Moving the Center in a Center-Center Nation
There is an ongoing debate in the wake of last week's election over
whether America has become a center-left nation or remains
center-right. I can understand the rhetorical value of staking out
ground on the one side or the other, but the argument as a whole seems
rather silly. As with so many rhetorical distractions, the more
arguments on one side or the other become internalized, the more
they'll pose an obstacle to good governance and the liberal (or
conservative) movement. Allow me, then, to offer a hopefully obvious
(if slightly glib) rejoinder:
America is a center-center nation.
This is not an argument, it's an axiom. After all, claiming that America is center-left or center-right begs the question: compared to what? Compared to other nations? If so, what's the sample set? Compared to most other western democracies there's an argument to be made that America is, indeed, center-right -- but the comparison is problematic, if not entirely nonsensical. The left/right dichotomy is destructively reductive in the context of American political discourse; it's far more so when comparing America to other nations. Different governments preside over different societies facing different problems in different ways.
So, for example, America tends to emphasize small government more than most other democracies, and doesn't have some of the flagship government programs (think health care) that are pretty standard in most advanced nations. On the other hand, America was a pioneer in building the welfare state, which remained comparatively expansive and generous until the 1980s. To this day America has a larger bureaucracy than most of its rivals, tighter market regulation, and higher corporate income taxes. On the cultural side, America is in many ways less liberal than European society -- more uptight about sex and gays and drugs and so on. On the other hand, America lacks the deep xenophobia that makes immigrant assimilation very difficult in many European countries. America is less centralized than most democracies, but more centralized than the European Union. And so on.
No, the proper calculus of comparison is, well, America. And by definition the nation as a whole is center-center, in that its ideology is, well, its ideology. The median voter is the median voter. Terms like 'center-left' and 'center-right' only make sense when comparing some discrete person or party or idea or interest group to the American median voter: so a Republican might be to the right of the country as a whole, making him center-right; but if his ideology is identical to national ideology then he is perfectly centrist. It does not make sense to say that the nation is center-right.
This might all seem like semantics. To some degree it is. But I think it's something that ought to be remembered, and not just because it's useful at deconstructing rhetoric. It's about mindset.
As long as the two-party system remains healthy, one of the parties will always be to the left of center and the other to the right. If you want to govern the nation more from the left, you can do one of two things: you can appeal to the center through promises and rhetoric and convince them to allow you to rule from the left; or you can actually try to redefine the center to be more in line with what is currently to the left. The latter is undoubtedly the more durable, if less easy, strategy, and the former can often be a means to it. But if you convince yourself that the results of an election simply confirm that the nation is already where you want it to be -- that America is already 'center-left' -- then you're less likely to bring about the lasting change you desire.
This, I think, was one of the problems with the Bush administration. Presuming that their narrow victories proved that the nation agreed with their policies and gave them a broad mandate, the administration over-reached. They didn't try to shift the center because they seemed to think it already was where it actually wasn't. In short, they governed without leading. After election day they stopped trying to sell the American people on what they had to offer. And they were punished for it.
Let's not make the same mistakes. Let's dispense with assertions of mandate and the fruitless argument about what the nation's ideology is. Let's concentrate instead on what we want it to be. Because the election didn't make America a more progressive nation, nor did it prove that it already is one. If we want America to be progressive, we must go out and make it so: with a well-run Congress, an administration that fulfills people's needs, a President that comforts and inspires, and a grassroots movement that brings more and more Americans along for the ride.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
Update -- I've written a follow-up at The Lion and Gun. If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check it out!
America is a center-center nation.
This is not an argument, it's an axiom. After all, claiming that America is center-left or center-right begs the question: compared to what? Compared to other nations? If so, what's the sample set? Compared to most other western democracies there's an argument to be made that America is, indeed, center-right -- but the comparison is problematic, if not entirely nonsensical. The left/right dichotomy is destructively reductive in the context of American political discourse; it's far more so when comparing America to other nations. Different governments preside over different societies facing different problems in different ways.
So, for example, America tends to emphasize small government more than most other democracies, and doesn't have some of the flagship government programs (think health care) that are pretty standard in most advanced nations. On the other hand, America was a pioneer in building the welfare state, which remained comparatively expansive and generous until the 1980s. To this day America has a larger bureaucracy than most of its rivals, tighter market regulation, and higher corporate income taxes. On the cultural side, America is in many ways less liberal than European society -- more uptight about sex and gays and drugs and so on. On the other hand, America lacks the deep xenophobia that makes immigrant assimilation very difficult in many European countries. America is less centralized than most democracies, but more centralized than the European Union. And so on.
