A couple of interesting posts today, one by Barbara O'Brien on the "bipartisan" economic stimulus package ("bipartisan" meaning the Democrats caved again) and one by dday at Hullabaloo on the centrism fetish (it really does become a fetish -- like bad sex with a script).
I'm seeing a core issue -- the idea that the middle in and of itself is a wonderful thing. No, that's simply what you wind up with when all the yelling is done. This is coupled with the idea that bipartisanship is the answer to all our problems. (This is "bipartisanship" in the old sense of opposed interests working together, not the contemporary Republicanese of "do it my way or I'll pick up my marbles and go home.")
I used to call myself a centrist, but that doesn't really define my political point of view. I don't really hold a middle ground on any given issue -- I guess I have a pick-and-choose ideology, centered on what works or what I feel the general purpose of government should be (the greatest good for the greatest number, and include the outsiders, thank you very much). So I hear about things like Unity '08 and just have to laugh -- why on earth would anyone mount a presidential campaign based on the idea that he doesn't believe in anything in particular? (Although we've had some very successful presidents who worked that way -- Bill Clinton is the latest -- but that's not anything you can campaign on.)
In light of what I said earlier about the center being where you wind up with all the shouting is done, that explains, I think, why the center is constantly shifting, and points out one of the flaws in trying to see "the center." There isn't one, in that sense. It's constantly shifting, and it's going to take different casts on different issues -- there simply isn't a "center."
At least, not in real life.
No comments:
Post a Comment