Bad breath secrets revealed by a long-time sufferer who finally triumphed

The Centrist Party provides the foundation for voters and politicians in the center to express their views. Without it, any attempt at maturing the political environment would likely fall short. In the current political environment, politicians can claim to be centrist and after they are elected meander back to their special interest base in the far left or right, where their funding comes from. Creating a centrist foundation significantly strengthens the integrity and ability of politicians to campaign on, and maintain a centrist political view.

Mission Statement
To achieve common sense solutions that have at their heart, a tone of balance and fairness. To create a strong foundation for mainstream America that is not prone to undue influence from left/right arguments. To move away from character assassinations and toward solution oriented campaigns. To empower people, and the vote, with a strong position not confused by one-sided agendas, or special interests. To formulate policies and solutions that regard short, medium and long term considerations at all levels.

Bringing together the best ideas and meeting in the middle
Many Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe Centrist views will allow America to achieve solutions that work for the nation. The Centrist Party allows for a position not torn between partisanship and polarized agendas. The overviews outline considerations and are indicative of Centrist reasoning. Centrist candidates will present their own platforms and perspectives on issues.

We need to break out of the two party system and build a bridge between bias and reason. The Centrist Party will span the distance between the left and the right, and address the scope of the nations needs from Americas mainstream point of view.

http://uscentrist.org/

For me Centrism isn’t so much about policy as it is about process: Bi-partisanship, cooperation, collaboration. I trust that the best policy comes out of reconciling major points of view.

My aim is to support those who support election reform such as redistricting, open primaries, lobby reform, transparency…

Supporting moderate candidates from both parties is certainly a legitimate effort. But, more and more, the choice between moderate and not-so-moderate doesn’t happen in the general election, it happens in the primary. And, a lot of times, moderates simply don’t run because the system doesn’t support or advance them. So the effort is a lot more complicated than it looks and almost HAS to be undertaken from within the party structures themselves.

And, it is true that most Americans are “centrist” if, by centrist, you mean that most American’s are not absolutists on policy and aren’t fond of the divisiveness we see in politics. But once you get any sampling of that centrist majority in one place, you quickly learn that they agree on very little outside of a broad “extremism and divisiveness is bad” sentiment.

The reality is, the great middle in America cannot be mobilized because so little ties them together. Now, certainly one great candidate can win most of the middle votes — but those voters cannot be coalesced into a greater movement because, while they might share similar temperaments, they do not share ideologies.

My point isn’t to delegitimize centrism or claim it is a failed idea. My point is to recognize the political reality and the steep, steep climb centrists have ahead if they want to do more than merely scold the two parties.

DP! Glad to see you back! Hope you continue to post your reasonable and even handed comments which only try to advance the dialogue.

I’ll take that last part of advancing “the dialogue” as sincere, since you reiterate my point (of course in a reasonable and even-handed way):

And as much as each party’s philosophies change and shift over the years, so too does centrist ideology.

This is exactly what I wrote in my initial comment (in an unreasonable and uneven handed way), to wit:

Centrism is by its definition A MOVING TARGET, a statement of relativism, only defined by its relative position to other policy and ideological preferences.

Beware of a “circle jerk” dressed like like an “advancement of dialogue”, JG.

That was kind of my point. Regardless of where he was for the first, what, 2 years of his term, his overwhelming legacy is one of slightly left-leaning centrism (no doubt aided and abetted by the fact that he had a hostile congress) which makes the statement “the past 14 years has produced a system that has drifted more towards the wings” seem unsupported to me.

Say what you will about centrists, moderates, independents, etc., but they are the majority. And as much as each party’s philosophies change and shift over the years, so too does centrist ideology.That’s just the long and short of it.

DP! Glad to see you back! Hope you continue to post your reasonable and even handed comments which only try to advance the dialogue.

I’d like to add, ideology is not a bad thing. It CAN be a bad thing when misused (much like religion which, after all, is simply spiritual ideology). But I think most of us here believe in free speech and democracy and other such political ideologies. So when I say centrists need an ideology, I’m not talking about a rigid set of rules, I’m just talking about a collection of basic assumptions and moral/intellectual guideposts that are the framework upon which new ideas can be built.

Bush’s too. Bush is actually a centrist on immigration, probably because he has Hispanics in his family. His base gives him hell over it, but on this issue, he is right.

We can not allow the extreme wings of the Republicans & Democrats to continue to steer our country further and further off course. Voter dissent is close to an all time high because the past 14 years has produced a system that has drifted more towards the wings.