No, the proper calculus of comparison is, well, America. And by definition the nation as a whole is center-center, in that its ideology is, well, its ideology. The median voter is the median voter. Terms like 'center-left' and 'center-right' only make sense when comparing some discrete person or party or idea or interest group to the American median voter: so a Republican might be to the right of the country as a whole, making him center-right; but if his ideology is identical to national ideology then he is perfectly centrist. It does not make sense to say that the nation is center-right.
This might all seem like semantics. To some degree it is. But I think it's something that ought to be remembered, and not just because it's useful at deconstructing rhetoric. It's about mindset.
As long as the two-party system remains healthy, one of the parties will always be to the left of center and the other to the right. If you want to govern the nation more from the left, you can do one of two things: you can appeal to the center through promises and rhetoric and convince them to allow you to rule from the left; or you can actually try to redefine the center to be more in line with what is currently to the left. The latter is undoubtedly the more durable, if less easy, strategy, and the former can often be a means to it. But if you convince yourself that the results of an election simply confirm that the nation is already where you want it to be -- that America is already 'center-left' -- then you're less likely to bring about the lasting change you desire.
This, I think, was one of the problems with the Bush administration. Presuming that their narrow victories proved that the nation agreed with their policies and gave them a broad mandate, the administration over-reached. They didn't try to shift the center because they seemed to think it already was where it actually wasn't. In short, they governed without leading. After election day they stopped trying to sell the American people on what they had to offer. And they were punished for it.
Let's not make the same mistakes. Let's dispense with assertions of mandate and the fruitless argument about what the nation's ideology is. Let's concentrate instead on what we want it to be. Because the election didn't make America a more progressive nation, nor did it prove that it already is one. If we want America to be progressive, we must go out and make it so: with a well-run Congress, an administration that fulfills people's needs, a President that comforts and inspires, and a grassroots movement that brings more and more Americans along for the ride.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
Update -- I've written a follow-up at The Lion and Gun. If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check it out!
Advertisement
The Locke Blog continues to impress.
I would add we can also convince the conservatives to the right of center by whatever degree that progressive solutions are in fact conservative values. That means no matter which side of center we govern from (more or less government, etc) we are still pursuing goals that lead to a more sustainable America.
Our left and right brains need to act in concert, not as a schizophrenic mess they have been for the last four decades. That also leads to a lasting shift of the center to something that is much more logical for our long-term health as a nation.
November 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree. Liberalism of the 1940s and '50s was in many ways fundamentally conservative: incrementalist tinkering with what worked pretty well to get it right. Since then we've learned plenty, and conservatism has taught us much about economics and brought an emphasis on freedom into the discussion. That should not be scuttled in a fit of ideological excess. Contrary to popular belief, liberalism and conservatism need not be mutually exclusive; likewise, progressive policy can be presented (and passed) in a bipartisan manner. None of this will be easy. But today presents a better opportunity than we've had in years.
November 10, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama will prove equal to the challenge.
November 11, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Locke Blog continues to impress."
I agree Jason. Matthew is an insightful writer with a rare ability to get us to thinking about what frames we usually take for granted. I never miss reading his essays even with the current blizzard condition of entries at the Cafe.
November 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh to proofread!
November 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks to you both once again for your kindness! I'm glad to have you both reading my blog, and I genuinely look forward to seeing your thoughtful comments on my posts!
That said, in case you're interested, I've posted a follow-up to this at The Lion and Gun: Ideology and Elections
Thanks again!
November 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please show me some supporting statistics on how the United States' welfare state was "generous" compared with other nations up until the 80's. I think you will find that most other European nations have always had a stronger social safety net than the United States, even during the Great Depression and Great Society.
Also, define "tighter market regulation" and how exactly the United States has tighter regulation than other European countries. I would maintain that the opposite is the case.
Whether America is more or less xenophobic than your average European country is certainly a matter for debate, but is far from the foregone conclusion as suggested here. Many European countries actually perceive the United States as a pervasively racist country. Xenophobia takes many forms, and I think nobody is exempt from the charge.
In the end, the thrust of your argument seems to be that the left/right dichotomy is reductive in describing politics both at home and in comparison to other nations, then you proceed to break down European and American politics into traditional left/right rubrics...
It seems like you're saying, let's forget about left/right politics and head more to the left, then call that the center. Fine by me, I'm with you all the way...but it hardly seems like a new paradigm.
November 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a number of very incisive points. I must confess, I considered deleting the paragraph comparing America to other democracies because I thought it was unnecessary to the argument I was making. I retained it to illustrate my point, but after reading your post I realize that my examples were inartful at best.
