Nothing makes me angrier than appeals to centrism and civility. We have a two-party political system and those parties have conveniently occupied the left and the right of America’s political spectrum. Though we can debate the where the Democratic and Republican Parties actually fit on the grand scheme of political ideology, there is not doubt that their ideologies leave little space between each other. The problem with a visual metaphor for political ideology on a Left-Right spectrum is that it necessarily implies a Center. But centrism’s only claim to existence, as far as I can see, is based on the fallout of this metaphor.
Centrism in the US has manifested itself solely as the ability or propensity to reach compromise between positions held by the parties of the Left and the Right. Asking for political resolution to come out of an ill-defined and evidently non-existent centrist ideology is a recipe for ineffectiveness. American centrism exists solely on the backs of Democratic and Republican ideologies.

Not surprisingly, I almost blew a gasket perusing Unity08.com today. Unity Aught Eight is the movement based around the false premises that what’s wrong in America can be solved if everyone in politics got along better and used nice words when talking to each other. Civility and compromise are core principles to this crowd. The only thing surpassing their faith in civility and compromise is their self-delusional belief that they are America’s Silent Majority.
Leaving aside some of the more comic elements of the Unity Aught Eight website (for example, they are polling visitors on what their party’s force’s tagline should be; one option is “A Third Force in the Middle,” which just makes me think their supporters are likely bear the middle name “Triforce“), the Unity Aught Eight site is replete with sadly infuriating misdirection of political activism. They are organizing a party force about nothing, in a Seinfeldian attempt at a political coup. We learn from their “Goverance” FAQs that they have no platform:
No. It will have an agenda of crucial issues, as determined by professional surveys of the delegates and public at large, and it will expect those seeking its nomination to provide their platform addressing the Unity08 agenda of crucial issues. Unity08 will not play the charade game of today’s two parties of adopting a platform the candidates feel free to ignore.
This is remarkable. Some candidates don’t follow their party’s platform, therefore the Unity Aught Eight Party Force refuses to craft one. This is a childish justification for avoiding standing for anything.
The fetishization of compromise and civility reaches new heights in the blog post “Top 10 Reasons Why the Moderate Middle Matters.” The Unity Aught Eight Party Force is so intent on remaining civil and finding compromise that they only list one reason on their top ten list.
1. Moderates are the only ones with the desire to find common ground.
Well, leaving asides the fact that this statement is falsifiable, who cares? Common ground is not an answer. Common ground is an undefinable place that changes on every single issue. How is changing one’s beliefs on every single issue an admirable quality?
Common ground and compromise are awful metrics for political merit because policy problems often have correct answers. Those answers are arrived at largely through political ideologies. I could not articulate for you what a centrist or moderate position was on workers’ rights, health care, education, foreign policy, or Social Security. Or to get into more specifics, I don’t know what a centrist thinks about Sarbanes-Oxley, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, or Sino-American relations.
I think trying to connect to people’s base notions that getting along is better than not getting along is an extremely cynical brand of politics - more so than honest partisanship. Standing for not standing against each other doesn’t take much. It is no call to greatness, it is mediocrity through the vapid. Ask people to stand for something concrete and they will be inspired. “Hey you kids stop fighting back there” is not leadership. Only someone who has no faith in the power of big ideas could think that this bland centrism is the most Americans can stomach.
Americans are capable of more than having a referendum on whether or not we want Crossfire put back on the air. Because that’s what these repeated pleas for bipartisanship and civility are - an expression of tiredness over how politics is portrayed on TV. There is no platform behind bipartisanship, no aspirational texts. No, it’s just “Would you guys like us to stop shouting all of the time?” Well, of course we would. But tone doesn’t run a government.
A person can have no claim on the mantle of leader when all they ask of the people is ideological quietude. Yet the Unity Aught Eight Party Force wants Americans to think that our only problem is that we care too much about making this country a better place. Were we only to care less, to invest ourselves less, we would all just get along. This is not an ideal, it is a call for passivism. It must be resisted with all of the passion we can muster.
Technorati Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Unity Aught Eight, Unity08















December 6th, 2006 at 8:18 am
What in fact the current press to “centrism” reflects is a reaction to the extreme partisanship of the Bush era where no views were permitted but their views and where disagreement or difference was labelled as treason. What is dangerous about the “force for the center” is that it refuses to look at recent history, refuses to hold the Bush crowd to account and acts as if the sorry state of the world and this country is equally the fault of those that seized power and wielded it for their own political and financial gain and those that opposed them. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. If those that held and abused power are not held to account, nothing is learned and nothing can be expected in the future except a repetition of the same mistakes.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am
This is a great post Matt. I think that people also confuse having a message with broad appeal (or middle class appeal) with having some fantastical immagined “middle ground” position. Well in this country the vast majority wants universal healthcare and environmental protection yet the so called moderates don’t fully support either. They are a political, tactical position, not a governing logic. It won’t produce good policy, only good newspaper copy.
