The Radical Centrist

A cautionary comment for conservatives

I can understand that it can be easy to get smug when your opponent is coming unglued before your eyes. Conservatives have been all too ready to link to Liberal/Left writers and let them talk. "Feed them enough rope", as it were. I think the popular term these days is schadenfreude. I don't mean to rain on your parade guys, but a word of advice from a well meaning moderate, this can happen to you too. Indeed it has happened, and now is the time to take a lesson from the unfortunate predicament of the Left. You need to be taking notes on this. "How can I avoid becoming an embarrassing loonie", you should be thinking.

You can start by avoiding a behavior that is all too common on both sides of the fence these days. If you circulate only within a small group of like thinkers, if you only speak to those you agree with you, or only read those who say things you like, you will lose all perspective. It's an easy trap, and it's caught many on the left, it seems. Have you noted how often a writer will make some sort of outrageous statement (read anything from Ms. Dowd recently?), without offering supporting evidence or even making an attempt at persuasion? The writer did not realize the point needed support, and that some readers would need to be persuaded. He or she was convinced that this was common thinking; everybody they know (or read) thinks that way, or takes these things for granted!

This problem is much worse when there is a "us, the smart ones" vs. "them, the idiots" mindset at work. That puts a lot pressure on people to conform their thinking Here's an example from my professional experience. Consultants generally know one thing about the client's situation even before they are called in. The client firm is full of smart people who live their business everyday, and they've been beating the bushes looking for the hidden problem that has eluded them. The problem (and the solution) therefor, is probably in plain sight, but they cannot see it. The consultant goes in looking for their blind spots. In the introductory meetings, when they are telling you about their business, sooner or later someone will say the magic phrase, "everybody knows that..." Bingo! If everyone knows it then no one is looking at it afresh. The higher ranked the speaker, and the more forceful the phrasing, the bigger and darker the blind spot.

I remember a meeting where a very senior executive loudly opined that "anyone with a double-digit IQ knows that this business is all about ..." My partner and I locked eye contact at that point, stunned to come across such a classic case of The Emperor's Clothes syndrome. Certainly no one in that company was going to contradict that statement and be labeled an idiot. I'm sure that most could see that this particular Emperor was naked, but everyone else seemed to be nodding...so it was just easier to go along. Eventually they just stopped looking. Why stare at problems your not even allowed to discuss?

When the Left fell into the "Blue State=Smart State" mindset they were headed into danger. Not are they drawing their ideas from a much smaller world, but the thinking is now much more uniform. It can feel like universal consensus, but its just a local conformity of opinion. One can get very far afield without realizing it. You might not realize, for example, that there really are people who respect Christianity, or are hopeful about Iraq, or take the President's speeches seriously.

Don't smirk you conservatives, it can happen to you.

The other, somewhat related problem is a tendency top let one's language get away from you, either too snarky or too angry and overblown. It has seemingly become impossible for some on the Left to refer to the President as "the President" or even "Bush." Rather they have taken to a series of suppose witty nicknames beginning with "Shrub" and passing through "Chimpy" and "Bushitler", to whatever is stylish this week. The habit has spread to cover just about anyone thought to be on the "other side". I recently saw a usually more sensible blogger refer to the new pope as "Popenfuhrer." That sort of thing is good for a chuckle among the hard core believers but its a sign to everyone else that you're losing touch. Those who lack the wit to be snarky resort to crudeness, and hyper-inflated language. Anyone disagreeing can be labeled a Nazi, or racist. A vote to change Senate rules can be described as "the end of the Senate" and probably the end of American Democracy, I expect. Howard Dean can describe all Republicans as evil, when he knows perfectly well that's not true, but that's just how the talk goes these days. Air America is convinced that it's listeners (there must be a few of them out there) will be amused by a skit that seems to gun down the President for wanting to repair Social Security. Imagine being that angry over a proposed technical change in the Social Security System.

Unfortunately, both Talk-Radio and poli-blogging seem to promote that style of "discourse." Snarky and over-the-top ranting is supposed to build audience, and perhaps it does. What it doesn't help in the long term is credibility. Take good notes, conservatives. Snarky name-calling used to be your specialty, and there is some of it still around over on the right. Here's your chance to see the broader effect of those "charging up the base" activities.