I don't want to spend too much time defending them, but for what it's worth a quick search pointed me to the two charts here comparing the growth of government spending as a proportion of GDP in the United States and Sweden (which, I think we can agree, has a very generous social welfare system) from 1790-1990. You'll notice that the Swedes did spend more up until the New Deal, at which point U.S. spending surged to roughly equal levels. Unsurprisingly, government spending during the Second World War was greater in the United States, but it remained greater after the war. The growth rate of government spending in Sweden was higher, however, and it appears to have surpassed American spending sometime around 1970.
The comparison is rough, I know, and it's a measure of total (and not just discretionary) spending. In a cursory search I couldn't find anything else appropriate I'm not sure it's worth further searching, as this is fairly tangential to my point. I'm happy to concede it if you'd like.
As to tighter regulation, it depends on which markets in which countries you're comparing. Obviously labor market regulation in France, for example, is substantially tighter than in the United States. What I was thinking about when I said 'market regulation' was banking and the financial sector, both of which tend to be more highly regulated than in competing nations. Again, I wrote rather crudely, which is my fault.
The comparison of racism to xenophobia better illustrates the point I was driving at. This is something that really isn't comparable between America and Europe. Xenophobia and racism both exist to different degrees in the different nations, but they differ as much in kind as in quantity. Attitudes toward race and nationality are fundamentally different in America and Europe. This makes it nonsensical, or at least problematic, to say that America is further to the right on race than Europe, or vice-versa.
Again, you're right to point out that I 'proceed[ed] to break down European and American politics into traditional left/right rubrics.' It was intellectual clumsiness on my part, and I hope that this comment clarifies it.
What my argument boils down to is that recent debate over America as 'center-right' or 'center-left' is moot. It doesn't make much sense to compare America to other nations in order to declare it center-right or center-left, and it doesn't make sense to compare it to itself. ('Compared to America, America is center-right!') Whatever is center-left in America is, then, by definition not the center.
But the liberal side in this debate seems intent to argue against that: to assert that the election proves the center-left is really now the center. That's a fine rhetorical justification for progressive action, but I don't think it can be sustained in the long run. I believe it's better if progressives realize that the median voter doesn't necessarily support center-left policies and priorities. That will place a greater (and healthy) impetus on communication and pragmatism.
We should not, as conservatives did after 2004, presume that we have a mandate and govern accordingly. We should push forward a progressive agenda, but make sure we bring as many voters along with us as we go. That's how to avoid over-reach, and that's how to move the center over time.
Admittedly, you're correct in saying that I'm not suggesting a new paradigm. I'm sure this has been said elsewhere (and said better). To be quite frank, I suspect that very few, if any, of my posts propose new paradigms. But I do hope that I have something valuable to add nonetheless, even if it's just to provoke thoughtful disagreement!
Many thanks once again for your comments. I hope that they've made my argument stronger upon reflection.
November 10, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, I wonder if we queried "typical Main Street, Elmsville" Americans of the 1960s, 1930's, 1900's and 1870s with the question:
"Is America a center right, center left, or center country?"
what would be their reactions? Further lets limit the sample to college educated individuals of those eras.
At some point backwards I think we would find the question becomes baffling to our polled population?
"What do you mean, "right"?" They might ask. And then if we explained our notion of the political spectrum, they might say they never considered that before.
We might ask them in a follow up, "Why then, do you vote for a man to be President, if not his liberal (conservative) philosophy?" They might reply saying they voted for character, or whether he served in the Grand Army of the Republic, or whether Senator Borah liked him, or whether he promised a full meal pail for every family.
I think this ideological obsession we have nowadays was a creation of the progressives in the early part of the last century. Before the reformers came along, the needing-to-be-reformed faction didn't have a name for itself. And the nation had not reached self-consciousness as an entity with a political "character".
November 10, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that mostly rhetorical arguments over the nature of this country as "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" when using "right" and "left" as re-defined during the culture wars of the past 30-40 years tends to end as a puddle of near-meaninglessness.
"Right," as defined by the extreme position of totalitarianism and/or fascism (as displayed to the world in the last century) or "left" as defined by Marx the century before that are the more accurate compass points for such discussion.
The progressive movement pushed forward by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt in the oughts and teens of the 20th century railed against "robber barons" -- unfettered corporate greed that marked a reverse Robin Hood era, where the rich took almost everything away from the middle so we nearly ended up with only rich or poor.
