Honest
Centrism For
Populist Democracy
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
06 December, 2006
Countercurrents.org
The
United States has lost its center through destructive centrifugal politics.
America seems spinning out of control. It has become a non-populist,
dollar-driven, elitist democracy. Centrism can be a powerful metaphor
and tool for national renewal, if it is also populist.
In the world of politics,
language is used to deceive, distract and divide. Some words become
so abused that they lose meaning. In recent years, enormous numbers
of liberals and Democrats decided to hide under the label of “progressive.”
Many politicians want to be seen as “moderates.” A newer
subterfuge is “centrist.”
Manipulative Centrism
Someone wrote this on a blog
discussion: “Centrism is an empty, contentless label that by its
very nature is without substance or ideology. What is the centrist position
on heathcare reform, half way between the left and right? What is its
position on defense spending, ditto? Someone, please, tell me what centrism
is?” It was a good point and question.
Centrism sounds reasonable. But it has been abused. Many people see
centrism as some middle ground between the liberal-Democratic and conservative-Republican
ends of the political spectrum, some way to achieve balance and avoid
extremes. By shunning these polarizing positions it is hoped that a
moderate, middle of the road or “third way” stance is created.
But centrism may be nothing more than empty compromises of positions
from each of the two major parties. It too easily becomes a diffuse,
ambiguous mishmash of positions that say little about where someone
stands in terms of absolute principles. Indeed, many find centrism attractive
because it is malleable and flexible, allowing whatever seems pragmatic
at the time. This makes centrism vulnerable to abuse by those seeking
a popular political brand that is not burdened by adherence to clear
principles. For the most part, centrism has been empty political rhetoric,
but it can be re-powered.
After the 2004 election Kevin
Cassell made noted: “Centrism is not a clear-cut ideology (or
belief system); many encyclopedias don't even include it as a category
unto itself." And David Sirota wrote the hard-hitting article “Debunking
Centrism.” He said the Democratic Leadership Council “is
funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris,
Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered
the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly
corporate agenda under the guise of ‘centrism’ while allowing
the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists.
…centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and
find a way to compete in the Midwest and South.’" Later,
in Hostile Takeover he pointed out how ultra-conservative right-wingers
hijacked the terms "centrist" and "mainstream,"
misleading the public.
Like other terms, centrist
has become another linguistic weapon of mass deception when used by
mainstream politicians. Is Joe Lieberman a genuine centrist or just
a conservative Democrat? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a centrist, or just
clever enough to abandon some of his principles? Does calling Hillary
Clinton a centrist make her more appealing?
Commenting on what appeared
to be the winning Democratic strategy before this year’s midterm
elections, Sally Kohn said: “Centrism not only alienates the Democratic
base but also plays into the Right wing's ultimate agenda. … Centrism
is not a ‘third way’, it's their way -- taking Right wing
ideas and trying to pass them off as enlightened Democratic compromise.”
There is a lot of expedient
and faux centrism. Vermont’s Senator-elect Bernie Sanders, officially
an Independent, said: “There is one point I want to make clear
because all too often I see this discussion of progressivism vs centrism
as merely one of gaining tactical advantage in an election. I am a progressive
because that is what I believe at my core. It is not some position of
convenience to be shed the next time some Washington wonk decides it's
more advantageous to be a centrist.”
Unlike Sanders, Bill Clinton
used centrism as a campaign tactic. In Dead Center James MacGregor Burns
and Georgia Sorenson made the point: “Clinton’s major failure
was his inability… to frame a coordinated policy program that
would make of his centrism not just an electoral strategy but a vital
center of change…” Other authors embrace centrism, mostly
on the basis that it is an alternative to divisive and extreme political
positions. Yet the nagging question remains: What exactly and uniquely
defines real, trustworthy centrism?
In sum, “partisan centrism,”
viewed as the center region along an axis of left-right, blue-red partisan
issues, supports the two-party status quo. It is defeatist. It protects
the elitist political, economic and bipartisan ruling class. The center
should not be a statistical mean, but an ideological imperative. Phony
partisan centrism does not merit public support.
