Retardo, I think I already know the answer to this, but just for the record:

Could you tell us what sort of centrism, if any, you would consider “non-bullshit?”

I can’t give a general example, but I can give a specific one: consistent libertarians (Rothbardian libertarians — and not all people claiming Rothbard qualify by any means). Ideologically, they are extreme in one way, then extreme in another. But this has the practical political effect of putting them right in the middle of the fray.

Ideologically speaking: by world standards, some older-skool (but still to the Right of the spirit of the New Deal) Liberal like Walter Mondale. By American standards, which are a bit more rightwing even without the huge fakey shift of the last 30 years, John Anderson of 1980 would be a good example, I think.

What wingnuts have done is extremely skewed the ideological spectrum right in this country. Thus Rush Limbaugh is deemed a garden-variety conservative, and not the fascist that he is. And on the other side, social dems (like me) and Greenies are labelled commies by idiots like you. Rockefeller Republicans were conservative, sensible and decently rightwing. They are to the LEFT of our modern ‘centrists’. Reactionary nutbags like Barry Goldwater were in better times seen properly as extremist; now people to Goldwater’s right rule the country and are considered ordinarily and safely conservative. Richard Nixon was in many ways (though God knows not personally) to the LEFT of the DLC.

In legal terms, a true centrist would be like.. well, like Justice Stevens (nominated by Ford) who is now seen, because of the skew people like you perpetuate, as a flaming liberal. But then when one sits on the bench between three Phalangist nutballs and one glibertarian quack, that sort of thing happens.

Rothbardian “libertarians” are not centrist. They aren’t even libertarians. They adhere to a form of “natural law” not unlike that promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, Inc., which is hardly libertarian. They tend towards the right wing conservative end of the spectrum, AFAIC.

Yeah, sorta. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I mean that they are absolutely non-interventionalist, yet are extreme crapitalists with the emphasis on crap — i.e., not unlike grampaw there. Whatever their ideology, in effect they are centrist practically speaking because they side with the Left on foriegn policy and the wingnuts wrt economics.

Or, forget I said it and instead substitute libertarians like Jim Henley. Is that better? I meant real libertarians, not the Alito-loving nitwits at Reason, nor the glibertarian fucktards who pollute the blogosphere like Goldstein, Professor corncob, Stephen Green. I’m not talking about ideology per se, I’m talking about practical political positions. As far as ideology goes, the rest of my comment up there applies.

(OTOH, one of the prime examples of ‘fake centrism’ with regard to the War is Matt Welch, who’s not a ‘sensible liberal’ but rather a ‘libertarian’. He always claimed agnosticism to the war, but spent all of his time when it mattered like all the rest of the ‘sensible liberal’ idiots: bashing the hippies and Chomsky instead of worrying about what a fucking mess the wingnuts were making.)

OK, let’s try to nail this down, then.

Can you give a specific example of your “specific example?” That is, can you name a particular “consistent libertarian” who you do not consider a “bullshit centrist?”

And: Can you tell us what made John Anderson a centrist in your mind, and why you do not consider him to have been a “bullshit” centrist?

And yes, I do realize you consider me to be a bullshit technocratic sensible neoliberal centrist liberal glibertarian free-trade kleptocrat useful idiot paleoliberal appeaseocrat.

I’m OK with it. Sticks and stones and all that, you know. Your readers, I’m sure, have also been alerted to the many labelled categories you would assign me to, so repeating those labels probably isn’t necessary.

My initial question was meant to elicit actual policy positions rather than mere embellishment of your initial terminology. To that end, it is imperative that you respond primarily to the portions of this comment that are, in fact, questions.

1. Jim Henley
2. He was truly neither fish nor fowl — his attacks on Carter notably did not coicide with positions shared by Ronald Reagan; he disagreed with Carter’s means and as I remember reading about it, with Reagan’s ends. Also he was self-evidently not a hack because of his behavior during Watergate. He accepted the welfare state; he was not hell-bent on destroying detente. Already this puts him ahead of TNR.

Now – quid pro quo – why are your precious DLC and other ‘centrist’ people and entities to the RIGHT of Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, yet insist that they’re really not? Did the ideological spectrum skew you or did you skew it? Make an effort to answer now.

The DLC can only be described as centrist in the American political spectrum, which goes from far right all the way over to right-of-center…

Speaking of which, since I have a memory like an elephant for these sorts of things and a vindictive streak along with it, can we make this new law of rejection apply ex post facto? How about every “Sensible Liberal� who helped unleash upon America (and Iraq) the Wingnuts of Mass Destruction gets shitcanned along with Nyhan? Pretty please? Sugar and outrage and a little sprinkle of wrath on top?

As a recovering Sensible Centrist, I’d be opposed to this. Yes, I was an idiot in 2003, something I’m flatly ashamed of. But I had my road to Damascus moment in…oh, May of that year (when I said to myself, “Hey, those WMDs don’t seem to so much be anywhere in Iraq”), and I’ve been working against not just means but ends since then.

Granted, this means I’ll never write for TNR, but the odds of that were pretty low anyhow.

