shotbanner.jpeg

November 11, 2005

Do You Know The Way To Center?

I'm involved - mostly as a bemused lurker - in a Saint Paul Politics email discussion group. Now, from my perspective - as a Republican in a largely moderate-DFL city with a large, overly-influential radical element that thinks Paul Wellstone is center, it's not a surprise that I am far to the right of the norm in this forum. The forum, mostly DFL and leftist party activists, is somewhere to the left of Chris Coleman, and much of it embraced the Green Party candidacy of Elizabeth Dickinson. A large number of participants think the Pioneer Press is "too conservative"; a smaller number think the same of the Strib, although there is a greater sense of comfort with the Strib among the participants.

Now, it's true - from Sacramento, Boise is way east. And in the Saint Paul Politics forum, I'm a fire-breathing right-winger (although to some of the members any dissent from the right is too much. The discussion was about Mark Yost, by the way, although from the spittle-flecked tone you'd think I'd advocated executing abortionists; these are your neighbors, people!).

Tantrums from entitlement-surfers aside, though, the discussion brings up an interesting question: What is the center these days?

Before the '04 election, at least one study suggested that in terms of general attitudes of the electorate, center-right outlets like Fox News, Drudge and the more-mainstream talk radio (Limbaugh, Hewitt, Medved, Hannity) were closer to the "center" than, say, CBS or NPR (I can't find the reference, but it doesn't matter that much just now).

The question - which Dennis Prager asked his audience yesterday - is an interesting one; what is the "Center" in America today? Is it a mean - the place where everyone's position averages out by sheer weight of numbers? Or is it a median, the midpoint between International ANSWER and Michael Savage?

Neither, of course, and such a calculation would be meaningless, because for every person there are shades of gray between the poles on each issue (except for the woman I link to above, for whom politics would seem to be a black and white, good vs. evil issue - but I digress).

So here's my question: For each of the following issues, write in my comment section where you think "the center" is. I'll list the issues, and then I'll write my opinions (and, largely for my own edification, where I think i fall from the greater American "center", wherever that is).

  • Gay Marriage
  • Gun Control
  • Iraq
  • The War on Terror, at Home
  • School Choice and Vouchers
  • Abortion
  • Taxes
  • Campaign Finance Reform
  • School prayer
OK, take it away.

My take follows:

Mitch and the Center).

  • Gay Marriage - I think this is one of those issues where most of middle-america knows what they believe - marriage is for men and women - but it's not a big deal, either. I suspect "the center" supports civil unions for purposes of equal protection. I think I actually am the center on this issue.
  • Gun Control - On this issue, the train has left the station. I suspect "the center" varies in their opinions about firearms as implements - but mostly agrees that the law-abiding citizen is plenty responsible enough, and that gun bans are ineffective at best.
  • Iraq - I think "the center" is eminently sober in its appraisal of Iraq. 2,000 is a lot of people killed in action (at least by modern American standards); I think they also realize that we've accomplished a lot.
  • The War on Terror, at Home - Good question. No idea, here. I suspect it's an issue that polarizes the left and right, and leaves most of the center more or less unmoved. I am personally more libertarian that some on the right,.
  • School Choice and Vouchers - To paraphase a quote I don't entirely remember; the greatest success of the advocates of compulsory education and the factory school system is that nobody can imagine teaching kids any other way. I think the "Center" believes the current system is troubled but fixable. I am obviously far to the right of cetner.
  • Abortion - I suspect "the center" finds the idea distasteful, and doesn't accept that a fetus isn't human until it is born, but is unwilling to ban the procedure for a variety of reasons. I'm obviously somewhat to the right of this.
  • Taxes - No idea. Americans like to keep their money, but spend other peoples'. I'm obviously to the right of center.
  • Campaign Finance Reform - I think "the center" is phenomenally gullible on this issue, and has been convinced that "Money is bad", in and of itself. I'm obviously to the right, and horrified of that fact.
Have at it.

Posted by Mitch at November 11, 2005 12:15 PM | TrackBack
Comments

This isn't defining the center, but that forum you linked to reminds me, why are Leftys always so likely to be simmering with rage? It's just not very attractive in them.

Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2005 01:20 PM

I used to think I could convince my Lefty buddies that my views were correct.

Then I decided to try to convince them merely that my views were not insane.

Then I decided to laugh and point at their invariable reliance on wishful thinking and name-calling (with its near 100% transference rate: "You're so angry!" "Who wants to read your *rants*!")

Then I decided to ignore them.

I mean, it's not like they're going to *do* anything, y'know?

Posted by: Brian Jones at November 11, 2005 01:46 PM

Oh, sorry, non-responsive to your points.

I suspect my view of the "center" would look like my own views in most of the categories. Maybe that's human nature, or just my own nature.

There might be no real "Center." Gay Marriage? Well, once any state manages to enshrine it in their constitution, it becomes enforceable nationwide, doesn't it?

So there isn't always a "center". I believe that gay folks marrying does no real harm - there aren't that many of them, after all, and the subset that wants to marry is even smaller. But I wouldn't dream of imposing my viewpoint on the entire nation. And I think that's where the Right & Left differ the greatest.

