What is a "Centrist"

[flintauqua]

American politics has become increasingly polarized, and legislators face tremendous pressure to maintain strict party unity and blame "the other side" for failure.  Scoring political points all too often eclipses the objective of creating sound policy.  Not only is the political debate often shrill, poorly informed, and unproductive, it fails to represent the largest portion of the public, which belongs to neither party.

Meanwhile, important problems go unsolved.  Deficits have reemerged with no plan for how to reduce them.  Roughly 40-45 million Americans have no health coverage.  Almost half of the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers have insufficient savings, yet the costs of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are poised to squeeze the federal budget and future taxpayers.  Washington's economic policies sometimes seem as though they were designed for a bygone era, out of synch with modern economic problems, or are just motivated by pure politics.  Relations between the federal government and the states are strained at a time when cooperation is essential to both homeland security and economic and social progress.  Worst of all, Americans have lost faith in two pillars of modern society -- corporations and government -- because they doubt corporate executives' integrity and distrust government programs' ability to continually modernize and perform efficiently.

The country needs bipartisan cooperation and new centrist policy ideas.  Workable, long-range solutions to the most important national problems cannot be rammed through legislatures on party-line votes.  Instead, centrist policymakers need bold, practical new proposals that can bridge the divide between the two parties and gain broad public support. 


Values.  A primary value is fiscal responsibility.  In today's split political system, conservatives almost uniformly push tax cuts, especially for high-earning or wealthy Americans, regardless of the nation's long-term fiscal position or needs.  Liberals' absolute fealty to outdated and expensive entitlement programs is just as shortsighted.  As both sides compete to buy votes, they ignore the larger national interest.

By contrast, centrists are more likely to be focused on long-run budgetary responsibility, carefully evaluating future budgetary needs and continuously modernizing spending programs so that future generations won't face untenable tax burdens.  Centrists must focus relentlessly on ensuring that government is effective and efficient -- providing the best possible value for the taxpayer's dollar.

A related value for centrists is generational responsibility.  We believe the baby boom generation should leave a legacy of safety, prosperity and opportunity to its children and grandchildren, much as the generations that fought the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War made sacrifices to benefit their successors.

Centrists believe high-value government uses market forces to achieve its goals, including cooperative arrangements between the federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector.

Government's best role is to empower citizens with the information and tools they need to take care of themselves.  At the same time, centrists are also progressive, and believe the national interest is best served when all Americans are free of poverty, and have sufficient opportunities for advancement.

Finally, centrists are almost always characterized by open-mindedness and a sense of fair play.  Centrists have one overarching goal:  accomplishment.  We will not be bound by ideological preconceptions or rigidities of either the left or right.

From Centrists.org

Last updated 12/20/2004

[Diane Amberg]

Thanks Flint.

[Warph]

Good post.  This would be wonderful if this was a perfect world ... but it isn't.  Too much corruption in our political  and voting systems.  It would take a new breed of politician to achieve bipartisan cooperation and new centrist policy ideas.  I sometimes think we need two types of Congress, one for these United States ONLY and another seperate Congress for foreign policies.  But that isn't going to happen either. 

[Varmit]

Frankly, I think the whole thing needs to be re-worked.  The gov't is really out of touch with the American people. 

[Tobina+1]

"We the people" already have the opportunity to re-work the government... every 4 years.  Actually, more often than that when you consider the House and Senate seats, too.
In my opinion, the part of the government that should be re-worked is the election process.  That's where all the mud-slinging and name-calling and party lines are drawn hard and fast.  Give all the canidates the same amount of money to spend on ads and make them give any additional funds raised to charity.  Make them pay fines for saying false accusations of their opponent.  Do not make people only vote within their "party" during primaries.  Who cares if the final 2 candidates are from the same "party"?  As we all know, just because a person represents a "party" doesn't mean everyone within that party agrees with them.

[Jo McDonald]

Sounds like a good plan to me,Tobina.  The "party" status has been long gone anyway -- just a lot of lip movement that does not require a brain that is functioning.  Of all the things that are so UP THERE - political party rules and guidelines are totally absent.   

  There definitely should be a set of rules and boundaries that require all to adhere to.

[Teresa]

Some of "we the people" TRIED to this last election.

We failed miserably............

I actually think that Ted Nugent should be president and Sarah Palin should be VP...
Then we would be cookin' with gas.. Yesssireeee...

[Varmit]

I actually think that Ted Nugent should be president and Sarah Palin should be VP...
Then we would be cookin' with gas.. Yesssireeee...[/b][/color]

Now thats a ticket worth voting for!!!

[flintauqua]

When in doubt
I'll whip it out.
I got me an Oval Office band.
It's a free for all

[flintauqua]

"We the people" already have the opportunity to re-work the government... every 4 years.  Actually, more often than that when you consider the House and Senate seats, too.
In my opinion, the part of the government that should be re-worked is the election process.  That's where all the mud-slinging and name-calling and party lines are drawn hard and fast.  Give all the canidates the same amount of money to spend on ads and make them give any additional funds raised to charity.  Make them pay fines for saying false accusations of their opponent.  Do not make people only vote within their "party" during primaries.  Who cares if the final 2 candidates are from the same "party"?  As we all know, just because a person represents a "party" doesn't mean everyone within that party agrees with them.

I agree, comprehensive campaign finance reform is the place to start.  No more $25,000 dinners with the candidate.  No more free transportation.  No more supposedly independent ad campaigns that are so blatantly for or against a specific candidate that a three year old could see it.

And no carry over of funds from one election cycle to the next.

And one that really sticks in my craw:

If you're in the middle of your term as one thing, you can't run for something else unless you resign.  Why should you be able to run for President and still be able to keep your Senate seat or governorship in reserve in case you lose.  This would really open up who would be viable candidates for higher state and federal offices and create some much needed turnover.