Interesting speculation about what might be termed a “shadow third-party” in the US. I’m not sure how likely (or even accurate) any of this is, but it seems like food for thought.
At least a snack, anyway.
Hope everyone enjoys the debate tonight!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I've never been confident that the average is the best. Centrism just means refusing to decide.
Interesting article. While I think Denny's response CAN be true, I think there are many practical instances -- enough to warrant a strong center -- that disprove his point. Articles of faith may be absolute -- I would never expect a Christian to compromise on the fact of salvation through Jesus Christ -- but most matters of public policy have viable centrist alternatives.
For example, a man commits a murder. Do we kill him, put him in prison, or let him go? Killing him and letting him go are the clear polar choices while prison is a sensible alternative.
Most issues of public policy have multiple facets to them that almost demand a middle way to solving those issues. Few things in life are so binary that compromise results in de facto capitulation to the "opposing" view.
To further refute Denny's point, I'd say that "average" isn't the right analogy, though again, it can be. Average is the default middle position between two fixed points. If we represent one side as 10 and the other as 2, then we get an average of 6.
However, most issues of public policy are more analogous to sets of numbers rather than two fixed points. This allows for a middle ground that melds the best of boths sets. If one set contains 10, 6, 2, and 1, and the other contains 9, 7, 5, and 3, we can use the middle way to create a set that has a higher value that either of the other two sets. Why not a set that includes 10, 9, 7, and 6?
David's point can be taken in certain circumstances, but in Congress in 2008, I am not sure that the argument holds true.
Perhaps my problem is that I actually believe that there are absolute answers to problems like the financial crisis that prevent me from seeing a compromise as an alternative. Again, that fact is why I am glad that our democratic system prevents people like me from being overwhelmingly in charge.
One point I would like to quibble on: yes, average in the sense of mathematics represents what David says it does, but I do not think we can reliably extend the analogy to human behavior. As an example, educators designed the modern public school system to teach average students, and look at the tragedy that continues as a result (before this degenerates into an argument about school funding, let me point out that Dayton Public Schools is one of the highest funded schools in the state and is still in academic and fiscal emergency).
Perhaps what I refer to is more of a philosophical average (if there is a better word, please substitute it) that usually uses a set of facts that reduce the problem past its basic complexity. In the case of the bailout, for example, I do not understand how borrowing almost a quarter of a trillion dollars to buy up borrowing that was bad because it could not be paid back represents anything other than reducing the problem to "the market needs money and we can pass a bill saying we have money, therefore we fix the problem." Unfortunately, no one involved in that average solution has presented a compelling picture of how we are going to pay that cost back yet.
Another example that speaks to David's second example is deficit spending. One side says they want to spend on a, b, and c, which there is no money for, while the other side says the same thing about b, c, and d. Their compromise is to spend on b and c because they all agree on b and c even though there still is no money. If that's centrism, then I want no part of it.
Perhaps the core problem with both Denny's and my analogies is the assumption that centrism, compromise, and average (of a philosophical nature) are the same.
I think Denny is right when he gives the example of Congress agreeing on b and c. That is often an average even of the philosophical bent.
As I said in my opening, maybe this is a problem of assumptions. We take as a given that Democrats and Republicans represent the Left and Right of a political spectrum. Are we perhaps accepting an oversimplified view of that spectrum? Why do we assume it is linear?
I think a true visual representation of the political spectrum would reveal it to be multi-dimensional with axis radiating in many directions. On a scale of this nature, centrism or near centrism might not be considered an average but might well reflect a use of strong ideas from all fronts.
Let's take Denny's example. He premises (and this is the way it often turns out) that one side offers a,b,and c as a solution to an insufficient budget, and the other offers b,c, and d. The compromise or average in this case is taken to be b and c even, as Denny posits, if we can't afford both. Well, that's not a fair representation of even the average because not only a and d have fallen by the wayside, but the core principle that you shouldn't spend more than you have. So what we have is a less than average solution because we sacrificed our principle in search of compromise. If the principle is solid, it can't be compromised. Once it is, it is no longer a principle.
To extend Denny's example, the true average is we can have b OR c or perhaps SOME of b and c (and a and d), but we can't have more than we can pay for. Preserve the principle, and the solution is better than average because the principle has more weight (at least in my philosophy).
Beyond that, I'm not attempting to say that the center is never average. My experience on numerous committees over the years tells me center and average do often converge. But I've also often seen committees overcome significant weaknesses in one or more member's point of view.
I know Denny will agree that the founders, at least in principle, if not in actuality, gave us tools to overcome this problem as well. With great insight, they provided for a committee (Congress) to draft legislation so that, in theory, the worst ideas could be weeded out. Then, they gave the singular Executive the ability to veto poor legislation and the power to execute acceptable legislation. This is a clear nod to the weakness inherent in the average and the strength of a single point of focus. It may not work as well as designed, but it is still the best form of government known to mankind.
One follow up to tie all of my nebulous philosophizing back to the original article.
I think the value of the author's point is that the extreme's of the left/right axis tend to minimize or eliminate the center which, as the article seems to imply and I would agree, is not merely an average of the extremes, but actually represents multiple and distinct "middle" positions.
The positions are only "middle" by (limited) comparison and thus, their value is not necessarily an average nor should they be evaluated simply in comparison to the left and right extremes. Though they fall in between the extremes of the left/right axis, they should be evaluated on their own merits. I suspect we would discover a much richer set of ideas along numerous interesting and valuable axes.
Thanks for your comments, both of you. Lots of interesting things there, and it's always fun to watch you talk even when I don't participate.
I like David's last point -- that the "middle" might not really be so much of an "average" or a "compromise" as it is a distinctly third option. I think that is what the author of the article was urging us to consider as we try to live, work, and govern in a two-party environment.
(and, if that wasn't David's last point, oh well. I think that anyway.)
Or, we could kill him AND put him in prison.
Post a Comment