Abortion is different in that there's no really reasonable defense of the practice, unlike gay marriage above. Again, no center, or rather I question the seriousness of any "center" position. It's like saying what's the "center" in the great tonsillectomy debate. There are some types (let's say they're on the left, just for argument's sake) who think that doctors cut too readily, and will form a reliable opposition to any "center" or "right" position. I've seen abortion compared to tonsillectomy, and the same person who did that has said I'm insane for my willingness to compare it to murder.

*What* center?

Posted by: Brian Jones at November 11, 2005 02:00 PM

If opinions on an issue can be reasonably lined up on a left-right scale, the correct definition of the center is straightforward: It is precisely that opinion which has half the voters to the right of it and half the voters to the left. It doesn't matter how far to the right or left they are. Because this is the opinion that usually is expressed by policy. (If policy expresses any other opinion, say to the left, then the right can get a majority by proposing a policy a little bit to the right of the current one. The logic obviously works in the other direction as well.)

So that's my answer: For policies determined by voting (so abortion isn't one of them), our current policy is usually the center.

Posted by: chris at November 11, 2005 02:03 PM

The center is that little yellow stripe down the middle of the road. A bad place to drive and a worse one to stand.

Posted by: Kermit at November 11, 2005 02:26 PM

Best guess at center:
Gay marriage -- civil unions fine, marriage no.
Gun control -- assault weapons bad, handguns nearly as bad, hunting weapons fine. The center has no conception of the slippery slope this could create.
Iraq -- center is stuck on WMD, believes the MSM, and is completely clueless about what will become one of the greatest liberating events (starting in Afghanistan and Iraq and spreading elsewhere) in history. The center could easily screw it up and lose the war, with long term consequences I dare not think about. It's depressing, and the administration has to prevent this... the speech today was a great start.
Abortion -- center dislikes abortion but is queezy about criminalizing it. The center greatly dislikes late term.
War on Terror at Home -- center is quick to become apathetic, but is willing to yield certain civil liberaties in exchange for the perception of security. Perhaps too willing in some cases, but in most cases they understand -- and don't hold against the administration -- "error on the side of caution" actions.
Vouchers -- Difficult to say; people who support them are either in good school districts where it's not such an issue, or in inner cities where the DFL rules and won't do anything to tick off the MEA. My guess is the center approves of vouchers, but this is one of those areas where a minority of people can influence policy.
Taxes -- center would go for a flat tax, but there are too many interests on both sides battling against it.
Campaign finance -- barely on the center's radar screen, if then only in the 'I hate all these ads' sense at election time. Folks to the left and right both think the other side is favored/advantaged under whatever system is chosen.

Posted by: chriss at November 11, 2005 03:00 PM

Gay Marriage
I think the center, if one really exists (something I doubt for this issue) would be amenable to civil unions, and some limited rights which do not involve the transfer of money (such as health benefits). Personally I'm just short of acceptance of gay marriage, there is still an enourmous *squick* factor for me. Personally, civil unions which have the legal status of marriage are fine, with no requirement for churches to recognize that status.

Gun Control
I think there is too enormous of an information gap, particularly on the left, for a centrist position to really be forgeable. Frankly, the media has failed on gun education. I also believe the NRA has demonized on this issue to the point of creating a quasi cult-like system of beliefs among gun owners: I remember gun owners quite rationally comparing gun control to Nazi Germany, and that leftists would put gun owners in concentration camps.

Personally, I would look at where the majority of illegal guns come from, and tighten up the system to control this. For example, if the vast majority are stolen guns, then I would be looking at some way to fine the previous lawful owner of a gun a token amount, say $50, if the gun is used in a crime. Just as a way of saying "You need to be responsible for what happens to your possessions". Of course most of the effort needs to go on the idiot using the gun. What I've heard when it comes to criminals is, that the consequences have far less of deterrent effect then the possibility of being caught and this means either a commensurate increase in surveilance (cameras, etc) or finding a way to make "known associates" more willing to turn in their buddies, $omething that could become expen$ive.

Iraq
I think most people think they are riding a tiger: afraid to keep going, and afraid to get off.

Personally I think we will not be free of this issue until Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all their ideologically driven coherts are removed from having any influence on this "venture". OK, question for anyone who has more than a passing interest in history: what happens when a country goes to war whose leadership is both arrogant and unprepared? Anyone remember reading about the Greeks in Sicily, or the Romans in Tutenwald forest?

So my solution to Iraq is get the ideologues out of the picture, and let the sober grownups handle it. Say, a special commission headed by McCain and Powell.

The War on Terror, at Home
Do we have a war on terror at home?

Post-Katrina, that is both my question, and I believe the center attitude as well, fortified with a crossing of fingers behind its collective backs.

School Choice and Vouchers
I don't know where the center is on this. For myself, I'm perfectly fine with school choice and a voucher system.

Abortion
I don't know where the center is. I think it might be "Safe, Legal, & Rare". Personally I'm pro-life after the first two weeks with some obvious exceptions, and abortions should be seen as a "miner's canary". Instead of eliminating abortions, eliminate the causes that compel young women to seek an abortion.

Taxes
There is too much smoke, heat, and mirror action for a center to exist on this. However, I do have a fervent hope that the financial backers and members of the Taxpayer's league discover each and every pothole, and get stuck in every traffic jam that is possible for them to run into, as they make their daily commutes. Oh, and if they have to step over a homeless family when they step out for lunch, that is fine too.

Campaign Finance Reform
Not sure where the center is on this.

