Well, there are two ways to look at this. You can imagine how great it would be to have Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower bundled in centrist tranches, or you can recognize it for the fever-dreamed delirium it has been since John Quincy Adams mistakenly served a term as President.

The basic error derives from thinking of somewhere between Democrat and Republican as "centrist"- and then imagining that this "centrist" candidate would somehow do things that neither party is willing to do at all. The Romans tried this with the creation of the Sullan Dictatorship (c. 188-180 BC). After 8 years Sulla "proclaimed victory and got out", retiring (again) to his farm to live out his days. Historians are divided as to whether the Sullan Dictatorship actually slowed the forces that eventually destroyed the Roman Republic.

In general, about half the people who could vote don't. Presumably these are mainly the lower classes, if only because there are so few of the upper classes. That number of people, added to either party, would constitute a substantial majority, but might very well not be "centrist" in nature.

And I sincerely doubt that any candidate winning solely with the votes of the half of the populace who do not vote now would be called "centrist". That, after all, is how Chavez of Venezuela wins elections, and he is regularly denounced here as a "dictator", in spite of the fact that Venezuelan elections have been monitored and shown to be more honest than our own process.

All of this talk about "centrism" ignores one central fact- we are the largest nation in the world composed of semi-autonomous states governed in a relatively honest and democratic manner. Europe is still far from achieving our free and simple integration, as is India, while Russia makes no pretense of honesty and China makes no pretense of democracy. The two-party system is part of what makes this work, and third-party candidates always run aground on the sheer size and diversity of national politics.

This topic always reminds me of sitting in a doctors office and picking up a copy of the magazine that US naval officers subscribe to and read. There I learned that 50% of naval officers identified themselves as Republicans, 48% identified themselves as Independents, and 2% identified themselves as Democrats. It's a lesson that's stuck by me.

Ross Perot's run for President is a compelling example of a third party run - he certainly made the presidential debates much more fun to watch! He raised early concerns about trade & national deficits.

But it makes me think most of the Progressive Movement that produced such leaders at Senator Gaylord Nelson - the creator of Earth Day. The Progressive movement seemed to pull on tenants from both Democratic and Republican platforms and was based on good civic governance.

I'm not sure what catowner is saying, but I understand Mr. Brewster. I would change the lexicon a bit and cast this not in terms of the partys, nor left or right.

Mr. Brewster and other crosscut writers have touched on the situation recently. There is a grownig frustration that neither party really wants or is able to address the major issues that face this country. I helped my 8th grader with a recent assignment to know and understand the preamble to the constituion. I'm not a constituion foamer--by it struck me that our governement is really not addressing the fundemental goals that this governement was created to do. Oh we are doing a lot of stuff--but think about it--are we ensureing domestic tranguility? are we providing for the common defence? are we promoting the general welfare? We have established justice I suppose, but is it adminstered fairly across the board? not just criminal justice, what about civil justice?

When a leader steps forward that speaks to people who have come to beleive that our system is broken because it isn't addressing these issues, and is able to escape the moshpit of our current political environement, I think people will support them, not because they are a third party, but because they can get things done. The problem is for any reformer, just ask Obama, that saying it and doing it are two completely different things. Our constitution and political system are VERY conservative and make change extraordinarily difficult.

Brad

interesting piece. re governor's race, please note that we don't have party nominating primaries anymore. Top 2 changes all that. Presumably we'll have and R and a D finalist, but not necessarily.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

I'd be delighted to support a moderate centrist, one that I could trust to stay that way once s/he got into office; one that I could continue to trust, even if I disagreed with a specific issue.

But never in a million years would I do so under the current parliamentary systems in place in the states and in Congress.

No matter how "moderate" or "centrist" a candidate is, sooner or later s'he's going to have to choose on whihc side of the aisle to sit, and that choice is going to mean 100% of that politician's support is going to go to that power.

Seeing as how the GOP continues to be hijacked by the wacko right, a moderate caucusing with the GOP is going to empower the most extreme elements in contemporary American politics.

A moderate caucusing with the Democrats is constantly going to have to fend off ineffectual, but annoying and distracting hits from the perpetually suicidal left.

