A Nice Blog Post on Centrists

[Vene]

which is in response to this:

With All The Penetrating Insight... that we have come to expect from "Newsweek, Tina Brown turns her magazine's front cover over to the "conservative-leaning Independent" Andrew Sullivan who explains how Both Sides Do It!

    "The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong."

 Wowsers!

Sounds like a nightmare; a Universe where every position is carefully divided into Conservatives – who are wrong – and Liberals – who are somehow, mysteriously and equally wrong all the time and in equal numbers on every issue.

And here is where we start, with the middle ground fallacy which I have noticed is quite prevalent in politics. Somehow both sides must be equally wrong, it's simply not possible to one side to be correct or even less wrong than the other.

The bitter truth of our current situation is actually very simple:

• The Right is an unholy, unsalvageable mess.  It is too far gone, too beholden to its fascist elements and too fucking dangerous to be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
• For years, Liberals have been just about the only people who have had the balls to say that the Right is an unholy, unsalvageable mess out loud and in all kinds of weather.  For example, in the darkest days of the Bush Administration we continued to say it out loud even as Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan were turning a buck calling us unAmerican, freedom-hating Fifth columnists.
• No matter how many times Liberals turn out to be right in fact, our media/industrial complex will never permit it to be acknowledged in public.  Too much money is riding on the Big Scam that the Left and the Right are both equally wrong, so Never.  Ever.  Ever.

But no, we can't acknowledge that liberal policies are a good thing for the country and conservative policies are bad and responsible for the economy exploding. That would be biased and wrong and it makes Fox News Baby Jesus cry.

[F]or all his bellyaching, Mr. Sullivan never actually identifies a single, "deluded" Liberal by name.  Because in this fairly tale, Liberals don't need actual names.  Instead, various disembodied Liberal abstractions collectively called "They" float around doing unreasonable things:

[examples snipped]

On the other hand, to build this particular iteration of the Centrist thesis, Mr. Sullivan has no trouble finding plenty of names to name among the the first tier leaders of the Right.  Mr. Sullivan indicts the participants in the "Republican debates" as being among the ringleaders of the wingnut mob.  Willard Romney is singled out by name several times --

[examples snipped]

Personally, I think this is the most damning part of the post. It is easy, trivial even, to point to batshit insane conservatives back up by their names and quotes (this is my current favorite). As a bonus, they're mainstream politicians so you can't even claim they're fringe elements. It is much harder to do so with liberals and if/when one is found you find somebody who is not a respected member of the left-wing community or we find that the quote was utterly divorced from context.

But, don't just read my take on it and the blurbs I regurgitated for you, feel free to read the whole thing: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2012/01/with-all-penetrating-insight.html

[m52nickerson]

I have not read the Newweek article so I'm sure how acurate the Blog is.

I will say this.  Many on the left do have a unreal expectation of what can be accomplished with Congress as it is.  Taking small steps is still better then not taking any.

[rageaholic]

Yeah, I used to say that both sides are to blame, but that's bullshit.  It's a common thing to say when you don't know which position to take, but want to remain "objective".  I used to fall victim to the same fallacy when I posted on here on other websites several years ago.  I used to feel like I'd have to point out when ever atheists were too extreme.  However, the amount of atheist extremism I've run into has been limited to a few assholes on youtube.  And most of them had a point as opposed to the Christians who say "god did it". 

The Republican fringe has taken over the party and it is has now become a contest of who's the craziest mother fucker they can get in.  When ever they are challenged or criticized, they find ways to attack Liberals, then act like they are being singled out.  The Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys, and other FOX news pundits are some of the most butthurt people on TV.  They can't come up with reasoned arguements so they resort to lies, fallacys, and accusations of the 'liberal eletists' being hypocritical douchebags.  And since they are the ones who bitch and moan about the Liberal media, they get away with more bullshit.

[Osama bin Bambi]

People read Newsweek?

[N. De Plume]

Well, my dad subscribes…

[e13]

Thank you for saying "centrist" and not "moderate". I believe in moderation, but hey, bullshit is bullshit, and one side is often wrong.

[Vene]

Thank you for saying "centrist" and not "moderate". I believe in moderation, but hey, bullshit is bullshit, and one side is often wrong.

There is non insignificant overlap between the two groups.

[Meshakhad]

I'm a centrist who finds myself siding more and more with the Democrats.

[Undecided]

I am a centrist: I am the center of my spectrum, and all deviations from my (possibly nondescript) point of view are equally base, no matter how worthy of merit they may actually be. I am an independent: I believe that my failure to identify with any party or movement I deem "established" suggests individualism and a special personal insight into political affairs, rather than a catastrophic ignorance of the interests that various cohorts have in bending my views in their favor. I am a moderate: I don't know enough about the way life works to commit to a political ideology, so I have adopted a positive-sounding and inoffensive word to describe myself whenever I am asked to present my views. I am a libertarian: like nearly everybody else who lives in a developed country, I prefer limited government except when it suits my interests.