What Nyhan neglects to mention about the controversy, of course, is that his posts were not criticized for “slamming” liberal blogs, but for being so prodigiously wrong—e.g., the deliberate and total mis-characterization of his target. Such behavior of self-styled martinets like Nyhan puts them in the subset of human beings known as assholes, and assholes habitually deflect criticism by denying that it’s aimed at their own individual assholinity, but rather because of their membership in some larger group, in this case “non-partisan open and honest debaters.”

No thinking person would ever claim that Left or Right ideology or even opinion has a monopoly on truth, but that’s exactly how Bullshit Centrists like Nyhan exalt themselves—as the self-appointed white-gloved arbiters of what is and isn’t partisan, which in their lexicon seems to mean “wholly without merit.”

TNR and Nyhan are the real ideologues, insisting that anyone to the Left of their “center� is just as wrong, just as bad for the country, as anyone to their Right.

Heh indeed. To paraphrase Goldwater, extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no virtue.

I don’t know, Retardo, I’m feeling pessimistic myself. I just saw the long thread at TBogg’s where his point about trying to keep protest marches on message seemed to quickly turn into the airing of petty grievances against anyone to the comment section’s left. I got a mental picture of a bunch of Land’s End catalog models standing around the barbecue in a suburban backyard in their khakis and boat shoes bitching about the hairy-legged chicks and tie-dyed bums with dreadlocks they see hanging out near their favorite coffee shop.

Maybe I exaggerate for comic effect, but not by much, I don’t think.

Anyway, I really think someone needs to undertake a serious study of just what it is about the hippie menace that seems to affect so many people on such a primal level. Me, I’m far too hostile and cynical to ever be a hippie (plus I don’t like bright colors), but I’ve never regarded them as anything more than harmless goofs at worst. Is it the patchouli, like you said recently? The hacky sacks? The bloodshot eyes? I just don’t get it.

Did anyone else click over to Nyhan’s blog? Guess what: Zero comments. None.

I think he needs some.

What Nyhan neglects to mention about the controversy, of course, is that his posts were not criticized for “slamming� liberal blogs, but for being so prodigiously wrong—e.g., the deliberate and total mis-characterization of his target.

Bingo. Nyhan completely mis-casts the original posts in order to get on his Great Horse Of Righteousness. The boy went looking for a fight, chip squarely on his shoulder, and then is SHOCKED! SHOCKED! when to his amazement, he finds one. “But, but, but, why are you getting angry because I called you an asshole? This is The New Republic, we are the calm center. My calling you an asshole was just a calm reasoned observation, and then you have the temerity to suggest I can’t read! Oh, the humanity!

Give me a break. Seems to me the boy is in the wrong line of work.

Did anyone else click over to Nyhan’s blog? Guess what: Zero comments. None.

It’s moderated – they are not being posted. I know several folks have made comments, but he or Anna Marie or whoever moderates it won’t put up any but those that agree with his tale of woe.

I guess there haven’t been any takers so far.

I tried my hand at commenting myself, to no avail yet. I didn’t even swear, how can they deny me?

Mr Mordant: I wonder if it’s envy. Maybe people concentrate on the body hair to distract themselves from the fact that working 80 hours a week to upgrade to an Audi A6 didn’t bring them inner peace—yet the jobless burnouts in the Phish t-shirts look like they’re having a blast.

I guess there haven’t been any takers so far.

I left this:

You might want to note that your posts were ridiculous.

In the first, you were wrong about everything, which required a number of updates without you getting the point.

In the second, you contrasted George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill O’Reilly with…Sean Penn.

In the third, you were miffed about the title of a book that parodies – note here, PARODIES – the title of Ann Coulter’s book.

In short, you wrote dumb stuff at a place generally known for smart stuff. If you write smart stuff, things’ll work out a little better.

why are your precious DLC and other ‘centrist’ people and entities to the RIGHT of Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, yet insist that they’re really not?

Did everyone see the article about DLC losing its tax-exempt status, and defending itself by saying it had lots of Republican support?

Nyhan:

Why was I asked to slant my work to the liberal party line? In an email statement, TAP editor Michael Tomasky said that “[t]he Prospect is hardly averse to criticizing liberal verities” and that the magazine had no problem with my initial posts criticizing liberals, but “there were a few posts in succession that struck us as either inaccurate or an effort to draw equivalencies where none existed.”

For all of its existence, The American Prospect has been “a magazine of liberal ideas, committed to effective liberal politics.” If someone wants to spend most of their time criticizing liberals, this isn’t the place to work. Wanker.

First let me say Retardo that your stuff recently has been doubleplusgood, please continue.

Since the rational center for me is somewhere around Chomsky, it has always driven me insane that Clinton continues to be the great white hope for “liberals”. The guy was the most effective Republican we have had in office ever. Purging welfare, massive military buildup, war for corporate security, NAFTA, WTO, GATT, a corporatocracy’s wet dream. That administration did more to establish the false center than the entire Republican noise machine. He stole a few liberal love bullet points for street cred, then handed the country over to the corporations and the ruling elite.

