Who represents the centrists?

[Sfedler]

Some people at various meetups have mentioned the possibility of the two political parties, Republican and Democrat, being joined by a third political party - the Christian Right.  In this commentary John Feehery pretty much menitions the same thing, though from a slightly different angle. 



Editor's note: John Feehery worked as a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients including News Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the United States Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America.

John Feehery says neither party is representing the growing number of centrists in America.

 (CNN) -- "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." -- Jim Hightower

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." -- Margaret Thatcher

Despite these warnings from the left and the right, increasingly, the American people are viewing themselves as centrists.

According to the Pew Research Group, fully 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years.

As Andrew Kohut of Pew put it, "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies."

So, who represents the middle of the road?

Is it Nancy Pelosi, the very liberal speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda that will sharply raise taxes on every consumer?

Is it Rush Limbaugh, who insists that Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough?

Is it President Obama, who sprinkles every speech with centrist language but who governs from the left on issue after issue?

I would make the argument that neither political party truly appreciates or values the centrists in their respective caucuses. The Blue Dogs are more like abused little puppies, kept out of most major party decisions, denied chairmanships and prohibited from offering amendments that would reflect their values

Republican moderates either have already lost, like Gordon Smith in Oregon or Wayne Gilchrist in Maryland, or are getting ready to lose, like Norm Coleman in Minnesota, or are switching parties, like Arlen Specter -- or, like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, are roundly despised by conservatives.

In either case, it is more likely that the Cubs will win the World Series than it is that a moderate of either party will rise to the top of their party's leadership. No matter how talented a legislator may be, someone like a Tom Davis or Ben Nelson will never lead their congressional party.

Why is it that while centrists make up the majority of the country, they don't have a seat at the table when it comes to running the country? Why do both parties put their leaders through an ideological litmus test before they give them the keys to the car?

As somebody who worked for one the last great centrist leaders, Bob Michel, the Republican leader from Illinois; one of the most ideological leaders in either party, Tom DeLay, who was then the majority whip from Texas; and the longest-serving Republican speaker, Denny Hastert of Illinois, I have gained an unusual perspective about how interest groups, ideology, money and the media play a role in shaping the leadership of either party.

Interest groups: Interest groups like people who support them all the time. They hate people who support them 70 percent of the time. From abortion to guns, from taxes to the environment, only those who toe the party line closely get support. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we reached a legislative consensus on abortion that made most of the country fairly happy? Well, I can tell you two groups that would immediately go out of business should such a consensus emerge.

Ideology: Unlike the consensus that came from World War II, which produced leaders like Bob Michel and Howard Baker, our national leaders today are still scarred by the ideological battles of the 1960s. Democrats like David Obey and George Miller arrived in the class of 1974, and their philosophies were born of the tumult of that age. We still speak in the language of that culture war, liberal vs. conservative, socialist vs. fascist. The deep distrust that sprung from that era lives with the leaders of parties today.

Money: The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money. And for the past two decades, only the ideologues have been willing to give it. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, these billionaires give money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers, and certainly not to centrists. And it is far harder for a centrist to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support, because, well, they are centrists.

Media: Centrists make for bad television and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice foils and better friends. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, with Sean Hannity excoriating liberals on his show and with Keith Olbermann doing the same to conservatives on his show, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides. It is hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. You are either belittled for being a squish or forgotten because you are not a leader of the party.

So the question that comes to mind is, if moderates can't get any respect from either party, why don't they form their own? Isn't it time to form a third party?

It's a good question. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And the Perot-istas ran out of Perot's money.

America has been throughout its history living a kind of Hegelian dialectic. One party represents the thesis, the other the antithesis, and from that springs a grand synthesis. It has been that way with our court system, which is adversarial, with a prosecution and a defense. It has been that with our politics, with a majority and a minority. It has been that with race, frankly, with the stark division between black and white.

But as we are finding with race, things aren't always as easy as black and white. And it might be time for our politics to evolve to include a third party.

I am a Republican and have been all of my life. But for the Republican Party to prosper, it must appeal to the close to 40 percent who think of themselves as independent and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by liberal or conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the complexities in life and are unimpressed by ideological absolutists.

[Niles]

I am a super-duper Leftie, I decry the center.  However, it is true that third parties never get anywhere in this country, but I do not believe it is because most people prefer the center.  It might be the case, but the political structure here is anti-third party.

We do not have a parliamentary government, where multi-parties are both encouraged, and accommodated.  The leader of the country - the Prime Minister - must assemble a government from the elected multiple parties.  Our system is very different.

I wish we had a multi-party system, but wishes do not make it happen, and I see no movement for amending the constitution to provide for one.

"The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by liberal or conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the complexities in life and are unimpressed by ideological absolutists."

The author is correct in one respect.  The plurality of voters are now independents, in most states.  In MY personal view, the vast number of voters have abandoned either party because of a combination of constant battling between them, and lack of action because of this battling.  In MY view, a multi-party system will encourage people with different points of view to have voices for their points of view and encourage voting - we lag most countries in the percentage of voters.

The author's words need to be taken with lots of grains of salt - perhaps a salt mine full.  He was a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert - extremely conservative in his voting, as well as Tom Delay (need I say more about Delay) and represents - among other clients - News Corp, a Fox/Wall Street Journal conglomerate, with Rupert Murdoch as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

I do agree, somewhat, with the author, however.  It is the lack of a multi-party system that leads to a mass of middle compromise, which compromise usually satisfies nobody, often gets little accomplished (less than the half a loaf - often the crumb), and keeps voters at home.  "Left views" - true left, not what the conservatives ALWAYS call Socialism, no matter what is happening - gets little media coverage in this country.  This automatic dismissal means that the voters don't even get the option to truly be "fair and balanced" in considering their views.

As with the author, for honest disclosure - my voice is from the ultra-Left.

[ouini]

First, a comment on Scott's preamble: I still hold that the Christian Right, as a separate political party, is DOA. It would be similar to Pat Buchannan's threat to seriously run (1992-2004) if Republican's didn't cater to his followers. But it would be much larger, and wouldn't have Pat's goal and effect of pushing the Republican party to the right. It would effectively just act as a vote-stealer.

Now, John Feehery's piece is more than 50% spin, but looking beyond that, three of his points are sound: Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, "History has not been kind to third parties in America," and "the most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money." I especially think that, if this last one is true, we should work to make it false. The capitol of ideals and politicians should not be money, but votes.

But many of his points are simply wrong. So many, that I'll only address these important two:
- "neither political party truly appreciates or values the centrists in their respective caucuses." This ignores the Clinton presidency, which was built, based, and run on centrist policy.
- Feehery's main and final point, that the Republican Party needs to appeal to the ~40% who think of themselves as indie, presumes that those 40% "are centrist in their politics". This demonstrates a 2nd-grader's uncritical analysis and un-nuanced view: Just because you disagree with or are disgusted by the candidates put forward by the two largest parties, absolutely does not mean that your position lies somewhere in between.

Anyway, like Niles, I'm very progressive. But I am indie, not democrat, and pretty much for the exact reason Niles puts forward: because of a combination of constant battling between Pubs and Dems, and a lack of ideal-directed action because of this battling. And Niles is correct that the political structure in the US is anti-third party.

Simply put, I think the way to build parties and encourage candidates which aren't Big-Two, is to work to implement run-off elections locally, then state-wide, then nationally. No change of Constitution needed. It's been done in a lot of cities across the nation, and would likely be do-able here as well.