[Sylvana]

I will say this.  Many on the left do have a unreal expectation of what can be accomplished with Congress as it is.  Taking small steps is still better then not taking any.

There in lies the main problem doesn't it? Every 4 years you have a huge mudslinging rodeo show for who will become the presidential title holder for the next 4 years, while in reality it means nothing. The people in congress made the decisions, and their number one decision is to make sure that things stay exactly the way they are right now regardless of who is in the white house or which way congress is leaning.

People can blame Obama for not doing anything, or the democrats for being spineless, but I am pretty sure that if the republicans had to magically have a change of heart and want to implement something that would actually be good, the democrats in congress would stand against it because they also want to stay on the gravy train.

[Lt. Fred]

I am a centrist: I am the center of my spectrum, and all deviations from my (possibly nondescript) point of view are equally base, no matter how worthy of merit they may actually be. I am an independent: I believe that my failure to identify with any party or movement I deem "established" suggests individualism and a special personal insight into political affairs, rather than a catastrophic ignorance of the interests that various cohorts have in bending my views in their favor. I am a moderate: I don't know enough about the way life works to commit to a political ideology, so I have adopted a positive-sounding and inoffensive word to describe myself whenever I am asked to present my views. I am a libertarian: like nearly everybody else who lives in a developed country, I prefer limited government except when it suits my interests.

Brilliant.

[Sigmaleph]

I am a centrist: I am the center of my spectrum, and all deviations from my (possibly nondescript) point of view are equally base, no matter how worthy of merit they may actually be. I am an independent: I believe that my failure to identify with any party or movement I deem "established" suggests individualism and a special personal insight into political affairs, rather than a catastrophic ignorance of the interests that various cohorts have in bending my views in their favor. I am a moderate: I don't know enough about the way life works to commit to a political ideology, so I have adopted a positive-sounding and inoffensive word to describe myself whenever I am asked to present my views. I am a libertarian: like nearly everybody else who lives in a developed country, I prefer limited government except when it suits my interests.

If exalts actually meant anything, you'd get one. Instead, you get this post saying that was most excellent.

[nickiknack]

People can blame Obama for not doing anything, or the democrats for being spineless, but I am pretty sure that if the republicans had to magically have a change of heart and want to implement something that would actually be good, the democrats in congress would stand against it because they also want to stay on the gravy train.

THIS
There's way too many two faced bastards around

[e13]

I will say this.  Many on the left do have a unreal expectation of what can be accomplished with Congress as it is.  Taking small steps is still better then not taking any.

There in lies the main problem doesn't it? Every 4 years you have a huge mudslinging rodeo show for who will become the presidential title holder for the next 4 years, while in reality it means nothing. The people in congress made the decisions, and their number one decision is to make sure that things stay exactly the way they are right now regardless of who is in the white house or which way congress is leaning.

People can blame Obama for not doing anything, or the democrats for being spineless, but I am pretty sure that if the republicans had to magically have a change of heart and want to implement something that would actually be good, the democrats in congress would stand against it because they also want to stay on the gravy train.

I somehow doubt if the repubs suddenly decided to use a euro style health care system you'd see much resistance from the left. Other than a few so-called "blue dog" dems.

[nickiknack]

I will say this.  Many on the left do have a unreal expectation of what can be accomplished with Congress as it is.  Taking small steps is still better then not taking any.

There in lies the main problem doesn't it? Every 4 years you have a huge mudslinging rodeo show for who will become the presidential title holder for the next 4 years, while in reality it means nothing. The people in congress made the decisions, and their number one decision is to make sure that things stay exactly the way they are right now regardless of who is in the white house or which way congress is leaning.

People can blame Obama for not doing anything, or the democrats for being spineless, but I am pretty sure that if the republicans had to magically have a change of heart and want to implement something that would actually be good, the democrats in congress would stand against it because they also want to stay on the gravy train.

I somehow doubt if the repubs suddenly decided to use a euro style health care system you'd see much resistance from the left. Other than a few so-called "blue dog" dems.

I think you underestimate the number of DLC/ New Democrats there are in Congress, for every progressive like Rep. Dennis Kucinch, there seems to at least 4 two- faced SenatorPalpatine of Naboo's Joe Lieberman's. If the Democratic Party, was at least center-left, I believe we would of at least gotten a public option with a sell out to the Health Insurance company's. Yet we didn't get it, and with the up coming election, there is going to probably less progressive due to retirements and such( My Rep., who's member of the progressive caucas is stepping down, & we have no clue who's going to replace him).