Normally I'm fairly skeptical of those who talk about centrism in the pejorative sense. Mostly because the people arguing against moderation in any form are doing so from their own, very high and imaginary horses. As my grandpa always said, "if someone tells you they have all the answers, they don't." '
This is one of the reasons I liked Obama before I knew that much about his positions; I'd read that his approach to politics was not to stake out the best position politically, but the best one for solving the problem. That sure sounded nice after eight years of politics absolutely blinded by (and indeed, derived entirely from) ideology. I don't want ideology; I want shit to work right.
So I wasn't surprised when Obama's goverment philosophy started resolving not into the socialism the republicans tried ot make it out to be but a kind of pragmatic idealism. Sure -- it's a touch heavy on the pragmatic part, and his vote on FISA was entirely political. But we got over that real quick when we got a look at Sarah Palin. But now the bugaboos are gone, and we are getting a look at Obama alone. And the purists are getting antsy. Obama's keeping Gates and invited Rick Warren to the inauguration and gave Interior to Salazar and his ties to mining and energy interests. Predictably, there's a hew and cry among the left/netroots/activists/etc. Predictably, the right points to all that as evidence of radical left and their imminent take over. But of course, it's the right that has been the most consistently radical for 30 years, relentlessly ideological, which is how they created a political atmosphere where Obama thinks he needs to propritiate the angry gods of the GOP and in the process annoy his base.
And so -- ahem! -- I hereby join the chorus. (Since I know everyone was waiting to hear from Bearman on this issue!) Obama, should, as Thomas Frank advises, act like he won the goddamn thing. I am a centrist in many ways, but what this election made clear is that the center to which I adhere is the one from twenty years ago. In September, when all signs pointed to deregulation and lack of oversight as the cause of a near economic meltdown, Republicans loved to point out that some of that laissez-faire free-for-all was signed into law by Clinton, or Democrats in the Clinton era. As if this whole mess was, well, just everyone's fault, you know? We were all asleep at the wheel, gosh darn it!
But of course what happened in the 90s was that the New Democrats triangulated the "mainstream" of the party in line with republican ideology. The new Washington neo-liberal consensus was that free trade and deregulation was the only path to prosperity. It was a sign of how far the goal posts had moved that no one could say, "Hey maybe government should regulate these complicated markets worth trillions that could take down the system" with out being outside the realm of polite political discussion. So, if the problem lies with both parties, its because both parties had it hormoniously wrong.
And by the way, conformity may just be human nature, an artifact of the neurological mechanisms that allow enforcement learning. So it's time to unlearn the past 30-years and move the goal posts back. And that's not going to happen by bending over backwards to be nice to the poor downtrodden red states. They weren't nice to us when Bush lost the election by 0.5%. Or when he barely won four years later. Why should Obama accomodate Republicans after leading the charge to a solid victory on all fronts? It's not just about being nice or etiquette or Washington protocol. Obama has to set the terms of a new political era. Or else it won't be a new political era. He will have squandered his miracle. The permanent republican majority never came to be, and a Democratic majority is in place for the foreseeable future. If Obama makes the case for it. And that may mean more idealism than pragmatism at times. As Frank says: let them triangulate for once.
