criggs@pipeline.com
That writer's definition of the former was, in my opinion, somewhat sloppy. It was an operational definition, based on the description of an issue and of a politician. The issue he chose was trade, referring in particular to the battle in 93 over NAFTA, and the politician he chose was Ross Perot. He went on to state that since opposition to NAFTA came from forces both on the right and the left it then followed that by averaging out the opposition's origins, it made sense to call it a new form of centrism, viz. the term 'radical centrism.' I'm frankly not thrilled with this ratiocination. To me, political philosophy born of an ersatz combination of leftism and rightism is exactly that and nothing more, -- perhaps because of its considerable ideological point deserving of the adjective radical but certainly not of the adjective centrist. To me, the word populism more nearly fits the bill here.
Then, of course, there was the other brand of centrism to which he referred, that of 'sensible centrism.' He adduced as his primary politician example that of Colin Powell, though to the best of my recollection the writer was less than forthcoming on suggested sensible centrist issues. In any event, his choice of politician was as problematic as was his previous ideological definition, in my opinion. Powell has yet to clearly define himself intellectually or philosophically, at least in political terms, so, whether or not there is such an animal as a sensible centrist, the record certainly does not show Powell to be clearly an example of that species.
Yet, for all the flaws in his analysis and logic, I believe this writer is on to something. I've been forced to think long and hard on this lately as a result of my involvement with the National Reform Party Committee. As a member of its Platform Subcommittee, I have found myself again and again having to decide where I stood on such issues as campaign finance reform legislation, the current balanced budget agreement, the Weld nomination, the Gingrich ethical battle and the abortive coup attempt against him, the UPS strike, etc. etc. In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that there are indeed new philosophical and ideological strains out there on our restless political scene. However, I have concluded that neither of the two definitions offered in the above-mentioned article really fits the bill.
In fact, as near as I can make out, there are not two but three brands of new ideology that have emerged on the political scene lately. One of them already has been discussed here, that which I have stated more properly should be described as New Populism, exemplified by the joining of the forces of right and left on such issues as trade; another issue where similar joining has occurred is that of political reform, where such disparate voices as Jerry Brown and Pat Buchanan have joined forces to call for a major overhaul of the manner in which we conduct our campaigns. Both have called for ridding the American political stage of the corrupting influence of soft money, and both have called for the imposition of term limits. On a personal note, let me say that I am in complete agreement with the New Populist position on both trade and political reform.
Then there is a second brand of centrism which, while it was always present on our political scene, has gained a new power and influence as a result of the close balance in Congress between Democrats and Republicans; that ideological brand can be properly classifed as Classic or Old Centrism. Perhaps the best exponents of this ideology are those politicians coming out of the philosophical tradition of the Democratic Leadership Council. Personally, I have never trusted this brand of political thinking. It is mired in a tradition of knee-jerk pro-establishment thinking, such as unthinking allegiance to free trade and large spending for defense. Al Gore is a perfect spokesman for this brand of political philosophy, and it owes its allegiance as much to a corrupting campaign finance situation, where close relationships are maintained with big-moneyed special interest groups and large multi-national corporations, as to any genuine belief in the importance of moving the governmental ball forward and away from the counter-productive excesses of left and right.
And then there is an attractive new brand of political thought which I suggest should simply be called New Centrism. This flavor of ideology springs not from a desire to round the edges of controversial issues, or from a desire not to rock the boat, but from an urge to approach issues in what can more properly be termed a post-ideological manner, characterized by common sense and political courage. Paramount in this philosophy's pantheon of issues is that of fiscal sanity. At the moment, there are precious few people advocating this philosophy who wield much power on the political stage, but their number is growing. And this movement's spokemen are nothing if not conspicuous.
One aspect of this group's ideological outlook which is noteworthy is its position on tax cuts. While the Republicrat establishment expended much political and negotiating energy on a battle over who would get which tax cuts in the latest budget deal, and who would emerge as winners or losers as a result, the New Centrists stuck steadfastly to a governmentally responsible if politically risky stance which excoriated any and all such giveaways as little more than pandering. In fact, one of the major exponents of the New Centrist brand of thinking, former Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado, derided such shenanigans as "candy" for the electorate. And moderate Republican Representative Tom Campbell similarly took such a position in a high-profile op-ed piece which appeared in the New York Times recently at the height of the recent debate over the just-concluded budget deal.
Another aspect of this group's thinking which is worthy of comment involves its approach to long-term entitlement reform. As all those who have studied this issue know, tough choices must be made in the years and decades to come if Social Security and Medicare are to make it through the upcoming fiscal tidal wave threatened by the retirement of the baby-boomers. While some of the solutions to this impending tsunami are almost universally agreed-upon, such as raising the eligibility age, and means-testing premium payments to qualify for inclusion in the program, they are by no means eagerly advocated by most politicians. In fact, these matters are traditionally referred to as "third rail issues" because of their potential for fatally electrocuting a politician's career. Yet it is precisely in this area where New Centrism operates at its most impressive. In an issue arena where political courage is usually sadly lacking, we see the inspiring examples of such stalwart leaders as Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey and Republican Representative Chris Shays grasping the nettle on the question of eligibility age, for example, and showing the sort of leadership which will one day, hopefully, provide an inspiring and emboldening example for their less forthright colleagues.