Damn. Stupendous post, Retardo.

(oh, and fyi: Sully is also sticking up for Nyhan, which just goes to prove your point even more.)

This is the comment I posted on time.com, something tells me it won’t be approved either (though I tried to make it newspaper-letter-quality):

I found both of your comments trite. In one case, you drew false equivalance between the president of the united states and a mildly popular actor.

In another, you ripped a book based solely on its title. The substantive objections to Coulter’s work aren’t that she’s stupid, but that the things she writes are fabricated and anti-intellectual.

You ignored the substantive criticism of her work and pretended that people are concerned because of the titles of her books. Indeed, no. People are concerned not that she has a book called Treason, but that she actually accused democrats of committing treason for disagreeing with the president, while fabricating evidence.

– TAP subscriber, TAPPED fan
David Terrell
Chicago, IL

Of course, the DLC’s and Nyhan’s and Doughy’s hatred for us in the “liberal blogosphere” are explained by this fact:

The “liberal blogosphere” is what used to be known, thirty years ago, as THE DEMOCRATIC BASE.

And the DLC/GOP/Media Axis is horrified that, after spending the last four decades trying to make the Democrats flee from their base and joining the GOP in cuddling into the arms of Corporate America, the base is not only NOT dead, but on the verge of decisively taking back the Democratic Party AND America.

bill clinton was the finest republican president of my lifetime

LittlePig wrote, “Give me a break. Seems to me the boy is in the wrong line of work.”

No, he’s doing exactly what’s called for in his line of work. Kind of sad, really.

“Sensible Liberalism” is redundant. Liberals, by definition, privilege commonsense and reasonableness. What Lieberman is is a right-leaning centrist.

Any marginally successful political movement needs to welcome the fallen, but (and I think this is RM’s point) it certainly does not need to function like a 12-step program, and trill ‘Hi Former Wanker’ to everyone who figured it out a bit late (like myself) and is attending the meetings.

I think the folks who consider themselves ‘netroots’ are primarily early adopters of a new politics, and frankly, the cream will rise to the top, regardless of past indiscretions.

In other words, we’ll find leaders amongst the former wankers, I have no doubt. And they won’t be shy about how they were fooled, and foolish.

But until they figure out just how wrong they were, fuck ’em.

I love it. The Left blogosphere is all wound up about “concern trolls” telling them they are being shrill and hurting their cause, and then people like the esteamed Retardo get all concerned about Sensible Centrists and defining what they, as left-of-center Lefties, think would be an ideal Sensible Centrist. Hell, I can tell you what that would be. A Sensible Centrist is anyone who agrees with me. Everyone else is a Radical Fanatical Wingnut, of the Left or Right persuasion.

It’s stupid. Why ask Retardo (or Nyhan, or Assrocket) what they consider to be a Sensible Centrist? We all define the Center as where we ourselves stand. People on the far Right believe in authoritarianism, people on the far Left believe in communism, and everyone in between is some sort of Centrist. There’s no such thing as a “fake Centrist”, there are only greater or lesser degrees of tilt towards those extremes.

Nyhan is being a WATB. It’s just like predicting the imminent death of the Net, only he’s predicting the imminent death of the opinion journal. Somehow I think they’ll muddle on. Maybe, radical thought, they’ll become subscription-based blogs. Would you pay 5 bucks a month to be a member of a blog with Paul Krugman and several other big-time columnists on it?

The false compromise has been well-understood for millennia in the story of Solomon’s proposal to cut the baby in two. That’s what the “pox on both your houses” political analysis tries to do. In some cases, literally.

Per usual, I have to second R. Porrofatto’s take.

And I have to disagree somewhat with Retardo — there’s a place for centrism, hell, I’m probably center-left under sane political definitions — but what’s so maddening and counterproductive about the Sensible Sorts is their inherent timidity. They get rolled each and every time under some delusion of comity and feel good because, in their hearts, they fought the ‘good fight’ and, most importantly, ‘didn’t rock the boat’.

I mean Christ, if you want to stand up for ‘Bi-Partisanship’ — then fucking stand up for it. Show how the GOP has basically crippled it. You’d think that the way the GOP and Bush have governed the last six years, the fucking spineless Lieberman-types would notice this little fact. The Bi-Partisanship excuse is a sham for their cravenness.

Centrists — and I think Perot was a pretty solid example — would want sensible government solutions, not these insane concoctions thrown together by think tanks and industry. Centrists, even if they voted for the fucking war (which wouldn’t necessarily be a centrist position), should be screaming about the patronage, mismanagement and no-bid contracts that have defined the American occupation.

But they are not. The Sensible types crave the status quo, even when that status quo is radical, destructive and contrary to a consensus. In their equivelence, clarity and common sense is bleached away.

“There’s no such thing as a “fake Centristâ€?, there are only greater or lesser degrees of tilt towards those extremes.”

I think you mean there’s no such thing as an actual centrist. In which case, there are plenty of fake ones.

