Fred Thompson: Centrist?
PatHMV wrote an interesting post for Stubborn Facts about Fred Thompson (and Al Gore). Thompson wrote an article yesterday for Pajamas Media, in which he thanks the ‘online community’ for its support and in which he appeals for, yes, bipartisanship.
In his post, PatHMV contrasts Thompson(‘s post) with Gore(‘s book).
Those of you who know me from Centerfield know that I’ve long said that political centrists should focus on improving the tone and attitude of debates in this country, not developing substantively “centrist” policies. Ideology itself is not bad, when it reflects real, substantive differences of opinion between significant segments of the population. Mr. Thompson recognizes that the problem is fundamentally not with Washington, but with the people who send the politicians to Washington. Moreover, he realizes that the problems will not be solved simply by insisting that we give up our strongly held opinions (by “putting aside” abortion or gay rights or the other so-called “divisive” issues).
The solution is not to paper over those differences but to acknowledge them… that is, to acknowledge that other people in our country don’t all think like we do, that your differences with your political opponents may be based on honest differences of opinion, not just political opportunism.
Mr. Thompson recognizes our problems for what they are, in an optimistic light and with some knowledge, obviously, of the history of partisanship in this country. In so doing, he stands in stark contrast to Al Gore, who of late seems to have take courses at the Jimmy Carter school of national malaise.
Compare the excerpt from Gore’s book and Mr. Thompson’s PJM post. In reality, both are similar in substance. Both acknowledge the power of “new media” on the internet and its capacity to improve the health of public discourse in this country.
The main message is the same, but brought through completely different messagers. Thompson writes for Pajamas Media, Gore “gives us the message through the oldest of media, a book, with the excerpt being delivered from a quintessential old-media source, Time Magazine.” Furthermore, Pat argues, the tone is different: Thompson inspires, Gore lectures. Gore sounds like a Carter or a Dukakis, not like a Reagan or like a Clinton.
Pat makes some good points, having said that, I do not quite see how anyone can call Thompson a centrist. Thompson is, by all accounts, an American conservative. He might not be extremely conservative, he might be open to bipartisanship, but that does not, in my book, make one a centrist. A centrist is a person who favors centrist policies. Thompson is, perhaps, a moderate conservative. A moderate conservative is a conservative… with an open mind. He or she adheres to a conservative ideology, but is willing to listen to ‘the other side’ and, if necessary, to comprmise.
Anyway, I do agree with Pat’s view on Thompson: Thompson uses the new media in a great way. He’s able to directly appeal to voters. This is a major strength and, if exploited, will help him to win the Republican nomination.
Cross posted at my own blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “Fred Thompson: Centrist?”
“The solution is not to paper over those differences but to acknowledge them… that is, to acknowledge that other people in our country don’t all think like we do, that your differences with your political opponents may be based on honest differences of opinion, not just political opportunism.”
I know virtually nothing about Thompson, but if it’s true it sounds like he’s the conservatives Obama. Obama is clearly a liberal (by American standards) but also clearly open to bi-partisanship. I think I prefer a clearly conservative person that’s willing to discuss and negotiate more than a milder conservative who takes the “my way or the highway” approach to politics.
Question Lynx: isn’t that how George W. Bush presented himself in 00 as well?
You mean “I am the uniter”? Yes, he did. Again, I don’t know Thompson so I can’t know if it’s TRUE or not. It sounds good, but people lie. GWB presented himself as a “uniter”, but he never convinced me, though I never imagined just how divisive he would be (admittedly in ’00 I didn’t really believe he’d become president, not smart enough…my mistake). I used to believe that McCain was a conservative bi-partisan, but then he mutated on me. I believe that Obama is a uniter, and can only hope I’m not mistaken.
After 2000, I no longer have faith in anything a candidate tells me to get the presidency. Don’t ask me why I even watch the debates, because I no longer believe any of them- except maybe Obama or Biden.
