An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

A Centrist’s Election Criteria

I think of myself as a Centrist who is more interested in perfecting participatory government than I am in the specific issues: The process versus the policy. To me the path to optimizing the common good is with elected representatives who are open minded, pragmatic and collaborative; an aim that is the essential purpose of the Constitution. Policy that is for sale to the highest bidder, or dictated by an extreme ideology, just doesn’t seem like a viable long term strategy for the welfare of our planet. I don’t want too much socialism or too much unrestrained capitalism. Nor do I enjoy ricocheting between these two extremes.

My criteria for voting is, which of the viable candidates are most inclined to champion process reforms such as public finance of campaigns at all levels of government, redistricting to promote competitive elections, open primaries to give independents a voice, transparency, accountability, etc. In essence I ask: Who will move us towards “a more perfect union?

This leads me to Obama and McCain. Hillary with all of her experience in Washington is to me a creature of that “money culture” and does not seem to express her revulsion of it as passionately as do Obama and McCain. McCain however is a maverick in a Club that values “survival of the fittest” and the exceptionalism of special interests. (After all it was House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who started the recent escalation of Earmarks to help buy congressional seats). I fear that his better angels would be overwhelmed.

So I come to Obama, based on what he does and says, as the one most likely to promote a system that aims to optimize representative government at the expense of special interests.

  • Indeed. I have the same fears about McCain. I too scratched Hillary off of my perfect ticket long ago. However, I fear that life-long Democrats - or better yet life-long Clinton supporters - will find it difficult to see the truth about their candidate: she is as polarizing (if not MORE) than George W. Bush. There are conservatives who strongly dislike her (that's putting it mildly), BUT there are also progressives who want someone new to represent their party.

    Tomorrow will be very interesting.
  • casualobserver
    Paul, I hear your argument, however, given the Paul Silver candidate and the Daily Kos candidate are one and the same, permit me the thought that one of you are bound to get disappointed.
  • Idiosyncrat
    pjpundit, it would seem that there are a good number of people who know very well that Hillary is polarizing. But they either don't really care or see it as a positive. Why? Because they want to stick it to the Republican Party and are taking great joy in the idea that Hillary in the White House will short circuit the brains of Republicans everywhere.

    I might not agree, but I can certainly understand the sentiment that would come out of the frustration of being a hardened Democrat during 8 years of W (even if the party has been impotent as Congressional leader). This is what happens in a two party adversarial system that has some pretty different ideas on how the country should be run...
  • Don Quijote
    Obama strikes me as a nice guy, but he doesn't seem to have any idea of what he's walking into, the Republican machine will make minced meat out of him before he can figure out where his office is. Mrs Rodham Clinton on the other hand has been trough the grinder, she knows what's coming.

    Just thinking of all those Republican heads exploding is good enough reason to vote for Mrs Rodham Clinton, not to mention that she strikes me as a nasty vindictive *itch who will have no problems going after Republicans and getting her pound of flesh, and it's about time we started seeing some Republican heads rolling.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Anyone who think Obama won't become "polarizing" if he wins the nomination has forgotten two things:

    1) What the party of Swift-boating did to the war hero the Democrats nominated in 2004.

    2) That Obama's middle name is Hussein.
  • Pat_Patterson
    I might agree that ideally it would be important to have politicians that were open minded and pragmatic but the foibles of human behaviour would constantly indicate just the opposite. As to claiming the Constitution endorses collaboration that simply ignores that its essence is inertia at its most benign and gridlock as the norm. If the desire was for collaborative governanace then we would have a parliament which is certainly more amenable to one party thus more efficient rule.

    We have checks and balances to limit the effects of collaboration so as to protect the peoples rights to solve some of those problems that seem to demand big solutions at the local or state level. On a more immediate level when someone decries the lack of collaboration or cooperation at any level of government then that simply means our Constitution is still working as written.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC