There is no political center.

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

George Lakoff has done it again. This time, he is making my arguments for me.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

It stands to reason that the issue is much greater than a semantic one, but is an improper tool for observation: the spectrum.

My systematics professor at Huron University College used the classical definition of liberalism, as does Noam Chomsky in most of his writings, but that definition is unfamiliar to most of us, really. In fact, the main aspects of liberalism, such as individual rights and collective responsibilities are so fundamental to our own Western understanding of being, that it makes the discussion that much more difficult. However, I reject the use of alternative self-descriptors such as 'progressive', as it does not clarify the problem, but further muddies the water (a current conservative hallmark--so I should think that we would reject it out of hand as a tactic). Instead, a more responsible decision would be to work at clarifying the water of the discussion.

For one, this requires the abandonment of the spectrum ideology and the belief in the mythic moderate or centrist as the ideal. As evidenced by the 'moderates' (the 'Gang of 14') in the face off over Bush's Supreme Court nominations, their position could, in no true way be described as moderate. These members of the Senate were seeking a compromise that would prevent a Democratic filibuster and a Republican declaration of the filibuster as 'unconstitutional: also known as 'the nuclear option'. This scenario, however, doesn't encourage any sense of a moderate ideology: in fact, the truth is much more disturbing.

Their fervent objection to the standoff between the majority membership of the two parties was constituted by their swift and decisive desire to broker a peace agreement: which is more of a compromise at any cost.

Secondly, it was not a 'balanced' understanding of compromise, let alone an attempt to find a win-win scenario. Instead of finding a way to make both sides happy, they rushed to a compromise [that in all real accounts was a win for Republicans]. Not filibustering extreme justices is a win for the Republicans. Taking the nuclear option off of the table is a win for Congress, not Democrats. In fact, the concern of the Gang of 14 wasn't brokering a "moderate" deal on the justice issue, it was mere maintenance of a traditional tool of Congress. This move is not accurately described as moderate, but is in fact, ideologically conservative.

Lastly, the Gang of 14 reinforced the Congress' departure from the object of discussion: the justices. It served the Republican purpose of semantic and procedural arguing that meant that meaningful debate and deliberation on any candidate would not occur, nor would it allow for a legitimate vote of conscience by the Congress. The two parties were, thanks to the brokered compromise, essentially locked into affirming the president's nominees, which turned out to be among the most extreme in history.

The 'Gang of 14' is what passes for an understanding of moderate today. This isn't to say that it is a Republican position, but in its demand for compromise before the discussion has really gotten going, it has as it's primary motivation a conservative nature. At the same time, the average citizen is much more liberal: supportive of civil, human, and individual rights; economic justice; progressive taxation that protects the least fortunate; universal health care. The average citizen deeply believes in the liberal elements that went into the Revolution and break from the British monarchy and those elements that maintain our freedom despite efforts to minimize or reduce our independence. It is this independence that causes so many to avoid party affiliations and claim to be politically 'independent', but true independence is unattainable in a two-party system. There is no legitimate rationale for a large number of truly independent voters to shift between parties, as they are not governed by a third way. They are governed by the more pressing force at any moment. What is the difference between a Republican and a self-described "independent" that hasn't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter? One has a membership card and the other has delusions.