Matt Wuerker’s cover for Extra! (8/06)
Sometimes a headline says it all. Like this one from the New York Times (7/24/13):
Some Democrats Look to Push Party Away From Center
One of the most important tenets of corporate political journalism is the elevation of the “center” as the ideal. Partisanship, which implies disagreement and/or strongly held views, is often seen as one of the big problems in Washington. And the way this message is communicated is often by pundits and journalists advocating for the Democratic Party to “move to the center”–which is, of course, moving to the right.
One problem with this worldview is that is that the “center” doesn’t actually mean what one might think it means–especially in the context of the political views of the American public.
For instance, when pollsters ask about single-payer healthcare, it is popular–sometimes getting the support of nearly two-thirds of the public, depending on how the question is asked. Is that in the “center,” in media-speak? Not at all–it’s considered a far-left political position.
This particular Times article doesn’t do much better when it comes to explaining what constitutes a move “away from the center. ” As reporter Jonathan Martin puts it, “issues related to banks, entitlements and the rights of consumers” are at issue here, with some liberals arguing that Democrats “must shift away from the center-left consensus that has shaped its fiscal politics since Bill Clinton’s 1992 election.”
The first issue that comes up is a discussion about lowering the interest rate on student loans. What’s the “centrist” position on that–higher rates for students? Funny, then, how the “center” is wildly unpopular. The Times also talks about Democrats who have pushed back against Obama’s plans to cut Social Security and Medicare. Again, this is apparently a move “away from the center”–even though maintaining those programs is hugely popular, and cutting benefits is anything but.
The other policy issue is a plan to restore Glass-Steagall limits on the banking industry– something that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is proposing, as part of her challenge to the “centrist consensus on high finance.” But is there something particularly “centrist” about allowing big banks to get even bigger? As Ezra Klein pointed out (WonkBlog, 7/25/13), “Regulating the banks is really popular. Even breaking up the big banks is popular.”
On an array of issues, the “center” in Washington politics is actually well to the right of the “center” of American public opinion. Journalism that made this clear would be much more helpful.
Good article on how language is used. One question though…and I mean this sincerely…do we have more “regulations” on banks today than we did prior to the turn of the 20th c.? Do banks have more power today than they did prior to the turn of the 20th c.?
If the corpress were in charge of median stripes
Semis could travel in tandem on one side
And only extremely slender cyclists on the other.
Funny, Doug. Jack, yes. We can remember what Orwell said about language and how it is distorted. Notice I’m never sure where some NYC reporters get their training. You’d think they’d do better.
Well, single payer is not really far left. Single provider would be far left. Single payer is a middling left at best. You have to remember the US is a center-right nation to start with; our liberals are hardly recognized by liberals elsewhere.
Jack,
I don’t think asking whether the number or quantity of regulations has increased/decreased since 1900. The term “deregulation” is misleading bc, more often than not, it’s used to describe “liberalization.” LIberalization/deregulation occurs when: 1) previously prohibited conduct is legalized due to repealed, or partially repealed, legislation and/or 2) new legislation is passed authorizing a previously prohibited activity.
An example of the former is the (partial) repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late-1990s with the passing of the Graham-Leach-Bliley act. And an example of the latter is the interstate bank branching act and interstate banking merger legislation of the 1990s, which allowed federally chartered and insured commercial banks to branch into additional states and to merge with federally chartered banks based in other states, respectively. This increased the quantity of statutes and regulations, which seems to be your concern. But they also significantly liberalized the industry and allowed banks to grow larger than previously allowed.
It the caterpillar Defense for the NYT: “The word center means nothing more and nothing less than what they say it means”. Thus we could have the center of the sun as ‘middling right’, while the star Alpha Centauri would be middle left.
There is no such thing as “center” to begin with — this is the real joke being used to confuse the public. One either adopts a leftist stand or a rightwing stand on issues. Leftists desire equality and democracy, with an emphasis on community while rightwingers are just fine with the current, traditional system of privilege.
Please don’t pester me with replies criticizing me for using “labels.” Yes, they ARE labels, and extremely important ones at that — that is, if we are to forever un-intercourse the public’s understanding of what the real political landscape looks like in the US and the rest of the world.
This might elaborate my position, should anyone care: http://midleftzone.wordpress.com/. There is a diagram PDF further describing the Left/Right divide under the media links.
Your comments are welcome, so long as they are on-topic and do not employ classical informal fallacies. (I would love to hear Doug Latimer’s take…)
Mr. No Difference,
Is classifying persons as either taking “leftist stand or a rightwing stand on issues” an example of a “classical informal” fallacy? Maybe that of false dichotomy?
