The Deadly Sin of Being a "Centrist"
This week someone accused of being a “centrist.” She thinks that’s a bad thing. She was furious because I said the “Impeach Bush” and Dennis Kucinich campaigns are wastes of time. She probably assumes from this that I’m also guilty of the ultimate sin, supporting Hillary Clinton, who is just a corrupt shill for “the corporations,” like all the other presidential candidates.
I don't object to being labeled a "centrist." It's not such a bad thing to be, and I can see how, from her point of view, I would look like a centrist. Conservatives think I'm a wild-eyed radical. Back in newspaper days, we had a saying that, when the activists on both sides think you're biased against them, it means you're doing a good job. I don't always say the same things to activists on different sides. It's a way of learning what they believe and why. I listen closely to everyone except politicians running for office. That's what reporters do.
I’m not a Democrat or a Republican and I don’t have a favorite in the presidential race, just one vote, like everybody else. I haven’t made up my mind who I’m voting for, it’s nobody’s business, and I can’t imagine why anybody should care.
What I really am, and proud of it, is totally idiosyncratic. I rebel against orthodoxy and groupthink in any form. Until I have my say, nobody knows for sure where I'll come down. It drives people with strong ideologies crazy because I don't fit into a bag, but it improves my credibility. Over time, people come to know that I make a call on an issue based on liberal constitutional values that don't change, and the facts of the case, that always change. They also know I've considered the issue from many points of view, not just two.
When I was covering the NH Statehouse, the big editor came over to yank my chain by calling me a "knee-jerk liberal." My New Hampshire editor answered, "Ken's not a knee-jerk anything." It's the nicest thing anyone ever said about my political writing.
I've been covering NH politics for 30 years. Most of that time, it was my job. Now I do it as a hobby because it's part of who I am and I enjoy the thrust and parry, and getting someone to say "I never thought of it that way before." I've been writing about politics for 40 years. I've been an avid follower of politics for over 50 years because my father and mother were both intense political activists. To come to our supper table, you had to know your stuff if you wanted to be part of the conversation. I saw the McCarthy hearings on TV in 1953 or 54. I was only 5, and I didn't know what they were about, but I could tell they were very important by the way the adults watched them.
I'm 59, have a lot of first-hand experience with politics, media and politicians, and have seen lots of historical eras come and go. It does not make me sad that somebody thinks I'm a centrist, whatever that is. It makes me a little sad, though it's probably inevitable, that labels like that are such a big part of our national political discussion. Ideologues who think everything and everybody are all black or white, lazy journalists, and politicians who hold power by polarizing people, are behind all this labeling. So maybe it's not inevitable.
We're already bankrupt
I'm not supporting Hillary. Where did you get that idea?
If Hillary is a socialist, George W. is a fascist. The definition of fascism is a seamless alliance between government and big business.
He'll be leaving the economy in the toilet for the next president, Record deficits, record trade deficit, a real estate meltdown which is causing a breakdown of the bankng system, personal disaster in the form of widespread foreclosures that affect communities as well as individuals. But as a fascist, Bush won't do anything that might interfere with a corporation's ability to rescue money for its executives out of the wreckage.
As for bankrupting the country, Bush expanded the welfare state more than any president since Johnson with the Medicare prescription plan -- once he made sure that big Pharma and the insurance companies were able to make a fortune on it without adding any value to the product. And he's doing it with borrowed money.
Not Quite Ken
Fascism is not an alliance between corporations and the government.
That is a modern interpretation by individuals on the Left and it is out there all over the web but Fascism can only be defined with reference to Hitler.
In actuality however, Hitler's party was the Democratic Socialist party which resembles today's Democratic party in many ways from message to the use of the class envy card.
Congress passed laws that practically forced lenders to loan to unqualified candidates and that has really played into the real estate meltdown. We settled for a higher rate but intimately know others who chose the lowest possible variable rate and spent their excess. Yet, all we ever hear about is predatory lending.
I would imagine that you support unbridled government interference and regulation. Well, Ken, I was a small business owner in the Clinton years and the policies were devastating to entrepreneurs.
How a thinking, reasonable person can believe that the government taking more out of your pocket will reinforce the middle class is beyond me. Government does not create jobs (well maybe in Cuba), capital and wealth creates jobs.
I would agree with you on deficit spending and the war has much to do with that. But "entitlement" spending and unbridled excess in Washington adds to the problem.
You are way off on big Pharma...how would you want them to market their wares and make back their investment that, in many cases is spread throughout several years.
The CEO argument is old news and not true in most instances. As far as the deficit; Obama or Hillary will only worsen it and then blame it on Bush. Obama already wants to spend an additional $879 billion on social spending and was quoted last week as wanting to offer the United Nation's "trillions of dollars" to raise the standard of living in the rest of the world.
And you worry about deficit spending and perceived Fascism?
This post goes hand in hand with today's MY Turn in the Monitor. Some of your points are valid. There are no real "centrists" as that is a cop out on issues where there is no real middle ground.
I would say that there are some issues like abortion that you could be middle of the road on and both sides refuse to take a middle stand. The middle ground might be to allow abortion but not promote or ever fund them. Dunderheads on the Left and Right won't give an inch.
I can't believe your support of Hillary as she is so far from a Ronald Reagan kind of visionary. Beyond that she is a Socialist. It is not that some of the social agenda of Democrats is well meaning but the adminstration by unqualified bureaucrats and the hidden agenda of breaking versus fixing a flawed system is very disturbing.
Sorry to hear about your defection but you should think about what Dems stand for...it is going to break this country and make our country more dangerous and less safe.