Broder may know a lot about the workings of Washington, the Democratic and the Republican Parties. But he understands nothing about political change in a country radicalized by the policies of Bush and the whacked-out Republicans. The attacks on all institutions...on the foreign policy, the middle-class, on the role of religion, on civil and human rights...could not fail to radicalize large swaths of the populace. In the face of the radical right wing attacks on American life, all Broder's bleatings about a new independent party of the center shows zero understanding of political process and change. He is in fact a know-nothing writing for a rag that seems mostly clueless in the current climate. The center will continue its implosion and both extremes will strengthen. Any fool can see that. In fact, right here we have had Josh Marshall and immediately thereafter Kevin Drum talking about their own political progression. This is not at all unexpected. In the end, a supposed centrist, of the Lieberman ilk, forced to decide with which extreme his loyalties lie, will opt for the Zell Miller road. Count on it. He is more than halfway there already.

. . . Broder has to try to fit the world into a paradigm in which each party is driven equally by extremists, in which there are responsible centrists in both parties who can lead us to hope.

This is exactly why there is an "Alice in Wonderland" feel to so much political reporting in the MSM these days.  The old paradigm of "responsible" political coverage no longer applies because it arose in a United States that had two centrist parties.  The press has no roadmap for covering a political situation where one of the major parties has gone dangerously off the rails.  The old press model of "the truth lies somewhere between the two" is appallingly inadequate in a country where the dialogue is between a timid, but recognizably mainstream political party and a party that is skirting the edges of fascism. 

Ovid

I do think so, although I know it hasn't been channeled into the political parties. I worry that the radicalization may express itself in extreme nationalistic and xenophobic forms. I think the destruction of the American middle class, the useless pointless military aggression which is bound to be a humiliating American defeat (unless we expand the war?, use nuclear weapons on Iran?...), the corporate need for cheap labor, all are leading to a serious sense that nothing in America is working right. One has these very large majorities thinking the country is headed in wrong direction, Congress sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans suck, Democrats suck. This country is remarkably stable, the economy is surviving extreme pressures, but can it continue. Of course, I do not know. But politically I don't think the center is where we are headed.

But he understands nothing about political change in a country radicalized by the policies of Bush and the whacked-out Republicans.

Exactly. We should add to Broder's file a column from just over a year ago, in which The Dean concluded that all this nonsense about the Bush administration being extremist was just so much nonsense, because Andy Card is a moderate from Massachessetts. Reading between the lines: 'just the sort of fellow one would like to spend an afternoon with, playing cribbage and discussing redistricting'. Never mind Karl Rove, the Iraq War, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, John Negroponte, Donald Rumsfeld, etc etc.

In his most recent columns, all the Senators he praises for their bold independence in standing up to a reckless president were enablers of that same recklessness for six years, even before they caved in on torture. And the capper in that piece was his claim that Kerry and Gore were to 'know-it-all' for "midwesterners like me", this from a man who has lived in Washington DC for more than forty years.

Broder is likely mesmerized by a different time when a less confused global view entertained a prolific art of monolithic sentiments. Something like full bodied support of Social Security mated with an instinctual anti-communist view. He might be in need of some 10,000 Maniacs’ "campfire songs." I highly recommend "To Sir With Love" and "Peace Train"

Then there’s that form of centrist who just holds oneself in reserve, awaiting a future time when the ideological whacks of either stripe complete their political carnage and await us to pick up the disparate pieces.

A centrist, when backed into a forest of continual political retreat,will still relish the poised fight. There was McCain, then Gore, then Edwards, then Kerry–

These days, my support has been expended solely on in behalf of military veterans running as Democrats. Politics is a full contact art that defies fence sitting, irrespective of the patented ideological company one keeps. But then again, some knew Bush was wrong for us when South Carolina hosted that starcrossed Republican primary...

If one is destined for political oblivion, go down with your own. Bless our serviced hearts.

"A friend who taught me right from wrong, and weak from strong,
That’s alot to learn--
what can I give you in return?"

Cognitive dissonance? Why not just butter his butt and call it a biscuit? I still love ya, but exactly what part of "there is no learning without feedback" is not understandable, here?

McCain signed off on some of the most evil principles ever openly supported by the US government since slavery. No dissonance there.

And consider this rather convergent set of data, assembled amidst the rather dissonant conflagration of over a dozen spy agencies: the Iraq War worsens the threat of terror. Yep, what a shocker! Finished in April, this intelligence estimate is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by US intelligence agencies since the start of the Iraq war. The report represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

The Bush Administration, the complicit Congress, and all those running for office should be rigorously confronted with those data to assist them out of their dissonance, cults of personality, sadistic ideations and various other narcissistic variants of the will to power which now threaten to destroy our country. Who needs centrism or any ism at this hour? Try an issues-driven campaign. Try a vigorous commitment to reality. As I recall, in a time of endless opinion, fact is king. Fact is rare, hard to come by, and valuable. Broder can do his job.

http://tinyurl.com/zzqfa

David Broder is 77 years old. Although, like many aging people, he is still sentient, his thought process isn't as tractable nor as flexible as it once was, which is evidenced by the way he rigidly adheres to a mindset that may have had some utility in years past, but no longer does. As a result, Broder has become a caricature of the columnist he once was.

Putting it less colorfully than others have, the completion of Nixon's Southern Strategy combined with a bipartisan commitment to incumbent preservation has led to polarization and radicalization.

In addition, folks like me--good government centrists--have been radicalized by this administration's disdain for pretty much everything this country used to stand for.

>>Brooks is standing in line.

That's not good to hear, since I think he's about a year older than me! I think Brooks was writing like this when he was 17.

When the government claims the right to abduct and "cold cell" your wife and child (which they have, as the torture bill does not exclude US citizens from the definition of enemy combatant) without a right to habeas, it is no compromise to say "OK, just take my wife." It is an act of moral cowardice. Period.

The only people standing up to this are EX Democratic lawmakers and two reporters (I'm thinking of Cafferty and Olbermann). For those who haven't seen KO's special comment on the Clinton interview yet, take a trip to C and L. It's well worth it.

You don't have to be over 70 to be a fogey. There are plenty of young fogeys around and Brooks is in that group, isn't he?! I was listening to Josh on Chris Lydon's show just now (pod) reminding us of the fact that most of these people are hanging out with the people they're writing about.

Most Washingtonians in that thinktank/administration/journo/foreignservice/consultant/etc. group gradually become part of a social system which tones down original thinking and certainly any signs of rebellion against the establishment if you take the social system too seriously. Team spirit! School colors! Elite! Club membership! "I was talking to Cokie the other day..." "Only this morning Arlen told me..." "Addington and those guys were at the next table, so we..."

And then you go back to the office and find yourself writing a column reflecting the views of Cokie and Arlen and the guys at the next table. Mirrors reflecting mirrors reflecting mirrors...

Well, we are in a sorry state when I have to rely on my old-fashioned Franklin planner for today's inspiration but I'd like to recommend this quote to the "centrists":

"-- one man with courage makes a majority"

Andrew Jackson

Your reference to the economic issues of today suggests that we follow that thread a bit further.

Dr. King concluded, after his march for open housing in Chicago, that the Civil Rights movement was bogging down as it confronted entrenched interests of the economic power structure.

In other words, the issues of the Vietnam/Civil Rights era only seem more clear-cut because the struggle at that time tapered off before it encountered the deep economic issues of the time.

The problems today are more like those of the pre-Civil War period because the economic issues cannot be avoided.

There is not much "give" on entrenched economic issues - therefore the temptation to cover up the issues with corrupt half-measures and phoney "compromises".

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was the late John Holmes who said that.