I'm a bit biased here, since there's just a ghost of chance that I'm responsible for McCain-Feingold passing in the Senate.

School prayer
Anything that doesn't involve virgin sacrifices to volcano gods or magic mushrooms is fine with me. Just don't get in anyone's face.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at November 11, 2005 03:22 PM

Bill, Thought provoking comments one and all. One question: A commission run a war?? Why must the US always (post Korea, modern media age) do exactly what our enemies want us to do (question our government more than our enemies, remain divided until we finally cut and run, etc.)???
Iraq is the most incredible military success in history on so many levels, and becoming moreso every day. No other campaign as accomplished so much with so little (in relative terms, compared to any other military campaign in history) cost.
My previous post postulated the political center on Iraq. The center is wrong, and will be proven wrong by history.

Posted by: chriss at November 11, 2005 03:49 PM

Chriss: thanks for your comments, but I doubt a commission run by John McCain and Colin Powell, and others of their ilk, would "do exactly what our enemies want us to do".

I want responsible adults running this war, not arrogant fools who may or may not be profitting from it.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at November 11, 2005 03:54 PM

I think Mitch has it nailed on what would be the "Center" on just about all of those issues. That is, depending on the situation, be both for and against it, take it on a situational basis, instead of "BAN IT ALL!" or "NO BAN OF ANY SORT AT ALL"

(Interesting how the abortion debate and gun control debate are polar opposites on those two issues - extreme right to lifers want all abortion banned, and extreme gun control advocates want all guns banned)

Brian, no once any state accepts it, it doesn't have to be accepted by all the others. Civilian (non-military, non-LEO) CCW permit holders in one state don't have validity in every other state. Only in states that also have CCW laws themselves, and if those states have reciprocity agreements with other states. IF gay marriage becomes a 'per-state' issue, the gay married couple had better not leave their state for one that bans gay marriage or they will no longer be recognized as married. However, I have a feeling that most gay married people would be disgusted at the idea of moving to a red state anyway, even when MA is the only one that allows it currently. I would assume that not a single gay couple in San Fran, who would get married if they could would live anywhere other than Cali, Portland, Seattle, Miami, D.C., NYC or Boston. Well, maybe the St Paul too, now that Kelly is gone.

Posted by: Bill C at November 11, 2005 03:56 PM

(badly worded and incompletely thought phrases corrected herein)

(Interesting how the two camps in the abortion debate and gun control debate have almost polar opposite stances between the two issues. Those would would be for banning all abortion, often are also for banning all gun control. Those who want abortion legal and available to everyone who wants one, no matter what the circumstances, also usually fall into the camp that wants forceful removal of all handguns, if not all guns, period)

Brian:

If one state accepts it, no, it doesn't have to be recognized by all other states. Civilian (non-military, non-LEO) CCW permit holders in one state don't have validity in every other state. Only in states that also have CCW laws themselves, and only if those states have reciprocity agreements with other states (meaning your permit in your state is also valid in the other states, and people with permits from the other states can carry concealed in your state). Not every CCW permitted state has reciprocity with every other CCW permitted state. I don't think MN has reciprocity with ANY other state, but I could be wrong on that.

Posted by: Bill C at November 11, 2005 04:19 PM

Oh, and just to take up A LITTLE more bandwidth...

I think chriss has it nailed even closer as to what the center is in all these cases. I know his idea of what the center is, is about exactly identical to what my idea of what the center is.

Posted by: Bill C at November 11, 2005 04:25 PM

Gay Marriage --

Civil unions. Marriage is a bond between a Man and a Woman.


Gun Control --

is safe and accurate target aquisition.


Iraq --

Bad info. Nation-building. Really, really, really hate to say it, but Pat Buchannon was right.


The War on Terror, at Home --

What borders? Ignorance, stupidity, and blind PC gets what it deserves. Find terrorists and kill them.


School Choice and Vouchers --

Small schools, bought, paid and built by local dollars, and with a curriculum set by the local elected school board. Homeschooling? Lotta good, hopefully qualified people doing it.


Abortion --

When I was younger, my girlfriend had an abortion. I paid for it. I am a murderer. In God's Eyes and my own.


Taxes --

Use taxes. Yeah, I'm a libertarian.


Campaign Finance Reform --

Here in the Cowtown area, we rejected amendments 2-5. Hmmmmm, outside the ballot box how can you regulate the way and how often our leaders lie to us? Pretty much a free speech issue to me.


School prayer --

Before every test. Everybody should be free to pray. But why would I want to witness someone elses religious observances on a regular basis? You want prayer in schools, fine. But don't come 'plainin' to me when the witch next door starts an incantation class in the school basement. Outside of the occasional recitation of the Apostle's Creed I don't believe in formulaic prayer. Prayer is me talking to my Maker. Again, a free speech issue for EVERYONE.

Posted by: jackscrow at November 11, 2005 04:39 PM

Gay marraige: I think the center is at StFU (pardon my French). They don't want to muck with marriage, don't want to hear about it, just want it left as is. As to whether they support civil unions or not, all I can say is that after the Dems shoved civil unions into effect in Vermont (hardly a bastion of conservatism!) the Dems lost control of 2 of the 3 branches of government and only maintained control of one by a thin margin. Dean went from publicly supporting gay marriage to signing the civil unions bill in private to avoid publicity.

