Forgive me if a diary or frontpage post like this has recently been written here, but in light of the ongoing (and in my mind, fundamentally misplaced) discussion about Obama's general election pivot, I wonder what people around here are thinking of when they think/write about the elusive "center" of 2008 American politics.
It seems to me that there are two dimensions to centrism: one ideological and one rhetorical. Obama has proven himself to be a rhetorical centrist - he likes to frame issues in nonpartisan terms, his first instinct is to seek "common ground" with ideological opponents, and it seems as if he is more inclined to prioritize/emphasize issues about which such compromise appears possible.
Ideological centrism, on the other hand, suggests a personal ambivalence towards positions that appear to skew too far from those of the median, so-called "swing" voter. The characteristics and beliefs of that voter change from election-to-election, and depend heavily on the geographic unit that is being measured - the ideological centrist in Vermont in 2008 is a lot different from the one in Mississippi in 2008, who is a lot different from the one in Mississippi in 1958. Thus, ideological centrism is really about the absence of a firm ideology, above and beyond the desire to maintain distance from either extreme.
I don't believe Obama is an ideological centrist - certainly not in the way that an Evan Bayh or an Olympia Snowe is - but I do believe that, as a matter of political theory, he has to look like one to win the election. Elections are about capturing the median voter - period. There are two ways to do it, and I think the "election" and re-election of George W. Bush provides a good illustration of each.
First, as Bush did in 2000, you can use rhetorical centrism to mask a more radical ideology. Here, you accept the median voters as she is, and go after her.
Second, as Bush did in 2004, you can try to fight the election on an ideological playing field where the "center" is relative close to your pole. Here, you attempt to change the identity of the median voter altogether. (And before I get flamed, let's be honest: the median voter's views on foreign policy in 2004 were considerably further "right" than they are today.)
It's pretty clear to me that Obama is taking the first tack. (Most in the blogosphere would prefer him to take the second, which may be harder to do so when you're not the incumbent.) And although you may think he is misjudging today's median voter, I think we should all take some deep breaths and realize that all signs point to the conclusion that Barack Obama is not actually an ideological centrist. He's just playing one on TV for the next four months.
I acknowledge that could be wrong, but considering the options, let's see how he governs before accusing him of betraying progressivism. When he has the bully pulpit of the presidency is when we'll be able to judge whether his admirable rhetorical centrism is accompanied by its not-so-admirable cousin.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
