If Americans Elect collapses, and "centrism" takes a hit, does anyone care?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, so much for Americans Elect, that full-of-itself "centrist" organization that was hoping to run a third-party candidate for president in November. Politico explains:

The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules.

What a charming euphemism: "failed to generate sufficient interest." The statement from AE CEO Kahlil Byrd is less negative, of course, but also more misleading: "Through the efforts of thousands of staffers, volunteers, and leadership, Americans Elect has achieved every stated operational goal. Despite these efforts, as of today, no candidate has reached the national support threshold required to enter the 'Americans Elect Online Convention' this June."

 

Uh-huh. Whatever. In other words, no one really gives a shit -- other than these supposed "thousands" and self-important (holier-than-thou) David Broder-oriented pundits like Thomas Friedman (whom Ed Kilgore suggests should be the group's nominee).

So does this mean "centrism" is dead? Of course not. It may not be a viable political movement (partisan even as it claims non-partisanship), and AE may not go anywhere, but there are still the likes of, oh, er, ah, Michael Bloomberg out there, not to mention all those self-glorifying pundits, and a lot of people like to call themselves centrists.

But, look, it really depends on what you mean by centrism. As I wrote back in November 2007:

It is also a rigid ideology that demands compromise between "left" and "right," however defined, no matter what, regardless of the merits of either side. And the split down the middle tends, from experience, to favour the right, which has manged in recent years to persuade the media, and many Americans, that the "center" is well to the right of where it really is.

And this Crossfire view of politics only serves to legitimize the extremist positions of the right, as well as their proponents, to bring them into the debate, to take them seriously, and, ultimately, to include them equally in whatever "compromise" is worked out.

This is how the right wins, with oblivious and self-important centrists enabling its hold on power.

 

Even further back, in November 2005, not long after I started this blog, when I was going through a period of self-examination with respect to just where I fit on the left, I wrote this:

The point is, the "center" is open to debate and interpretation. And if centrism for the left means abandoning liberal principles and ideals and embracing certain illiberal aspects of conservatism, then I'm not sure I really want much to do with it. It's fine to be a "moderate" or a "centrist," and I myself am no ideologue, but some things are worth standing up for over and above compromise. (For example: social security, universal health care of some kind, and the environment.)

Regardless, the center is with the Democrats, more to the left of where the Republican spin machine says it is. Indeed, I would say that liberalism is centrism. But it's up to liberals, and their Democratic candidates and representatives, to explain that to the American people, that is, to explain just how liberalism is at the very center of American life, how America's fundamental values are themselves fundamentally liberal.

 

I remembered all this when I found myself agreeing yesteday with Paul Krugman's assessment of centrism in general and AE in particular:

 

Americans Elect, a lavishly funded "centrist" group that was supposed to provide an alternative to traditional political parties, has been a ridiculous flop. Basically, about seven people were actually excited about the venture -- all of them political pundits. Actual voters couldn't care less.

 

What went wrong? Well, there actually is a large constituency in America for a political leader who is willing to take responsible positions -- to call for more investment in the nation’s education and infrastructure, to propose bringing down the long-run deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. And there is in fact a political leader ready and willing (maybe too willing) to play that role; his name is Barack Obama.

 

So why Americans Elect? Because there exists in America a small class of professional centrists, whose stock in trade is denouncing the extremists in both parties and calling for a middle ground. And this class cannot, as a professional matter, admit that there already is a centrist party in America, the Democrats -- that the extremism they decry is all coming from one side of the political fence. Because if they admitted that, they'd just be moderate Democrats, with no holier-than-thou pedestal to stand on.

 

Exactly. Damn centrists. (Unless it's the real center we're talking about, the liberal center, which is not what these self-styled centrists, nor those further to the right, would have you believe.)