A Moderate’s New Years’ Wish List:
- A National Centrist PAC to help elect pragmatic candidates, from either party, in close elections.
- Redistricting reform to increase competition in elections.
- More open primaries so that moderates are on a more-level playing field with partisans.
- Campaign finance and lobbying reform to reduce the influence of money on policy, and the time legislators spend fund raising.
- A critical mass of Congressional moderates to forge non-partisan pragmatic solutions to chronic issues.
- Tax simplification to optimize market forces.
I am more focused on the process than specific chronic issues. I believe those can be resolved with a less-partisan legislative body. The most overwhelming issues have available remedies: Security, Environment, Hunger, Health, Education, Tolerance. It is not like a huge asteroid is heading towards Earth or a plague is overtaking us.
I generally see the US as relatively moderate; our extremes are within a narrow range. We have public education, world-class advanced education, low unemployment, a growing economy, old-age security, Medicare for illness, reasonably-reliable infrastructure, free self-expression, and a society that is more inclusive than it is not.
The smallest percentage of humanity is involved in organized violence than anytime in history. We have a more robust and deeply-integrated global economy than anytime in history that is growing steadily and broadly. We’ve never had more new scientific knowledge accumulating or smart people being put against tough tasks. Even when our leaders make terrible mistakes, it can be fixed. Germany survived Hitler, Russia – Stalin, and China – Mao. Mankind abides.
There is always room for improvement, but to me the glass is more than half-full and a few adjustments in government could fill it up even more.
h/t Dr Barnett I stole some of his words.
Happy New Year
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “A Moderate’s New Years’ Wish List:”
“Redistricting reform to increase competition in elections.”
This might sound good in theory, but I doubt there is any practical way to make it work. Redistricting is such a blunt instrument to begin with how are you going to refine it in such as a way to increase competition? And increase competition for whom? Just for Democrats and Republicans? How about Greens or Libertarians or any other “3rd” party? What about minority groups? Rural areas? etc etc etc….There is no way to ensure that increased competition for one group while basically eliminate the chances for some other group.
Now, a mathematical formula based solely upon population density could at least take the subjectivity out of the process. But even then there is no guarentee that folks wont be at a competetive disadvantage.
All good points.
A perfect system is probably impossible for the reasons to describe. It is often said in Texas that you can’t take the politics out of politics.
But I believe we can get much closer than the train wreck Tom Delay promoted.
Some states are making progress with non-partisan commissions. Gov Schwarzenegger is taking another stab at it.
Life is an unending march towards “better”.
Again, this is all fairly silly and quite at odds with the American political system.
Issue advocacy groups will always been far more productive for the simple fact that “centrist” views on many issues are rarely held by a single person. There is no particular collection of “centrist” values held by more than a few people.
Furthermore, any centrist group is at odds with both extremes on any given issue and will be easily surpassed by the enthusiasm and ideology of their supporters.
In practice “non-partisan commissions” tend to be groups with equal numbers of Dems and GOPers, who get together behind closed doors and divy things up.
At least when legislatures do it they have to do it in public.
Then why, Andrew, are both major political parties so anxious to appeal to centrist voters? Why is the Democratic party decidedly centrist in its professed approach to the new Congress, to the chagrin of far-left-wing partisans?
Centrism might very well be “quite at odds with the American political system,” as you claim, and yet leading politicians (and ’08 White House hopefuls) are scrambling to re-make themselves in the image of this “at odds” philosophy while they (with equaly rapidity) peddle away from the current “political system.”
With all due respect, your points are desparately “old school.” Look around you, man: The evidence of centrist predominance is not that hard to find, if you’re willing to open your eyes.
Current State Commissions
These commissions make it harder for legislatures to contort the districts into obvious partisan advantage.
Paul, people want centrists to vote for them so that they get elected, in case you hadn’t realized. Pandering to the bulk of centrist voters is a general election ploy. At least as important is pandering to the more radical element during primaries. However, this is all largely irrelevant. We’re not discussing pandering to a bloc of voters.
What is described here is a centrist PAC to elect true centrist candidates (which don’t exist because they are unelectable). Who is going to donate money to a centrist PAC? What’s their fund raising strategy? “We’re the most moderate on everything!” What a winner! Why wouldn’t they be better off donating money to the opposition party or an issue group?
Redistricting reform? Fine.
Tax simplification? That’s not centrist at all; the vast majority of people really like their deductions. The people who really care about this are libertarians.
A critical mass of congressional moderates? Fine, all you have to do is throw out 225 years of legislative practice. Gee, that sounds reasonable.
Again, people here don’t seem to understand that what matters is moderate results, not the guise of moderation in the process of politics. The guise of moderation from so-called centrists has merely served as cover for the ruling party. We achieve moderate results with oppositional, divided government, not a bunch of people being the most centrist.
If you care more about appearing moderate, you will not get moderate outcomes.
Andrews, this debate is not about appearances, it’s about philosophy — and moderate philosophies in both parties can and do work. A centrist PAC could also work if it rewarded those who most effectively sought viable solutions that take the best ideas from all sides of an issue. I’d donate to it, and there’s a potential pool of half the electorate that might do the same.
Vent all the skepticism you want. And while you’re busy arguing semantics, the rest of us will work on real changes in the real world, changes that have already started, as evidenced by the “Bloomberg Revolution” in NY, Lieberman’s victory in CT, Schwarzenegger’s resurgence in CA.
Andrew — with apologies, misspelled your name in the prior post.