The smart Democrats need to get out of Washington and New York and meet some new people. Start with some of the Democrats who voted against you last time, and start by not lecturing or insulting them if it turns out that they go to church or shop at WalMart. Smart conservatives should be paying close attention as well, to see how easily political rants can become a turn-off. There will always be ranters and loonies in any party, that much is expected. Historically, however, both parties offered leaders and candidates who could address issues without insulting the majority of voters. SC&A has posted on this recently. A few political operators have noticed the hunger for someone who isn't an embarrassment; a longing for another Moynihan. Senator Clinton is trying to get there, but she has a lot of repairing to do. Her early bid is helped by the lack of anyone else on the Democratic side who is talking sense these days. In the meantime conservatives can enjoy watching lefty moonbats behaving like a bunch of right-wing nut cases.

The Slow Poisoning of Politics

Perhaps you saw today's column by David Brooks in the New York Times. The column is ostensibly about the Roe v. Wade decision, but it's not clear where Brooks stands on the underlying issue of abortion. What is very clear is that brooks thinks that the Roe decision was a disaster for the country, and the ultimate genesis of the evolving partisan malaise that has the Senate on the brink of a major change that he believes will damage it.

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue.

The battles over abortion rights in the state legislatures would have been ferocious, but in the end healthy for the country and both the political parties. A very sensitive issue would have been fully explored and the parties and political leadership would have been fully engaged with the constituencies. I like to see issues battled in the representative bodies. That's a basic tenet of my Radical Centrist beliefs; that representative government works and we ought not to be afraid of a heated but peaceful fight in the statehouse or Capitol. The abortion laws would probably vary by state, and that would, in the end, work out fine. Those who are concerned that poor women unable to travel would not be able to obtain a legal abortion could make a donation to Planned Parenthood or some other organization to provide transportation and treatment. That problem could be solved.

Brooks points out that the battle has instead been fought in courts and in judicial nominations, to a very bad effect. You could argue that all the wrangling over judicial appointments isn't just about abortion, in the same way you can argue that the Civil War was not really all about slavery. You would be wrong in the same way too. If Roe v. Wade was not hanging over the courts, we would never be looking at changing the Senate rules, and we would have likely avoided some of the bitter confirmation battles (Bork?) that have pushed our political camps into escalating hunts for retribution.

I do think that Brooks overstates the risk to the Senate if the rules are changed. The Senate rules are the way they are, and have stayed the way they are for so long, because most Senators from both parties like the way they work. Removing the right to filibuster nominations does not automatically mean that all filibusters will be banned. Even the most confident Republicans are aware that they will be in the minority again someday. I expect that they will want to make a show of respect and solidity for the rights of the minority party to filibuster on bills, just to prevent similar rules changes when it is their turn to play obstructionist.

Even so, Brooks has raised a very telling point that is not often discussed. Moving major issues out of the appropriate forum into the courts is ultimately corrosive to the democracy.

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

Yes I was blogging very infrequently for a while

A few have emailed about the lack of regular posts. Thanks for noticing, first of all. Part of the problem is that I am responsible either fully or majorly for six different sites at the moment, and I've been spread a bit thin. The other reason was health related, I guess. People like to use the phrase "changing my meds" in jest, but for me it's not a jest. I've been adjusting to a change in "meds" and one of the side-effects that did not turn up in clinical testing is "reduced blogging output." One of the expected effects is improved sleep and I've been working off a very deep sleep deficit. I think I'm back in action now, better rested and full of ideas for the blogs, so thanks for your patience and stay tuned!

Lileks on the soapbox

Every so often events drag James Lileks off his regular subjects, his dog, daughter and daily grind, and trigger a good ol'fashioned rant that reads like someone who is barely taking time to inhale. These sort of rants are actually rather commonplace across the blogosphere but a Lileks rant is intelligent and witty, which is much rarer. I have had exactly nothing to say on the Bolton hearings so far. I've been waiting for my personal pot to boil over I guess, but Lileks boiled first so will let him do the steaming.

I am not impressed by those who want to shiv Bolton to collect a scalp, but that’s their job; I do not understand the useful idiots on the Republican side who want to hand them the knife. (“It’s all sharp the way you like it! Can I come to your party now? I’ll help with the dip and everything.”) I don’t have to like Bolton, and I certainly don’t approve of his mustache, but I want someone who will stand up to the UN. And by “stand up” I don’t mean the cut-rate back-alley hooker method of leaning against a brick wall and hiking up the skirts. I mean, someone who doesn’t give the Syrian ambassador the old collegial nod in the break room or say “How’s it goin’” to the Zimbabwe attaché when you’re standing at adjoining urinals, and consider it a promising diplomatic overture.