Unless and until the power centers in both parties reject extremism AND the sort of parochialism the GOP has made so much hay out of, a moderate is going to be nothing but a curiosity.

I think serialcatowner has it right. I don't understand the fetish that David and commentators like Friedman and Broder have for "bipartisan centrism." Elected leaders and the voting public have to make tough choices on major issues. Are we going to have universal health care and bring medical inflation down? Are we going to have a progressive tax system that adequately finances public needs? Are we going to tax fossil fuels to move the country toward renewable energy? Are we going to end our futile nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and rebuild the United States? "Centrism" isn't going to resolve those issues. The other big problem is that David and other centrism advocates misdiagnose the current political situation using false equivalence. Republicans and Democrats today are not equally extreme, partisan, unreasonable, obstructionist, demagogic, etc. While President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders are hardly perfect, they have reached across and sought support across the aisle much more than the Republicans did when they were in power. And when the GOP was in power, Dems were much more willing to support GOP initiatives, however mistaken (the Iraq war, tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, etc.). Yes, it would be great to see elected officials work across the aisle and compromise sometimes to get things done, as the Republicans used to be willing to do prior to the era of Newt Gingrich. But the American people today are ideologically polarized and American politics reflects that. Calling for bipartisan centrism isn't going to resolve that. The American voters need to make a decision about which direction they want this country to go.

Voters say they want clear-thinking centrists. To get such a man or woman, they have to pay close attention to what is said on the campaign trail. This is why centrists and generalists are doomed to failure.

Here's why:

A tiny percentage of people pay very close attention to the campaign trail. The percentage is higher for large national races. Much smaller for even key local races. Voting is an act taken seriously, but the duration of that seriousness is a handful of hours scattered across a couple months and concentrated in the few days before marking a ballot.

The typical voter will read the pamphlet and perhaps their favorite media outlet's endorsements. They might even visit the candidate's web site to gaze at the endorsement lists and, rarely, maybe some position papers.

A clear-thinking centrist is unlikely to get the endorsement of the voter's "favorite" interest group. Why? Because vacillation on the multitude of litmus tests interest groups have developed too often results in no endorsement. As politics get more polarized by sensationalistic entertainment shows masquerading as journalism/media, this tendency towards interest groups requiring perfection builds.

A typical voter will scan the endorsement listing in the Voters' Pamphlet and other publication, basing their decision largely on what they see there. They'll ignore the centrist candidate with few endorsements or endorsements by smaller, centrist groups they don't recognize.

If you can figure out how to get centrists endorsed by increasingly non-centrist major interest groups, you'll have the key to your political ideal. Without accomplishing that task, you'll get nowhere.

I'll submit that one reason we have a relatively centrist government here in WA is most of our major endorsement groups do a good job. A few have ticked over into the litmus-test trap, but by and large most haven't. To use just one example, most labor unions are not afraid to endorse businesspeople.

Mr. Friedman lost me the moment he wrote "corporate tax reductions...stimulate jobs” -- a claim amongst the most pernicious Big Lies of capitalist despotism.

History proves such tax reductions do NOT create jobs. The reduced taxes merely bloat the obscene blood-wealth the Ruling Class amasses by its exploitation and ruin of all the rest of us.

In fact the Ruling Class is already taxed more lightly in the United States than anywhere else in the industrial world.

Its predatory fat-cats pay an even smaller percentage here in Washington state -- the very reason their riches are expanding to infinity even as permanent unemployment and the premeditated murder of government services damn the rest of us to inescapable poverty: death by abandonment and neglect.

But Ruling Class Media continues to propagate the Big Lie that tax cuts create jobs because the Ruling Class itself will do anything it can to shrink its taxes to absolute zero.

Indeed the long-range Ruling Class intent is to make government obsolete – to replace it with the zero-tolerance tyranny that is already the defining characteristic of the corporate workplace.

Any third-party movement that fails to address this bitter truth in its core principles -- and to focus on the resultant class-struggle -- will never be able to mobilize the already boiling anger of the Working Class.

Without such mobilization, it would never be able to force the reforms essential to recovery from what the Ruling Class is already making of us: a Third World, no-social-services sweatshop nation with a permanent, wage-deflating underclass of surplus workers -- the reality of Jobless Recovery.

But any third party founded upon the radical stance of class struggle would be denied the financial support of the Ruling Class.

And any third party that does not win the financial support of the Ruling Class will be suppressed.

Without such support – even if the third party were an 99-percent majority party – it would be unable to transcend the prohibitively expensive Ruling Class Media barriers that guarantee the worsening savagery and despotism of Jobless Recovery is a permanently protected and therefore inescapable condition.

Yet any third party that has such financial support will only do as the similarly funded DemocRats have already done under Barack the Betrayer. It will so infuriate its members with serially broken promises, the membership will surrender in disgust and dejection to another GOPorker restoration: yet more unapologetically despotic power for the Ruling Class.

The bitter truth revealed by this impasse is that the U.S. experiment in constitutional democracy has failed – that is dead beyond revival.

Meanwhile the Ruling Class has discarded all pretense of humanitarianism and replaced it with the Nazi-harsh regime of capitalism at its tyrannosauric worst -- infinite greed as maximum virtue, limitless selfishness as ultimate good.

The notion of representative governance has thus been supplanted by a new paradigm: government that serves only to protect and expand capitalism: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling Class, total subjugation and bottomless poverty for all the rest of us.

Thus the one genuine “change we can believe in” imposed upon us by Obama: dawning public recognition of the imbecility of “hope.”

To paraphrase an old ballad of Scots rebellion: "Tyrant's steel we could disdain, but tyrant's gold has been our bane -- such a parcel of rogues rules the nation."

And as from Sartre's hell, there is No Exit.

A major problem with centrism, as it is often presented, is that its appeal can be found in its vagueness. I don't know many people who think we need more overheated rhetoric in politics, but that's hardly the main issue. I tell people that if they don't like the partisanship, they can much more easily control their sources of information than who their representatives are.

There is no "centrist" solution, as far as I know, to such vexing issues as education reform, climate change, etc. In the provided quote, Friedman writes off opposition to education reform as obstructionism from unions and opposition to climate change policy as obstructionism from the far right and coal state Democrats. I support both education reform measures and climate change policy, but I know better than to be so dismissive of the critics of these ideas or to write off their arguments as parochialism.

History has shown that third party candidates inevitable result in spoilers and not viable candidates. Examples are Teddy Roosevelt with the Bull Moose party, Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential election, and Ralph Nader in the 2002 election.

Both Perot and Nader candidacies resulted in siphoning away voters from the political parties that they were most philosophically aligned with and essentially handed the election to Clinton and Bush.

It may be that the two party system has an inherent characteristic in that the extremes in the party have disproportionate affect on policies which thus lead to polarization and inability to compromise. It may be that a parliamentary democracy is better at addressing the problems of the middle than a two party majority system. For example, the high voter participation in Europe may be due to the fact that the parliamentary system permits a voice to smaller constituencies which voters can more readily identify with. It seems that many American voters end up voting against a candidate whereas in a parliamentary system one is voting for a candidate. This is a subtlety that creates psychological incentives towards participation in democracy rather than reaction to the democratic process.

Another advantage of parliamentary democracy is that these democracies seem to avoid the perpetual campaigning that exists in American democracy as a result of the 2-, 4-, and 6-year election cycle. When a no-confidence vote can occur at anytime, it makes it difficult for such no-stop incessant campaigning (and the political posturing that occurs leading up to it.)

Furthermore, since the leaders of parliamentary democracies are the leaders of the party in the majority, this system of democracy tends to generate statesmen and coalition builders. American two-party democracy seems to place an emphasis on personalities who are good at campaigning and does not necessarily reward those with the skills good at governing.

As has been said or at least implied, a viable third party would quickly become one of the two main parties. Our electoral system simply isn't set up otherwise. IRV would be a step in the right direction, but as I recall Pierce County voters took that option away from themselves.

A strong third party would likely take out the Democrats or the Republicans — which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing — but, given enough time, would come to resemble the party it replaced. I encourage political alternatives, not feeling at home in either major party, but I think what's really needed is electoral-system reform, without which none of this is likely to have a lasting effect.

As for "centrism," that term only serves to reinforce the idea of the one-axis political spectrum, which isn't an adequate description of the way many people think. True centrism may well be vague, but I think many people call themselves centrists because they share some opinions with the left, some with the right, and it's the best term they can come up with.

Many of the Web sites which discuss an alternative to the current political spectrum have a decidedly libertarian (even Libertarian) bent, but don't let that stop you from checking them out:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum is a good overview.

Isn’t the problem that the corrosive influence of corporations and other special interests that comprise the top 4 or 5 “industrial complexes” have finally broken the system? The cliché about there being no difference between the parties has become technically true in that special interests can now apply enough force to the object to pick and choose political and legislative outcomes.

Along with the latest Robert’s Court ruling allowing unlimited dollars to deploy lobbyists, these power brokers have also initiated a classic marketing strategy of “knocking themselves off” with the invention of the tea baggers. Marketers do it by taking a product and introducing it as a different brand to confuse the consumer and chip away at real competitors. Simple but effective.

There may be a new third party somewhere, but it’s not any of these guys.

Others have commented appropriately on the improbability of centrism as a guiding philosophy at any level over the long term. No one dissected the concept of a metro-scale nonpartisan urban party akin to CHECC. An interesting idea worthy of some discussion but equally problematic if the goal is to scale it up ala Friedman beyond the urban boundary.

Also not mentioned is the last paragraph which contains, in my view, the most important suggestion in Mr. Brewster's piece, the need to reestablish "constructive journalism".

Example of the need: the House Republicans recently issued their Pledge to America. One pledge is to "immediately reduce spending by cancelling unspent stimulus funds". More than one-third of stimulus funds coming to Washington State are being spent in the 4th Congressional District represented by Republican Doc Hastings.

Now Hastings website features the pledge and his endorsement of it, which is positioned next to a (un-captioned) picture of the Congressman visiting a construction site that is most likely at the Hanford Reservation. The Recovery Act is sending $2.3 billion to the 4th District, the lion’s share going to cleaning up Hanford’s nuclear waste and contamination. This is one-third of all stimulus money coming to Washington State.

So here we have a U.S. Congress member, whose district is benefiting both environmentally and economically, essentially repudiating the legislation that delivered the funding. I’m sure many of Hastings constituents who advocated in support of his effort to gain the funding and who are now employed would not be pleased if it is curtailed.

The point of this example is the absence of constructive journalism that looks at how stimulus money is being spent both wisely and otherwise in our state. And journalism that points to hypocrisy when it is blatantly apparent.

Oddly, yesterday, when this article was published, was also a day when serving members of our military were awarded citizenship they had earned by that service.

This was one of the biggest issues leading to the end of the Roman Republic. Rome had grown so large that the original tribes could no longer provide enough men for soldiers, so they hired 'auxiliaries' who were to be awarded for service with citizenship. The members of the original tribes objected to the dilution of their influence, and there wasn't enough land to reward the soldiers with farms, as the wealthy oligarchy at that time owned almost all of the arable land (c. 200 BC- 40 BC).

This, then, was a problem that the Roman Senate, by its wealthy oligarchic nature, could not solve, and the tribes could not solve because of their fear of immigration- the vast majority of Romans, after all, being very poor working people with nothing to call their own other than their status as 'Romans'.

After the fall of the Republic, successive emperors solved the problem by relegating the Senate and the tribes to decorative roles, and draining the Pontine Marshes, creating land owned by the Emperor that could be awarded to retiring soldiers.

I find it interesting to find the same circumstances echoed in two republics separated by two millenniums. It may be that the eclipse of the legislature by a 'centrist' leader is nearer than we think- but people have been saying that for 200 years.

I think the smart money is on journalism as a way to get out of this place. Cicero's 20 years of principled centrism earned him a place in history, but no real power to change the course of events. In a sense, he was the Roman's David Broder.

Let the testing begin.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.00&soc;=-4.36