Table Of ContentCENTRISM:
Why We Need It
By Martin Goldberg
Copyright 2020
Dedication
To all those who take a deep breath, lay aside the emotion, and
seek solutions for our time.
I. Introduction
“If every base is set, then why does no answer soar?”
America is the home of this great dilemma. Polls routinely show
the rock bottom popularity of Congress and its leaders,[1] yet
members of the deliberative body still claim reelection by record
numbers. People love to mouth off over the antics and corruption of
politicians, and somehow continue supporting candidates from the
political fringe, often against their own interests. Compromise and
unified advancement are seen as evil ideas, unless they refer to
narrow party matters, leaving no opposing member to seize glory.
The stage is grimly set.
What makes this so puzzling is the very nature of America’s
political system. Ours is not a “winner takes the cake” structure like
we see in countries such as the United Kingdom, where
parliamentary majorities rule the day. Nor do we stray to the verge in
Italy, where a brittle “partitocrazia” commands throngs of shattered
governments. The United States Congress does not get dissolved at
the whim of a prime minister seeking good election tidings, but rather
sits two years and becomes renewed on set voting days. The prime
minister in our case is the president, elected to a fixed four-year term
with an option of return just once. Only the Supreme Court is
designed to accommodate a lifetime of service, yet even there the
democratic mandate holds sway, with appointments requiring
consent of the Senate.
By design, the assemblage is meant to limit exclusive or
dominant power on the part of one particular branch or party. The
people elect Congress, which controls spending and affirms
presidential appointments. A president is likewise chosen by the
electorate and enjoys the power to veto legislation, while being held
to task by the threat of impeachment and removal if he violates the
law. Finally, the judiciary can rule laws unconstitutional, preventing
the supremacy of the legislature seen in examples such as the
British House of Commons.
If the laundry list seems peculiar, let us be clear: the United
States is a system designed to promote compromise and conviction,
not self-directed crusades by a single actor. And yet it does. The
Federalist Papers’ warning to avoid factionalism has been tossed
aside; polarization is at record highs, and sensible agreement
frowned upon. Who can forget Mitch McConnell’s commitment to
making Barack Obama a one-term president,[2] or Democrats
describing Donald Trump with every divisive label they can imagine?
Hatred is the mainstay, or perhaps a certified owner of our time.
The unmitigated rage of this world might help explain the growth
of presidential power. When the Congress proves too partisan to
move forward on issues concerning the American People, the voters
turn towards figures who will prosecute that option through the
Executive Branch, for they desire progress, not simply fanfare words.
If the price is a confident and far-reaching single leader, the card
may well come free of its wallet perch.
But the question remains: why? What exactly has driven one of
the greatest political experiments in the world into a brimming
foundation of stored up frustration? Are we doomed to continue
reaching higher levels on the ferocity index, or could there be some
alternative available?
That answer would be a “Yes,” and “There already is.” It just
happens to be marketed and mutilated so terribly to where people
imagine something horrendous upon hearing the word. Politicians
give lip service to the concepts of bipartisanship and working
together, yet these are all too frequently masks for private gain.
Folks hear the word “Centrism” and automatically think of selling out,
doing corporate bidding, or staining the honor of the partisan
firebrands. Never mind how partisans can be just as guilty of
betraying the people where principles are concerned: centrism is bad
because there is nothing substantial behind it.
To be fair, there is some reasonable truth supporting such an
opinion. Centrism is too often used as a convenient excuse for those
in office to enrich their own cabal, while dropping scraps to the
people who put them there. The languid nature of Congress is
similarly disheartening, with the casual observer assuming those
calling for compromise are simply trying to undermine their fellow
statesmen.
But centrism is also something more. The reason the term has
become so bastardized is for purely political and strategic reasons.
Politicians can claim the label as they seek to appear “bipartisan,” or
“non-ideological,” though often their intent is the opposite. As they
belabor to sell American citizens and workers down the river, they
favor the guise of centrism as an excuse. The passage of NAFTA
demonstrates how Democrats and Republicans could be brought
together to support global financial interests ahead of the common
man, much like they joined hands to repeal Glass-Steagall, and
invade the Middle East. As we have borne witness, these politicians
are not centrists at all, because their presupposed pragmatism
actually devolves into radical DONOR interests; including war
profiteers, the big banks, and cheap labor lobbyists.
We are thus left with the compelling need to establish a set of
constitutional principles defining centrism, with the goal of preventing
the utter mutilation practiced by opportunistic politicians. The
following angles will serve as a ballast point promoting the authentic
centrist viewpoint:
- Respect for the American Nation, and her people.