GW was also a bipartisan moderate who was a competent governor – and wanted a humble foreign policy so he did a 180 on those scores as well. Lets see, he was supposed to return honesty and dignity to the WH. Well, 0 for 4.
If Al Gore ran, I would believe him- yes I know he wasn’t perfectly honest in 2000- but at least we knew him. He has grown in stature (and in girth, lol) since then, but I’m sure he does not want to go up against the Clintons and then the r-w smear machine in the general.
But will the tone change when the opposition hammers on his 20 years of lobbying.
A centrist is a person who favors centrist policies.
We debated that for years at Centerfield, and that would be one definition–one hated and denied and repudiated by almost everyone who calls themselves a centrist. It implies that a centrist is a robot defined only by an adherence to reflexively splitting the positions of doctrinaire/ideological conservatives and liberals. A robo-weenie. And that’s certainly how anyone who departs from one of the wings without joining the other wing is viewed by the wingers–but it’s far from true.
Almost all people who actually call themselves centrists are moderates who hold a mix of both moderate liberal and conservative positions and thus do not feel at all comfortable with either extreme. Nor is a simple one-dimensional political “line spectrum” even remotely adequate to describe the mix of political views in this country.
I suspect that anyone who has ever considered himself or herself a centrist shares the belief that good ideas can come from either side of the aisle, and that the country would be well served by politicians who tried to craft broad consensus that best serves the nation and moves the nation forward towards actual working solutions, however messy and muddled, rather than to claim pure and narrow ideological victories that only serve the wings or the party. One who uses the pluralist system we’ve enjoyed for a couple of centuries to actually craft workable solutions with real consensus instead of just waving the bloody flag of partisan ideology.
There is more “centrism” in a Fred Thompson or a Daniel Patrick Moynihan (even dead!) than can be found in a million unbending “issue ideologues.”
‘sigh’ Once again, gratuitous smears against a good man, Al Gore, that are completely unnecessary to making the point the author wanted to make. For doing more than any other human in history to bring home environmental issues and the climate change disaster to the widest possible audience, Gore is akin to “Carter” (what worse smear can someone hurl!) in advancing arguments of national malaise. Even kritter in his post, who seems to be sympathetic to Gore, referred to Gore being less than honest in 2000 to which I would ask: where and please give particulars. Dont accept what you hear: do the research yourself. It seems to be Gore’s fate that people will simply throw on-line one liners at him in ridicule or describe him as ponderous, lecturing or smug or dishonest for no reason other than our society has become nothing but a bunch of professional and amateur talking heads who need to fill up space no matter how vapid the comments and Gore is the joke de jeur and has been for years. The author could have praised Thompson as a centrist (which he is not) without attacking Gore. And to attack him for…oh my God…writing a boooooook! Bottom line from my way of thinking: Gore should have been president and we would have been way better off today if he was president. Instead I have to see year after year of snide wrongheaded comments about a very good and honest man. Our voters elect people they want to have beers with, who have bright and sunny smiles of vacuous optimism, not people who are well educated and deep thinkers to lead us in troubled times. What a world. What a world. But kritter is right, no way Gore wants to lower himself into the smear-pot of politics again. I dont blame him at all and the loss is all ours.
jammer- Gore was caught telling some untruths during the 2000 campaign. But he still is head and shoulders above most of the people who call themselves our “leaders”. I admire him tremendously for getting over his loss( I think he was cheated) and building an impressive new life in public service. He is one of the few “great” men of our generation, and one that I could get behind with a lot of excitement. He is a hero.
Unfortunately most who are entering the political realm are entirely supported by interest groups and care most for their political survival. Only a few conservatives have spoken out about Alberto Gonzales, and most of those are safe from Karl Rove’s political bag of dirty tricks.
I agree that Gore should not go back into the meat-grinder of electoral politics, but stand above the fray. In other words, keep fighting for his cause.