How do you square that statement with the fact that the only democrat leader in the time period you nominate was a looonnnnggg way from an extreme lefty? To take the issue brought up by the next poster, Clinton’s welfare program (post 96 when he rounded some of the harder edges) sounds exactly like what amba was saying a centrist’s plan would look like.

This is a brilliantly honest description of political reality as it is right now. It doesn’t have to be that way forever. What is has to be respected, because nothing can be accomplished starting from denial. What is has a certain authority based on its materiality and momentum. But what is need not be worshipped, bowed to. Its authority comes from the past, and the past is passing fast. The frustration of voters in both parties comes from the sense that the existing political debate is fundamentally dead, it’s coasting along on inertial momentum. Maybe this always happens — the empty space and the aching thirst for new ideas is there before the ideas themselves rush in to fill and quench it. Ahhhhh.

Maybe a tiny start: partisans say or. Centrists say and (and sometimes nor).

For example, I was just writing about immigration for Unity08 (don’t know yet if or when it will appear there) and wound up saying leftists celebrate pluribus while rightists insist on unum. Each is half right, which makes them both wrong. A centrist would say we need to appreciate the cultures immigrants bring with them as contributions to the rich mix that is America, AND we have to insist that they become Americans. When I was growing up, immigrants had to feel bad about where they came from and try to shed it in order to become imitation white Americans. Now they don’t have to learn English or associate with anyone outside their insular enclave. Both wrong! The America I love is one in which white people dance like black people and the word “salsa” is regarded as English. Everybody has something to give to America. They have to know it will be welcomed, but they have to want to give it, not keep it, and they have to learn the basic rules and parameters of the game we play here (they have to come legally for starters, as the right says, which has to be made easier, as the left says) — and the bloody language!

Another example: A social safety net for people who desperately need it AND an ethic of personal responsibility that makes people turn to the safety net only when they have to and get off it as fast as they can. An easily accessible social safety net and excuses for resorting to it makes for a culture of dependency. An increasingly shredded social safety net means it’s not enough to be a responsible hard worker: you must be a driven success just to survive, and an illness or job loss can be a catastrophe.

Specific “and” solutions are challenging to design because they involve a delicate balance, but “balance” is the essence of the center — it’s the fulcrum that integrates the best of the wings.

Keep up the chatter & remember there is strength in unity.
M-P

The unfortunate truth is your that you’re probably right, regardless of what I like. The primaries for the 2006 elections happened not too long ago and I couldn’t take part. Why, because I’m registered as an independent. So the Democrats and Republicans could both nominate complete assholes and I’ll have to choose the lessor of two evils in November. So think really hard, because otherwise I’ll have to decide in 2008 which party I want to be a small moderate voice in.

I’ve never been happy with either word: moderate or centrist. I think we’re counterpunchers by nature, most of us. We define ourselves in opposition to what we see as extremes on either side. But yeah, we don’t have a set of ideas that goes beyond a pox on both your houses.

A bit ago, I swore off Donklephant after I read what I considered to be a patently ignorant & bigoted post. It wasn’t the “ignorant” or the “bigoted” part that pissed me off. I have written some ignorant and certainly bias things. What pissed me off was that it was written under the fraudulent, self-serving, and self-labeled banner of a “Centrist” or a “Moderate” — when in fact it was, as is the poster, nothing of the kind.

Since, as you correctly point out, centrism remains undefined, it is vulnerable to highjacking for political purposes. Who ISN’T going to consider themselves a Centrist??? One gains power in a democracy by espousing their beliefs as more normative than the guy running against him. Centrism is by its definition A MOVING TARGET, a statement of relativism, only defined by its relative position to other policy and ideological preferences. Thus, when someone calls themselves a “centrist”, they are defining the placement of everyone who disagrees with them as being…ideologically extreme. It is just a political tool and NOTHING more.

Thomas Sowell has it right, just replace the word “anti-war” with “moderate” or “centrist”:

It is staggering that anyone could be so self-infatuated as to single out their own particular policy preferences as ‘anti-war.’ Anyone who is not a sadist or an idiot is anti-war. The only serious issue is how best to limit, deter or conclude war. But responsibility for confronting this issue is evaded by those preoccupied with the moral preening of being ‘anti-war.’” Thomas Sowell, August 29, 2006.

Anyway, thanks for the post ACS, keep up the honest thinking.