And why are these competing strains of political philosophy relevant to this political junkie? How come this shows up as a preoccupation in my latest Musings? Because the issues and positions placed on the table and taken by these leaders will, I believe, play a critical role in the development of the political persona of the building Reform Party.
Now, as a committed activist helping to build that party, I can tell you that New Centrism exemplifies as well as any political philosophy the sort of thinking to which I would like this new party to commit itself. However, as I mentioned earlier, I also strongly support the New Populist approach where trade and political reform are concerned. But, while the trade approach I advocate and the fiscal approach which I also support do not, on the face of it, appear to be contradictory, in political terms such a philosophical mesh will present our new party with quite a challenge. This is because those who have called for widespread and radical political reform, such as term limits and a soft money ban, are NOT, characteristically, in the vanguard of those calling for changes in the entitlement eligibility age. Even more ominously in terms of future unity for our party, New Centrist political leaders, such as Tim Penny and Pat Moynihan, who strongly support politically dangerous entitlement reforms, also strongly support untrammeled free trade. Indeed, if abortion is the issue which threatens to fatally divide Republicans, and balancing the budget will be the issue over which Democratic leaders like Gore and Gephardt threaten to tear their party apart, certainly trade will end up being the fault line which threatens future unity within the Reform Party.
Yet that is the major philosophical challenge which I believe faces our party-in-formation. As to how we overcome that challenge, there is only one way. We must engage in a frank and open debate on the merits with regard to the advantages vs. disadvantages of free trade. Such a debate must be engaged in without rancor or epithets. We must not hurl accusations of protectionism on the one hand, and "free traitors" on the other. We must recognize that, just as free trade is not an absolute good, so it is not an absolute evil either. There are positive aspects to free and open trade, -- cultural understanding, increasing trust between societies with differing attitudes and different moral assumptions. There is also potential for great evil in open economic borders where no limits or protections exist. For example, if we are not careful, the agenda of free trade stands in great danger of being hijacked by powerful well-funded interests who owe no allegiance to any country or even to any political philosophy and who operate only in the interest of squeezing out as much profit as possible from a victimized working class who already are bleeding from a rapacious jungle capitalism which has led to stagnant wages and declining job security over the past few decades. Such interests have no common cause at all with the lofty goals of ideological supporters of free trade whose goal is to lift all economic boats and/or to increase trust and understanding between countries. Additionally, undisciplined free trade policies will almost certainly put our already over-burdened environment under even greater stress, as countries whose primary goal is economic development drag more developed countries down to their level in an inevitable race to the bottom in terms of world-wide environmental conscientiousness. Yet, for all the dangers inherent in the concept, ultimately, I believe, the concept of free trade has too great a potential for good to be ignored.
Yes, I opposed NAFTA; yes, I strongly oppose fast track. The Constitution intended for treaties to be passed only by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate, and I believe fast track is simply a dishonest method by which big money circumvents the inconveniences of democracy. In addition, it is equivalent to an economic bungee jump for us to open our economic borders with countries whose labor and environmental standards are significantly inferior to our own. By the same token, I feel free trade arrangements with those countries who are our labor and environmental equals are inherently attractive and I support them strongly. While the free trade agenda has no doubt been hijacked by forces which intend no good to me or us, nevertheless there is little doubt that good free trade treaties will be essential to a successful economic future for our country.
And if the building Reform Party can formulate a trade position that recognizes the legitimate concerns and beliefs of both sides, I believe we stand a very good chance of uniting, and becoming a powerful and respected voice of centrist populism for fiscal responsibility and political probity. For the vast majority of Reform Party activists are united on those two issues; and if we, as a united party, emerge as an eloquent spokesperson speaking to the need for entitlement reform as a means of ensuring that our generation passes on to our children a medical and retirement safety net worthy of the name, and if we, as a united party, seize the initiative on the issue of political reform which can restore the public's faith in democracy, and restore the participation and trust of an electorate, half of whom didn't even vote in the last election, then I have little doubt that the Reform Party will successfully emerge as the party of the future, the party of the 21st century, and the political force with the greatest relevance to the concerns of today's America.
So, what do you think? Do you believe that I
have correctly outlined the philosophical and ideological challenges facing
the Reform Party? Do you agree with the philosophical and ideological
direction in which I feel we, as a party, need to go? Are you comfortable
with the approach to trade, to fiscal policy, to political reform, for
which I have expressed support above? Whether or not you agree with
those views, you are cordially invited to fill out the boxes below and
express yourself. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to quote statements
sent to me in this manner, in whole or in part, in subsequent Musings.
Also, be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the
Musings, "Fractured Ideology" to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at