I'm a centrist

[CreekDog]

by European standards. and I feel no need to apologize for being centrist.

Universal, affordable or free health care
Taxing the wealthy
Good public transportation
Good pensions, public and otherwise
Good environmental policies
Good schools
Cheap higher education
A strong safety net with few holes

Centrism in the United States includes none of these or only watered down versions of them.

[ProSense]

1. Who is a centrist by European standards?

For example, Michael Bennet is likely a centrist (he might even be right of center) by European standards. Can you show that he doesn't support any of these:

Universal, affordable or free health care
Taxing the wealthy
Good public transportation
Good pensions, public and otherwise
Good environmental policies
Good schools
Cheap higher education
A strong safety net with few holes




Edited for clarity

[CreekDog]

2. why would you reference somebody with such a short public record?

because other "centrists" by American standards have long records replete with evidence that they vote against my list?

[ProSense]

3. It's an example.

Offer up some names of people who would be considered centrist by European standards who don't support the items on your list.

[CreekDog]

4. why would i? did you actually read my post?

why would i post that being a centrist by European standards includes supporting that list and then create another list with people I think are centrists but *do not* support things on the list.

:wtf:

[ProSense]

5. "Centrism in the United States includes none of these or only watered down versions of them."

It's completely inaccurate to say centrism includes "none" of these.

For example, Lieberman has been positioning himself as right of center on some issues, but he strong on environmental policies.

Centrisms biggest flaw is that it's not an ideology, but an excuse for triangulation.

[Silence Dogood]

29. Centrism is an ideology that has nothing to do with Triagulation-

CENTRISM = THIRD WAY


The Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.<1> Third Way approaches are commonly viewed from within the first- and second-way perspectives as representing a centrist reconciliation between capitalism and socialist command economy.<2><3> Less often, the phrase Third Way is used to refer to Distributism. Democratic socialism would be an example of a Third Way.<4> This claim is embodied in the alternative description of the Third Way as the Radical center.

Past invocations of a political 'third way', in this sense, or a 'middle way', have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Technocracy (bureaucratic), Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini,<5>Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism<6> and Phillip Blond's Red Toryism.

Third Way policies were enacted in the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments.<7> The most recent prominent examples are the Clinton administrations in the United States as well as 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,<8> the Labour Party (New Labour) governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Liberal Party government of Canada under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd, the Polder Model in the Netherlands, the Democratic Party - demokraci.pl in Poland and the previous Labour government in New Zealand, led by current UNDP Administrator Helen Clark.

The Third Way rejects both laissez-faire and socialist approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic ends according to the Democratic Leadership Council.<9> One of its central aims is to protect the modern welfare state through reforms that maintain its economic integrity.<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)

[ProSense]

34. Third Way is BS. Write it up any

way they want to, it still just an excuse for triangulation.


It's a failed attempt to reject liberalism.

Past invocations of a political 'third way', in this sense, or a 'middle way', have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Technocracy (bureaucratic), Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini,<5>Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism<6> and Phillip Blond's Red Toryism.

Third Way policies were enacted in the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments.<7> The most recent prominent examples are the Clinton administrations in the United States as well as 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,<8> the Labour Party (New Labour) governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Liberal Party government of Canada under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd, the Polder Model in the Netherlands, the Democratic Party - demokraci.pl in Poland and the previous Labour government in New Zealand, led by current UNDP Administrator Helen Clark.

All Third Way every produced was confusing policies that tried to straddle the fence between right and left, triangulation.

It's no wonder Clinton is now going around making excuses for his Third-Way policies. Anything good out of his administration was solidly liberal, but most were lame attempts to create policy that to split the difference between right and left. That's not an ideology no matter how it's framed.