Gun control: What is non-discretionary carry at now, 70% of the states or so? I suspect people have seen exactly what government can do in protecting them and voted the controllers off the island. They'll support some restrictions, but it seems like they'd like fewer than they have now.

Iraq: I think the majority have realized that what we did was a good thing, but haven't been pleased with the management of the terrorists (they're *not* insurgents).

The WoT@Home: I think most folks, if they think about it at all, are pretty happy with it. You don't see a serious challenge to what's happened, and the attacks of the Dems on "civil liberties" grounds haven't risen to the level of wet firecrackers. The left and the right fight about tactics, the center says keep it up and keep us safe. (Speaking of @home, do your protein folding at home, too! http://folding.stanford.edu)

School choice: I think you find the center supporting it for "failing schools," however you define them. That's been approved in quite a number of states. But they're generally supportive of the system right now except when there's obvious failure (yeah, I'm far, far to the right of this center having seen the system from too close).

Abortion: From what I can tell both parties are out to lunch on this one, but the Dems farther out since they're defending based on a slippery slope argument (much as the right was defending guns the same way). I'm guessing the center is disgusted by the thought, unwilling to ban first trimester, but willing to put pretty heavy restrictions after that. I bet we'll see this one play out in the next decade.

Taxes: This one's easy: everybody who's making more than I am isn't paying enough. I'm guessing this is one of those non-issues to the "center" in that most people have had their effective tax rates reduced so much now that they don't mind income tax raises as much. But if you're talking property tax rates, well, I think people are more sensitive to those.

Campaign Finance Reform: I think the center thinks it's a good idea. I suspect that in a few years when we've seen how well it works it will go the way of gun control, to much more limited regulation. Right now McCain and company have managed to give us a system that has fewer controls and checks and balances than the old one.

School Prayer (from Bill): Given the majority do the every Sunday thing, I'll bet that the majority don't want anything institutional, but probably reject the complete ban the ACLU wants. It's likely more at the leave me and my kids alone stage.

Posted by: nerdbert at November 11, 2005 04:48 PM

I still can't imagine the idea of war by committee. As much as I admire Powell he was a driving force behind going the UN route, which doubly failed: French, German, and Russian perfidy rendered the exercise pointless, while giving Saddam time to hide money and weapons -- thus opening the US to bogus claims of faulty intel.
What people (media, electorate) don't seem to get is that we are ALL part of the war effort, against an enemy that wants us all dead. Every thing we do influences success or failure. The enemy is biding time to the day we cut and run. Every concession on our part is a success for them. What message does it send to say, "Hey, our leaders screwed up so they can't run the war any more?" Would it embolden the enemy? Just a bit.
If the UN had presented a united front there never would have been a war in Iraq (I mean battle of Iraq within the greater war).
If the US populace and media presented a more united front the enemy would be nowhere near as strong. The more the media focuses on US failings (while ignoring the true atrocities committed by our enemies), and the more the left attacks the adminstration at every turn, the longer and more deadly -- for everyone -- the war will be. And the more likely it will end in failure, with consequences too awful to contemplate.

Posted by: chriss at November 11, 2005 06:47 PM

The "center" is where Minnesota Republicans go to die.

Posted by: Marty at November 11, 2005 11:05 PM

The so-called "center" is a very elusive place. I should know - I'm a centrist and therefore end up being at odds with almost everyone at one time or another. The American Center is made up of people who are willing to listen to and consider arguments on both sides. And who concede that there are good ideas to be had from both ends of the spectrum, but serious debate and reality checks must trump ideological conviction.

In the US, the perspective on the Left is that big corporations and business interests are evil and we need a robust government to protect our rights from them, lest we become a banana republic. The perspective of the Right is that big government is evil and only a robust free market will provide the economic growth, individual freedoms, and prosperity we all aspire to, so therefore we must keep government on a short leash lest we become wards of an oppressive state a la Cuba or the old Soviet Union.

Centrists tend to like economic growth but want to see businesses held accountable if the push for profits becomes corrosive to society. Government is the only entity powerful enough to enforce that accountability, so let's make sure it's up to the task and not in bed with corporate interests. And centrists also believe that government can be a force for good. After all governments basically exist to collect money from the people and provide major infrastructure, services and defense. But left to its own devices, government will make more laws, regulate more areas of life, and create more bureaucracy, all out of perceived need to serve the public and tame social ills. The notion that government is the solution to every problem must be balanced.

Many have tried to define a "moderate" or "centrist" platform. I don't believe one exists, but if it does it would tend to be economically conservative (favoring free markets over planned economies, keep the government out of my pocketbook) and socially libertarian (live and let live, expand individual liberties as much as possible, keep the government out of my bedroom).

I will follow this with another post with my own version of Mitch's issue/response format.

Posted by: PurpleStater at November 12, 2005 10:07 AM

It is not surprising that your list of issues is principally the issues of the right.. there are several others, and nearly all of them, outside Iraq, I would feel are FAR more important.

Still, I'll try, as someone in the center, to describe what I think is the "center" on your issues. It is also interesting that in nearly all cases, your opinion of the center is loaded with condescension and contempt.

As for the existence of a center, certainly such exists, it's the position sometimes of apathy (perhaps often), but more it is the position that finds both poles radical, unyeilding, and often disgusting vis a vis Jackscrow - it is interesting that no one here disavowed him.

The Center I would guess/say feels.