Thompson recognizes that ‘others’ disagree, and can do so honestly. And then what?
Actually, then it’s back to attacking those others.
After drinking in Thompson’s message, this article is inspired to go after Gore. So, what has changed? We still have different opinions, we are still inspired by different people, and we still demean all ‘others’.
What does it mean to inspire, anyway? Bush inspired us all the way to Baghdad. For my money, it would have been better for him to be more bookish a la Gore, in order to have a grasp of where his inspiration was leading us.
No. Thompson is a hero to only those who feel better after being inspired by him. I’m glad for them to be feeling better. He offers nothing substantial to those seeking a way to co-exist in a divided country.
I, in turn, was inspired by Tully’s comment to say: “Long live Cebtrusn!
It is the ‘principled’ ideologues who are ruining this country. Political ideologies have their place, as guide posts, but when used as armor to insulate against knowledge to be gained from other positions, they can be blinders worn on the road to a steep cliff.
‘It is the ‘principled’ ideologues who are ruining this country. Political ideologies have their place, as guide posts, but when used as armor to insulate against knowledge to be gained from other positions, they can be blinders worn on the road to a steep cliff.’
Doma- this is brilliant, and I am hoping how the majority of Americans feel.Instead of problem-solvers we have had the Wolfowitz’s,Bremers, Feiths and Boltons, and their ideologically pure solutions have run into a brick wall in the real world. Worse still, they have been unable to switch midstream when their strategies didn’t work, because an ideologue lacks the flexibility. But your quote inspired me today.
that often leads to success.
So Fred wants to lower the level of partisanship in Washington eh?
What ever came of his hearings into alleged Chinese
contributions to the Bill Clinton campaign? Remember when he claimed would reveal how US secrets were sold to China in exchange
for our most sensitive secrets?
Oh that’s right. He was just projecting
I guess I must have missed the scathing nasty swipes at Gore that some people are reading into Pat’s post. Yes, he compares Gore’s style to Thompson’s and finds that it comes up short in his view, but “gratuitous smears”? Come on, that’s absurd.
I actually didn’t see the contrast that Pat was making from the excerpts he provided but when I read the whole Gore piece I found it incredibly depressing. I also felt defensive, as though he was blaming me and the rest of the American public for all that is wrong in politics. And that (I think) is Pat’s point, that even though I actually agreed with almost everything Gore wrote, I wanted to tune him out because of the tone that he took.
Honestly I didn’t find Thompson’s piece to be all that inspiring either but at least it didn’t leave me with a sense of despair and annoyance.
CS-
“as though he was blaming me and the rest of the American public for all that is wrong in politics.”
Would you rather hear an inspiring fairy tale telling you how wonderful you are? Without accepting responsibility for the present, there can be nope for a better future. Remember about learning from our mistakes?
Are we not grown up enough to tolerate bad news?
doma,
I can accept responsibility without a problem but it’s human nature to respond better to a more positive message. Gore’s message was almost completely about the problems instead of the solutions, and that’s not how you inspire people to change.
He goes on for about 25 paragraphs, each one building on the last in terms of some other aspect of our society that has broken down or is in peril. Even when he starts writing toward the end about the internet being a solution, he’s still warning us about how it might go astray. As I skimmed over he article again, the first sentence I came to that was even remotely positive or gave any hope for change was actually his closing sentence. Whoo hoo, how uplifting!
It’s like someone telling you you’re ugly, overweight, unhealthy, smelly, and incompetent and then at the very end they say, “but you can be the solution if you just decide to change.” People may need to hear those ‘truths’ but not in that way.
CS- But when conservative critics blamed liberalism and its effects for the shootings at VT you didn’t feel like they were blaming the public for all that is wrong in society? Because I found that depressing. Sorry if my comment is a bit o/t.
I don’t think I see the need to harp on Gore- making him into a loser. He lost an election that remains highly questionable. He retreated into academia, then came back with a vengeance to tackle the issue that he cared about the most, winning an Oscar and being nominated for a Nobel Prize. He’s at the top of his game.