Case in point:

<...>

What happened to that proposal is symptomatic of what happened to Clinton's approach to economic policy. During his campaign and first month in office, Clinton promised to deny tax deductions to firms that awarded their executives salaries over $1 million. "The tax code should no longer subsidize excessive pay of chief executives and other high executives," Clinton told business leaders at the White House. He defined "excessive" in true populist terms as "unrelated to the productivity of the enterprise." He also cited "the enormously increased rate of executive compensation in the last 12 years as compared with the compensation of workers."

But under pressure from the financial community, Clinton quietly backed off. In April, the administration announced a plan that was riddled with loopholes. For instance, CEO stock options would not be included in the $1 million limit, and firms could take a deduction on straight salaries over $1 million if stockholders approved.

link

How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay

A law he championed to curb compensation has backfired -- and pay packages have exploded

<...>

Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay. Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President.

THE SHAME GAME

Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."

From the Internal Revenue Service to corporate boardrooms, Clinton's remedy has become the biggest inside joke in the long history of efforts to rein in executive pay. It has allowed companies to take deductions for executive pay tied to goals as vague as "individual achievement of personal commitments" (BellSouth Corp.(BLS ) or improving "customer satisfaction" (Dell Inc. (DELL )). Energy giant AES Corp. (AES ) for a time demanded that its top people maintain a workplace that was "fun."

"We were trying to shame companies into changing their behavior," says former Clinton senior adviser Bruce Reed. "And companies have been shameless in ignoring what we did." Or perhaps just astute in exploiting the flimsiness of Section 162(m) of the IRS code, as the measure is formally known. Reed acknowledges that the Clinton team deliberately watered down the proposal to make it more palatable by, for example, not applying the performance requirement to the award of stock options. Clinton did not return calls for comment.

Want to talk about the repeal of Glass Steagall?

It's interesting to watch people try to frame Hillary Clinton as a liberal, and then read the information you posted. The DLC is a perfect example of flawed thinking.

[ProSense]

35. Also, note the hilarious and ironic

first sentence from the snip you posted:

The Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

[Silence Dogood]

36. It's OK- ProSense...

It isn't a crime to admit you were wrong-

Wrong about Trianglation.

Tringulation was never mentioned in the accepted 'WIKI' definition of "Centrism."

Wrong about Centrism noted as Third Way as the accepted 'WIKI' definition by the most successful Democratic President in modern history.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Perhaps you meant that the OP should offer up centrists by American standards

because what you've asked for here is for the OP to refute his own premise.

[ProSense]

10. That's not what I asked.

The OP states: "Centrism in the United States includes none of these or only watered down versions of them."

As I posted above, "It's completely inaccurate to say centrism includes 'none' of these.

For example, Lieberman has been positioning himself as right of center on some issues, but he strong on environmental policies.

Centrisms biggest flaw is that it's not an ideology, but an excuse for triangulation."

So I did ask the OP to offer up names to support the claim of "centrists by American standards"

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Not the post upthread from my reply

which was this one: "Offer up some names of people who would be considered centrist by European standards who don't support the items on your list."

but since you brought up your later post, that one is focusing on the hyperbole of writing "none were included" in American centrism and ignores the preposition "or" -- the OP allowed that only watered down versions may be included in American centrism. The Lieberman example seems to be a contention that he believes in a strong environmental policy but you make no effort to compare his environmental record with those of European centrists. Since you're refuting the OP, the burden of proof is on you, not CreekDog.

[ProSense]

13. Oh brother

"The Lieberman example seems to be a contention that he believes in a strong environmental policy but you make no effort to compare his environmental record with those of European centrists."

What exactly are you focused on: European or American centrists?

My comments focus on American, even if defines as "by European standards."

[Gormy Cuss]

15. "Oh brother" is right.

The OP lists centrist tenets using European standards and asserts that what qualifies as American centrism either doesn't include those positions or only includes watered down versions of same.

To simply say that Lieberman is strong on environmental policy does not refute the OP's assertion. In order to do that, one would need to prove that Lieberman's stances are comparable to strong Euro standards on the same issue. Otherwise, calling his position "strong" is only relevant in the context of the American political spectrum.

