Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IN WHICH THE CENTRISTS ACTUALLY CREATE BIPARTISANSHIP!
Ross Douthat makes some nice points on the inane posturing of the "centrists":
what Nelson, Collins, Specter and Co. have done isn't a new kind of politics. It's the definition of politics as usual. And in this particular case, there's a reasonable argument that it's actively pernicious - that if you can't shrink the stimulus package much more substantially than the centrists have done, you shouldn't shrink it at all. There's a case to be made for a stimulus that's radically different than the one we have now; there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's like the one we have now, but a great deal smaller and more targeted; and there's a case to be made for a stimulus that's absolutely gargantuan. But thanks to the centrists, we're getting the cheapskate version of the gargantuan version: They've done absolutely nothing to widen the terms of debate about what should go into the bill, and they've shaved off just enough money to reduce its effectiveness if Paul Krugman is right - but not nearly enough to make it fiscally prudent if the stimulus skeptics are right.
This means that if the damn thing doesn't work, we won't even know whom to blame. But it wouldn't be crazy to start by blaming the centrists.
So given that lefties like me think the centrist position is inane and right-leaning folks like Ross think the centrist position is inane, what do centrists think of the centrist opinion? How do they find the center amidst agreement?
COMMENTS (4)
"How do they find the center amidst agreement?"
I've been thinking about this too. I'm a liberal and procedural liberal, so I am willing to put up with sub-optimum policies (compared to my optimal policy), because I think that our constitutional Republic, freedoms, democracy, etc., are worth it. Many centrists, and this has emerged quite clearly with the stimulus bill, must also be committed procedural centrists, or procedural bipartisanists. That or they don't understand economic policy, but do know they want to be seen as centrists. One of the two I suppose.
Posted by: David | February 9, 2009 1:06 PM
To be clear, I also have no idea what procedural centrism would be preserving. Possibly the idea that supporting centrism means helping to prevent disasters stemming from ideology? Would that it were so, since the Iraq War should have discredited that idea. But maybe they are thinking of the longterm, over a number of "games" so to speak. In any case, my own theory is that centrism is easy for average people and useful for analysts in the public sphere.
Posted by: David | February 9, 2009 1:17 PM
I think you answered your own question when you posed it. The centrists feel that if both the left and right think what they're doing is inane, then they have found the "reasonable" center -- thatis, the point where they believe they're the only reasonable ones.
Posted by: Mark | February 9, 2009 3:35 PM
Well, as a self-identifying moderate, I can honestly say that I have no idea what the hell the senate's "centrists" (given their past behavior on several issues, I find myself hesitant to remove the quotes) are thinking.
I haven't gone over the proposed stimulus with a fine-tooth comb, but I'm seriously bothered by the fact that they're just giving a knee-jerk "too big" without offering specific cuts.
Now, if they were willing to go through with said fine-tooth comb and offer how a leaner and more targeted stimulus could work, they might poach folks like me towards supporting their idea. But their vague stumbling at cutting for the sake of cutting is turning me off, so this centrist for now is supporting the current package.
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | February 9, 2009 5:00 PM