Here’s where I plug Andrea’s awesome op-ed “Middle Class Isn’t Middle Ground” http://drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6475
December 7th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Agreed. I have been following the Unity08 progress since they garnered a lot of publicity with their initial announcement in June. Particularly galling, was their complete silence on the midterms. Claiming to stake out a middle ground, but not supporting any actual candidates in the face of six years of disastrous single party control struck me as incredibly cynical. It looks like they are ramping up a major publcity offensive now, and may be getting more attention. I posted my pre-election thoughts on the organization in “Disunity06 kicks Unity08 Butt” and “Disunity06″, and my views have not changed. This quote from the later post sums it up for me:
December 7th, 2006 at 11:36 am
MW:
I think that is 100% right.
I’m also curious to see at what point Unity Aught Eight’s online national primary winners will actually agree to the results. For now they’re saying it’s open to all, but say the winner is a Condi Rice-Hillary Clinton ticket - my guess is they won’t go for it. So the field will have to self-select down to the people who think they can win this and would want it: people like McCain, Bloomberg, and Lieberman. It doesn’t sound so unified then, does it?
December 11th, 2006 at 9:21 am
[…] I believe there three kinds of campaigns that politicians can run. The first is an issues-based campaign; examples of this would be John Edwards’ presidential run in 2004 focused on poverty and working family issues. The second type of campaign is a fear-based campaign, which is pretty much any campaign run by a Republican candidate since 9/11/2001. Failure to vote for the candidate in question will inevitably put the voters life at risk (not to mention turn his son gay and force his teenage daughter to have an abortion). The third type of campaign is the Above The Fray campaign, defined by the candidate’s desire to paint himself as different from all the Bad Politicians who play Partisan Games in Washington. This has obviously been exemplified by Joe Lieberman, but is also the model that the Unity Aught Eight Party Force is trafficking to their supporters. […]
December 11th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
“Centrism” is empty because “left” and “right” are ultimately meaningless labels, as well. They prevent us from forming our own political identities as we are encouraged to identify ourselves as either “left” or “right,” “progressive” or “conservative.” Once we’ve done that, it’s all to easy to swallow the whole package, and vote accordingly. We’d all benefit from a more civil discourse, except, in my view, the present iteration of the Republican Party which relies on conflict, turmoil, and anger for its survival like I depend on oxygen to breath. In that regard I think we’d be better off if we weren’t so concerned with labels like “left,” “right,” “center.” But no, “let’s all get along” isn’t a political position.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Loren:
Except progressive, conservative, liberal, Democrat, and Republican all do have easy, ready definitions. They may not be all things to all people, but they exist. I’m saying that there is no comparable definition for centrism or moderates.
I also don’t see any inherent benefit from civil discourse. Where is the benefit in civility? Benefits lie in what is accomplished legislatively, not what is said about legislation.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
[…] Maybe Republicans aren’t crazy about Chuck Hagel and don’t want to vote for him, but I have a tremendously hard time believing that any significant group of Americans will vote for a presidential ticket because they are civil and not because of any ideological reasoning. Civility is a red-herring. A political party devoid of any political ideology is the last thing America needs when you look at the problems that will be facing this country after Bush’s term expires. […]
March 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
[…] The only other logical explanation for Hagel’s continued flirtation with a presidential run is that he thinks he can generate enough grassroots support to become an attractive third-party candidate. With the Unity 08 “movement” gaining visibility and talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg exploring an independent presidential run, it’s possible that Hagel thinks a home will open up for him on a ticket outside of the Republican Party. This is running a bit far afield into fantasy scenario land, though, and I hope that Hagel’s ego isn’t stretching itself out this far. […]
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
UNITY ‘08 IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. BE PARTIOTIC
1. Proposed Organizational Name:
“AMERICA FIRST” INDEPENDANT PARTY
2. Do Away with Electoral College; elect President by popular vote.
3. Forget Bipartison Efforts.
4. Elect smart, bright, moral people only.
5. Every voter asks; is candidate smarter than I am?
6. Nominate Al Gore for president.
more later
‘jhb’
November 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
[…] Emboldened » Blog Archive » Unity Aught Eight With the Unity 08 movement gaining visibility and talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg exploring an independent presidential run, its possible that http://www.baltimoregroupblog.com […]