Terry’s Dad

I like your style — your independence and principled stand on the issues, even if I disagree on some.

Ah, but you do seem to like labels — if I may presume. I didn’t know being on the left meant being for “class warfare,” whatever that means! How about “being for a more fair and equitable distribution of resources”? There are ways to attempt to define the debate, ne-c’est ce pas? But that’s for another day, perhaps.

I always thought Subaru was the offical car of the Northwest Corner, if not all of New England! Funnily, I happen to agree with a friend of ours who drives something only a hair smaller than a Hummer that, as an issue, one’s choice of vehicle is a red herring, if there ever was one.

Cheers,

–Fred–

I, too, saw your petition and though I disagree, never thought you were a terrorist-symp. Jumping to conclusions has become a sport in this nation of ours.

I have a friend here in town who is a dyed-in-the-wool Dem from New Jersey but drives a Beemer (or Bimmer, as BMW aficionados like to call them), so people tell him they assume he is a Republican. I have had people tell me they assume I am a Dem b’c I drive a Subaru (fortunately no one questions my motives in driving one!).

I agree with you about staring down the wolf and knowing whom you are dealing with rather than the passive-aggressive centrist. Come to think of it, centrist may not be a good word to describe me (or many others I know).

I recall Rush Limbaugh saying centrists have no passion and that perhaps they don’t really know what they believe and they just want to be liked. The thing about not controlling the debate or setting the agenda, as Jake writes, is mostly true. I think perhaps centrist is a misnomer for me, but I use the label only b’c of a lack of anything else.

Perhaps ‘hybrid’ would be better b’c I don’t care if anyone likes me and I have some views that are not considered moderate: such as school pro-voucher, pro-growth, anti-class warfare, which puts me at odds w/ my friends on the left), Anti Iraq war, strong on civil liberties and gay rights, which does not endear me to the right. But inasmuch as my views do not typically tilt toward any one party, the ability to set trends and control the debate is limited, yes. I can’t vote against Lieberman in the Aug. 8 primary, for example, b’c I’m unaffiliated.

If anyone can come up with a better word for it, I am open to suggestion.

For the record, I think a request/demand to halt the bombing is reasonable, provided it applies to both sides.

Thanks for your comment, Fred.

You’ve opened a worthwhile and interesting discussion — thank you. I have a story to relate that may be of interest.

Last week, for reasons I won’t go into here, I sent out a “passionate” e-mail plea to friends and acquaintances asking them to sign a petition calling on Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. In response, I received several e-mails, including one from my own brother, harshly criticizing my position.

What interest me here is not that people would disagree, but HOW they did. My position (to the extent people knew it) was not exactly called into question; rather, it was assumed that “if I believe A, then I MUST ‘logically’ believe B.” “B” being (in so many words): “I must support the terrorists.” “I must wish for the destruction of Israel.”

Not only were these charges false, they quickly descended into much worse accusations, if you can believe it. Yet always with this refrain: “Logically, you MUST believe etc. etc.” or “Your views are extremist; ours are logical and reasoned.” I must say in my defense that I never made assumptions about my critics’ motivations, and did my best to stick to the evidence and philosophy backing my position.

I’m not sure what my larger point is here. It’s not at all to imply that the “right” has any monopoly on this kind of ad hominem attack (and my respondents weren’t even close to right-wing!). I do think we have to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing, by which I mean — paradoxically — I tend to side with those who favor impassioned argument over “civility.” I’d rather someone strongly defend their position than sit back and say, “I’m cool, you’re not.” Personally, I’d rather stare down a real wolf. I’m even friends with some.

The Congress-men and -women on opposite sides of the political spectrum may, at the end of the day, sleep well knowing that they have maintained the veneer of “civility” with their colleagues. Good for them. Dare I suggest it could also be because neither side has lifted a finger to change the status quo?

–Fred–

This would certainly seem to be possible. But the passion would seem to be in finding a concensus, not in driving policy forward from inception.

Of course, deliberative bodies are designed to find consensus. Legislation is derived from the compromise and horse trading that finally settles on law.

So the question is… What impact does the “passionate centrist” have on that process. Facilitator? Honest broker?

Today, the “passionate centrists” in the Senate seem to be Northeast Republicans… Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, or Red State Democrats like Ben Nelson or Max Baucus. They represent states with evenly divided electorates and so naturally fill this role.

As one who voted against Specter (pretty centrist, if not passionately) in his primary fight against the more right leaning Tumey, I can’t say centrists help much with my preferred agenda. But they are a fact of life given contemporary political demographics.

But just remember, the centrist is driven by the extremes. As the left or right gains power, the centrist moves to find the political “center”. The centrist only leads after the political table has been set, the issues are up for debate, and a facilitator is required.

But to get us to that point, we need the “passionate partisans” to prepare the field of battle.

As a child growing up in Northwest Connecticut, I was part of a family of Democrats! Imagine,in the early 50’s, a family of Democrats in Northwest Connecticut. My grandmother, Mildred Dennis, was one of the first, if not the first, woman on the Connecticut State Democratic Committee. Abe Ribicoff, Ella Grasso, the original Seanator Dodd, Tom, were all guests and friends of my grandmother. She had heated debates with her Republican friends, but, after the differences, they would all get together and still remain friends. The diatribes between political rivals was as heated then as it is now, it has just become personal now. If you are against the war in Iraq now,there is no tolerance for someone who might be in favor of it. Tolerance, that is what we are missing in almost every aspect of life today. No one seems to be able to tolerate someone of a different political, ethnic, or religous view. What people today don’t seem to understand, is that agreement is not a given, but please, at least try to be tolerant of ones views! It seems everyone now has a take it or leave it stance on every view. There is a time for ultimatums, but only as a last resort, not on every single issue that creates debate. An exchange of views and ideas is a good thing, total rejection of ideas at first glance is not. Lets all learn to be more tolerant again!!

Throughout the Bush presidency, my liberal friends and relatives have wailed that the Republican Party has been hijacked by the extreme right. They can point to some evidence that suggests as much.
But yesterday I read in the Courant that Joe Lieberman’s gay and pro-choice supporters are now working vigorously against him — apparently because he only votes the way they want him to 90 to 95 percent of the time. Imagine that, step out of line once or twice and it’s off with your head! And these are the people who are always preaching tolerance. I guess tolerance only extends in one direction.
I know, Terry, that you consider Lieberman arrogant (I won’t quibble on that point), but I get ill at the idea of casting a vote that will prove rewarding to the left-wing extremists backing Ned Lamont.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, what’s a passionate centrist to do?
I enjoy your blog. As I always tell you, keep up the good work.

Thanks for your comment. I can offer the same critique of the right if you like. I only use rejecting the harshness of the left in my childhood as an example of how it shaped my centrist worldview as an adult.

I certainly am not questioning anyone’s right to speak out forcefully. But your last sentence is precisely to my point. “How you say it” can have the effect of turning people off and rejecting ‘what you say,” so tone (not necessarily ‘politeness’) is important.

Just ask people on the far right such as Falwell and Robertson who have made that mistake. Many Christians I know sypathize with some of the religious right’s views, but cringe at their shrillness and tune them out, so the movement is less successful than it would have otherwise have been.