What sea biscuit Said, though Ford was more effective for the short time he was there. (I don’t count the few months of Eisenhower, though those were the only bright spot of that Presidency—when he was near the end and trying desperately to keep his VP from succeeding him.)

Henley is clearly the exemplar: he’s consistent, the way Tom Maguire used to be.

I might argue for Brad DeLong—he generally buries his reality checks in the last paragraph or two of a post, but they’re there. Menzie Chinn (at James Hamilton’s blog, econbrower) as well, among the economists.

The term “sensible liberalism” has been defined by the Washington Media Establishment to mean Liebermanism, which basically means capitulation to the right wing agenda in exchange for a pat on the back from the David Broders of Washington.

Washington Media Establishment of today is center right, friendly to the GOP, openly hostile to Democrats.

Look at all the politicians Washington Media Establishment admires; McCain, Warner, Graham…………not one Democrat, not one liberal.

Jay B. makes sense.

There ought to be a better term for these wankers than “Sensible Liberal.” Hell, I’m a liberal, and I’m sensible (IMHO), and find them repugnant.

How about “weak, timid pseudo-liberals with their heads up their own asses, who give liberalism a bad name”?

Mordant

Re: tboggs comment section re: hippies. I, while not a hippie, happen to agree with many hippie politics. Also, beinging somewhat self aware, realize that (hippies) + (people who think like me)

Re Fish:

“He stole a few liberal love bullet points for street cred, then handed the country over to the corporations and the ruling elite.”

When the time comes Hillary will continue that legacy.

Shorter Brendan Nyhan: Despite what their pleasant, wonkish facade might indicate, liberal magazines are in fact seething hotbeds of liberalism! Read the chilling details – if you dare! Can the Republic survive?

Nyhan’s special pleading on behalf of poor, beleagured TNR was hilarious. “If TNR’s subscriber base were to shrink as a result of these attacks, the viability of the magazine could be threatened.” Heaven forfend that the marketplace of ideas function like an actual marketplace, where companies that make a lousy product lose money and go out of business.

JayB is dead right. The problem with American Politics is that centrism has been repalced with comity at all costs. So called centrists like Lieberman have placed meeting their political opponents half way above respect for the truth of the matter at hand.

If your opponent is a far right ideologue than meeting him half way is not centrism, it is capitulation. Look what happened to German centrists in the 30’s

This is the lesson staring the televised media in the face but they are terrified to see it because it would mean they would have to be skeptical and critical of far right spokespeople and they are afraid. Only men who put their principles before their fears (like Cafferty, Olbermann) are saying it like it is.

okay, there’s a huge problem with centrism that is actually defined by “sensible centrism”.

let’s take an issue, any issue. we have two sides of people who have studied the issue or are in some way invested for one side. they argue for one side or the other. most people would wind up “in the center” because they don’t know which side to be on. each side tries to convince people to take up their agenda on the issue. the centrist comes in and studies it but doesn’t come to any conclusions (or claims not to) and tries to get people to not take a side. they then say they are presenting “a third way”. now a true third way would be something that dragged people in another direction. this is not the case with “centrists”. centrists just want to stay between the two arguements or not choose one or the other. now this can be good in preventing extremism, but more often than not, in means preventing people from making a choice when we are presented with two options with no middle ground.

take the war in iraq for instance. we could go to war with iraq, or not. centrists played a major role in this debate. they declared what voices where too “extreme” to be considered “sensible”. a lot of valid criticism of the pending war was considered too extreme because it was critical of our present administration; even though it has been proven since then to have been entirely valid. so the truth was too extreme and “partisan” for our “sensible” “moderates”. in fact the facts are still too “partisan” for our “sensible” “moderates”. these people need to be drummed out of our national debate.

Retardo writes to grampaw at 12:52, “Now – quid pro quo – why are your precious DLC and other ‘centrist’ people and entities to the RIGHT of Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, yet insist that they’re really not? Did the ideological spectrum skew you or did you skew it? Make an effort to answer now.”

Where did grampaw go? He was pretty adamant that HIS questions needed to be answered, but after scrolling through all subsequent posts, he just kind of disappeared. Must e the Alzheimers…

And I posted to Brendan WATB Nyhan’s goofy-ass diatribe, but I doubt the moderatoer is going to select it.

TBogg’s … point about trying to keep protest marches on message seemed to quickly turn into the airing of petty grievances against anyone to the comment section’s left.

I didn’t get that impression at all, and I think TBogg and (especially) Matt “March to Irrelevance” Taibbi are completely correct.

People who can’t keep on message shouldn’t attend protests. People whose personal message is “Look at me!!! and my art car” should attend, but only after they tone that down, because it’s intrinsically off message.

OK, there were a few well deserved potshots at the “Free Mumia” crowd. Petty causes deserve petty grievances.

Nyhan’s special pleading on behalf of poor, beleagured TNR was hilarious. “If TNR’s subscriber base were to shrink as a result of these attacks, the viability of the magazine could be threatened.� Heaven forfend that the marketplace of ideas function like an actual marketplace, where companies that make a lousy product lose money and go out of business.

This is the argument against arts funding. What exactly are you advocating?

I liked Brendan’s definition of “minor factual error”. You know, like completely misattributing a statement is a “minor factual error”.

simple: ideology is the problem. if you place ideology above common sense, use it as an overlay or a template to understand the world, then the world will (a priori and a posteriori) conform to that worldview. it’s self evident. so “sensible liberalism” turns out to be a real ideology after all, retardo, whatever you think. it’s a meme, it’s alot of things. in the main, what it is, much like neo-liberalism, conservatism, neo-conservatism, marxism, and so on, is a way of getting the facts to match your predisposed beliefs. why is this complicated?

if you take each new fact as it comes in, weigh it in comparison to other prior facts, allow those whose predictions seem to have been more accurate to weigh more heavily than those who have been wrong, and understand the interlocking webs which connect on fact to another, you get someting better than sensible liberalism, you get…sense. the common kind.

why is that so fucking hard for all these nitwits to understand?

this is why the philosophy major was such an empty exercise: realizing that every ideology at its center contains the claim: “without knowledge of me, you would know nothing, therefore i am the bringer of truth of light”. great, sounds almost as stupid as religion.

Jeez. I read this thread and now I think I deserve a degree in Political Science. I have NO idea what most of you folks are talking about. Left, Centrist, Right. Who’s entitled to hold what view. Who’s views are honest, who’s views are Bullshit. And all the names. They might not be obscure, but I didn’t recognize many of them. Do they have trading cards with packs of gum?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not standing here and saying the right approach is ignorance. But this strikes me as a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument. What’s wrong with taking everybody’s position at face value? I mean, if you agitate for America to aggressively invade a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, well, that’s your position. My position is that you are a criminal seeking to dominate resources and reward allies with money and power. The same with the bankruptcy bill, Terry Sciavo, flag burning, whatever. I guess my point is that peoples opinions can only be measured on a scale against my opinions, or someone elses stated opinions. We assign arbitrary labels to groups of opinions. But who cares? There are people who agree with me, who support policies and candidates I believe in, and there are people who disagree with me, whose policies and candiates I resist.

I’m pretty far to the left, but I’m not (as I’m sure some of you have noticed) in lockstep. I believe what feels right to me, and if that’s inconsistant, or if you find it incoherent, I’m not going to adjust my views to fit some pre-defined template. Now I’m pretty sure this whole comment doesn’t make a lot of sense, but it was what I thought after reading the preceding….

mikey

“We all define the Center as where we ourselves stand.”

I don’t. It’s over there to the right somewhere.

I don’t bother to define the center. This whole left-right thing has always been a metaphor! Imposing a linear axis on the world of political thought has always been an overly simplistic way to view things.

And I’m all wondering where the ever-so-inquisitive grandpaw disappeared to.

the bit about TNR failing because people started pointing out their bullshit was amazing

Nyhan’s bizzarre fixation on being “bi-partisan” (ie: nit-picking liberals, taking on neo-Nazis and characterizing them as “the far right”) probably means a job writing for “the Note” in his future

Thank you for this, Retardo.

And perfect timing, as today the Sensible Centrists unleashed their manifesto and call to action led by David Broder.

I too am a member of the once-marginalized shrill. I well remember the loneliness of a few voices in the wilderness crying along with me, “Don’t believe him! He’s just manipulating the good will from 9-11 to fuck everyone into his war! What, are you all amnesiacs?! He’s a serial liar! He stole the goddamned election fer crysake! Oh, you’re sooo going to regret this in the morning. I’m gonna say I told you so when this is all over…”

I have watched the evolution of the Josh Marshalls, Kevin Drums, Matt Yglesias, and probably most dramatically, Glenn Greenwald with satisfaction and welcomed them back to the fold of the Left. We tried to warn them. They tried to pooh-pooh us. But in the end they are rational, and we were right, so that’s how we got here today.

We are stronger collectively now that they learned on their own.
And we’re not going to let them forget.

Brendan,

I looked at the entire blog. Not one single comment approved, it’s not just the other Brendan’s post. Blogofacism at its finest…

Brendan Nyhan deletes comments at his brendan-nyhan blog.

Apparently he doesn’t mind using Time’s platform to call others assholes, but he doesn’t like it when you come to his blog to call him an asshole to his face.

Here’s two trading cards to get you started on your collection, Mikey:

The Left

The Sensible Liberal

Sorry, you have to provide your own gum.

fuck those warmongers!

anyone that supported the war IS NOT A LIBERAL.

quite simple really. if you supported it, you supported george bush and the rest of the assholes.

you turned on your own. fuck you, get the fuck out of my fold.

I don’t know, Shorter. Can’t we all just get along? We need a big tent!

I view it like this:

Liberal, supported the war, big time sorry now: slow, gullible liberals

Liberal, supported the war, unsure about it now: dumb, moron liberals

Liberal, supported the war, support it still: asshole, warmonger liberals

Liberal, did not support the war, support it now: delusional, psychopathic liberals

See? Big tent!