Mr. Bradshaw: I knew it. Someone had to say it; it just happened to be you. If you would, please, take this discussion off here and to the link, I’d be most appreciative. Then we could continue this there and not take this post entirely off-topic. I’d like to hear your proof that a mere observation of an actual, observable dichotomy is a fallacy.
No Difference
Language is a virus, and our political vocabulary is a particularly virulent strain.
What does “left” mean? Or “liberal”, “progressive” or “socialist”?
When “socialist” European parties administer austerity, when “liberals” embrace empire, when the ranks of “progressives” in this country are said to include the likes of Nancy Pelosi, when “leftists” such as Code Pink send flowers and chocolates to the misogynist Rand Paul, who voted against the Violence Against Women Act, simply because he self-servingly grandstanded on domestic drone strikes, before declaring himself satisfied with the gummint’s response
Do those terms help or hinder our understanding of the actions of those on the political stage?
The old union hymn asked
“Which side are you on?”
I try to focus on just who is harmed, and who benefits, from those actions.
Do they further the goal of a world in which each of us can live a life of dignity
Or do they work against it, or seek to forestall and divert it with “reforms”?
That, to me, defines and delineates one’s political identity far more clearly than any particular label.
Does that make sense?
If anyone actually read what I wrote at the link, and commented THERE, it might help loads. I explain what I mean by STIPULATING definitions.
I totally agree that language can be a killer; that is what I am trying to clear up. In order to have any sort of cogent conversation about what to do with the “X” (fill in whatever label you like) we first have to understand that there is a huge difference in tendencies between those who are “X” (same X as before) and the millions of sufferers at the hands of these “X.”
I chose “left” and “right” because they are historically prominent terms in this discussion. In my posts, I reiterate the point that I am only clarifying the EXACT SAME THINGS YOU JUST WROTE by giving it a name (or label if you insist).
I do not claim that just because something is labeled Leftist that it necessarily means it is truly Leftist. I have had issues with all of the groups you listed (although I didn’t know about Code Pink and Ryan; what a shame, because I did admire them once upon a time).
You’ve seen my posts here and elsewhere, so you know I am consistently “-X” (Leftist, or whatever other term you refuse to apply). The only reason I point out the distinction is because of the precise confusion you are pointing out. The term “Leftist” has definitely been co-opted by lots of very disingenuous individuals and groups, including many we have traditionally associated with the Left.
The whole point is that there is this enormous gaping vacuum somewhere between the socialist and anarchist groups on one hand, and the various groups I point to in the powerpoint file. Believe me, I am every last bit as disgusted as anyone else that genuine democratic tendencies have been obscured and misapplied by some very irresponsible people.
I think Chris Hedges expressed pretty much the same feelings in a recent TRNN interview. I am not Chris Hedges, so therefore my very similar observations is somehow not valid? All I want to do is get a sane and CLEAR discussion going and reclaim the term and more importantly, what it historically represented.
Would “pro-democracy” forces be any better? I think that one has also been co-opted by a certain major superpower…
No Difference,
I don’t think it’s an “actual/observable” dichotomy, and, therefore, a false one. But I will be more than happy to oblige you by commenting on your blog entries shortly.
No Difference, I wasn’t taking direct issue with your premise. You asked for my thoughts, and they were essentially a rumination on the tenuous nature of political labeling, and how it can obscure political reality.
It’s obviously an expansive subject, and I’m no dab hand at lengthy dissertations, so I’ll leave it at that.
I’ll only add that I don’t want to leave the impression that Code Pink should be judged solely on this instance of incredibly poor judgment. For whatever criticisms I may have of them for this and other actions, they have made contributions to the cause of justice, and those should be acknowledged, just as their contradictions should be delineated.
That, of course, goes for any other person or group claiming to work for a more just world.
As a tea party conservative I think talk of “the center” is a joke.There are those that believe higher taxes, and bigger government are the best way to tell folks how to live.There are those that believe in smaller government,less taxes,and minimal government involvement in our lives.With no government telling you how to live.That is two diametrically opposed sides.The only center in that is made up of those willing to compromise core values, or those who have no understanding or……those who have opted out all together.
Centrist shmentrist. All this “center” nonsense, “bipartisan” nonsense, and “compromise” nonsense is just meant to confuse and distract. It’s like trying to find the “center” between good and evil. There’s no such thing, nor should there be. There should only be doing what’s BEST for the PEOPLE.