Listen to Sirota: “Centrism”
as defined in the political dialogue today means “being in the
middle of elite opinion in Washington, D.C.” But if you plot this
“center” on the continuum that is American public opinion,
you will find that it is nowhere near the actual center of the country
at large. The center of elite Washington opinion is ardently free trade,
against national health care, opposed to market regulation, for continuing
the Iraq War, and supportive of the flattest tax structure we’ve
had in contemporary American history. That center is on the extreme
fringe of the center of American public opinion, which is ardently skeptical
of free trade, for universal health care, supportive of strong market
regulations, insistent that the war end soon, and in favor of making
the tax system more progressive.
Centrism At Its Best
Unity through centripetal
politics is a necessary alternative to destructive and divisive centrifugal
politics. Centrism can pull Americans together to fill the currently
empty national spiritual and political center.
In searching for real centrism
worthy of broad public support it helps to distinguish between divisive
political “issues” versus structural or systemic problems
and their solutions.
From a marketing perspective,
to differentiate themselves, at least during campaigns, Democrats and
Republicans use social, economic and government issues for which they
can stake out seemingly different positions. Abortion, illegal immigration,
the Iraq war, globalization, taxes, health care costs, and same sex
marriage are divisive issues. Issues are usually framed so that people
can say they are for or against something. Issues are meant to elicit
quick, emotional responses that get people lined up with one party or
candidate and antagonistic toward the other. Issues produce polarizing
partisan politics. They divide by design.
Alternatively, we can start
with the evidence that our political-government-economic system is broken.
A key symptom is an epidemic of existential emptiness. There is little
holding America and Americans together other than materialistic consumption.
Root problems have cascading
impacts throughout society. A majority of Americans believe our national
system has been seriously degraded over time and is stuck on the wrong
track. Besides consistent results from polls and surveys, there is the
unsettling fact that, even in this year of heightened political events
and talk, 60 percent of eligible voters chose not to vote. This negative
reality defines a remarkable opportunity to build widespread public
agreement about solutions to core problems - to create an incentive
to vote by giving people more political choice. We need a political
party to help Americans fill our empty national center with meaning.
For convenience, let’s
call real, trustworthy centrism “populist centrism.” It
is defined by what is central to and in the center of public consciousness
– our broken system. It offers a true, sorely needed paradigm
change. Consider that when asked whether life for the next generation
would be better, worse or about the same as life today, 40 percent of
Americans said "worse," while just 30 percent answered "better."
The fraction of Americans that believe the country is heading in the
wrong direction is a disturbing 60 percent! A nation that has lost its
center creates widespread despair, pessimism and ennui that even compulsive
consumption cannot remedy, though it certainly distracts from distasteful
realities. And that’s what plutocrats prefer – a voracious
consumer economy, people hooked on borrowing and spending rather than
being politically engaged.
Authentic, populist centrism
has the capacity to unite Americans, despite differences on issues,
in a battle to make politics, government and the economy serve working-
and middle-class people. All but the upper class can see the prime root
problem: Politics, government and the economy now primarily serve the
greed, demands, and selfishness of a class of rich and powerful elites,
often acting through corporate powers, PACs and sanctimonious think
tanks. Elitist interests have turned American democracy into a plutocracy.
Private and corporate wealth has been turned into political power, government
control and economic inequality. We have an aristocratic ruling class.
Ordinary people retain many
personal freedoms, but our representative government no longer represents
them. The minority that own most of America control it, while the majority
drive the economy through their spending. Millions of wealthy Americans
vote. But much less than a majority of working- and middle-class people
take placebo voting seriously. The USA has become a non-populist democracy
The Political Solution
How do we politicize the
public’s negative feelings? How do we get more Americans engaged
politically, enough to take voting for third parties seriously and reject
lesser-evil voting for major party candidates – to take back the
sovereign power that is theirs?
