1

Interesting thesis. Potentially puts new meaning to why there isn't much difference between the two major parties any more. They both want the "centrist" label, meaning 'maintain the status quo.' No room for bold action (however needed) on fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, etc...don't want to antagonize the 'fearful' voters.

2

What am I?

(Please don't answer that).

There are so many "centrists" that are exactly as you describe them.

However, I disagree if you feel that there cannot be a centrist philosophical position. Isn't it possible to feel that the government is a poor entity to provide help to the poor as far as programs and bureacracy, yet also feel that it can help in some way (direct contributions to local agencies)?.

I am always in the strange position of being considered liberal by conservatives and very conservative by liberals yet do not consider myself a centrist by any means.

3

Although I agree with the overall thesis--that "centrists" appeal primarily to people who have "no opinion," and thus by definition are content with the status quo--I think the article as presented above has some logical flaws.

The crucial paragraph reads, On any issue there are roughly three groups of voters: those who favor making a change in the law, those who oppose a change, and those who are either unsure or who have no opinion about what should be done. This middle “unsure” group is the key to pragmatic centrism. Since they are not motivated to have the law changed, they will be just as content to maintain the status quo. Therefore, anytime the combination of voters who oppose a change and those who are “unsure” reaches a 51% majority, the best course of action would be to do nothing. The last two lines could just as easily have read, "Since they are not motivated to keep the law as it is, they will be just as content to change it. Therefore, any time the combination of voters who support a change and those who are “unsure” reaches a 51% majority, the best course of action would be to change the law. In reality, the pragmatist would always go with whichever group (pro or con) that held the highest percentage of voters: that group plus the "undecided" voters will always produce a larger majority than the other group plus "undecided" voters. (If the "undecided" group is large enough, both positions will often produce a "majority.")

In the specific examples cited, the larger percentage of voters expressing an opinion do support the status quo (in at least the first four items). The "undecideds" may be the key in creating a "majority" for the status quo, but it is the tendency for people who express a preference to favor the status quo that makes it the safer political alternative in most cases. It should also be noted that in the fifth example, that of the death penalty, it is assumed that the respondents live in an area that does practice the death penalty; I'm not sure that that is the status quo for a majority of Americans.

4

While I don't disagree with your hypothesis, you cannot base it on survey questions. There is a good column in today's Wall St. Journal about how the wording of the question will influence the result (requires paid subscription). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113925243593866303.html?mod=home_us_inside_today

For example, if you take the question, "Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea?" you could obtain very different results with these two alternative wordings:

"Do you think allowing individuals to risk a portion of their Social Security taxes on the stock market is a good idea or a bad idea?"

OR

"Do you think allowing individuals to control a portion of their own personal Social Security account is a good idea or a bad idea?"

What do you want the answer to be?

Further, while centrists may favor inertia and fear change, if you provide them with additional information the answer could change.

"Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea? Before you answer, you should know that economists predict that the current system will be insolvent in the year 20XX unless we make some changes."

In other words, apathy and not being informed contribute to the centrist = inertia position.

Finally, my only quibble is your inclusion of "unsure" as an implicit endorsement of the current course. For the tax policy question, for example, I interpret 12% unsure as meaning that they really are unsure because they do not have enough information or they don't understand the tax system.

5

This is a very good article you have written.

Like many of your posts, it is thought-provoking and not a little counter-intuitive. Unlike many of your posts, I find myself agreeing with your conclusions!

I have a follow-up question from your previous piece: Did you look at all twelve of the cartoons (or at any of the cartoons) before writing your post yesterday?

6

Math check on the capital punishment!! (or typing error).

I find it shocking that only 25% want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Coming from the state that ousted Tom Daschle, and simultaneously elected a pro choice candidate for House, I am baffled as to what a politician needs to do to get or stay elected.

7

The Roe v. Wade survey puzzled me, too. The only possible explanation is from the Wall St. Journal article I cited:
---

... there are some issues for which the wording of polling questions may not have much impact. Dr. Jones cites a poll last July in which Gallup split up participants into two groups. One was given an explanation of Roe v. Wade and asked if they would like to see the Supreme Court "completely overturn" the decision. The other group was asked, simply, "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" The results in both groups were virtually identical -- a two-to-one margin against overturning the decision.

