Centrism, with a Bonus on Mendacity

Following up on yesterday's post, here's Krugman today making a similar point about the center as it relates to Paul Ryan.  Basically the point is that Ryan is seen by squishy centrists as one of the "reasonable" ones even though his policy proposals are breathtakingly radical not to mention completely unworkable (balancing budgets through magic asterisks, like saying he'll make up for the huge reduction in tax rates by closing unspecified loopholes in the tax code).

Why is Ryan seen this way when he's as radical as anyone on the Right?  Well, I think it's mostly a matter of style.  Romney benefits from this too- they're just not firebreathing personalities, a la Gingrich or Michele Bachman or Lindsay Graham.  I can understand why people look at them that way- they just seem nicer and more reasonable than the "radicals".

And they probably are nicer.  My guess is that Paul Ryan is calmer kinder than Newt Gingrich.  He's probably a good father, he probably doesn't cheat on his wife.  But his policies are unquestionably as radical as anything that Sarah Pailin stands for.  Pundits need to be smart enough to understand the difference between style and substance.  Paul Ryan is not a centrist.

As an extra bonus today, this compendium of lies by Mitt Romney in just one week is amazing.  His mendacity is just breathtaking in its scope.  Democrats have got to take him to task on this issue- after all, Al Gore was targeted by Republicans as a liar based on practically nothing outside of association with Bill Clinton.  But what's needed, of course, is for this meme to take hold outside of the world of MSNBC and Daily Kos.  If we had a press that wasn't completely cowed by right wingers attacking it for left wing bias, we might get that- I'm not optimistic.

False Equivalency Watch

It's always good to wake up in the morning with some politics to really get the blood boiling.  Today I was watching Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, and there was a woman on the show from one of these "budget responsibility" centers (I didn't catch the name of the woman or the organization, and it's not up on the web yet).  They were talking about the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as ObamaCare.

The "responsible" woman made the point that when Republicans took over Congress they passed their tax cuts first and did nothing about the deficit, so Democrats were understandably uninterested in tackling the deficit under their watch.  And she said that the Democrats went ahead and passed health care without concern about the deficit, so Republicans understandably "didn't want to play".

At this point I was screaming at the television.  Fortunately, MSNBC has liberals on its panels to guard against these mushy centrist arguments that become Common Wisdom.  So a man named Starr, who had worked in the Clinton administration, pointed out that the ACA is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit.  He even called the previous statement "false equivalence".

So at least this morning justice was served.  But in how many other forums do these mealy-mouthed and lazy "centrists" do this?

Look, if you want to be honest and still argue from a centrist perspective, I guess you can say that the Republican party has been a terrible steward of responsible budgeting in the past, but that there is real indication that things have changed with the advent of the Tea Party.  I'm not sure I buy it, but it's really the only way to be honest and still give conservatives the benefit of the doubt.  Then, when we look at the 2008 Democratic congress and administration, one can certainly criticize the Keynesian deficit spending they initiated in the form of the Stimulus package.  But when we look at the signature big accomplishment, the ACA, it should be acknowledged that it is paid for.  Criticize the taxes that pay for it, that's fair game, but to call it "fiscally irresponsible" is dishonest.

This is the area in which the Mainstream Media fails us so badly.  And it's where "centrists" fail us too. 

Democrats in the Middle... and Getting No Credit

Great point here from the Plum Line at the Washington Post.

Calling for a third party is a quick and easy way to get yourself booked for a round of cable TV appearances. But many of those calling for a third party are refusing to reckon with an inconvenient fact: One of the two parties already occupies the approximate ideological space that these commentators themselves are describing as the dream middle ground that allegedly can only be staked out by a third party.
That party is known as the “Democratic Party,” and it alreadly holds many of the positions these commentators want a third party to espouse.

I couldn't say it better myself.  Click through to the post- lots of good examples abound.

As a liberal myself, I don't particularly like that the Democrats have become the party of the center.  I want to see a dynamic in which Democrats start at the position that tax hikes should be the primary way to handle the deficit, for example.  Then we can compromise and end up at... the current Democratic position.  Starting there just guarantees that we'll end up closer the far-right position.

Right now we have the GOP for the far Right, the Democrats for the Center, and..... nobody in the polity representing the Left.