Gay Marriage -- A mostly irrelevant issue. Mostly the feeling is we've spent WAY too much time on this. But, to post a position, preventing 2 people from benefiting from the legal protections of the law because they are the same sex is repugnant. Church is it's own law and rule and can do whatever it chooses. I know a woman (lesbian) who was raped, repeatedly by her father from age 9 on. Please tell me you have the right to judge her, prevent her from avoiding the pain those emotional scars undoubtedly have created, the fear they bring on, and that she has no right to a happy life with someone she finds unthreatening.. further, that you understand her life so well that you should be able to prevent her from providing health insurance for her partner.. Please judge her from your limited, miniscule world view. Talk to her a while or someone like her, for a while, then tell me that she and others deserve NO recognition under the law of her 25 year monogomous relationship.


Gun Control -- Well.. I'm a little more nuanced than the average center. Chrisss probably has it right.. most folks see Assault Weapons as bad, hand guns and pointless.. etc.. but mostly they view anti-gun and pro-gun nuts, as.. nuts. The real issue for the center is the wasted time and energy on worrying about weapons that cannot possibly be used to prevent/protect you from governmental tyranny especially when you embrace that tyranny in so many other ways so willingly. You'd advocate for repealing Posse Comitatus, meaning your Barret .50 would be about as useful as similar weapons are for the Iraqi's against Bradleys and M1's, aka not useful. Anyway, that's me talking, most folks in the middle think you should be allowed to own guns, but are distrustful of folks who want to own 50, they seem creepy, because.. they ARE creepy.

Iraq -- Bush mislead/withheld and exagerated details about WMD, lied about Saddam's intent to attack us, and in the end, this war is hurting our position throughout the world including making fighting terrorism harder. Saddam was a bad guy, good he's gone, but there doesn't seem to be a winning scenario available, and no good way out either. Generally, bad. I have stronger feelings, but I assure you, the polls say what I've said, as the average feeling.

The War on Terror, at Home -- Irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Bush has done almost nothing effectual.. I've heard that 100 times from people who have almost no political opinion. They mostly think that the steps taken by Bush were window-dressing.

School Choice and Vouchers -- Irrelevant to most centrists. They support public schools but are worried that the quality is suffering. A well considered centrist opinion would suggest that there aren't enough private schools to teach everyone, as we take funds from public schools, just like medical care, we will degrade public schools because there will be too few payers. Private schools have MANY of their own issues, including ridiculous concepts like Saxon Math. I recently attended a teaching symposium for home schooling and it derided Saxon Math as inane repitition that stiffles and kills the desire to expand and think critically in gifted kids. The single greatest point they made (btw this was at a PRIVATE SCHOOL) was that repitition is the WORST POSSIBLE thing for teaching gifted kids. The fact is that society benefits greatly from having well educated children and employees. Public education accomplishes this by pooling community resources to achieve decent education for the most people possible. Having said that, there are reasonable, and in theory establishable, limits on how much can reasonably be spent per child. For example, while I have great empathy for children with profound disabilities, it is utterly unrealistic, as well as failing to capture economies of scale, to require EVERY school to accomodate nearly EVERY disability. I don't mean to be heartless, but why is it fair for us, as a society, to spend 10 times as much on Billy, than on Johnny, is Johnny LESS deserving because he is NOT disabled. The point is not to spend more on Billy, certainly spend SOME more, but define some reasonable limits on what public education can accomplish so that it can focus on educating as MANY as possible as WELL as possible.

Abortion -- Legal up to third trimester. Late term to be avoided in all cases except to save the life of the mother. Saying to anyone, YOU have to lose your mom/wife/daughter so that this baby can live is UNREASONABLE.

Having said that, abortion should be a last resort. Orphanages are insufficient, adoption is insufficient, to deal with all of the aborted fetuses in the USA. If we made it illegal, within 2 years there would be not enough families to adopt, no more room at the orphanages, or at the foster homes. Saying it is a state decision dodges the issues of privacy and further, of whether definition at conception is rooted in christian faith, thereby unconstitutional. Scientific defintions of life do NOT define fetuses at 8 days or 8 weeks as life. If we stretch to that extreme, our current definitions of death would be obviated.
The centrist position mostly is though, that abortion is wrong when it violates the fundamental, visceral feeling that the fetus has crossed the threshhold (wherever that may be) and is alive now, and as such, killing it is repulsive.

"When I was younger, my girlfriend had an abortion. I paid for it. I am a murderer. In God's Eyes and my own. "--- Good luck to you knowing the mind of God.

And God said to Moses - I knew you BEFORE you were in the womb and I named you - if this is our reasoning for being in favor of criminalizing abortion then we have failed to not establish a religion, but further, it says BEFORE in the original text, meaning that God's knowledge is existential, beyond knowing by us. Which egg will be impregnated, reach the uterine wall, survive the hardships of pregnancy and labor and grow into adulthood, are God's to know. If it were merely protect all fetus' because God says they are "people" in the womb - a gross bastardization of that quote - then we are compelled to do far more than simply stop abortions, we must require women to carry a baby EVERY time, because God knows every EGG too.. and further, any fertilized egg (if life begins at conception) that doesn't sufficiently attach to the uterine wall is manslaughter or at least accidental death.. we should be up in arms..

The point is, God knows, not you, whether he considers fetus' life.. Come to me as a child.