Part of the problem is that survey respondents are eager to seem helpful, even if it means claiming an opinion they don't hold firmly. Dr. Jones noted that some experimental surveys have asked respondents about a nonexistent policy with a fictional name, and found that many people offered opinions. "They want to give you what you're asking for, which is an opinion, even if they haven't thought about it," Dr. Jones says.

8

As you seem to note in passing, it sometimes happens that the largest committed group is in favor of change, not stasis. In this case, lumping them with the "unsure center" would produce a majority favoring change.

So your politician's optimal strategy, if the goal is to satisfy the largest number of constituents on every issue, is to vote for the policy favored by the largest group (duh!), not necessarily just the policy of stasis. Even if the largest group favors stasis most of the time, they do not do so all the time, so a status quo policy is not 100% optimal - but a policy of "shouting with the largest mob" is optimal 100% of the time (or at least never leaves you on the small side of the issue).

This assumes that the unsure center will accept the larger group's preference no matter what it is. By your logic, while it is true that they are not motivated to change and will therefore accept the status quo, they are equally unsure about the status quo and therefore can be expected to accept change. Possibly there is an inertia problem that leaves them slightly favoring stasis over change, but in that case you just change my advice to something like "vote for the largest group if it has at least a 5% advantage over the smaller".

In any event, the point is that "status quo" is not, inherently, a necessarily successful political strategy - merely one that happens to correspond frequently with the true favored strategy, which is to vote for the most-popular policy.

And, finally, while that is likely to be a reasonably effective strategy for staying in office (and thus a popular one for politicians whose interest in government extends only to maintaining their own perks as an officeholder), not all politicians make that their aim. The ones who intend to actually get something done are still likely to go out on a limb.

9

Kevin T. Keith,

Good points, but Joe's points still stand.

He never said his conclusions were set in stone anyway -- he actually said they were debatable. And I'm sure he agrees with you that politicians need to go out on a limb and lead. Otherwise, what's the point of political power?

Joe,

I see you've responded in the other comment thread, so I will get back to you there.

10

Bob Finally, my only quibble is your inclusion of "unsure" as an implicit endorsement of the current course. For the tax policy question, for example, I interpret 12% unsure as meaning that they really are unsure because they do not have enough information or they don't understand the tax system.

While I could be wrong, it has been my experience that uncertainty induces a form of decisional paralysis. In the absence of a clear reason to change, most people prefer to simply do nothing.

I certainly don’t buy the argument (made, for example, by Kevin) that people who are “unsure” are as likely to support change as not. This just doesn’t appear to be in accord with how people really behave. Anyone have examples that would prove me wrong on this point?

11

The infallibility of the particular polls is irrelevant to whether the thesis is insightful. The poll that counts is the election.

The point is that politicians aiming for the center will be do nothing representatives but candidates strongly embracing an ideology will be defeated by alienating a majority of voters. Centrists also fail to ignite rage in opposing voters where an ideologue would have swarms of "anybody but him (or her)" voters, such as the last election (on both sides).

Politicians such as Sen. Dole can fail to win but others, such as George McGovern or Barry Goldwater, can lose.

12

Brad: The infallibility of the particular polls is irrelevant to whether the thesis is insightful. The poll that counts is the election.

Brad,

I have to disagree. Any slacker can respond to a poll as long as they answer the phone. With an election, however, you have to be registered to vote and then you actually have to go out and vote. Therefore, I suggest that complacent centrists are not motivated to vote, and an election does not necessarily accurately measure the desires of the masses. The election measures the opinion of those who are motivated enough to vote.

13

...on almost any major political issue that requires legislative action, the best course to take is to do nothing.

Joe,

What if the majority is wrong in what is in the best long-term interests of the country?

As late as December 1940 (6 months after the fall of France), Americans were strongly isolationist. 90% of the public wanted no part in WWII. Congress had passed laws prohibiting the US from giving material aid to any combatant nation.

FDR ignored all of this to give illegal aid to the Allies and save Britain. Was he wrong?

14

Joe - I was a bit amused to see your surprise at discovering that "centrists are statists".

I was reminded at some of the more humorous - yet breathless - "Mr. Obvious" headlines from the past:

If strike isn't settled quickly it may last a while
War dims hope for peace
Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency
Cold wave linked to temperatures
Child's death ruins couple's holiday
Blind woman gets new kidney from dad she hasn't seen in years
Man is fatally slain
Something went wrong in jet crash, experts say
Death causes loneliness, feeling of isolation

15

Bob

Elections do matter. If a voter stays home because of apathy that means something. It means that his opinion is not important enough to himself to be counted. If HE cares so little of his opinion why should WE care? An opinion so lightly held is an opinion thinly supported.

