Centrism - What a Load
"We have among us a class of mammon worshippers,
whose one test of conservatism or radicalism is the
attitude one takes with respect to accumulated wealth.
Whatever tends to preserve the wealth of the wealthy
is called conservatism, and whatever favors anything
else, no matter what, is called socialism." --Richard T. Ely
Remember when America took that big shift to the right a few
years back. You know, Rush Limbaugh was on television three
times a day deconstructing every comment made by leftists and
"feminazis." Apparently a shift to the right requires a healthy
dose of spoon-fed "Politics for Dummies."
Eight years later, the country has nudged back to the left, though
you might be hard pressed to see how. Today's Washington Post
featured an article by Charles Babington on the 2000 election that
said Gore's big loss may have been ironically caused by a shift to
the left.
Democrats in general are split about the cause of this narrow defeat.
On one hand, centrists believe Gore's liberalism cost him votes while
old-fashioned liberals believe it was his centrism. Each group has
exit polls proving their points, of course. Exit polls show that the
only thing exit polls are good for are giving jobs to the pollsters.
You don't need a poll to tell you Gore lost this election because
enough people voted for Nader to keep him from easily winning
several states and the electoral votes they carry.
Gore lost the election because he and the Democratic Party have
been steadily losing the left in this country.
It began shortly after Bill Clinton took office. He ran on a platform
to provide healthcare reform for a nation that desperately needs it.
This was a fiasco of Biblical proportions minus the rain of frogs.
Next, Bill promised to make sure that no homosexual man or woman
would ever again be denied the right to serve their country in any of
nation's armed forces. And what did we get? "Don't ask, don't tell."
A policy only minutely improved over the old "tell or we'll beat the
crap out of you" policy.
It goes without saying no significant advances have been made in
environmental reforms, otherwise Nader wouldn't have bothered.
Since nothing seems to get done, people want to blame partisanship.
While senseless political battles serve no purpose, total cooperation
won't accomplish much else, and here is why.
Nowadays, everybody is all excited about centrism. Centrism is
the new political placebo our leaders want us to swallow so we
think everything is all better for a while.
According to the Associated Press, fully one-third of the Senate
showed up Wednesday for a meeting of the Senate Centrist
Coalition. The plan is to defy party politics and get something done.
Senate majority leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. said the senators "are
going to defy partisan politics" because "different times and
different situations call for different approaches." Huh?
I guess we are all supposed to put down our beers and go
"by god it's about time those fatcats got something done in
Washington, ain't it?" Right.
The tiny fraction of the American public that actually cares
about politics might well be fooled by such sentiments, but
those of us on both sides of the political fence should see
centrism for what it truly is, just another attempt to mystify
us with BS. As long as we think politicians are working,
we might give them some time to come up with the next
ploy.
The concept of working together to get things done sounds
great on paper and in easy-to-understand sound bites, but
it does completely ignore one major fact and that is that
there are significant differences between the right and the
left because there are differences between people.
I don't want my public policies watered down to the point
where they are acceptable to republicans. That's how we
got "don't ask, don't tell." What I want and what I am pretty
sure die-hard conservatives want are politicians with passion
who can go out and fight for what we believe in.
I don't want a compromised version of national health care
that ends up being a shade different than what we have now.
Centrism is just a clever way for two parties that have grown
virtually identical to pretend to be cooperating. It is a sham.
Things get done when great democrats such as Franklin
Delano Roosevelt take charge and create the New Deal.
Things happen when great republicans such as Abraham
Lincoln (a political liberal) sign the Emancipation Proclamation.
Centrism is not a new political movement, it is just a new name
for the same old political stagnation.
But I will make this promise: if anything concrete starts
happening in this country because of centrism, I will be
the first person to sign on. If all these years of right-wing vs.
left-wing politics has merely been a prelude to the great
awakening that is centrism, I will proudly sign up for a spot
in the new renaissance and write column after column singing
the praises of centrism.
Somehow, I think I will not be getting writer's cramp any
time soon..
Greg Jerrett is a graduate student in English from Council
Bluffs. He is opinion editor of the Daily. He likes his politics
left and his lovin' done right.