Regarding the question of non-bullshit centrists:

Anyone who actually happens to have views in the center of the ideological spectrum would be a non-bullshit centrist, nu? OTOH, someone who simply decides that the best position is half-way between whatever is considered liberal and what is considered conservative, would be a bullshit centrist, because they don’t just happen to have beliefs that make them centrists but rather they are by reflex centrists who adjust their beliefs accordingly.

And such an adjustment is one thing when it’s done with the political acumen and deft touch of Bill Clinton, but it’s another thing when it’s done because a person’s convinced himself that “centrism = principles above politics” besides, even if the calculations involved are based on matters of perceived political ideology and not any principle other than “centrism is good” — when you’ve convinced yourself the politics of triangulation are high-minded and above politics … now that’s bullshit centrism, nu?

It’s stupid. Why ask Retardo (or Nyhan, or Assrocket) what they consider to be a Sensible Centrist? We all define the Center as where we ourselves stand.

I’m not a centrist and would never claim the position for myself.

And I have to disagree somewhat with Retardo — there’s a place for centrism, hell, I’m probably center-left under sane political definitions — but what’s so maddening and counterproductive about the Sensible Sorts is their inherent timidity.

But that’s the whole point, Jay. I don’t have a problem with that center. It’s a legitimate center. this post and the others like it are not attacks on centrism qua centrism but centrism as it is currently presented — fake centrism.

The “liberal blogosphere� is what used to be known, thirty years ago, as THE DEMOCRATIC BASE.

That is exactly right.

This is about one thing, and one thing only. And until you realize it, that this is the case on all sides, you’ll never undertand (or work to fix the problem.)

This is all about respect.

Why wern’t guys like MY or Ezra or Drum or Marshall thrown overboard? Why are they welcomed back into the fold? It’s pretty simple. They may have supported the Iraqi war, but they were always willing to listen to the other side, and didn’t try to insult us or put us down.

For the “centrists”, it’s not about ideology, it’s not about being right or wrong, and it’s not about staking a firm position. It’s being in a place where you’re socially respected by certain circles (read that as D.C) and doing things in a way to maximize your “influence” to increase your personal power.

The problem isn’t real moderates (such as Clinton, for an example) who may have nuanced views, but are real alternate ideas..they might be good, they might be bad, but at least they’re ideas. The problem is the people who have no real ideas, only what’s socially convienent.

The problem isn’t “technocrats”. Like it or not, the blogosphere is full of us. I’m one of them. (And I’m solidly in favor of certain ideas thought of as being “leftist”). Actually looking at the gears and wheels of how our society works and being able to make decisions accordingly isn’t always a bad thing.

Quick. Give me three non-moral arguments for a single-payer health care system. I bet most of you had more than three pop in your minds immediatly.
Yes, you are a technocrat as well. Welcome to the party!

No, the problem is the devotion to the old-school left-right measurement of political beliefs. These days, we’re left, right, up, down, and in compeltly different dimensions. Left-right is simplistic, and it’s done for a reason, because it makes it easy to make social distinctions. But impossible to make good policy distinctions.

To finalize, the BEST ideological post I’ve seen..here’s an excerpt.

“The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties — an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

Of course, this also means that government isn’t always the solution to the nation’s problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn’t be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.”

Who wrote this essay in favor of real centrism, of a balance between the private and the public?

Arch-Commendant Kos

I like you guys, but you’re all wet on this one. Brendan is good people, and if people like Atrios and kos can’t handle him, then maybe they are getting too hysterical and single-minded.

plunge said,

September 21, 2006 at 21:22

I like you guys, but you’re all wet on this one. Brendan is good people, and if people like Atrios and kos can’t handle him, then maybe they are getting too hysterical and single-minded.

My God, it’s Lee Siegle! How’s the view from the floor, Lee?

And where did Death Squad grampaw go?

Wow, according to Notorious P.A.T.’s excerpt:

Why was I asked to slant my work to the liberal party line? In an email statement, TAP editor Michael Tomasky said that … “there were a few posts in succession that struck us as either inaccurate or an effort to draw equivalencies where none existed.â€?

he wasn’t asked to “slant” his work as much as to quit posting what to looked to all but Nyhan like bullcookies.

I don’t grok centrism at all, I’m a total Social Democrat (i.e. achieving socialism through democractic processes, not the barrel of a gun). It’s pretty clear, as RM points out, that the fuzzy centrism that exists in the US is right leaning and I want no part of that.

Re: hippies. I think this comment nails it:

I wonder if it’s envy. Maybe people concentrate on the body hair to distract themselves from the fact that working 80 hours a week to upgrade to an Audi A6 didn’t bring them inner peace—yet the jobless burnouts in the Phish t-shirts look like they’re having a blast

Yep. I don’t *look* like a hippie –I hate long hair in the heat of Los Angeles, for one thing– but I sure as hell am one. I reject the materialist culture and that really seems to piss off some people I know. I work at a decent job, make OK money, but I come in at 8:29 and leave right at 5:30. I constantly get chided for merely being a secretary: “You’re so smart! You could be [insert job that I’d have my eyes gouged out first before doing it], you could live in a nice house instead of that apartment in the shitty area” etc.