As to the discusion at hand, it's the votes that candidates seek, not soft support from stay-at-home phone pundits. Don't get me wrong, parties work very hard to get out their vote and an apathetic vote is still a vote. At a nuts 'n boltls level a party cares little for ideology; it cares about electing politicians. politicians that are on the extremes of ideology drive up negative support as well as energize true believers. In the end, true believers (like me) will vote anyway and will likely vote the party they live in historically. This is not completely illogical as a winning party brings more to the office than the elected candidate. But, in the end, strong positions make for strong negatives that must be overcome by getting out the mildly apathetic voters.

A candidate that has large negatives has a huge obstacal to overcome. The last election saw a huge turnout, but, even then was only (I forget exactly) in the 60% range. That turnout was driven heavily by negatives on both sides. The outcome was, however, decided by voters, not desires of the masses and it's winning the vote that will drive the issues and the candidates, not the useless hope of winning the temporary desires of the masses.

16

Is it possible for one who believes only in the soteriology of Calvin to be saved?

17

First, your point on the behavior of a legistlator refraining from votes. In many governmental and legislative bodies, the rules of operation are such that a member is duty-bound to vote unless they have a convincing reason to be recused. This applies to smaller, local bodies more so than legislative bodies; but there is an understanding that votes should be cast. If they simply didn't vote - there would be no reason for them to be there (which may go to prove your point)

Second, the fundamental job of representative leadership is to be attuned to facts and the need for change. Many times, government should not be involved in the change; and most of the time, it should not be exlusively so. However, convincing the masses of what change would mean and laying out a vision of what that would look like is an area where our elected officials spend little capital.

18

I think this is an excellent article; however, I believe it poses a problem.

You conclude that if a majority of Americans are not for a particular plan, then they favor the status quo, but this is not necessarily the case.

If a poll asks whether Social Security ought to be reformed in order to preserve benefits for future genetarions AND a majority of Americans believe that Social Security ought to be reformed, then we know that the majority of Americans are not happy with the status quo.

Now using your models from above, you can see that a majority would not favor a personal investment plan as part of their social security and from this you conclude that a majority of americans favor no change. This is erroneous. All it shows is that a majority does not favor THAT particular change.

You can have a majority that wants change AND differs on what is the best strategy. Just because they differ on the strategy does not mean they are opposed to change.

Also, once a change has been implemented, it would be safe to assume that the undecided would be happy with the change since they 'always wish to preserve the status quo'. Once the new strategy has been implemented it becomes the status quo.

I really like the thought put into this article, but I don't believe you nailed it squarely on the head.

19

Whatever Broder says or thinks (and thanks, Joe, for the post and the link to B at WaPo), Russell Kirk maintained that conservatives prefer coping with the evils that are known in a society, dealing with them incrementally and graudally, rather than reaching for untested supposed changes that usually introduce even worse problems than those at hand. Bainbridge had some stuff on this recently, 1.) James G. Wilson's article Justice Diffused: A Comparison of Edmund Burke's Conservatism with the Views of Five Conservative, Academic Judges - 40 U. Miami L. Rev. 913 (1986) (Westlaw sub. req'd); and 2.) Ernest Young's article Rediscovering Conservatism: Burkean Political Theory and Constitutional Interpretation - 72 N.C. L. Rev. 619 (1994) (same).

He then sends us to this list of Kirk's six principles of conservatism from this source: Six principles of conservative mind by Russell Kirk in a 1001 symposium edited by: Ashford & Stephen Davies, A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought (Routledge London, New York 1991, ISBN 0-415-00302-4):

1. belief in a transcendent moral order, based on divine intent or natural law

2. social continuity, with value given to the gradualness of change 3. prescription, faith in tradition and a consciousness of the limits of reason 4. prudence, a recognition of the complexity and fragility of society and the disastrous consequences of seeking to construct society anew

5. variety, a respect and appreciation for the differences in men and societies and a deep distrust of the uniformity of equality

6. imperfectability, the acceptance that the imperfect nature of man necessarily leads to an imperfect society and so the impossibility of utopia on earth .