Kim,
A bit off topic, yes. And what gave you the impression that I thought that it was right for anyone to blame the Cho shooting on anything other than Cho himself (and his mental illness: so perhaps the only societal implication there is how we deal with that).
And who’s harping? That’s my point, Pat makes what I felt were very reasonable criticisms of Gore’s style and people are reacting as though he should be protected from any criticism whatsoever. And Doma asks me if I’m grown up enough to handle bad news? What does Gore’s narrow miss of the presidency have to do with anything- is he supposed to be completely above reproach now? Are we supposed to pity him and patronize him?
“making him into a loser”
Those are your words, Kim (realizing of course that you are not calling him that) not Pat’s, or mine, or anyone else’s. Why is it making him into a loser to say that we don’t think he communicated his point in a positive, constructive way?
CS- How else can you view a comparison to Dukakis?
I was referring earlier to Gingrich, and a discussion about whether we ought to at least look at his claims that our society is to blame. You didn’t wholeheartedly support it, but you seemed open to his reasoning and defended him and his point-remember? Whenever someone like Gingrich, Robertson or Falwell seizes on a major crisis- 9/11, Katrina, the Cho shooting, to blame their opponents (gays, atheists, liberals,) or their effect on society I find it incredibly depressing.
Honestly Kim I don’t remember the Gingrich discussion that you’re referring to. I’m not saying that you aren’t accurate in what you’re saying, but I don’t know how to respond because I don’t remember what I was defending. As a general rule I agree with you that it is wrong to use tragic events as political opportunities to bash an opponent, and I find that the logic used in those situations is generally quite a stretch. I guess there might have been some nuance in what Gingrich was saying that I agreed with or something but I don’t know what it was. Also, it may not always come across the way I intend but sometimes I will ‘defend’ someone only to the extent that I think I understand what they were trying to say and not really to the extent that I agree with them. I’m sure that I do this more with conservatives, because my perspective is similar enough that I sometimes “get” what people are saying even when I disagree or dislike the manner in which they are conveying their thoughts. I’m guessing that might be what have happened there, but I don’t know.
“comparison to Dukakis”
Looking back, here’s where Pat brought up Dukakis:
He used Dukakis and Carter as other examples of candidates who were not inspirational in their tone. He certainly wasn’t drawing an equivalency; there was no “Gore is just like Dukakis” about that statement and that’s quite obvious if you read on because I doubt that Pat thinks that Reagan and Clinton were very much alike (other than their positive tone) nor are Thompson and Obama very much alike (again, other than this one characteristic of their communication style).
CS-
To each his own inspiration, I guess.
I’m not moved by inspiration for the sake of inspiration – at all. That’s why Thompson fails to inspire me. After acknowledging that others disagree, what, exactly, does he inspire in the way of dealing with those others?
On the contrary, a negative assessment of where we are can be a powerful of inspiration for change. When there’s a hurricane coming, I don’t want to be told it’s just a little breeze or that all I need is faith in the goodness of man, to deal with it.
If I’m mortally ill, I don’t want to be told I have a cold and that I’m a wonderful patient.
The bad news, in itself, is often the inspiration for rising to the occasion.
I’ll take a wake-up alarm over a panacea every time.
That’s exactly how a lot of Obama’s critics feel about him too though. And in neither case do I assume that their preludes are anything other than just that (after all, we’re still 18 months before the election and Thompson hasn’t even announced). I’ll reserve judgment on both of them as to whether or not they’ll be more specific about how we can bridge the partisan divide, but I’ll give kudos to both for expressing an interest in doing so.
CS saud:
“That’s exactly how a lot of Obama’s critics feel about him too though. ”
What are you proposing? I’ll give you a Democrat if you give me a Republican?
The comparison here was between Gore and Thompson.
