“Centrists do not have to use media spin. The truth will always give centrists an advantage. ”
A Different Perspective
Practical is not Political
March 22nd, 2011
The biggest objection that ideologues and hard core partisans have of moderates is that we are too political. Tea Partiers abhor the moderates in the Republican Party because “they do only what’s in their self interest instead of promoting the conservative values they campaigned on.” Progressives view moderates in the Democratic Party with the same disdain. To them moderates are “corporate Democrats who sell themselves instead of standing up for American families and workers.” Ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum think moderates are too political.
But in reality moderates are the complete opposite of this perception. Moderates for the most part are apolitical. We do not focus on what’s politically expedient. Our main priority is finding solutions that are effective. We don’t care if those solutions are best left to the free market or best solved by government. We don’t care which party proposes the best ideas or which party opposes them. And most importantly we don’t care which special interests they hurt and which they help. Our only goal is to create effective solutions for the problems our families, communities, and country face. But to do that we must be open minded.
And it’s our open mindedness that gives us the distrustful, selfish, sell out stereotype. How can we fight this perception of us? We need to brand pragmatism; the idea of being open minded. We need to make voters realize that being practical is not political. Open minded is a good quality to have. It means that we decide each issue and solution on its merits and not because our party or some special interest supports it. We are not corporate champions or overtly self interested politicos. Rather we are open minded, practical people who want to solve problems.
On the other hand those politicos on the ends of the spectrum, the people tea partiers and progressives hold up as principled leaders are actually the most political, non trust worthy politicians. Their whole brand is built upon promoting unconstrained conservatism or irrational progressivism.
For example, most Republicans today campaign on the issue of taxes and tell supporters that cutting taxes is their first priority. However, in doing so they overlook the fact that taxes are at their lowest level since the 1950s, tax cuts add to the national debt, and some programs are worth taxing for. All of which they know, yet they still demagogue the issue. As for progressives, many campaign on promising never to modify entitlements even though they know that it will be necessary at some point. Conservatives and progressives make these ridiculous promises to win their party primaries. And they know they will never be able to keep them.
The most trust worthy politicians are those that tell us upfront that they must be open minded, practical, and vote with the complexities of the issue at hand. An irrational and rigid adherence to an ideology or set of principles will never succeed, it is not possible. A democracy does not allow for all or nothing. Campaigning on pragmatism – open mindedness – is not only ethical, it is also smart.
Become a Fan of The Pragmatic Center on Facebook!
Other essays you may be interested in...
"Moderates: What is our Brand?"
"Moderates Need Institutional Structure"
"How to Create A Powerful Movement"
(1 vote)
Connect With Us
Great Quotes
– Nicholas R. Goebel
Popular Essays
Goebel University
Poll
Do you think the American political system needs to be reformed?
Yes
96%
No
4%
Total votes: 77
Blog Roll
Centrist Blogs
Conservative Blogs
Progressive Blogs
Contribute: Help Us Stay Online
Archive
- March 2010 (77)
- April 2010 (42)
- May 2010 (36)
- June 2010 (59)
- July 2010 (47)
- August 2010 (37)
- September 2010 (19)
- October 2010 (20)
- November 2010 (17)
- December 2010 (10)
The ideologues and hard core partisans have what is known as "binary thinking". In a binary system, there are only two variables, 0 or 1. In binary thinking, there are only two choices, e.g. black or white, up or down, right or wrong, or you're with me or you're against me. There are no gray areas, no gradient from one side to another. No other alternatives between their right and wrong.
Moderates can see the gray areas, the gradient, and can determine the pragmatic answer to a problem.
Thank you for a well thought out and interesting article!
Pragmatic and practical are not the same thing. Please be careful with the words you choose. Sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking. Otherwise, a good column and something that must be said.
Semantics and snide comments are different, but some people often confuse the two...
Bush the father and Clinton administrations where middle of the road voters have had any support. No taxes is a dream of the unrealistic. How can you pay for the needed or special needs with out income and taxes are the income of government. If we create tax breaks for any one we must know that we can't spend as much as we could without that tax break. To punish the working people for costing to much and saying to corporations don't pay all your taxes is stupid and partisan.
This is tosh of the purest order. "Politically expedient" means "finding solutions that are effective"-- which means nothing unless they can be put into effect in the polarized political environment that actually exists. Drawing a distinction between pragmatism and ideology and arguing on that basis in favor of pragmatic practices under these circumstances is, by definition, counterpragmatic. It's drivel like this that hs doomed the Obama presidency and Democratic majorities, of which much was hoped, to rudderless irrelevance. The extremes prosper because they promote values of one kind or another. It is not smart to propose expediency as a counterweight to these.
I think there is a point to this critique. "Pragmatic" is easily devolved into "practical", and then into "expedient", and "unprincipled". (Although I don't agree with the erroneous conclusion of the comment that pragmatism is promoting expediency.) It is hard to sell a brand that is not "extreme".
The key message is to tread that fine line between ideologies. We are not for big government. We are not for minimal government. We are for effective efficient government. We are not pro-business or pro-unions, we are pro-growth - growing businesses, growing jobs, growing employment opportunities.
The other point in this critique is about practical implementation.
Confrontation is not the way. Confrontation has already been tried and it has resulted in the polarisation of liberals vs conservative, democrats vs republicans, and has simply resulted in govt gridlock.
The question then is how does a moderate, non-ideologue, non-partisan, group go about building consensus?
I'd suggest finding a rational, less partisan political leader and working to help them make rational choices based on a reasoned assessment of the options rather than holding to the party line.
Of course, this is all easier said than done.
A vote for a D or an R is still a vote for the Capitalist party...the ONE party steering this sinking ship into the rocky shallows. It's a nice thought to believe in such "pragmatism"....but nothing is ever going to change until the Capitalist party is removed from the helm. This purely capitalist society is doomed to failure, just as all other THEORIES of economics have failed when purely applied.
"Politics is the art of the possible." - Otto von Bismarck.
I was on a small town's city council for a three-year term, and the mayor who served at the same time was fond of this quote. Ideology and dogma are all fine and good in the right settings, but politics involves Getting Things Done. And I'd rather Get Things Done then spend time providing theatre for C-SPAN. And I'd support candidates who shared the same view, over ideologues (even ones I agree with!) who talk a good talk but can't walk a walk.
I'm going to go with "what?" I mean granted, you'd be absolutely right if these middle of the road reps had actually campaigned on fixing things however made the most sense, however most of them campaigned the same way the so called "extremists" have, then immediately broke campaign promises in order to fit in (or some other asinine reason *coughpaidshittonsofmoneycough*).
For instance Obama campaigned on change and was supposed to shift the political system a bit leftward (seeing as how it's SO bloody right wing across the board). instead he's been a business as usual, his money comes first, big bark no bite president. all his bills are hand built for and/or by the previous house's republians. then, the republicans pretend it's leftist extremism (somehow) and get even farther right, then obama caves yet again.
this system of moderates is pure bull. there aren't any actual moderates. no matter how you vote, you're voting to the right, it's merely how far right you want to go. purporting that people should be centerist is like saying that we should chill out and look at how the japanese nazi's saw things. they weren't as extreme as the other nazi's so obviously they were centerists and should be worked with to find solutions wherever they may be.... right?
Moderate? A counterbalance to some large scale radical left element in our government and popular discourse? Yeah right. Our entire political landscape has shifted so far right that this middle you're claiming is, compared to other developed nations, pretty far right.
Looking for an example of these out of control progressives? Um, not modifying entitlements. Set in stone. So if a progressive says absolutely not to raising the Social Security age to 67 they mean "NO, the Progressive Manifesto says the age will not budge," or do they actually mean "no, not while Exxon is not paying any taxes."
And only you moderates don't care if the best solution comes from the market or government? Are you perhaps confusing progressives with Maoists? And why aren't you moderates then out vigorously advocating for a public option in health insurance?
The idea that our problem is the influence of two extremes, and we need to find a middle ground is absolute in itself and flawed. Pull your heads out of your behinds and realize that the problem we have is extremists who do not believe in science, the democratic process, environmental protection, etc. It's time to state that some things are wrong, like torture and spying on Americans, that science is important and the key to us remaining competitive in the future, that raising taxes on the very wealthy does not kill jobs.
There is only one sizable faction in this country that is dead set in its ways and incessantly reiterates points that are demonstrably wrong. The majority is everyone else. For you to smugly stake out this ground between the destructive, intolerant right and the mass pandered to and ignored by the Democrats and point fingers in both directions is stupid. BIte me.
you're awesome.
It's not really about moderate, or liberal, or conservative: it should ONLY be about solving problems and fixing what is broken. I think the most divisive individuals are the pro-corporate crown (mostly the right) who are fighting everyday citizens. Fox "news" obviously has a stranglehold on the minds of millions of viewers, and these are the most political individuals. How else does one describe the fact that they cling to ideas even when they are proven untrue.
Moderates often do not see solutions that lean left, the left often demand too much to fast, and it seems the right just say no to any real attempt at progress.
As such, I just say no to all of them and focus my energy on what needs to get done.
With respect,
Dave Cleinman
http://www.davecleinman.com/politica
It's not really about moderate, or liberal, or conservative: it should ONLY be about solving problems and fixing what is broken. I think the most divisive individuals are the pro-corporate crown (mostly the right) who are fighting everyday citizens. Fox "news" obviously has a stranglehold on the minds of millions of viewers, and these are the most political individuals. How else does one describe the fact that they cling to ideas even when they are proven untrue.
Moderates often do not see solutions that lean left, the left often demand too much to fast, and it seems the right just say no to any real attempt at progress.
As such, I just say no to all of them and focus my energy on what needs to get done.
With respect,
Dave Cleinman
http://www.davecleinman.com/politica
Corporations pay taxes. Many are "fees". Fuel is taxed. Phones are taxed. Property is taxed, etc. The question is, are some avoiding the fees and taxes. I would love to have another successful corporation in our area employing people and paying social security, property taxes, state income taxes, providing benefits to their employees who are my fellow citizens. Let's do what is good for the whole! Eliminate the corruption and tax cheating. Let us have transparency. Many corporations are good, and many are bad. Differentiate!