Goldilocks searched for middle ground– her porridge had to be not too hot, not too cold, just right.  Her bed had to be not too hard, not too soft, just right.

Many people feel exactly the same way about their politics.  They are sick of the extremes.  Apparently some of the people who have joined a new group called the NO Label group feel the same way.

According to the Washington Post:

When the porridge is either too hot or too cold, the moment for something in between is ripe. More Americans now self-identify as independent rather than Republican or Democrat, even though they may be forced by a lack of alternatives to vote in traditional ways.

But what if there were an alternative? There’s little appealing about either party dominated by a base that bears little resemblance to who we are as a nation or the way most of us live our lives.

Yet moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans alike have been banished. Purged, really. Some of them have landed in the No Labels camp.

Closer inspection tells more about the No Labels: 

In a political culture where moderation is the new heresy, centrism is fast becoming the new black.

Political outliers – not quite Republican, not quite Democrat – are forming new alliances in a communal search for “Home.” Exhausted by extremism and aching for real change, more and more Americans are moving away from demagoguery and toward pragmatism.

Soon they may have options. A new political group, No Labels ( www.nolabels.org), is hoping to mobilize and support a centrist political movement. Led by Republican strategist Mark McKinnon and Democratic fundraiser Nancy Jacobson, the organization has raised more than $1 million so far – and the formal launch isn’t until next month. Backers include Andrew Tisch, co-chair of Loews Corp.; Ron Shaich, founder of Panera Bread; and Dave Morin, a former Facebook executive.

The group hopes to attract politicians who feel that they’ve lost elections for being too moderate and voters who feel homeless. There are plenty of each.

At this point, it seems remote that a centrist party could succeed.  On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who just aren’t satisfied with what the Democrats or the Republicans have to offer.  Many folks are tired of gridlock and their representatives voting along party lines, refusing to compromise in the interest of national improvement.  Voters are tired of being mired in social issues of extremists, whether the issues are Family, Faith and Flag or God, Guns and Guts, or saving minnows.  Voters want their government to deal with things that affect their everyday lives. 

Is it possible for third parties to begin to dominate the political horizon?  Can the old Republican and Democratic parties be replaced by far right groups like the various tea party movements and the No Labels movement?  There are some interesting concepts to explore. 

 

19 Thoughts to “The Goldilocks Syndrome: Can a Centrist Movement Succeed?”

  1. marinm

    Wasn’t that the purpose of the Coffee Party?

    1. @Marin, I wondered that myself as I wrote that post. I am not sure. Perhaps they will join up. Perhaps all these movements will become more defined now the mid-terms have come and gone.

  2. I don’t think the Tea Party movement was considered centrist.

  3. Cato the Elder

    No, because the moment you have a quasi successful centrist movement it’s going to be infiltrated and slowly taken over by the professional elements of the right or the left.

    Eric Hoffer said it best: “Up to now, America has not been a good milieu for the rise of a mass movement. What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.” (frequently misquoted as “every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”)

  4. Juturna

    Before a third party will be sucessful it will require a strong philosophy – being against x,y or z isn’t sustainable. I wonder if Glenn Beck ( hue and cry) and his downsizing efforts isn’t just the right path. Greed, both money and power has become the intended outcome in this nation. Capitalism works – with the right people with the right motivation.

    Recently the Supreme Court heard a small case regarding a complaint that wholesale clubs were buying watches which had been sold abroad by US companies at a lower price than what the companies were sellilng them for in the US. However, the same companies were outsourcing the manufacturing of those watches to foreign business. Reading the following infamous passage from “Wealth of Nations” considering the above, I see a gap.

    Yesterday was support small business day – if I don’t need as much anymore then I will carefully select what I buy and from whom.

    From “Wealth of Nations”
    . every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society, as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is pro-rooting it . . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Smith, p. 423)

    On a much lighter note, I do think a solid name for a party other than Tea, Coffee or No-something might be helpful.

  5. Emma

    At least the TEA party made sense as both an acronym and an historical reference. The Coffee Party? I’m sure Starbucks was grateful for the extra business generated by the organizational meetings.

  6. Historical reference might be a stretch but acronym, I will hand you.

  7. marinm

    @Juturna, do you remember the case name? I’d like to read it.

    MH, I don’t really want the TEA party to become ‘more’ centrist. I really want it to remain the way it is… pro small government and pro individuals. I’d rather people move towards what the TEA party considers it’s central platform. 🙂

    If more people come to the pro-gun rally at the Virginia General Assembly during Lobby Day than the national conference of the Coffee Party – the idea that a ‘group’ will come to take up a centrist plank will not work.

  8. Juturna

    It was recent – three weeks ago. My brother was there and told me about it. I’ll try to find out.

  9. Juturna

    Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A. argued 11/8. Easier than I thought. Enjoy. If I were retired, I’d spend some time in line to attend. I understand the courtroom is quite small and if attending, you are very close to the judges.

  10. marinm

    @Juturna

    That case gives me a headache. Very technical arguement based on copyright laws.. Ugh.

    Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States and Flores-Villar v. United States look jucier to me as they have more drama. 🙂

  11. Juturna

    Yes, very dry but the issues are key to our new form of capitalism….

  12. I’d like to abolish parties all together.

    If there WERE to be a centrist party, I wouldn’t join it even though I am an independent moderate. As soon as you get into a party mentality, group think takes over and everyone loses his/her mind.

  13. So, the key question is: Who defines that center?

    My center, apparently, is not your center. Media supported ideas of “center” are liberal. McCain is described as a “centrist” yet there are NO conservative bills from him; only more government growth.

    So does “centrist” mean that those supporting a “centrist” party want MORE government control?

    Since a centrist movement has no border, one cannot base a party on it. The center is always relative to the observer. Pelosi believes that Bush was far right. I think that Bush was the closest thing you can get to be a centrist in the US.

    Conservatives won’t vote for that mythical center anymore. It leads to greater government growth and involvement it private lives, only more slowly than the progressives want. The DC crowd, because they believe that “I’m with the government. I’m here to help you.” is not a punchline, have fallen for the premise that the growth of government is not a bad thing, that any reduction is bad. And too many believe that the Constitution is a quaint, outdated document that can be ignored.

  14. Marin, the tea party is the tea party. It would not be if it were more centrist.

    Many of us are very uncomfortable with some of the tea party ideas.

    Many of us don’t dislike limited restrictions on gun ownership and use.

    I suppose that is why we are centrists.

  15. marinm

    Which reinforces Cargo’s point.

    You pull one way. We the other. If we can get more people on our side than on yours, we win. If we don’t, we lose.

    There will never be a centrist party.

  16. See, perfect example. Because I believe the the TEA Party movement IS a centrist movement. It dislikes the progressives and does not promote the conservative social agenda.

    Smaller government means just that. The government will not be able to enforce a social agenda or monetary agenda for either end of the political spectrum.

  17. Cargo, I have to disagree with you about promoting social agenda. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, all who are associated with the Tea Party, rightly or wrongly, promote a conservative social agenda.

    And that is what I have against the Tea Party.

  18. They promote conservative social ideals. Sarah Palin, even as governor, did not try to outlaw abortion or even try to change the laws in any ways. The others are pro-life. But none advocated overturning “settled law.” They just decry the easy and casual use of abortion today.

Comments are closed.