That situation differed from what Mussolini later defined as fascism only in two respects:
In TR's time, as now, the problem was a mirror image reflection of the fascistic situation of State-owned big industry. Then, as now, the federal government bowed to the desires of corporations (or, at the least, stood/stands out of the way of those corporate desires... deregulation, anyone?). In a sense, then, the corporations own the government, not the other way around as conceived by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since that situation existed during the time of TR, raised its head under Harding and Hoover, and corporate control over federal policies empowered by the resurgence of the neo-Right of the past 30 years has led us to another economic disaster, I submit this country leans more to that extreme model of "Right" than anything like leaning left.
Even under FDR's New Deal or Johnson's Great Society, US industry has never been anywhere near the Marxist ideal of "Left", in that US industry has always stayed privately owned, and the owners are very, very few in numbers compared to the great mass of US citizens -- the fabled 1% (or .1% by other economic models).
When you combine the neo-Right co-opting the zealotry of fundamentalist Christian dogma over the past 30 years as being essential tenets around which to govern, you again come much closer to the "Right" defined by Mussolini's 1932 Doctrine of Fascism
And we've seen this country tilt toward fascism before. When FDR took office for his first term, and as a result of the great dislocations created by the Great Depression, there was a very strong movement in the United States leaning toward remaking the government as a fascist state.
In fact, Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo puts it this way:
Read a copy of his treatise.
In the end, saying this country is "center right" or center-anything misses that fact we have been struggling against neo-fascism, or corporatism for well over a hundred years, if you take it back to TR's robber barons.
Why, after all, do the corporatists consider calling someone a "socialist" to be strictly a pejorative?
November 11, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What setting a baseline for the center does is tell us when we are going too far to one extreme or the other. I don't disagree that today's neoconservative republican party has pushed the GOP to the extreme right, but that doesn't make TR any less conservative. Just closer to the American mean than modern republicans have been.
Obama won because he is truly center left which helps redefine the center as the President really sets that tone. Someone like Nader or Kuchinich would be at the ideological left extreme of Bush and Obama has avoided their framing of the issues like the plague. Like John McCain should have avoided his own Raging Right and ran as the man who conceded so gracefully.
What I think Matthew is getting at is a need to allow the center to realign without applying old definitions and standards to the process. The argument should no longer be conservative versus liberal strategies for the country. It's not about too much or too little government; it's about smart government. It's using a national strategic plan to define the center with liberals and conservatives each offering different solutions to the left or right of that common baseline to solve our common problems.
That is the approach I see Obama following. He sets the strategy and then solicits input from all parties to craft the tactics. That allows everyone to take ownership of the overall direction of the country no matter what their party affiliation.
November 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I whole-heartedly agree with you. I believe that when PE Obama takes the reins, that he will attempt to drive the conversation forward, rather than wasting his time trying to establish whether he is "center-left" or whatever nonsense is spewed by the punditry to try to explain why they have a job. I believe this to be small-minded and leads us to hasty, small decisions rather than looking more broadly at the direction of the country in general and policy-making in its specifics.
It is my hope that he ignores all of that talk and does as you say: first, set the strategy, solicit input from his team (not the pundits) and the opinions of thoughtful, experienced minds outside the Administration (i.e. Paul Krugman) and then take ownership of the decisions that result. My God it will be wonderful having a country run by adults again.
Excellent work, Mr. Locke. A great read, and rec'd!
November 11, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Can anyone be a visionary if they govern from the center?
November 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my..YES, Gary, they can!!!
So long as there is a delta, a differential between our collective highest aspirations and hopes for our children's futures and the reality, then the leader who can find a way to close the gap will be a great visionary, even if he shares the center's values. The vision is not in expressing new ideals, but finding ways to make our system arrive at the old ones!
November 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm concerned about the execution of new ideas. Is there room in Obama's pragmatism for the time-honored dissent of the entire Republican party?
November 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he brings them in. Could you unpack "time honored dissent of the entire Republican Party?"
I'm not sure whether you mean a laundry list of complaints or a more general sense of dislike of the concept of government as regulator of the private sector.
November 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something in the market analyst's toolkit called a moving average. Essentially it is a smoothing function to weed out extraneous highs and lows in a stock's market valuation. The usage of right, center, and left political descriptors for the US as a whole might be considered as an outgrowth of type of moving average. The average depends on previous averages and really doesn't require a baseline value to be a good descriptor. This is to say: we don't require a value to be the normed "true" value. We simply say a value is up or down relative to a moving averaged value.
There is a way to set a table of scales that we can then make arbitrary valuations from. This would be a time-independent way of defining liberal, conservative, etc. I think this is what most people use when they use the language.
November 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY. Wonderful blog. I don't care much about the "center" labels but now that the ball is in our court we can prove that progressive ideals are the ideals that will help the American people in their daily lives, THAT, will move this nation towards the left.
November 11, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink