Middling Politicians in the Middle

JL Wilson discusses the “center”: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2154

He argues that in our current political climate a “centrist” ticket for president would either be a McCain/Lieberman type with more war and more social programs or a Paul/Kucinich kind of ticket with less war and fewer social programs. The “center” could be either fascist or libertarian.

“Center” and “centrist”, and similar terms like “moderate” make almost no sense in America. The two major parties agree on almost everything except the details and who gets the spoils. They are like golden retrievers and Labrador retrievers, different only in superficial ways. They all agree on the basic premise that the government has no inherent limits, although they disagree on what to do with their claimed unlimited authority. What would it mean to be in the “center” of the goldens and the labs? You’d be a mutt, that’s all. You’d still be stupid and barely trainable, and you would fetch things and jump in ponds for hours just like the pure breds. In time, you might become a recognized breed, a labragolden if you will. OK, I’ve taken the metaphor too far. The point is that a centrist is not ideologically distinguishable from a non-centrist in any meaningful way because the ideological spectrum is already extremely narrow.

Perhaps a centrist is someone who wants to set aside partisanship and have both parties work together to rob the people more efficiently. What a waste to fight each other when the two syndicates can divide the country up amicably. Everybody wins!

I often hear folks talk about the extremists in the major parties. You have your nannies on the right and your nannies on the left both of which groups aim to subject us to an increasingly powerful state and who differ mainly in the specific conduct they aim to regulate. They agree 100% on the principle that the state can and ought to regulate the minutest details of our lives. They just can’t agree on which details to regulate first.