There are good & decent people of either party, but they would be more impressive if they took big hard whacks at their colleagues, in public, without fear of seeming “unsenatorial.” If this goes on, “Senatorial” is the last thing they’ll want to be, because the word will by a synonym for blind preening egotism matched only by mulish cluelessness.

Don’t get me started on DeLay.

...And that's just a portion of the fun. I myself have not made any comment on Delay because he is plainly boring. A politician with all of the political vices. Tiresome, yes, and embarrassing too, since we share party affiliation, but nothing really new at all.

But this Bolton hearing is not boring, just too painful to watch. Most everything I've heard about him makes him seem even more qualified for the job. Europe likes to call Americans "Cowboys" intending it to be a great insult. They called Reagan a cowboy and he showed-up in the hat and boots and said, "Yup, that's what I am!" They don't even need to level the accusation at "W". Bolton's mustache might be a bit over-the-top (reminds me to go trim mine, its been a while) but let's get the Pres to buy him a hat and some boots and he's all set to scare up some action at the UN. Let's pin a big star on his chest and call him "Sheriff Bolton". Goodness knows the place needs a good western style "cleanin' up". I don't see what we have to lose; our image there can't get much lower, or so we are led to believe. Let's take a cue from the Catholics and send in an enforcer.

Connecticut tries a new approach

Actually not really a new idea, just a new way to implement it. Gay Patriot has the best comment on the recent move in Connecticut (where I grew up and still have family, btw) to recognize gay civil unions, while simultaneously affirming that a "marriage" is a union between a man and woman.

As the issue of civil unions has become so controversial, surely, state representatives and senators talked about the legislation with their constituents. Perhaps, that is one reason the legislature included the (in my mind) gratuitous provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They may have learned, as "THE HARTFORD COURANT" reported, that many who favor same-sex civil unions, oppose calling such unions marriage.

I don't agree that it is a gratuitous provision, I think its vital. There are time when ambiguity is a very useful thing, but this is not one of them. We need to be clear about separating two issues that many would like to blend. The rights of Gay people to form lasting partnerships and receive similar state recognition and privileges as married couples, is one issue. The definition of "marriage", and recognition that there is a distinct, traditional institution linked to heterosexuality is another. Many people, myself included are happy to see gay people moving away from a shallow, self-absorbed and ultimately self-destructive life-style, towards commitment and lasting relationship. It is very much a step in the right direction and should be encouraged and recognized. I also recognize, as do many I believe, that the institution of heterosexual marriage is so ancient that it defies words, "pre-historic"? It is one of the foundation stones of all human society and is intricately tied to the concept of "family" which is even more important. So there are two separate issues; respecting the rights of gays and encouraging the "maturing" of the gay community, and respecting the ancient importance of traditional marriage and deepening our commitment to family. Two things...and Connecticut has affirmed both. Very good!

As I said, there a re some who want to see those issues confused. There are some who's beliefs will not allow them to support anything that appears to sanction homosexuality in any way, even within the entirely secular world. They would like the state to be actively anti-gay, but the public is not agreeing, at least not in sufficient numbers to win election. There is strong support for a traditional definition of marriage, and linking that issue to this one is one way of keeping gay couples from getting state recognition. The anti-gay forces want us to think that a gay union is an assault on the institution of marriage and family. This is nonsense. These gay couples are among the few in modern society affirming the need for lifelong commitment and monogamy. They hunger for a "family" of whatever sort they can fashion.

On the other side, somewhat strangely, are gay activists who are, just as their opponents claim, trying to launch an attack on traditional marriage. Already some in Connecticut have claimed that it is not enough, and that gay people will not have full equality until marriage is redefined to include gay couples. The term "heteronormative" turned up in a news item from Harvard recently. Wow, that's a big windmill to tilt against. You've not only got the whole of human social history against you, but your fighting biology as well. There is a lot that is flawed in our current, modern understanding of what marriage is, or could be, even within the heterosexual world. I'm disturbed by the level of divorce in the country, and the trivialization of marriage in our culture. In that many heterosexual people don't really understand marriage, in my mind, I find it easy to imagine that most gay people don't understand it either. A gay union, even at its best, may well be nearly equivalent to many of today's heterosexual unions, but it is not an equivalent to what marriage ought to be and perhaps could be again. I, like many others, would very much like to maintain that distinction in the hope that someday we can restore a cultural respect for traditional marriage.

This is a very hot issue in my church as well (Episcopal). It may well tear the church apart, which is an enormously painful thing to contemplate. In both the civil/political debate and the angry shouting within the Episcopal Church, I observe that we are again arguing past one another. Talking about two different things in what appears to be a discussion (or an argument). Its not a discussion, its two long speeches being delivered from a common podium. One side is talking about principles, the other side about people. I came to my thinking about this issue by knowing gay people, including some who are in very loving and long-lasting relationships. At some point, there is an instinct in one that responds to the "wonderful couple", and not the legal or biblical definitions. At some point, the issue is no longer about an abstract "institution of marriage", but about the very tangible people in your community. Robert and Doug, Elain and Alice, people who demonstrate the sort of loving relationship that many of the married couple in your circle could emulate. People who have been together for decades, who are caring for one another in infirmity. Comparing them to the alternative gay lifestyle, the "traditional gay lifestyle" (see Gay Patriot's post) makes it viscerally clear that this is a very good thing.

So we end up with a typically centrist solution. Give the gay couples a solid recognition of their union, and preserve the historical distinction for heterosexual marriage. It satisfies none of the activists but meets the needs of the people and, not inconsequentially, will work.

Wobbly on the Filibuster?

I don't like to use the term "Moderate", as I don't think want to connect centrism with a kind of muddled moderation. Unfortunately, sometimes even radical centrists can be sorta uncertain on an issue. This issue over the filibuster of judicial nominees has had me flip-flopping.

Fundamentally, I don't much like filibusters. Sooner or later I want to see all issues brought to a fair vote. I certainly agree that judicial nominees especially deserve a vote. I can see a difference between consent to a nomination and the making of laws. The right to nominate judges belongs to the Executive branch, and, for better of for worse, the Congress needs to give the nomination either a thumbs up or thumbs down so the process can move forward. Refusing to take action is refusing to do a constitutional duty. It's also terribly unfair to the nominees and the judicial system. So on the fundamentals, I favor the move to change the rules.

On the other hand, I like the fact that the Republican majority is incented to hold onto the middle and try to grow. An attempt to get to 60 votes in the Senate would force the Right to come to terms somewhat with the Center. Of course, if they have to compromise with the moderates in order to get the 60 votes, many on the right would lose interest. Handled carefully, the threat of a filibuster has been a good way to prevent arrogance and excesses from the majority. Unfortunately, the filibuster has been misused and cheapened recently.

Of course, all of this trouble comes from the fear of judges who legislate. Whether on the right or on the left, folks are worried about what new law these judges will create and what new judges will do to the laws that earlier judges created. I don't have any doubt that the authors of the constitution expected that the Senate would confirm judges on the basis of their competence in the law. Things have changed now, it seems.

If I were voting I guess I would go ahead and change the rules. For the moderate senators to bail on this one will not help relations with the rightists, and at the heart of the matter, its the right thing to do. In general I like any change in the rules that promotes action over delay and obstruction, so let's screw our courage to the sticking place and dump the judicial filibuster.

The GWOT is the perfect excuse

I caught this news item via Arthur Chrenkoff, who terms it "the news we have been waiting for." The US has announced a redeployment of troops that will reduce our presence in Germany by two-thirds. The rationale is to better position them for the war on terror. It makes a lot a sense to get them out of the now unified Germany.

President George W. Bush in August announced plans to bring home as many as 70,000 members of the U.S. military from Europe and Asia. He said the American redeployment, the largest since the Korean War, would enable the military to respond more quickly to terrorist threats.

The article is not specific where in "Asia" troops will be withdrawn. Could well be Korea, where the threat is more real than Germany. Aurthur feels that some of these troops could be redeployed further east into Poland or Romania, which makes political sense, and perhaps military sense as well. Some of them could well be placed in new bases in Afghanistan. In any case, it's well past time to be out of Germany.

A Unique Honor for the Bush Team

You could spin this story any way you prefer. A couple of Cornell scientists needed to apply formal names to the many new special of beetles they had discovered. These fella's really like beetles, and they gave three of the species naming political figures they claim to admire as well, Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld. The beetles themselves all come from the genus Agathidium, and will now be known to the world as, A. bushi, A. cheneyi and A. rumsfeldi.

Now if you're one of the folks who neither admire beetles or the Bush team, you might make light of the fact that these are varieties of what is commonly called "slime-mold beetles." The little critters have a taste for fungus, it seems. Certainly those of us who are mammalian chauvinists will look down on a dinner of slime mold, but among the beetle crowd it just might be high-style. And we should remember that beetles are thought, by at least one eminent scientist to be the creatures of which God is "inordinately fond."

No matter how humble the creature it is not everyday that a species is named in one's honor so I'll offer my congratulations to the three men so honored and to the beetles too, who have acquired such distinguished names.

