Note to Democratic Centrists: Don't Forget The Roots Of Our Activism

(revised and edited from an earlier post)
---
June 28, 2006

By Ron Fullwood

Moderation has never yet engineered an explosion. -- Glasgow

Now that the midterm elections are coming into view, our party has a chance to capture the attention of voters and make the changes in Congress that will help us to begin to wrest back control over our democracy. Its past time for voters to pull the seats out from under the members of the republican party who have spent most of the last decade in power selling out our public and national interests to the highest bidder to feed their hunger for power and influence.

As we in our party, and those who intend to lead us, begin to present our party's philosophy and intentions, we should be certain to present our arguments from the roots of their advocacy. Their progressive, liberal roots. Our argument on so many of our basic needs and concerns will not be well represented, nor will it be effectively furthered by an approach which starts the debate from the middle.

The republican opposition begins their advocacy from a craven position, obstructing any impulse or instigation of government that is outside of their sponsored militarization, or outside of the support and elevation of the business interests which bankroll and encourage them into power.

With the dual occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan - this republican party's only signature endeavors - there is barely enough of our contributions to our government for them to lord over and spend on continued tax breaks for their wealthy benefactors at the expense of everyone else. But, they try.

The middle is the republicans' political playground. They aren't at all sincere about their responsibility to the public interest. They don't actually want the entitlements they pretend to legislate and defend to actually have any priority as they divide the revenue pie.

Basic concerns like health care, education, civil rights, the environment, are treated with miserly neglect by the republican majority as they reflexively, unflinchingly advocate and vote for more money for more occupation, more conflict, and more feathering of the military industry coffers.

Our party, on the other hand, believes in and advocates actually using government effectively to address these basic needs and concerns. As the nation's citizen's well-being goes, so goes the fate of the rest of the interests and concerns which make our country grow and develop.

As we put forward our positions and arguments we should acknowledge the liberal origins of issues, where inclusiveness is a prerequisite to success, and partitioning of concerns is nothing but marginalization and abandonment.

Our leaders can not expect us to advocate from the middle. That's where we are ultimately, but not inevitably, compromised in our concerns. No one in a position to effect change should be sanguine about partial remedies that only manage to address part of a problem. Compromise should be an acknowledgment of work yet to be done, not a measure of ultimate defeat for the needs and concerns of those left out of the equation.

The liberal left or progressive contingent in our party advocates comprehensive approaches that bring all members of their constituency to a remedy together, leaving no individuals behind. For the left, centrist, incremental philosophies represent a bargaining off of one segment or another of those individuals they advocate on behalf of.

It seems absurd for them to offer up a slice of a whole loaf as a guiding ambition, especially since the opposition doesn't give a wit about the unlucky ones whose benefits are whittled away at the margins just so someone can claim moderation; as if half-assed was a virtue. Incrementalism may work if it intends to come back and pick up the loose pieces and isn't just a political pacifier, or a stopgap with no sustainability or commitment to the future.

Our environment won't be well served by bending to unaccountable industries that compromise on clean air regulations, trading emission output in the shell game Congress allows. It won't be addressed by centrist, state's rights arguments that obstruct state to state environmental links for wildlife and clean water. The environment won't bear centrist's compromises; half steps and window dressings that curry to industry. A liberal approach doesn't put business on the same level as our wildlife, our air, our water, and our land.

Health care won't be adequately addressed without relying on the left's insistence that we provide universal health care. There wouldn't be incremental measures considered or adopted without the solid, inclusive position the left advocates.

Centrist heartburn about protecting business, advocating voluntary standards as opposed to enforceable legislation, leaves us vulnerable to uncontrollable price increases, barriers to eligibility and access, potentially limits the range of options and services.

How do you fight gerrymandering, or defend the Voting Rights Act without including the left's concerns about proportional representation that they use in their arguments about affirmative action? How do you get fair labor standards to make the centrist's 'free trade' work without fighting and defending the increase in the minimum wage the left advocates?

Too often centrism represents a retreat from a total solution. Iraq is a prime example. How do you end a war and occupation by advocating just a little less imperialism?

Centrism advocates a withdrawal, but it still wants to find some sort of victory in Iraq. That's a recipe for future muckraking. Half in, half out. Good politically, perhaps, but not good for the remaining troops left to continue the military meddling while everyone is satisfied that they've ended the occupation.

A liberal stance says out now. Immediate withdrawal. It's hard for me to see how you get this regime to move anywhere toward an exit without a solid, unambiguous opposition to the occupation. One without qualifications or half-steps. The incrementalism and compromise of a moderate may not allow for enough of a distinction for voters looking for a solution which will bring the troops home as soon as possible.

The universality of the left's approach not only continues to recognize the individuals who are left out of political compromises, but it actually strengthens the position of the centrists who face a unified wall of opposition and obstruction from their republican opponents. Moderates, liberals have your back. If not, where do you stand?