Comparing Thompson to Obama or Gore to Obama or Obama to Thompson has to be done in another context. Each comparison can bring up interesting points, but straying too far field can lead to forgetting the topic at hand.
The thing is that most people look at what someone has done with their life and if they believe in the same things they do- then decide if what they say is inspiring. Usually, it takes all three. Its subjective. Knowing Thompson is a conservative rather than a moderate would keep me from getting too inspired by him-unless he was willing to compromise pretty significantly. Probably others feel the same way about Gore and Obama.
One article and Thompson is a changed man LMAO. The guy is a 20 year vet in the lobbying game, and yers of being a pure brand Republican of the speak no ill of other Republicans mold andsuddenly he’s some centerist guy we never knew him to be all those years before? Hogwash.
I smell the taint of someone angling for votes is all, shamless political pandering with a slick verneer.
Fred Thompson said of the Democrats, “They’re as near to investing in defeat of their own country as anything I’ve ever seen. And I don’t think the American people will forgive them for that.”
Sounds like Dick Cheney, not a centrist. He’s a flaming hypocrite to speak about bipartisanship and then go and accuse the Democrats of rooting for the enemy.
Elrod, that whining is so old. You (and many others) are wildly misrepresenting what the Vice President and Mr. Thompson have said. They are not saying that the Democrats WANT us to lose, simply that the Democratic foreign policy proposals will CAUSE us to lose. You can grasp that distinction, can’t you?
Pat HMV-
Its still the same old,partisan, divisive rhetoric. The lack of a post-invasion plan to avoid chaos was what cost America a victory in this war, that is if one was even possible. It was a massive screw-up on Cheney’s part to decide not to hand over the reins of government to the Iraqis instead of sending Jerry Bremer and a host of other well-connected ideologues over there to occupy the country. Any chance we had at winning hearts and minds evaporated with those decisions. It has nothing to do with the Democrats, and you know it. Thompson is just trying to pin the blame for losing the war on the wrong side, and that is striking a cord with the Republican base.
I guess Michael is going to whore full on for Thompson and carry the “he’s a moderate” water as if the guy actually is now? Folks need to stop having wet dreams about the next guy they can compare to Reagan, as if Reagan was so damn great anyways.
Pat is supporting a pathological liar. From an April 5th visit to the Rush Limbaugh show by Cheney
The emphasis is mine. Then Rush says that the Democrats know all of this. In other words, the Democrats somehow know that this complete twisting of the facts that Cheney has come up with is in fact true and that they are still willing to leave Iraq even though he knows that Saddam was supporting Al-Qaeda (Or is he claiming that Al-Qaeda actually operated without Saddam’s approval?).
When you say that the Democrats know that their actions will cause us to lose and they are intent on doing so anyway then yes, you are saying that the Democrats want us to lose.
Of course another view might be that they are just recognizing that it is a lost cause and Pat’s heroes are the ones who made it one.
doma,
The point I was making is that it makes no more sense to criticize Thompson for being vague about how to overcome partisanship than it does to criticize Obama for doing the same. Both of them have brought up the issue of how to unite when constituencies are divided, but neither of them have yet described in any detail how they propose to do that. You stated that he says he wants to unite “and then what?” and I’m saying that’s a fair question, but there’s no reason to assume that the statements issued so far are the end of the story and then back to partisanship as usual.
I find it hard to believe that you can’t see how that point is relevant to the issue that you brought up yourself. I’m saying that I am keeping an open mind until I hear whether or not each of these men gives more specifics in the days to come. Can you also say that you are keeping an open mind about both of them?
Jim, pray tell what, precisely, do you believe was false about what the Vice President said? Please cite your sources.
[...] Fred Thompson: Centrist? Anyway, I do agree with Pat?s view on Thompson: Thompson uses the new media in a great way. He?s able to directly appeal to voters. This is a major strength and, if exploited, will help him to win the Republican nomination. … [...]