Taxes -- Centrists are willing to pay for their services and recognize that taxes currently are not doing so. They also believe that the tax cuts provided those at the top were unecessary, as do those at the top. Centrists believe those who benefit by the system should be willing to pay in fair measure to the amount they benefited by it. Flat taxes are fine as long as they don't require MORE from those at the bottom and LESS from those at the top in terms of what someone can reasonably pay after paying for basic necessities.

Campaign Finance Reform -- Nearly everyone I know feels campaigns are corrupt and favors public finance to some degree or another, including to the extent that the amount that can be paid/campaigned should be MUCH less than is spent now.

If people want to spend their own money, ok, but it MUST be totally uncoordinated, and totally separate from corporations.


School prayer -- People can pray silently anytime, the pledge of allegiance is silly, but ok, no one died of it yet, but enforcing prayer is a foolish pursuit of a puritanism that NEVER existed.

On a personnal note: states which favor these kinds of pablum answers in fact have the highest: divorce rates, poorest educational performances, etc.. and my view is that failing to embrace both of Christ's commandments but instead only concerning themselves with worshiping God and being grateful, has overfocused religious extremists on the personal, and left out completely the message to see others as equal, of deserving of love, of compassion, and forgiveness. Prayer is fine, prayer solely for yourself is merely asking Santa for toys.. but open, vocal prayer in school when other faiths deny the relevance or even existence of a "God", establishes Monotheistic Islamo/Judeo/Christian faith, a violation of our founding father's intent and of our Constitution.

It is interesting that none of you brought up:

National Debt:

Income Disparity (CEO to average wage gap)

Foriegn Debt:

The collapse of the housing market:

The assualt on civil liberty and dissent:

Globalization:

etc...

You brought up your issues I suppose, but hardly particularly momentous ones, mostly meaningless ones. No one really favors killing children as a solution, no one really favors preventing any form of silent prayer, those are just boogey men you tell yourself and the nation. The left probably more fully embraces Christ than the right - which talks about Christ but preaches from the old testament - a satisfied covenant btw, but whatever makes you feel good, you go with your bad selves, you look like extremists, because.. you are.

PB

I also find it amusing that in most cases, I know a LOT more about the new testament than most "fundamentialists" I run into and I'm no great biblical scholar. I am a lay reader at church.

Posted by: pb at November 12, 2005 12:50 PM

I was mainly aswering what I thought was Mitch's questionaire "Where is the center?"

To PB, I don't claim to know the mind of God. But He gave us his Word. And He gave us Conscience.

I find you dismissive of my belief.

That is your right.... but also the mark of so many a Humanist.

Why dont' you pick up "Mere Christianity", by CS Lewis, and give it a perusal.

PB:

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)

Posted by: jackscrow at November 12, 2005 03:08 PM

Having said in my previous post that I don't think it's possible to define the elusive "center", I will now disregard my previous caveat, throw caution to the wind, and attempt to do so anyway. Here is my read on the political center in the US based on Mitch's list of issues. My own positions (which are all over the board, left and right) follow:

Gay Marriage

Center: Doesn't favor extending concept of traditional marriage to same-sex couples, but civil unions or similar legal status would be an acceptable compromise for committed gay couples to ensure inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc.

PurpleStater: While no religious institution should be forced to marry same-sex couples, there is no good reason for our government and system of laws to deny full marriage rights to a tiny minority of the population (other than the argument that "this is where we have traditionally drawn the line, at one man and one woman" - and attitudes about where to draw that line have shifted in the past for religion and race and can shift again for sexual orientation). I believe same-sex marriage is inevitable in the US, but it needs to work itself out in state legislatures and courts so the people have a chance to weigh in, rather than a top-down ruling as we saw in Canada. We don't need another Roe v. Wade decision on marriage - nor do we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Civil unions seem like a reasonable compromise but amount to a two-tiered system that smacks of "separate but equal". More thoughts here.

Gun Control

Center: We have the right to bear arms but no one needs big scary weapons like grenade launchers and assault rifles.

PS: The Constitution grants the right to bear arms, period. Weapons are dangerous but not intrinsically good or evil. We should hold people accountable for behavior. It is also reasonable that gun laws could be more restrictive in large population centers than in rural areas. I have no problem with conceal-carry laws because there is evidence that these laws to do not lead to increases in gun violence and may in fact actually reduce it.

Iraq

Center: In the run-up to the war, was in favor of bringing down Saddam Hussein but now sees the aftermath dragging on and worries that it was a mistake. Not sure if Bush lied about intelligence, but there were obviously no WMDs there (we've been told endlessly) so the rationale was flawed. Gut check: should stick it out long enough to help Iraqi government get a handle on security and come home as soon as we can. But on balance, not worth the death of our soliders.

PS: Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat and the world is better off with his regime ended - I believed that when Bill Clinton and Al Gore told me in 1998, I believed it when Bush and Tony Blair told me in 2002 and I believe it even now, because I've read way too much about Saddam Hussein to believe that things would have worked out just fine if we had only left him alone. Iraq is definitely the central front in the War on Terror - Zarqawi and company certainly see it that way, and are acting accordingly. Championing democracy in the Middle East is key to addressing the "root causes of terror" everyone prattles on endlessly about (Israel/Palestine is important but a sideshow in the grand scheme of the political and religious forces in the region. Our survival here in the West depends in its success. And dammit, this is at heart a liberal idea but only a few on the left (Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens, Martin Peretz) seem to get that. I believe history will vindicate Bush on his fundamental approach to this war, as it has Reagan on the Cold War.

