The Vital Center
A Brief Elaboration
As with any political ideology there will always be differing views. While some see centrism as a blend of right and left that brings balance to the political landscape, others may view it as a feeble attempt to be all things to all people. In this point, it is important to understand the difference between the Vital Center of the 1950's and 1960's and the Triangulation of the 1990's.
The Vital Center was born out of the New Deal. After a time of extreme instability in this nation, and in fact the world, the liberal policies of FDR and the results of WWII helped to lift this country. However, rather than continuing along this liberal path and creating a division that would have threatened the stability finally reached, the move towards a Vital Center ensured balance.
This balance existed until the mid 1960's. The Great Society programs of LBJ marked the apex of American liberalism, which by definition meant that such an ideology could only go downhill after that.
By moving too left, too fast the Great Society, run by the New Left thinkers who believed the Vital Center moved too slow, created an environment that lead to strict division along ideological lines... an environment that led to the rise of the neo-conservatives... an environment that is largely responsible for the "culture gap" and polarization we now have today.
Admittedly, a political ideology based upon balance and moderation has a difficult time dealing with social movements, such as civil rights, that call for immediate and revolutionary change. However, as Malcolm Gladwell demonstrates in his book The Tipping Point, good leadership is often understanding that small changes can have revolutionary effects.
This was in essence the heart of the Vital Center mentality. By raising the minimum wage, creating a fair work environment, desegregating schools, working with Southern businessmen to show them the economic benefit of integration, the centrism of JFK (to some extent Eisenhower) attempted to keep stability while bringing about change.
It is nearly impossible in hindsight to argue what may have been. In dealing with social revolutions the center had a difficult time understanding the necessity of moving more to the left. The New Deal was actually a prime example of the center moving left when the circumstances absolutely demanded it, and then recentering in order to maintain stability and balance.
The problem with the Great Society is that it was run by ideologues from the New Left who had no intention of ever recentering and by creating a liberal movement spawned a neo-conservative one in response that has led to sharp polarization and the difficult political environment we all must traverse today.
The Vital Center was policy based centrism while Triangulation was rhetorically based. In short, Clinton's "New Democrat" was not much more than political positioning, that although represented a brief glimmer of hope for the restoration of centrism, collapsed mainly as a result of his ineffective policy and of course, other extra-curricular activities.
As with any political ideology there will always be differing views. While some see centrism as a blend of right and left that brings balance to the political landscape, others may view it as a feeble attempt to be all things to all people. In this point, it is important to understand the difference between the Vital Center of the 1950's and 1960's and the Triangulation of the 1990's.
The Vital Center was born out of the New Deal. After a time of extreme instability in this nation, and in fact the world, the liberal policies of FDR and the results of WWII helped to lift this country. However, rather than continuing along this liberal path and creating a division that would have threatened the stability finally reached, the move towards a Vital Center ensured balance.
This balance existed until the mid 1960's. The Great Society programs of LBJ marked the apex of American liberalism, which by definition meant that such an ideology could only go downhill after that.
By moving too left, too fast the Great Society, run by the New Left thinkers who believed the Vital Center moved too slow, created an environment that lead to strict division along ideological lines... an environment that led to the rise of the neo-conservatives... an environment that is largely responsible for the "culture gap" and polarization we now have today.
Admittedly, a political ideology based upon balance and moderation has a difficult time dealing with social movements, such as civil rights, that call for immediate and revolutionary change. However, as Malcolm Gladwell demonstrates in his book The Tipping Point, good leadership is often understanding that small changes can have revolutionary effects.
This was in essence the heart of the Vital Center mentality. By raising the minimum wage, creating a fair work environment, desegregating schools, working with Southern businessmen to show them the economic benefit of integration, the centrism of JFK (to some extent Eisenhower) attempted to keep stability while bringing about change.
It is nearly impossible in hindsight to argue what may have been. In dealing with social revolutions the center had a difficult time understanding the necessity of moving more to the left. The New Deal was actually a prime example of the center moving left when the circumstances absolutely demanded it, and then recentering in order to maintain stability and balance.
The problem with the Great Society is that it was run by ideologues from the New Left who had no intention of ever recentering and by creating a liberal movement spawned a neo-conservative one in response that has led to sharp polarization and the difficult political environment we all must traverse today.
The Vital Center was policy based centrism while Triangulation was rhetorically based. In short, Clinton's "New Democrat" was not much more than political positioning, that although represented a brief glimmer of hope for the restoration of centrism, collapsed mainly as a result of his ineffective policy and of course, other extra-curricular activities.
1 Comments:
The problem with centrist politics is that its hard to get people excited them. There is no 'conflict'- no black and white areas to argue and isolate people with. Therefore, people are more apathetic towards being centrist. I think it would take a mass revolt of moderate dems & reps that would want to create a powerful third party in order for a moderate/centrist party to be born. Now that would be interesting!
By Justin, at 11:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home