We've all been hearing about this for some time. In fact, we've been pitched this same piece of bologna for decades--ever since the 1980 election, it seems.
It is also a favorite of the talk radio blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity. It is almost as if they believe more in the understanding that if you repeat something enough times it will come true than they believe in their ideology itself. They say it so often that one can't help but think that they are trying to convince themselves.
The recent spate of belief in the United States as a conservative nation (or "center-right" as they are saying today) is an obvious powerplay to discourage the Democrats from doing what they are supposed to be doing. But there's something else here: that we could be center-anything.
Back in the middle of the Bush presidency when he put up two ridiculously inappropriate candidates for the Supreme Court, whose governing ideology seems to be whatever-I-think-the-Constitution-Framers-meant-regardless-of-what-they-said-as-filtered-through-a-20th-Century-conservative-lens (or in other words, fundamentalism), there was a move by the self-tagged "moderates", whose position wasn't so much to find a "center" position, but merely end debate--which meant ending the filibusters. In Congress, there is no such thing as a moderate.
It is like the current en vogue classification as "independent". The independents make the following argument:
But the daddy issues are about us. About how we want to see ourselves. About who we are in relationship to our ancestors. Clinton and Bush II both seemed to reject their respective party's heritage in their models of governance. In an age in which the American people have had the most tremendous social influence on the world of recent memory, we have allowed a 'culture war' to lead us into regression. At a time in which we believe ourselves to be post-racial and beyond bigotry, we have allowed politics of race and sexual orientation to make our government one of the most oppressive in the world. Immigration, terrorism, torture, and rights for LGBT have revealed deeply-rooted racism, religious intolerance, and sexism in our political process of late. But these things in no way match our social ideology, personal philosophies, or the vision we have for the future.
In truth, when asked about virtually any issue, the vast majority of people take a liberal position: on education, healthcare, civil rights, free speech, religious tolerance, you name it. The only one that isn't that way is gun-rights, where it is something like 49% favor gun control. Everything else has the country supporting typically liberal positions. Cenk Uygur recently wrote the following in his column:
I don't think that the United States is center-anything. We are liberal and we are conservative. We are progressive and regressive. We are isolationist and boldly interventionist. Having disperate ideologies represents an American ambivilence, not an American Centrism. If the US is a nation of exceptionalism, then it is one of bold, progressive action. And if it isn't, than we must be one of the pack, like our European cousins. Neither description could be called "center-right". Perhaps it is time we claimed American Ambivilence as our honest rallying cry.
It is also a favorite of the talk radio blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity. It is almost as if they believe more in the understanding that if you repeat something enough times it will come true than they believe in their ideology itself. They say it so often that one can't help but think that they are trying to convince themselves.
The recent spate of belief in the United States as a conservative nation (or "center-right" as they are saying today) is an obvious powerplay to discourage the Democrats from doing what they are supposed to be doing. But there's something else here: that we could be center-anything.
Back in the middle of the Bush presidency when he put up two ridiculously inappropriate candidates for the Supreme Court, whose governing ideology seems to be whatever-I-think-the-Constitution-Framers-meant-regardless-of-what-they-said-as-filtered-through-a-20th-Century-conservative-lens (or in other words, fundamentalism), there was a move by the self-tagged "moderates", whose position wasn't so much to find a "center" position, but merely end debate--which meant ending the filibusters. In Congress, there is no such thing as a moderate.
It is like the current en vogue classification as "independent". The independents make the following argument:
I'm my own person. I don't let a party govern my ideology. I do what I want. I vote for what I want. Look at me! I'm an independent! My view is more important than those partisans. The 100 million or so people in the country that call themselves independents--we're different. We're our own people.I never quite understood how one person can be an independent when the plurality of people claim to be independent. How can you be independent together? I might also suggest the following dictim:
- If you voted in 2008 for more Democrats than Republicans, then for the next two years you shall be a Democrat.
- If you voted in 2008 for more Republicans than Democrats, then for the next two years you shall be a Republican.
- In the event of a tie, your party affiliation will be determined by your previous vote for president (2004).
- If you did not vote for any candidate from any party (including Greens, Libertarians, etc), but only for non-partisan races and ballot initiatives, then you are allowed to maintain your independent status.
- Independent status may be revoked when a vote for a non-partisan race contains candidates that have been endorsed by a party. This status will be brought before an unelected court of my choosing.
But the daddy issues are about us. About how we want to see ourselves. About who we are in relationship to our ancestors. Clinton and Bush II both seemed to reject their respective party's heritage in their models of governance. In an age in which the American people have had the most tremendous social influence on the world of recent memory, we have allowed a 'culture war' to lead us into regression. At a time in which we believe ourselves to be post-racial and beyond bigotry, we have allowed politics of race and sexual orientation to make our government one of the most oppressive in the world. Immigration, terrorism, torture, and rights for LGBT have revealed deeply-rooted racism, religious intolerance, and sexism in our political process of late. But these things in no way match our social ideology, personal philosophies, or the vision we have for the future.
In truth, when asked about virtually any issue, the vast majority of people take a liberal position: on education, healthcare, civil rights, free speech, religious tolerance, you name it. The only one that isn't that way is gun-rights, where it is something like 49% favor gun control. Everything else has the country supporting typically liberal positions. Cenk Uygur recently wrote the following in his column:
By the way, one more thing -- this has never been a center-rightWhat Uygur gets right is American vision and a country at its most populist. Liberalism and conservatism in their classical senses are essential to the US's very constitution (and Constitution). But the truth of the American spirit is that progressive, liberal values must be the guide, as conservatism must serve as the conscience. Conservatism's very philosophy makes it unsuitable for governing, but essential for checking liberalism's ambition.
country. Of course, there are pendulum swings in the political spectrum
and the country is more conservative at times and more progressive at
other times. But overall, we built the United Nations, we started the
idea of human rights, we expanded voting rights and civil rights for
everybody, we spread the idea of individual rights throughout the
world, and we even rebuilt our enemies after World War II. It is no
exaggeration to say that America is one of the most progressive
countries in the history of the world.
I don't think that the United States is center-anything. We are liberal and we are conservative. We are progressive and regressive. We are isolationist and boldly interventionist. Having disperate ideologies represents an American ambivilence, not an American Centrism. If the US is a nation of exceptionalism, then it is one of bold, progressive action. And if it isn't, than we must be one of the pack, like our European cousins. Neither description could be called "center-right". Perhaps it is time we claimed American Ambivilence as our honest rallying cry.
1 comment:
Many of us fall somewhere in the center. Look at the election returns in states like Florida and California. We voted for Obama (in large part due to economic concerns) but also for traditional marriage.
Post a Comment