The War on Terror, at Home

Center: Just keep another 9/11 from happening and let us go back to watching "Desperate Housewives". Patriot Act is OK, so long as no evidence of abuse.

PS: This is a very deadly war. There are people out there and here in the US who want us either dead or living under a Taliban-style regime. They are willing to lay low and patiently wait for their opportunity. We have to take them at least as seriously as we do organized crime, in my view even more seriously. The Patriot Act is designed to do that and while it should be subject to scrutiny and review, we need to keep in mind that the end-goal of radical Islam is the replacement of our civil laws with religious ones. We must defend against those who would use our freedoms to impose a theocracy. Those are the civil rights we need to safeguard the most.

School Choice and Vouchers

Center: Don't know why schools are failing but we have to try something. Public school choice as in Minnesota, is generally a good thing. Vouchers may work, but may not, so let's continue to tinker with them, letting the states experiment with different models.

PS: Public schools have by and large failed, not only students but teachers. Lots of money being fed into the school system, but most of it doesn't get to the most qualified and innovative teachers. Seniority system makes it difficult for new teachers to gain a foothold and they often leave. Some kind of voucher system, administered at the state or city level and initially targeted to poorer households who usually have few options would be a step in the right direction. A voucher system would introduce an element of competition, which would be a wake-up call for public schools. Religious schools should be able to receive vouchers, but there should be a provision to exclude them if they are shown to teach religious intolerance or refuse to admit students who do not belong to that faith.

Abortion

Center: Bill Clinton had perfect pitch on this issue - "safe, legal and rare". The reality is of course a great deal messier, ao the Center tends to be more pro-choice the closer that choice is to conception. Cases involving rape and minors are obviously more complicated.

PS: Pretty much the same as the centrist position above. I would like to see increasing use of "morning after" contraception approaches that would obviate the need for visiting clinics. I do not think it at all strange that the pro-choice movement sees abortion as a moral issue, and wants our society to wrestle with its implications. We should not be complacent in this area, any more than we should be about use of the death penalty.

Taxes

Center: Likes tax cuts but at this point would rather see the budget balanced again. Would not mind a stronger social safety net, especially if someone else pays for it.

PS: Low taxes are a good thing, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. But at the end of the day, if the deficit is soaring and the national debt is a drag on the economy, someone has to pay the piper. Don't have a problem with progressive taxation, i.e. the rich pay more. But that said, let's have more rich taxpayers. The economy should encourage, not discourage wealth building for all Americans. Would like to see the current tax system junked a replaced with one that has fewer loopholes and that taxes consumption rather than income.

Campaign Finance Reform

Center: Looks with disfavor on how money influences political campaigns, but sees recent attempts at reform to have failed. Would be nice if politicians spent less time fundraising; worry that the system is increasingly favoring wealthy candidates like Bush and Kerry.

PS: 527s wielded a disproportional amount of influence in the last election, and candidates often danced to their tune. For local and state elections, money should be restricted to the jurisdiction of the people affected, but otherwise not limited. Support limits on individual contributions; many small donations shows more grassroots support than a big check from a corporation (e.g. Enron) or wealthy individual (e.g. George Soros) looking to buy influence.

School prayer

Center: The country is generally religious but believes in church/state separation. Mention of God in the pledge of allegiance or in benedictions at graduation is no big deal, so long as it stays non-demominational. Prayer in the classroom is generally seen as crossing a line, even a non-denominational one.

PS: The Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state, only prohibits the establishment of a state religion. Private prayer in school (e.g. a student praying silently at his or her desk) is protected. Public invocations of God (e.g. the Pledge of Allegiance) are fine. Comparative religions should be a required subject for all students. But prayer in the classroom - even a non-denominational one - is unnecessary. No need for schools to pretend religion doesn't exist, i.e. modest Christmas, Chanukah and Ramadan decorations should be allowed, but school crosses the line if it endorses a particular mode of worship over others. Note: My son prays in school every day, because he attends a Jewish day school. If prayer is important, families should look to religious schools (hopefully using vouchers).

Great exercise! Thanks for providing the opportunity to bring this kind of clarity to the discussion.

Posted by: PurpleStater at November 12, 2005 04:46 PM

CS Lewis was both brilliant, and stunted..

For example, his response was immediate and eloquent on what separates Christianity from all other major faiths.. Grace.. or more expansively, unconditional forgiveness begetting unconditional forgiveness.

However, he also was derisive of Tolkien, and then proceeded to write a rambling series of novels (Narnia), that had only a passing relationship to Christianity.

Further, the Psalms are from the first covenenant, not Christ's, but as you say, they refer to the making in the womb, which in no way refutes my earlier post, not in the least, in fact it reinforces it, for it speaks to the fact that God makes.. indeed, and God knows..I'm not sure how that denies the concept that to pretend to know the mind of God is directly contradictory to his teachings. YOU interpret the Psalm to mean that God intends for each fetus to become whole.. it does not say such..it merely says that the WRITER OF THE PSALM worships God for making him. Even if we accept the Bible as the innerrant word of God, it does not say that each fetus is sacred, anywhere. Indeed, in Christ's time, there were miscairages, there were murders of pregnant mother's, during the time of the Old Testament, such things occured, yet nowhere in the bible does it describe the view of society or Christ or the Church as defining the death of a fetus as murder. Such comments as "God sees X as a sin" when no text says so, is presumptuous at the least, heresey at the worst.