As voters consider going to the polls in this increasingly anxious period in our nation of occupation, imperialism, and plutocratic governance, they will be looking for someone who actually intends to do something about their concerns. Our party has to be recognized as a vehicle for activism and advocacy whose representatives in Congress won't pull up short just to reach out to the 'do nothings' across the aisle.

Our rights, our liberties, our needs and concerns, will not be protected or furthered by the passivity or complacency that comes with an established moderation. These basic concerns aren't addressed by standing in the compromised middle and bargaining down.

The center is where 'piecemeal' means someone is being left behind. It may be the ultimate destination of our advocacy and debate, but moderation should not take precedence over the solid, inclusive advocacy that our committed liberal left defends for the advancement of all of us, not just a selected few.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060628_note_to_democratic_c.htm

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

The Center would have chosen to remain loyal to the Crown. The American Revolutionaries are my heros and they sure as hell were not in the center.

:rofl: But seriously folks.

Did the checks stop coming?

maybe they have me on ignore. :rofl:

Truth be told, they probably are eagerly awaiting the next Bull Moose blog entry.

habiliments

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

K & R

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1972.html

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html

(For the other side.)

Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a case like the present.

William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879), U.S. abolitionist. The Liberator (Jan. 1, 1831).

...and I backed mine up with the objective fact of the 1972 and 1984 election results.

"George Bush worships Mr. Peanut, whose name is the great god Goober." - Rev. Fred Phelps

why so confrontational? Maybe you can explain in more detail where I'm incorrect that the most pressing issues we advocate have liberal roots and that the center is not where we should begin our debate and advocacy?

I mean, I have a entire article of opinion here that focuses on how we address our issues and concerns in the election debates and discussions ahead. The quotes are sidebars.

I don't get what election results from '72 and '84 have to do with my argument, or how the results take away from my argument.

I want to start making points, but I'm not entirely clear where your argument lies.

McGovern had the problems with Shriver, the Democratic Party had problems with Johnson's war and Nixon's secret plan to get us out.

Mondale had a media-beleagured, female running-mate.

How do these represent failures of the positions of the left? The positions still are relevant as the individuals who are affected, despite the potential political ramifications. If politics is a zero-sum game geared only toward elections, we will continue to get the type of government we so distain today that is responsive only to the bottom-line of the political survival of those who profess to want to lead us.

n/t

dlcentrists and the uninformed

In 1972: Never mind that McGovern himself had opposed gun control, had voted against cuts in defense spending, had earned poor ratings from liberal groups, and boasted a fairly moderate domestic record.


In 1968: Hubert Humphrey, once proud of his liberal record, campaigned as Johnson's proxy. His centrist campaign, his broken spirit, his refusal to make a clean break from Johnson's war, his refusal to call for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, made Nixon's victory possible.

The Congressional Quarterly called Mondale's platform "economically the most conservative platform in the last fifty years." Mondale called for cuts in social spending, higher taxes (without specification of corporate and wealthy categories), and an increased military budget.

the republicans, along with the press, labeled Mondale as a liberal. He may have been.

one of the sponsors of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, introduced fair housing legislation in 1967 and 1968, pushed for new aid for school desegregation in the early '70s, was one of the original writers of Medicaid legislation. He never shied away from his belief that government could help solve many of the problems in America. He certainly didn't cotton to anything Reagan and his bunch were doing.

Once again, if we treat politics as a mere vehicle to power we will end up using all of our energy for that narrow interest. Liberalism is not just a political strategy, it's an approach to addressing problems; finding inclusive, comprehensive solutions with government as a leader or as a partner; taking responsibility for those who's interest our leaders claim to want to represent.

Centrism, in my view, is pure political posturing. It seeks to start debates on 'middle ground'; a compromise between the need and the obstinance of the opposition. It's a approach weakened by what it's solutions leave behind to 'reach out to the other side. It sets itself up in opposition the roots of activism on the issues it claims to want to effect in favor of appeasing the obstructive right-wing. That can only produce a half-assed solution which they would no doubt present as the entire booty.

Centrism is a retreat from the principles that caused the concern in the first place. It's a surrender to folks who don't give a damn about solving problems for average Americans outside of their corporate-military circle of interest. Centrism is an elaborate lie.

A far right position is just that- a far right position.

Why are we refering to far right positions as "centrist" these days?

point taken, though. The political landscape has shifted so far right that the center is corrupted. Nothing of value there unless they intend to coalese with the opposition and hold an issue in place for a future rescue.

Let's call conservative positions what they are- Right wing, right leaning, "to the right of..." , conservative, pro-Bush, etc.

Hint: If Bush and a majority of Republicans tends to agree with it, it aint moderate or centrist-it's to the right!