy.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Centrist vs. The Left (none / 0)

Paul,  

Thank you for taking the time to do this!  You made a number of interesting points and distinctions.  Quite a bit to think about here.

Too bad this diary is off the front page, now.  I'd love to get some other opinions on this and see if a consensus could be reached.    

Thanks Again!

by bellarose on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 11:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.