The “jobless burnout in the Phish shirt” is certainly a type I saw at Phish shows –we called them Wookies– but a lot of my Phish friends and I were steadily employed with responsibilities, just not willing to be a greedhead and a Republican about it and definitely not willing to jump on the consumerist treadmill, which = limiting your options because you have to be a wage slave to make the payment on the fucking 55″ plasma TV.

I have a friend who’s up for partner at a major law firm here and he’s fucking *miserable*. If he gets it, he can retire at 50, but fuck that! Working 18 hour days around a bunch of Bush-loving assholes, no thanks.

I added some links to the post.

Max: widespread paranoia and the inability to even imagine that anyone could disagree with the most party line even an iota pretty much prove the point, don’t they?

It’s not possible, of course, that anyone on the left would ever make a mistake, or that anyone on the right could ever be right about something. If they say the sky is blue, then we MUST say it’s pink. If they don’t jump off the bridge, then gosh darnit, we must jump!

What’s your fucking point, plunge?

That after being hammered mercilessly by the rightwingers that own and run most of the media, we should listen to some self-important twit like Nyhan question us on a liberal blog?

The inability to question yourself is a much larger problem on the right. Example number one: GW Bush.

Plunge whines:

It’s not possible, of course, that anyone on the left would ever make a mistake, or that anyone on the right could ever be right about something.

In what context is this a defense of Nyhan? He did more than ‘make mistakes,’ as did Siegel. Both resorted to the kind of spin and fabrication they supposedly despise to smear others. Brendan Nyhan posted consisted distortions and invidious comparisons at TAP. He loses his gig for that perfectly legit reason, and then whines in Time on Ann Marie’s dime. Nice. Defend the suck-up if you wish, I just think it makes you look like a foolish sock puppet.

Re paranoia: scum like granpaw would rather live under a corporatist dictatorship rather than return to the tax structure of Eisenhower’s America. You need to wake up to that point.

Tell me what one right winger has ever been correct about. Give me an example. The history of the American left is awash in disasterous mistakes, but trusting rightwingers is the provenance of fools.

The problem with centrism and the reason it seems to elicit such strong negative reactions is because it is a political philosophy without principles. The centrist seeks moderation between the prevailing ends of the political spectrum. As the spectrum shifts, so does the centrist’s views. A centrist may advocate relatively liberal positions in one era and conservative ones in another. In both cases, he is a “true” centrist.

To the centrist, this is “sensible”. To everyone else, it is opportunism, hedging one’s bets to maintain political viability.

Reactionary nutbags like Barry Goldwater were in better times seen properly as extremist;

I’d say AuH2O started out as a reactionary and then by the end of his life he’d moved to middle (or even to the left) while his beloved GOP had moved far to the right on certain issues, particularly the social issues (abortion, gays, church and state).

Let’s remember that back in the 60s, fundie types eschewed involvement in politics. Addressing the Religious Right’s concerns was simply not an issue that Goldwater ever had to contend with until late in his career.

Goldwater was always pro-choice. In fact were he still around today, he’d probably have ripped Bush several new assholes, told the GOP to go screw themselves, and re-register as a Libertarian, which is really what he was in the end.

So, hands off Goldwater, my friend. He was an honorable conservative… especially after he quit talking about extremism being a virtue.

fake centrists only attacked Bush’s means, not his ends.

I hope you are not saying that you don’t object, to torture, extra-judicial detention, and domestic surveillance, etc. but mostly just think Bush is targetting the wrong people?

That Nyhan column was really sad. Would you like some brie to with it, Brendan?

Atrios, Kos, and other liberal bloggers have attacked The New Republic for years, helping to undermine the center-left magazine’s lagging popularity among liberals. If TNR’s subscriber base were to shrink as a result of these attacks, the viability of the magazine could be threatened.

Blame the messenger. Yes, we all took orders from Dear Leader Kos and Deputy Dear Leader Atrios, and we cancelled our TNR ‘scrips because they commanded it. Certainly not because many of us already were sick of Lieberman-style bipartisan date rape and Kos/Atrios gave an online voice to what we were already thinking. Oh no. Can’t be that.

At a deeper level, these developments may offer a preview of the future of opinion journalism. Ex-reporters and political insiders currently dominate the nation’s op-ed pages, but mainstream news organizations like the Washington Post are hiring a new generation of ideological bloggers who are likely to take their place.

I think this is the key to the source of Brendan’s wounded pride. He was looking forward to a career track leading to being a conventional-wisdom-spouting DC pundit, prince of the cocktail weenie circuit, and he’s realized that instead those damn dirty bloggers are going to take their place.

Too bad Brendan. Looks like you might actually have to work for a living.

I hope you are not saying that you don’t object, to torture, extra-judicial detention, and domestic surveillance, etc. but mostly just think Bush is targetting the wrong people?

Absolutely not.