Update: Lest it appear I am not giving credit where it was due, I saw after I had posted this that James Taranto in the Opinion Journal Best of the Web today also caught sight of this item. He includes a link to the Cornell press release.

Moderate religion for a political moderate.

I'm not sure if I am a Centrist because I am an Episcopalian, or Episcopalian because I am a Centrist. For centuries, the Anglicans (in the US called Episcopalians) have used the term "Via Media", which in Latin means "middle way", to describe their faith. Centrism is quite literally a part of our religion.

John Derbyshire over at The Corner on NRO has been posting about the "Anglican Sensibility" and how it has been the "ballast" for Anglosphere countries. I've posted on his columns at Bird's Eye View.

Was Congress right to act?

Teddy Roosevelt is something of a political hero of mine. He had a way, at times, of doing what was right and sorting out the legal niceties later. This can lead to chaos, I realize, and not everyone agreed with TR's view of what was "right". Even so, he didn't allow himself to be caught in a discussion over fine-points while time was lost.

As Terri Schiavo was without water of food there was certainly no time to dawdle, and Congress, reacting to a significant outcry from concerned citizens, took what action it could. As we all know, the Federal courts tossed their bill aside along with a tart scolding for stepping out-of-line. Many of the nation's political pundits, both mainstream and blogstream, have joined voices to criticize Congress for getting involved. I'm in no position to speak to the constitutional issues or any legal ramifications; I'm a software engineer without legal training, but I do have opinions on the underlying issue and the specific situation concerning Terri Schiavo, as do a lot of other Americans, and I wonder, "If Congress is not the correct body to respond to our concerns, who is? If we can't take our complaints to Congress, to whom should we go?"

The Congress is chock-full of lawyers, of course, but they're not there to practice law or to participate in the judicial system. They are there as legislative representatives. As I understand the separate branches of our government, the legislature is intended to be responsive to the concerns of the people, the House of Representatives especially so. The Constitution's framers and early defenders seemed to believe that the people needed a place to make their voice heard and air their concerns. In this recent situation, a good sized group of Americans became strongly convinced that the State of Florida was violating the civil rights of a citizen. We can argue about whether they were correct (and no doubt will) and we can disagree about the number of people who took that view. These details are not what I am concerned with at the moment. I'm concerned about what a number of Americans, genuinely upset over what appears to be a gross violation of their commonsense understanding of justice, can do about it. Is the answer really "nothing?"

In both denying the request to review the facts, and later castigating the Congress for having the temerity to ask, the courts and their defenders sound like they are telling the people to "lump it." Does anyone wonder why judges are accused of "judicial arrogance"? I've heard judges deflect such anger and frustration saying "that is the law, if you don't like it, call your Congressman", which seems a smart strategy. It offers people a chance to air their grievance, and leaves them with hope that wrong can be set right. I cringe when I hear fools talking about vendettas against judges, but I know well where these frustrations come from. Its the same frustration that attracts people to constitutional amendments, and makes political battlefields of judicial confirmations.

I'd like to raise the distinction between "respect for the law" and "respect for the legal system". The Schiavo spectacle evoked calls for the former, but it was the latter that was the issue. People don't get angry at the judiciary for upholding the laws; the people have ways of changing laws they don't like. In fact the people have great respect for the law. It's what looks like judicial disrespect for the law, and for the rights of the people to write the law, that angers them. Of course, laws can conflict, and one important role for the courts is to settle those conflicts, most notably collisions between laws and the constitution. The famed system of "checks and balances", however, is there to allow the people freedom to legislate. If Congress ignores the will of the people in anticipation of a court challenge, are they fulfilling their role? When the legislature is unwilling to challenge a court, are we still living in a republic?

Are you not concerned about a Congress that would watch large numbers of citizens become sick with anger and frustration and ignore it. It's easy to accuse the Congress of bowing to public pressure, but then again, who else should respond? The executive is an option. Some wanted Jeb Bush to play TR and go in with the National Guard, who were once famously used to force a state to integrate a school, escorting black schoolchildren past hostile local police. As it is, the courts did not take Congress' hint and Jeb refused ride in with the cavalry. The courts got what they wanted in the end. Better legal minds (which, compared to mine, implies all of them) will debate and determine the fine points of the constitutional issue, or, more likely perhaps, never really decide it. They could also help those of us unhappy with the result determine if the laws are broken or is the court system broken, I really can't tell. Perhaps its both. In the meantime, I'm glad that the Congress at least made some attempt to act. It's a comfort (albeit a small one) to know that someone was listening.