- An understanding that economic growth without quality of
life is fleeting.
- Commitment to protect the planet from overdevelopment
and pollution.
- Support for trade deals bolstering American businesses,
especially smaller firms.
- Opposition to cheap labor migration, both of the legal and
illegal varieties.
- Belief in the importance of low-cost healthcare, and an end
to medical bankruptcies.
- Smart business regulation, tailor-made based on size of
the company.
- Strong labor laws, along with private sector unions.
- Clear deficit reduction strategies, looking at all parts of the
budget.
- A culturally-intelligent foreign policy which looks ahead and
considers implications.
- Ratification of an Employee and Internet Bill of Rights.
The crucial aspect to these positions is that they weed out
unprincipled corporate bankers, along with bleeding hearts who
struggle to connect related issues. It is the only way that we can
competently develop a thesis around centrism that stands the test of
political time, which is from one election to the next. Very few fake
centrists can meet such standards, giving our succeeding
examination more clarity.
II. Understanding Polarization
“For no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but
in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted
windows and the storied wall.” ~ Robert Louis Stevenson
Perhaps the most destructive side of partisanship lies in the way
it makes us immune to sheer reality, or at least a relatively
unmolested version of the same. The average person, or “normie,” if
we are to employ internet speak, is content to merely transmit words
sourced in the treasure trove of an information radiator. For political
opinions, the base would be any available talking head or
communications operative. Messaging as a larger category is
manifested in the way politicians change terms in order to get
electoral groups on their side. The movie Vice demonstrates how the
once neutral term of “estate tax” got recast by Republicans under the
“death tax” label, with marvelous results. While the levy itself applies
primarily to wealthier inheritances, referencing death riles people up
who may have little stake at all. “How dare you tax me for DYING?”
is the broader takeaway.
Democrats have become adept at passing dialog along to their
supporters as well. During the Iraq War, the popular phrase was
fanatically dismayed yawns of “Bush got us involved in the
quagmire!” with the last word being especially critical. Once the term
filtered through the MSNBC and Air America sub-consciousness, it
became suddenly popular for layman liberals to employ that specific
verbiage in their discourses. Few bothered explaining WHY they
chose quagmire, as opposed to any other descriptor, yet the
distinctness of the word and its frequent employment by D.C. liberals
suggests deliberate political calculation.
This took fresh blood in 2008, with Democrats parading the
“Hope and Change” message like it was some organic manifestation
of human will, as opposed to an extremely well-funded political
operation. I distinctly recall letters to the editor in local papers
glowing over how Obama had “inspired a whole generation to hope
for change,” as though he was not simply an opposition party
candidate. Such a statement might seem ridiculous to certain
observers, but for Obama’s supporters, its spirit was a pure and
undying truth, the outlook of their world.
Considering how disparate people are in their media
consumption habits, it should come as no surprise that little thinking
is done around how various issues intersect. The person reading
Huffington Post versus another who frequents Breitbart will have
strikingly different outlooks based on how information is processed
and presented. In the latter’s columns, a story might focus on the
health and fitness of a leftist candidate, while the former downplays
that content and plays up fears of racism. If readers of either
publication spend much of their lives plugged into the outlets, they
will be unlikely to ever agree, and even potentially see one another
as actual enemies, rather than political opponents.
Cable news viewing statistics for 2019 help hammer this point
home, with Fox News coming in at an average of 2.57 million views,
MSNBC at 1.8 million, and CNN at 1 million.[3] We can further
explore the dynamic by considering the partisan associations of
various American networks[4]:
- Fox News (Center-right to Right-wing)
- CNN (Center-left to Left-wing)
- MSNBC (Center-left to Left-wing)
- ABC (Center-left to Left-wing)
- CBS (Center-left to Left-wing)
Further complicating matters is the way in which people of
diverging political viewpoints perceive one another. In his seminal
book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt uses extensive survey
data to explain not only which principles are valued by individuals
based upon their background and affiliations, but also what they
assume or believe about those who disagree. The broad chasm of
accuracy between conservative and liberal perceptions is an
especially interesting phenomenon, with the former group being
more on target than the latter.[5]
The existing foundation of media and public discourse
demonstrates to us the importance of disassembling issues so that
individual voters understand how interrelated they happen to be. A
common failure on the part of would-be centrists is in their allegiance
to traditional party notions of right and wrong, which stranglehold
discussions before they can begin. Over the course of this text, our
goal will be to provide clarity and verbal weaponry to advance the
genuine centrist agenda.
