GregsOpinion.com

Author John Avlon has made a significant contribution to the ranks of literature covering the middle of ideological thought. I wish, however, I could say this is a competitive field. Despite a handful of books hitting the shelves of bookstores recently, few have given any coherent type of vision of what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. defined as the "vital center" in 1949. Yet with such a great collection of individual political histories that demonstrate a coherence and unity of mainstream political thought from the middle, Avlon overreaches on one critical element that many of the more recent writers committ to even more ... an attempt to define a centrist platform.

What is evident throughout the collection of histories that range in time from Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose campaign to the 2000 election between two moderates competing over the very middle itself is that the middle is movable.Where Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt saw the need to steer the government into a more protective role to serve as a counterweight to big business, more recent efforts have sought to balance competing demands between fiscal conservatism, a disdain for raising taxes, and a desire to do more with less at various government levels. Various moderate campaigns have sought to adapt elements of the opposing political party (Eisenhower) or to redefine the party of one's choosing, in an effort to reframe the debate (Moynihan, Clinton, Bush). Avlon even covers those who have rejected (or been rejected by) the two parties and run as pure independents.

The similarities in these histories is that each involves a case of actively defining one's political outlook so as to position ones self in the middle. Avlon does not seem to note this tendency enough, I think. The need for this is critical for centrist candidates. In order to escape the caricatured view that exists of the party one is running to represent, the value of defining one's candidacy and ideology is at a premium. Without such a definition, one is left to be defined by the letter next to their name and the inherent strength is denotes on election day.

While seemingly a shortcoming, it should not take away from the impressive collection of well-written histories. Of note ....

Gov. Buddy Roemer - Admittedly, seeing a chapter on this was a draw for me, personally. Stated bluntly, Buddy Roemer was (is?) my type of reformer. Roemer, of course, ran right in the belly of the beast, tackling corruption and cronyism in Louisiana state politics. His initial campaign was one to marvel at for the directness in which Roemer critiqued the state of Louisiana politics, replete with the image of Roemer sitting on a stool in a bare television setting, riffing his thoughts into the camera, noting "I love Louisiana, but I hate Louisiana politics." Taking on the dragon of Louisiana corruption himself, Edwin Edwards, Roemer had the ideal target. In noting that he would endorse anybody who was running against Edwards in a runoff (were Roemer not to make the cutoff - something he was in danger of as late as the very late debate in which he made the statement), Roemer ran as a pure reformer. In the end, he would lead the initial voting with a plurality, but not a majority. Instead of facing Roemer in a sure loss, Edwards opted out and ceded the race, handing the keys to the Governor's mansion to Roemer.

Somewhere along the way, reality set in as the status quo of Louisiana politics became a bit too overwhelming for Roemer to fully tackle. Likewise, unreality set in as Roemer endured a midlife crisis with a divorce and new age self-help guru advising Roemer right from the Governor's mansion. By the time Roemer stood for re-election, he would also switch from Democrat to Republican, taking leave of whatever Democratic support he had left, but gaining nothing from Louisiana Republicans who felt Roemer did nothing to communicate with them. Isolated, Roemer faced a squeeze in his next election. Edwin Edwards to the left, and David Duke to the right. With the extremes energized, it would be those two who faced off in a runoff ... offing Roemer in the process.

The tale is inconclusive in how it tells a tale of a successful centrist campaign. Roemer's first win statewide was not with a majority (although Avlon leaves out Roemer's total, vague memory pegs it around 30%). His administration was a series of hits and misses, as the very reform that Roemer sought made enemies within the business community. This would lead to one impassioned opponent to spend a million or so dollars buying every remaining open slot of TV ad time late in the second campaign to prevent Roemer from hitting the airwaves in order to pull into the runoff. He would end up trailing Duke 30% to 26.9% and having to laboriously note that he advocated a vote for Edwards, while not endorsing him personally.

Pres. Bill Clinton - There's not a lot unknown on Clinton's 1992 campaign that ended up leading Democrats out of the wildnerness. Avlon begins with a retelling of Clinton's initial campaign foray at the DLC's Cleveland convention, noting "It is difficult to remember how revolutionary those words sounded" in describing Clinton's manifesto of responsibility, opportunity and community. The sad thing is, there seems to be more than a few willing to forget how effective the message was in rebuilding the Democratic party to the status today's 50-50 electorate. Once more, the candidate defines himself aggressively, assertively, and with certainty. Being a moderate need not mean being unsure of oneself. While most candidates (yes, even Bush) will leave just enough wiggle room in their comments, and Clinton certainly seemed to raise this to an artform, I emphasize the primary message of the campaign in this instance (and likely most others, too). Candidates of all striped will leave their foot in their mouth or trip over their tongue in responding to a question or offering an unscripted response. While not discounting the importance of those comments, how one defines themself at the fundamental point of giving both the critique of the other side and stating one's own outlook is viewed separately in noting that centrists need not merely hide behind saying "me too" in order to fit into a 50%+1 model of winning elections.