[ProSense]

16. Note:

Centrism isn't an ideology.

You couldn't make one up using any group of defined centrists. It's mumbo jumbo, specifically triangulation.

And this is inaccurate:

To simply say that Lieberman is strong on environmental policy does not refute the OP's assertion. In order to do that, one would need to prove that Lieberman's stances are comparable to strong Euro standards on the same issue. Otherwise, calling his position "strong" is only relevant in the context of the American political spectrum.

No, the OP list is not about "strong Euro standards."

It states only: "Good environmental policies"

[Gormy Cuss]

18. You brought up Lieberman as an example of a centrist and cited his enviro policy .

Now you're stating that there is no centrist ideology.

Again, the OP made an assertion about tenets that would be labeled centrists by European standards. If you disagree with that assertion, refute it. Stop looking for single word "gotchas."

[ProSense]

19. "Now you're stating that there is no centrist ideology. "

I brought up Lieberman as someone who is to the right on some issues to illustrate a point about the environment, not to validate centrism as an ideology.

On edit: "Stop looking for single word 'gotchas.'"

Maybe you should take your own advice.

[Gormy Cuss]

25. What was your point about the environment and how was it relevant to the OP?

[CreekDog]

28. + lots

:rofl:

[niceypoo]

6. There is no center in the US political system

There is left and right and a few self loathing Democrats on the left that pretend they are centrists.

[robcon]

7. The OP is clearly not by a centrist.

"Centrism in the United States includes none of these or only watered down versions of them."

QED: you're not a centrist, by your own admission.

[CreekDog]

9. if you aren't going to read what i wrote

then it won't matter if i explain it to you.

"...by European standards." (because i have this need to keep trying...) :eyes:

[tkmorris]

12. I pity you

Your OP was worthy of discussion but some of the responses you have gotten would have me banging my head on the desk if I were in your shoes.

[ProSense]

14. Hmmm?

"Your OP was worthy of discussion but some of the responses you have gotten would have me banging my head on the desk if I were in your shoes."

The responses are the discussion. Are you saying that a discussion that includes responses not in agreement with the OP should lead to one banging one's head on a desk?

[CreekDog]

21. i think they were just pointing out that our exchange was incredibly pointless and tiresome

when we could be talking about the difference between how centrist is defined here versus abroad.

now you did raise a good point about the difference between actual centrism versus political cover for triangulation. but a frustration that i have with you is that you understand this nuance, yet constantly post arcane points to help our leaders have that political cover when they do it.

[ProSense]

22. So you're frustrated that people disagree with you? n/t

[boston bean]

23. What do you disagree with the OP on, in regards to his european centrist list?

[ProSense]

24. Who said that's what I disagree with?

If you want to know my opinions related to the OP, read my comments in this thread.

[boston bean]

26. I have and that's what has caused my confusion. nt

[CreekDog]

27. i'm frustrated that for all your posts in this thread, barely any of it talked substantively

about what it means to be centrist in this country versus wealthy countries in Europe.

and my point was to dispel the notion that those on the left in this country were somehow on the fringe --no, only in this country, among our economic peers, can that be said.

in Western Europe, in many respects, and even Canada, those on the left (the public option, higher taxing, end the damned wars, contingents) are pretty mainstream.

:hi:

[ProSense]

33. And what are all your posts about, the current one for example?

I made a point based on your OP.

You can disagree with it, ask a question or try to steer the discussion in another direction.

It is not up to you which point I choose to address. The point was relevant to the OP.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

20. thanks

:rofl: at your artwork. :hi:

[Agent William]

30. I believe that David Cameron would be classed as a Democrat

If he were hypothetically an American politician.

For gay civil partnership, for progressive taxation and universal healthcare, the leader of the Conservative Party of the UK would be seen a a fringe liberal if he were running in the US. Be that as it may, Cameron is still a right conservative prick.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

32. Third Way is BS.

Edited, posted above.

[Silence Dogood]

37. Only because you can't explain it- nt