Fake Centrism/Bipartisanship

Mark Graber

One would think from the recent excitement over the possibility of a bipartisan political movement that Hillary Clinton was running on a platform calling for confiscation of corporate property, reestablishment of the moderately progressive tax structure of the 1970s, the return of all American troops from abroad, the abolition of capital punishment, and (heaven forbid), gay marriage. With the exception of a stray remark by John Edwards, Democrats polling more than 10% continue to run to the right of Richard Nixon. Indeed, judging by their legislative activity this year, the Democrats as a whole have almost no ambition to push any program that is substantially to the left of center. The real issue ought to be why some journalists are so excited about the possibility of a third party that might take a middle position between the party clearly to right of the electorate and the party that on its best day sometimes lurches very slightly to the left.

The best answer that I can think of stems from the correct description of the actual political alternatives before the United States this year. John Danforth and other Republicans prefer a polity as conservative as politically possible (or more fairly, a polity only slightly less conservative than at present). They express no concern with polarization (and no concern with the constitutional practices that sometimes foster polarization) when polarization enables conservatives to govern without significant opposition or prevents moderates from governing. The Republican problem with polarization is that the Republican party has moved so far to the right that the likelihood is high that Democrats after the 2008 election will control all three elected branches [as commentary below indicates, I should have said "institutions"--MAG] of the national government and that such control may prove durable. Similarly, Sam Nunn and David Boren were not exactly up in arms in 2004, when faced with the prospect of governance by a truly polarizing Republican coalition. Their problem with polarization is again entirely with the Republican party. The Republican party has gotten so extreme, turning off so many moderate conservative voters that political power might be placed in the hands of the sixty percent of the population who have more liberal views on terrorism and on political economy than the leading business-loving, torture-tolerant conservative Democrats. Judging by polling on the issues, we have a centrist party at present. They are called the Democrats. Abortion aside, the leading candidates for the presidency are not proposing any policy strongly opposed by clear popular majorities. The bipartisan movement is about how power may be maintained to the right of the center, but perhaps not as far to the right of center as is presently the case.

One of the central problems with the American polity concerns why conservative Democrats abandon the party so quickly, while more moderate Republicans make little effort to stem the rightward tide of their party until the Republican ship is clearly sinking. If I thought the problem was rooted in some constitutional provision or set of practices, I would join Sandy in a minute. My suspicion (and merely a suspicion) is that the problems lie elsewhere in the political culture, that a constitutional reform movement spearheaded by persons who find Hillary Clinton’s policies intolerably liberal is likely to produce a constitution so structured that in practice Joe Lieberman will be the most liberal alternative to the next scion of the Bush family.
Posted 11:17 AM by Mark Graber [link]