So, hands off Goldwater, my friend. He was an honorable conservative

I disagree, Renato. On economic matters, it’s my impression that Goldwater never stopped being basically a Randroid. Yes he was pissed at Richard Nixon and yes he said he’d like to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass. But he also IIRC did his best — which was pretty good, too — to sabotage the work of the Church Committee.

I mean Christ, if you want to stand up for ‘Bi-Partisanship’ — then fucking stand up for it. Show how the GOP has basically crippled it. You’d think that the way the GOP and Bush have governed the last six years, the fucking spineless Lieberman-types would notice this little fact. The Bi-Partisanship excuse is a sham for their cravenness.

I agree 100%. The republicans have demanded total surrender and called it “bi-partisanship”, and it is bullshit to validate their approach by taking it seriously. However, they are still sometimes right and it is just as bullshit when their opponents insist that all republican positions are, a priori, both factually and morally wrong.

. Centrists, even if they voted for the fucking war (which wouldn’t necessarily be a centrist position), should be screaming about the patronage, mismanagement and no-bid contracts that have defined the American occupation.

But thats the rub. Large sections of the opposition, such as Retardo here, see that position as ‘fake centrism’. Nothing short of moral condemnation of the very idea will satisfy them.

However, they are still sometimes right and it is just as bullshit when their opponents insist that all republican positions are, a priori, both factually and morally wrong.

Ok, see, this is theoretically true, but we no longer live in theoretical world. When “Conservative” meant what it means, then they had some good stuff and some bad stuff. When the term was co-opted by bloodthirsty militarist neocon party hack aparachtiks and their theocrat fellow travelers, this ceased having any validity. They ain’t “Conservative” and they don’t have any positions that are right, because they have no interest in the populace, they have no interest in governance, they only care about the accumulation of money and power. I gotta tell ya, I miss the old conservatives. What’s scary is even Pat Buchcannan (outside of his ugly racist tendencies) sounds reasonable these days. Smaller government, less regulation and a reasonable tax structure are all pretty good goals, and they have abandoned them. Maybe the Dems could pick them up?

mikey

I just re-read Brendan’s post and it seems to me what he’s really complaining about is that opinion magazines like his former employer, might actually have to start listening to their subscribers.

A better headline for him would have been, “The Dictatorship of the (Blog) Proletariat”

“He did more than ‘make mistakes,’ as did Siegel.”

That you even compare the two is just ridiculous. Proudly end up being the mirror image of hysterical rightwing nutjobs.

“He did more than ‘make mistakes,’ as did Siegel.�

That you even compare the two is just ridiculous.

Differences:

Siegel didn’t want to get caught. Brendan unleashed a string of dimwit posts in what one can only see as an attempt to piss all over the pedestal he thought he was on. If it had been prime-quality piss, things could be different.

TNR may have been completely happy with Siegel’s regular column. Brendan got canned by his bosses for low-quality work.

Siegel had achieved his ambition: working at TNR. Brendan’s just trying.

Brendan has achieved the support of Jonah Goldberg.

So basically “real” centrists are those that are to the left of those that call themselves Centrists who are the “fake” centrists. How convenient. Sounds like a nice “Gee I wish my opinions were more in the political mainstream and not considered know nothing & reactionary by Academic types” plea.

“as well as on the obvious point that such policies have lost the working class for the Democrats. ”

They have? When did this happen? Do you have figures to back up this “obvious” point? Oh my, you haven’t been reading that true blue populist and “real liberal” Thomas Frank again have you?

Shorter Dustin: “Conservatives are the real liberals, and I dare you to prove me wrong with your ‘facts.'”

“And where did Death Squad grampaw go?”

Back to train more Suni and Shia Iraqis?

As for a libertarian who may satisfy your criteria, consider Ilana Mercer, who vigorously opposes the Iraq intervention (from its inception) and is true-blue free market on the economic side. http://www.ilanamercer.com/Articles.htm

grampaw went to a wedding for the week-end, children. It’s nice to be missed.

Retardo’s main retardation is his inability to grasp the simple fact that centrists, by definition, do not have a core ideology they adhere to. If they did, they’d be a third party, and centrists would be people who tended to lean towards the three different poles on various issues.

Retardo also refuses to absorb the fact that I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I was in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. It’s a failing of ideologues: if you don’t agree with them on all issues, you must be part of the devil-enemy.

I’m pro actually-free-trade, and I’m mostly anti-war. This simply doesn’t compute for a guy like Retardo, so he lumps me in with this fever-dream “fake centrist” devil he’s dreamed up and lumped in ad argumentum with Nixon.

Nixon is sort of the Hitler of lefty political debate, so I call Godwin.

randroids fundametnalyl cannot be centrist. Economic conservatism mixed with social liberalness is libertarianism, not centrist. It’s called being an asshole. you’re free to be as big of a flaming di ck as you want as a libertarian. That’s right. morality is objective, too bad it’s in extreme oppostion to social darwinism. You fuckers are going to burn.

and for the record you can be against the war as much as you want, you’re still an asshole who’s stealing from the poor.