To fix our nation we must
remove control of OUR political system by the two major parties. Many
rightfully see the Republican and Democratic parties as just two sides
of the same coin or two heads of the same beast. Howard Dean was correct
when he wrote in 2004: "After nearly a decade of widening income
inequalities, campaign-finance scandals, noxious inside-the-Beltway
compromises, and political catfights ... the American people felt equally
disenfranchised by Democrats and Republicans." A 2006 national
poll found that 53 percent of Americans supported a third major party.
A remarkable 73 percent agree that “it would be a good idea for
this country to have more choices in the 2008 election than just Republican
and Democratic candidates.”
A majority of people want
more political competition. Yet history’s lesson is that third
parties have done very poorly in challenging the two-party duopoly.
That is not their fault. The two-party mafia has rigged the political
system to bury opposition. Despite historic levels of public dissatisfaction
with both major parties, in the 2006 midterm elections there was no
mass embrace of third party candidates, which largely remained unknown
to the public. Considering the staying power of the two-party duopoly,
would deceptive-partisan or honest-populist centrism best challenge
it?
Clearly, populist centrism
is a truer, bolder alternative. It can bring us back to a populist democracy.
Fixing the republic is a nobler, more necessary and better unifying
goal than reaching compromises on a host of issues framed by the major
parties. With populist centrism, the public can rally behind a patriotic
movement to fix our democracy, political system and economy. Just as
individuals think in terms of centering themselves to become healthier
psychologically, with honest centrism so too can our country center
itself, connect to its roots, unite itself, and harness people power
to repair and renovate itself. United, Americans can challenge the power
of political, economic and corporate elites.
With honesty we can reach
consensus on how to fix the broken system, return power to the people,
make representative democracy work, and remove the corrupting influence
of big money on the whole political-government-economic system. The
goal is systemic change and national renewal through revolutionary reform
that includes overturning the two-party status quo.
The two major parties cannot
admit that the whole political-government-economic system is seriously
broken. Why? Over decades they each contributed to breaking the system.
In their own ways, each major party has been permanently corrupted by
big money from corporate and other special interests. Each has contributed
to a culture of corruption and dishonesty. They enable each other. The
only competition they want is from each other. They have sold out Americans.
After the 2004 election Sirota
warned about “bankrolled politicians who have hijacked ‘centrism’
to sell out America's middle class.” Caution is needed about this
year’s big Democratic win. As to Democratic candidates, pragmatism
ruled the day; they said whatever was necessary to win. As to voters,
hatred of President Bush, his policies and the Iraq war prevailed. The
Democrats won a majority of just 40 percent of the voting electorate,
perhaps 25 percent of the total. That is not much of a public mandate.
A third political party can
emerge to steer public debate on the exact reforms and solutions needed
to fix our broken country. It can define itself in a principled way
to attract the majority of Americans – not stuck on extreme positions
– that want profound national improvement. It can set out a strategy
to get the nation on a new track to a better future, using a new dimension,
not the tired and corrupt left and right parallel tracks of Democrats
and Republicans. It can make centrism a trusted political philosophy
as well as the defining character of a competitive political party.
With honesty, a third party
can overcome the damage done to worthy concepts of centrism, progressivism,
and populism by many groups and people practicing semantic chicanery.
We desperately need candidates that are not shills for elites, but who
will unflinchingly serve the interests of working- and middle-class
Americans. We must imagine success: A third party that leads a rebooting
of American democracy. Strong public thirst for historic change is real.
A majority of Americans agree that our system is broken. They await
a competitive third party with a fix-our-democracy message. Democrats
and Republicans should NOT be allowed to keep their stranglehold on
OUR political system when they no longer have the consent of most of
the governed.
The majority of Americans
have decided. A democracy with too little political competition provides
too little incentive to vote. It is a delusional, centerless, non-populist
democracy. Let’s fix it by joining together at the center.
[Many details on populist
centrist reforms are in the author’s new book; check it out at
www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights