The Radical Centrist

Ad Hominem Ad Nauseum (Warning: Long Rant!)

"How do I know what to think about your post if I don't know who you are?"

Have you ever received that email? Or perhaps it was left as a comment on your site? I did. I was originally much more coy about explaining myself on this site, a reaction to the response I got on older sites where I was much more open. I've dropped some of the "hidden identity" thing recently. It was annoying readers, and I can understand the discomfort an entirely faceless voice causes. I did, however, like the idea of divorcing appreciation of the words from evaluation of the speaker. Especially since I haven't the sort of credentials that enhance my credibility.

A great appeal of blogging for me, you see, is that its the punditry of the nobodies. That's a club I can join! Just ideas and words...and "prominence" based on the endorsement of readers. This is exciting for me, but it seems to be a frightening world for some others. Certainly the old-line news media folks are unnerved. Plenty of blog readers are too. You can see it in the email and comments.

When people don't have your CV they'll just make it up. "You need to visit a blue state", or "You don't know the Republicans". They're also careful to tell me what I think ("You hate everyone who's different") or what I am ("bible-thumping", "fag-hating") just in case I had forgotten; anything except respond to the ideas in the post. (Important note: The vast majority of the comments and mail I get is great, but I'm a pretty innocuous centrist. Folks out on the wings get it much worse.)

Of course, it's not just bloggers that get the ad hominem treatment. Most anyone involved in politics gets double canister loads daily. The association between the person and his or her ideas has become nearly completely fused. Just let it slip that you are registered as a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter, and it doesn't matter what you actually say. Some readers seem unable to look past the labels, even the labels they apply themselves, to hear the words. I wonder if it's an outgrowth of "identity politics". This thoroughly execrable idea holds that your race/religion/class determines your opinions and ideas. I guess that if you believed such a thing it makes sense to go ahead and attack someone from the "wrong party" or "wrong religion" before you are forced to hear what they say. Saves you a lot of thinking, I guess. D'ya think?

The Wikipedia entry on Ad Hominem, I note, distinguishes between normal ad hominem fallacies and "reverse ad hominem", which is to believe or support and
argument because you like or associate with the speaker. This is plenty common too. I can think of a few other variations, myself. If a normal ad hominem fallacy is "to attack the man in order to discredit the idea", what do we call "attack the idea in order to discredit the man", or "attack the man and ignore the idea, because its more satisfying to attack the man"?

The final variation worth cataloging is a double fallacy. The normal ad hominem fallacy fails to address the argument by raising issues with the speaker. In the double-fallacy variant the argument is avoided by raising entirely fallacious points about the speaker. "Bush is Hitler" is a popular one. "Howard Dean is a screaming maniac" is similar. (Oh sure he did do some shouting once, but if you spent months and millions in Iowa only to get 18% of the vote, you'd be screaming too!) Take a look at this quote from Atrios in Greg Djerejian's post.

Republicans have never stopped being isolationist and anti-nation building (true of most of the US population, actually). They don't think tyranny leads to terrorism (nor am I claiming there's necessarily a strong connection), and don't really want to expend any treasure helping out "the other."What they do like is killing bad guys, and when George Bush says "spreading freedom and democracy" what they hear is "killing bad guys." They like killing "bad guys," and they're a bit lost without an enemy, so the actual spreading of democracy just doesn't excite them that much.

In this environment, it seems natural, I guess to "discuss" the democratic fervor in Lebanon by wildly mis-characterizing most of the U.S. as killers. There is a rather obvious intellectual dishonesty at work here (along with the more ordinary sort of dishonesty too.)

Everyone has some political angle to spin. At least, that's the way they talk, but is it really what they care about? You can tell by observing over time. When an adversary ends up endorsing a position you have favored, do you recognize the fact and give credit to the former foe? Or do you instead shift your position to remain diametrically opposed? Christopher Hitchens, no friend of the Republicans, has expressed his hatred for repressive regimes for years, and supported the efforts of a president he dislikes when Bush went to war against these evil folks. Good for him. I often disagree with Hitchens' opinions but I don't doubt that they are genuine. If, on the other hand, your position is to resist whatever Bush is for (feminists resisting the freeing of enslaved women, for example) then you are not really expressing a political position or even an intellectual opinion. You're just expressing a personal hatred. When one's position can be summarized as "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" (Howard Dean last week), then it's not policy you oppose, its people. That's not politics, it's bigotry. A veneer of political debate is painted on to disguise the ugliness beneath, but increasingly it breaks though. One moment we're talking about Lebanon, and then suddenly the subject changes. The speaker can't maintain the facade.

When you oppose the people rather than the policy, your solutions tend towards "make them go way", rather than "bring them to our way of thinking." That explains why, as I noted at the start, there is so little effort made to be persuasive. People don't write those emails to change your mind, they want to scare you off. We talk about this as if it's new, but I suspect its really a very old game in a new venue.

I've wondered if the widespread bigotry against religions and races, so unfortunately prevalent in earlier times, was not based in some deep-seated human need. When the culture represses those feelings, when it is no longer fashionable to hate people based on their race or religion, where does that impulse go? Does it fade away, or does it find some more socially acceptable outlet? What was it Atrios said..."a bit lost without an enemy?"

Be careful what you wish for...

Sometimes it can be hard to fathom what an individual or group is trying to accomplish. Harder than it ought to be, if in fact they have an objective and are honest about it. I've mentioned that I wonder what motivated the people who send hate filled emails to bloggers, including inoffensive ol' me! Obviously they don't expect to convince me of anything except their obvious animosity; perhaps all they want. Sometimes the motives behind a groups effort are even harder to discern.

Take this Gannon/Guckert "issue". I'm watching and wondering what the bloggers who are so worked up about this are hoping to accomplish. It a good exercise at the start of such an effort to play a little thought experiment. Imagine that your opponents, overwhelmed by your reason and passionate arguments, collapse and cry "uncle", are you prepared for victory. Strange as it seems, plenty of folks get to the finish line ahead only to realize that they had prepared well for the fight, but not at all for the victory. Does the blogger army attacking Gannon (not much of a target) have plans in place for victory? I'm not seeing any evidence.

Gannon himself has run off with his tail between his legs. OK, big win there, now what? Are you hoping to institute stronger limits on White House press privileges? Are you really hoping to screen for homosexuals in the press core and remove them? Or is it that Gannon worked for a small, unprofitable news service? Should we establish minimum profitability requirements for access to the press room? I suspect that neither is what they really want. There's no real question, is there, that what made Gannon unacceptable was the clearly biased political viewpoint evident in his questioning. Well, as the old saying goes, "be careful what you ask for." Will anyone be surprised when the White House, perhaps not entirely genuine in it's contrition, announces that the lefty bloggers have won a great victory, and that reporters who ask slanted questions will be banned? I don't expect that the White Hous want's to call that bluff, but it would be amusing to watch, nevertheless.

It's not going to happen, of course; cooler heads in the media are not going to stand for a test of that sort. The best moments from Helen Thomas's or Dan Rather's highlights reel would have been denied us under such a limitation. The Gannon critics don't object so much to his bias, it's his right-wing bias that's objectionable. That's going to be a tough one to make stick. If we ban reporters who are friendly to the President's politics, who's going to staff the press pool if a Democrat wins the White House?

Gannon's real problem is that he was clumsy about it. He should have phrased things in that roundabout way that reporters use to appear impartial. "Mr. President!", he could have said, "our readers are telling us that the Democrats have lost touch with reality, and that you will not be able to work productively with them. How do you respond?" That would have raised some eyebrows but not much else. Strangely, its not far from the truth. There are people who stand to the right of the President and they occasionally ask questions that might look like "softballs" to a liberal audience, but they're not. If Bush does a bit too much compromising with the Democrats or appears to be lacking commitment on the protection of marriage, more than a few conservative voters will be wanting to hear his take challenging questions on these points.

Eventually we come down to the charge of unfair favoritism in the press room, which is a very old issue. Presidents and Press Secretaries have always had their favorites and those they would prefer to avoid. Reporters on the White House beat, especially new ones, have always thrown softies at the podium in order to win favor or draw the president's attention. Disputes and abuses are usually handled quietly and carefully, as they should. The old-timers know that there are always unintended consequences. Be careful what you ask for.

The case against Gannon/Talon, however, has been based on his homosexuality and sordid past, and whether proper background checks were conducted. A strange issue for the Left to take up. Access to day passes for small news organizations will likely get tighter, and reporters will experience more questioning of their backgrounds. These are not changes I would have dedicated my blogging energies toward, I admit, and I'm surprised that so many others did. Was this what they were aiming for?

Why Not Here?

David Brooks in the New York Times watches people in various parts of the world ask a simple question. Simple but loaded with implications. A very nice little essay that you need to read. Here's a taste...

Thomas Kuhn famously argued that science advances not gradually but in jolts, through a series of raw and jagged paradigm shifts. Somebody sees a problem differently, and suddenly everybody's vantage point changes.

"Why not here?" is a Kuhnian question, and as you open the newspaper these days, you see it flitting around the world like a thought contagion. Wherever it is asked, people seem to feel that the rules have changed. New possibilities have opened up.

The question is being asked now in Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt made his much circulated observation to David Ignatius of The Washington Post: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."

Let's hope. I remember watching incredulous as the old eastern bloc fell bit by bit. It was unthinkable (or at least "unthought") but then it happened. "Why not here?" someone asked and there turned out to be no answer. "Why not now" is the partner question, equally unanswered. I'm not much of an incrementalist. That's why I shy away from the label, "Moderate" (one reason, at least.) My version of Radical Centrism is impatient, and ready to overturn the out-of-balance world in order to wrench it into alignment. The middle-east is a world of extremes, and extremists. The Iraqi election looks to me like a centrist revolution. A rejection of the extreme and one-sided, in favor of a "radical" shift toward balanced consensus and stability. In a mad world like Iraq, sane people will be revolutionary. Simple, ordinary folks waking up from a nightmare and asking a simple questions like "why not here? why not now?"

Are the "Budget Boggarts" getting to you?

In today's column on Blue & Red, a writer using the name J. Dismas Locke lifts a character out of Harry Potter to describe the traditional reaction to budget cuts in DC. As everyone under 18, and most adults, knows, a boggart, is a kind of spook who takes on the shape of the thing you fear most. It uses your own fears to gain mastery over you. Locke describes critics of Bush's latest budget, the "Budget Boggarts", which is so deliciously apt I had to pass it along. These nasties also are thick in Sacramento these days. They are skilled in making every change in the budget appear to be a catastrophic "slashing" of critical services. They manipulate voters though their fears. There is a way to resist them.

As all Potter fans know well, the way to combat a Boggart is to laugh at it. The defensive spell for boggarts is "riddikulus!" and that's the best way to manage the budget boggarts swirling around both the President's and Governor's effort to cut spending. Let's banish the boggarts!

If you read through Locke's column you'll find that he has tapped into Citizens Against Government Waste to get a spreadsheet of wasteful government projects and pork barrel. It's interesting reading. I went through a very detailed and lengthy version of this exercise in the early '90's when we were last trying to wrestle down a deficit, and found that even the most wasteful project has a constituency, and a member of congress or two to watch over it. Those that don't get dropped in committee. A staffer on Capitol Hill once told me that the Congressional definition of "Budget waste" is a program that doesn't lock in any votes (or donations). Political grease is too valuable; if it's not a part of some deal, its dropped. The cuts that Locke describes might make a lot of sense to you and me, but were looking at them the wrong way. We're concerned with their merit as programs (or lack of merit, in this case), Congress sees them very differently. They'll cut a lot of meat before they'll touch the fat that is tied to a major donation or a vote.

Portrait of a Principled Centrist

The Orange County Register has a nice profile of Tom Campbell, prominent centrist and, as the article says, "No Mr. Popularity."

There's an interesting story in Tom Campbell's political history (actually, several, but I'm going to focus on one of them). In 1992, the popular moderate Republican congressman (from my home district) was running for the US Senate seat being vacated by Alan Cranston. polls indicated that once he cleared the primary he would have a clear run to the Senate against a generally weak field of Democrats. Congresswoman Barbara Boxer admits to being within a day of quiting the race because of the poor poll results. Then, as it often does in California Politics, "stuff happened". Campbell lost the primary after splitting votes with Sonny Bono and a series of nasty attacks from State conservatives. Los Angeles TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn got the nod instead. Boxer's kids talked her out of quiting, she finished better than expected in the primary and, with a strong conservative opponent rather than the moderate Campbell, managed to pull out a victory. The California Republican party was spared the shame of a moderate Republican in the Senate and the country got Barbara Boxer. Are you happy with that trade?

Tom was often described as "the most cerebral member of the House", when he was in Congress, which isn't saying much, I admit. He's a budget hawk with the credentials to back up his convictions. He's now in Sacramento doing courageous service to taking the flak for the Governor over the budget. Arnold has attracted some good, solid folks to Sacramento to back him up on policy issues and the hard work of the executive branch.

Campbell has what even a former opponent called a "beautiful pedigree." Three degrees from the University of Chicago, including a doctorate in economics under Milton Friedman, who persuaded Campbell to break with his father's New Deal Democrat convictions. Harvard Law School. White House Fellow. Supreme Court clerk. Tenured professor at Stanford Law School. Ten years in Congress. Two years in the state Senate.

Schwarzenegger staffers call Campbell "The Genius." He is courtly, with a youthful, almost elfin face and carefully combed curly gray hair. He always wears a suit. He has been spotted gardening in slacks and a button-down shirt.

A self-described libertarian, Campbell believes in limiting government and lowering taxes. He also favors abortion rights, and once wrote of gay marriage: "I believe homosexual couples should have all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples."

In crowds, he remembers everyone's name. Ernie Konnyu, whom Campbell beat in his first congressional race, recalls running into Campbell some years later.

"He says, 'Please, Ernie, may I join you in saying hello to (your wife) Lillian.' He walks over to our table and he says hello to everyone at our table. The gentleman's gentleman. I got a kick out of it. He overdoes it to a point where it's a little bit too sweet. But it's sincere. That's him."

One of the reasons I am putting the time into pushing reform and centrism is my respect and fondness for my old congressman, and the lack of more like him in politics.

Senator Biden considering a run for the White House

According the SF Chron, the "outspoken Democrat" is in California testing the waters for a run in 2008. Given the dismal record of Senators running for President, anyone want to take odds on a six-term senator? Biden may be outspoken and I often disagree with him, but I find him stimulating to listen to. I wouldn't put him in the "moonbat" category. Still, I don't think he has much chance of a nomination.

Radical Middle by Mark Satin

I need to correct an oversight. When I moved to this site last fall I neglected to bring in reviews of books I want to feature but had read some time ago. I heard from Mark Satin a little while ago and realized to my embarrassment that I did not have a review of his book on the site. I need to get that fixed right away.

Mark is one of the tireless fighters for the new politics of Radical Centrism (as I prefer to term it.) He maintains a site chock full of links and news, and publishes the Radical Middle newsletter. His book was released last year before the fall election but it is just as relevant today, perhaps even more so. Mark comes to centrism from just about the opposite direction that I do. 30 years ago Mark was an activist for SDS, and I was a teenager going door-to-door for Nixon's re-election. Funny how life works....

Most everyone promoting a "radical center" view these days has a slightly different take on what the term means. Mark's is a bit more specific than mine, focusing on a specific set of policy positions and principles that he believes are not well represented in the major parties (he's right about that!) I don't disagree with his principles nor, for the most part, the policies he supports, I just tend to think of centrism as a more open and accepting political tent. That said, Mark's four key values are good one's to rally around:

1. Maximize Choices for Everyone
2. Give Everyone a Fair Start
3. Maximize Human Potential
4. Help the Developing World

Somewhat in jest I have described this centrist approach as "Compassionate Libertarianism." Only somewhat in jest, however. There are ways to give people help and allow them to develop themselves, without taking over their lives.

Underneath the umbrella of these four ideas Mark makes a case for a number of centrist policies, including Universal Health Care, Law Reform, improving education by supporting great teachers, need-based affirmative action, and others. Thirty years after he was leading a rebellious "action faction", Mark is still an activist, but not a "player, not a rebel". The book is refreshing short on political philosophizing and long on real ideas, programs and organization you can support. He ends each chapter with a very useful section of references to other books, articles and website (something he does as well on his website). And he end the book with a call to action, something I need to do more myself, and listen to myself.

One of the most exciting thing about Radical Centrism in my book are the people you find yourself associating with. Mark is one of the more visible characters in this young movement but his enthusiasm, what he calls "idealism without illusions" is infectious and genuine. Go ahead and read this book and them pass it on to your friends.

The latest Carnival of the Vanities...

When you're done reading Blue and Red you can click over to Pundit Guy's place and sample loads of great blogging at the latest Carnival of the Vanities. The CoV, granddaddy of all the blogosphere Carnivals, was here at Radical Centrist at the first of the year and will be at Bird's Eye View in a few weeks. This one of the great "traditions" of the blog world and it gets better and bigger all the time (just like the blogosphere!). Both Radical Centrist and Bloginators appear in this week's edition.

The column is up at Blue and Red

My first column at Blue and Red is up today. As I've mentioned before, this will be a weekly look a the political storm brewing here in California. We are headed for what one State political leader called "our Gettysburg", a sobering assessment no matter which side you are on. Schwarzenegger is an avowed centrist and is pushing a slate of centrist reforms, so I am pretty geared up for this coming fight. I hope, with the article in Blue and Red and the contributions to Bloginators, to drive attention and discussion in the "new media". This is going to be just the sort of political campaign that calls for a new media. The issues are subtle and technical, yet very important, and the battle doesn't break cleanly along Republican vs. Democratic lines. The parties and the press are not going to be able to give the voters the rich discussion and independent observation that is needed. This is a good time to be a blogger in California. The money will be flowing west this summer to support these campaigns because the success or failure of these initiatives out here will set the political tone in the rest of the country. If you are interested in education, or government finance or in the fate of centrist campaigns, pay attention to the special election in California and be sure to visit Bloginators for the latest news and links. Lest I forget... the purpose of the post is also to make sure you hear about Blue and Red, a new on-line magazine that will explore the interchange across the blue and red divide in American politics and the exploration of a common ground between them. There are new columns posted every weekday from a variety of voices. Do bookmark it and come back often.

Latest Homespun Bloggers Radio show is out!

The next show from Homespun Bloggers Radio has been released. It's on the same loop as show #4. The new entry is a special show covering Social Security. I managed to stop coughing and wheezing long enough to record two segments for the show.