Gov. Earl Warren - An interesting tale, to say the least. Warren won the primary for both parties in his campaign for Governor of California. Warren's brand of centrism seems almost as if to model a pseudo-Unitarian "all of the above" approach to politics in that he was primarily a Republican, but adapted to the New Deal era and had benefit of running against far left candidates in the Democratic primary while holding onto just enough Republican support despite notable opposition to his politics. While I think Warren's brand of centrism is one that may not apply to today as well as many other candidate histories in the book, it is at least an historical curiosity worth reading.

Sen. Patrick Moynihan - Where the Roemer chapter had my interest perked to full attention, this one closed the sale for me. While Roemer's tale is one that does not leave a happy ending, Moynihan at least offers success in the political realm ... and in the rocky terrain of New York politics at that. The chapter covers his initial campaign against Bella Abzug in 1976 as its focal point. From the Democratic side, this is a must-read chapter. Sadly, Moynihan's critique of Abzug reads all to much like the basis of a good critique that modern Democrats should heed for challenges to the energized (and often loony) left emerging in our own ranks.

As far back as 1967, in a speech that would be delivered a mere 2 months before my own birth (coincidence?), Moynihan would offer a speech to the board of Americans for Democratic Action in which he offers the following points, as offered by Avlon:

1. Liberals must see more clearly that their essential interest is in the stability of the social order; and that, given the present threats to that stability, they must seek out and make much more effective alliances with political Conservatives who share their interest and recognize that unyielding rigidity is just as great a threat to continuity of the social order as an anarchic desire for change.

2. Liberals must divest themselves of the notion that the nation - and especially the cities of the nation - can be run from agencies in Washington.

3. Liberals must somehow overcome the curious condescension that takes the form of defending and explaining away anything, however outrageous, which Negroes, individually or collectively might do.

While the speech's context was within the social unrest at teh time, the fundamental aspects made then stand as true today. Moynihan's 1976 campaign, as he seemed to note ... was to save liberalism from its excesses. Abzug, in turn, seemed intent to make the campaign turn on the issue of which candidate was the "real" Democrat. In words that clearly sum up my own belief, Avlon quotes Moynihan in a campaign speech, railing against hijackers of liberalism:

"Much lip service is given by persons of this poltical persuasion to teh idea of improving and refomring things, but in practice, more often then not, they show no interest in the kind of incremental improvement taht the traditional liberalim of the Democratic party has always sought and always fought for."

My kingdom for more candidates who steal that quote from Moynihan.

Govs. Weicker (CT), Ventura (MN), King (ME) - This tale of three independent candidates may give some ray of hope for other candidates running as independents. But look more closely, and any ray of hope will seem more like a train light headed their way. Each of these three successful candidates had more than a capital "I' next to their name when election day rolled around. Lowell Weicker had years of service as a Senator, elected statewide until being offed by yet another of my faves: Joe Lieberman. Jesse Ventura, as many might have heard, had some sort of quasi-sports related career going before trading that for a job as small town mayor and Reform candidate for Governor. Angus King was a popular radio talk show host in Maine before figuring out what to do after his time with the failed Paul Tsongas campaign had come to an end. In short, each of the three had some sort of name recognition to trade on that aided their candidacy. Each is a great story in its own right, but each should offer little hope for future independent candidates without such similar currency.

As stated, the histories are the strong point for this book. Avlon attempts to define a course for moderate politicians: pro-choice, pro-environment, reasonable gun control, school prayer, campaign finance reform, tax simplification, bilingual education reform, and tort reform. Avlon concludes that an "overdue realignment" is in order, just waiting to happen. I'll disagree. No such realignment need happen where agreement already exists. When the two parties fail to encompass many of the areas Avlon notes, moderate voters are often left to make false choices (anyone here in Houston recall the 2001 mayoral runoff election?). When a candidate defines himself in the realm of this middle ground, the alignment is already in place (anyone here in Houston recall the 2003 mayoral runoff election?) - ripe for the taking. It is up to the candidate to best define himself within this mainstream agenda, first by keeping in mind that the salient issues that define this group of voters changes and the risk of missing the definition is one that is easy to make (personally, I think Avlon misses the point with bilingual education ... is this REALLY an issue that a large number of people are so concerned with?). Secondly, it is up to the candidate to state this case, often without party support, often running against intraparty challenges that attack the legitimacy of this agenda within the party context, and and often without the built-in constituencies of support that frequently go along with traditional party candidates. To define the vital center, one must put it into the context of their party (see "Moynihan, Senator Daniel Patrick") and challenge the status quo within the rank and file (see "Clinton, President William Jefferson" and "Bush, President George W."). How that message is delivered and received are separate concerns worth addressing, but I'll leave that for another day & time