Having said that, this is a theologic question, not a legal/Constitutional one. That you would defend anti-abortion in religious terms points out the specific problem, it is a religious point, and violates the very freedoms we said we stood for. Please don't waste my time or your words on "but we are a judeo/christian nation." First, the Federalist papers as well as numerous statements deny this, second, the concept of not stealing, not murdering, etc.. is not unique to christianity.. as I said, the ONLY thing that really is, is Grace, yet where is our forgiveness if we are SUCH a christian nation? But defining life at conception is rooted in the edicts of the Church (Christian). I have little or no knowledge of Islam, or Shinto-ism, or Bhuddism or Hinduism, but I am not aware of their holding to the belief that a fetus is alive at conception. I don't believe they do hold, even if they did, I doubt the Christians here care much. They want this definition because they have a faith based belief it is immoral, even though their faith really never says such..and they then want to impose that faith on everyone else.

Furthermore, while I have no issue with being identified with humanism, clearly you understand that I am not.
Whether you find me dismissive, considering your advocation for "killing the terrorists when we find them," sir, your comments do not speak of someone who thinks first of the Prince of Peace, you dismiss your own faith. I did not say anything to question it, I questioned the faith of many on the right, not you personally, but I would in fact question it, when such simplistic and venge-filled notions are expressed, now that you ask.

Finding the "terrorists" is the first hard part, but let's go further, will you willingly pull the trigger on a pistol at the head of a 5 year old girl who's father was killed being a terrorist to "pre-emptively" deal with her potential to be a terrorist? How about the terrorist who genuinely repents, will you forgive him, or kill him?

Matthew 25:

Thatsoever which you do unto the least of me, you did also to me.

PB

Posted by: pb at November 13, 2005 01:07 AM

Speaking of God, shall we now go on to "center" of the death penalty?

"Am I buggin' you? I dont mean to bug ya."
- Bono

Arguing over what God thinks is pretty futile. People have been doing it for centuries.


Posted by: carmelitta at November 13, 2005 11:07 PM

I'm getting into C.S. Lewis as well (audiobooks) and there's a lot of interesting stuff there, some I agree with and maybe some I don't.

I definately fall into the "God asks us to have the faith of a child and treat others as you would have them treat you not out of duty but out of love" camp, and take everything else, as a famous Rabbi once stated, as commentary.

I think if you're not careful, it becomes too tempting to judge or find offense ("judge not lest ye be judged"/"he who is without sin"/"remove thy plank from thine eye"), and comparing faiths just turns into *ahem* attribute sizing contests. The ego gets involved and then you're being all prideful. If your sthick is religion you really outta be humble.

But then, humble religious leaders just don't play as well on TV...

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at November 13, 2005 11:34 PM

The fact tht you did not reference illegal immigration indicates you are a Wall Street Journal Conservative at best.

Posted by: chris at November 14, 2005 10:45 AM

The fact tht you did not reference illegal immigration indicates you are a Wall Street Journal Conservative at best.

Posted by: chris Burchfield at November 14, 2005 10:46 AM

Mr. Burchfield,

No, it indicates that it's an issue that I forgot to mention.

More conservative than you,

MBerg

Posted by: mitch at November 14, 2005 11:03 AM

The Center, I think:

Gay Marriage - Don't support, but don't actively oppose - not really on the radar.

Gun Control - Not a big issue. If they own guns, they are hunting rifles or shotguns rather than anti-personnel-type weapons. They don't bump up against this in their daily lives very often; status quo OK.

Iraq - Want the US to win but to do it quickly and easily and without loss. Have a vague sense that the US is succeeding but still worried about the news reports, what they watch of those.

War on terror at home - whatever that means. Not a big deal. Yellow alert! Be vigilant!Whatever.

School choice and vouchers - not for these folks, though they've probably heard of the concepts. These are the parents of public school students.

Abortion - not on the radar; status quo OK.

Taxes - Whatever. Pay them and move on.

Campaign finance reform - whatever that really means. No effect on the day-to-day; vague sense that "big money shouldn't run the government" - whatever that means. Whatever.


Posted by: PaulC at November 14, 2005 03:17 PM

canonicalize bomb!saved Rockville Ciceronian paraffin!brotherliness

Posted by: at June 28, 2006 04:07 PM

yelps.radical merriest bilked sight Pepsico .

Posted by: at June 30, 2006 05:45 PM

partnered?cutout:glowing randomizes contrasting.drapes - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

Posted by: at July 1, 2006 06:52 AM

keystrokes divisors blasphemous encrypted grading panties hypnosis texas hold table game [url=http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold-game.html] texas hold table game [/url] texas hold table game http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold-game.html http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold-game.html conspired crossroad recomputed borates reestablishing free visual basic texas hold odds calculator source code [url=http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html] free visual basic texas hold odds calculator source code [/url] free visual basic texas hold odds calculator source code http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html other apiary admitting staff em free hold texas tournament [url=http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html] em free hold texas tournament [/url] em free hold texas tournament http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html http://www.texasholdfun.com/texas-hold.html .

Posted by: free texas hold rule at July 14, 2006 11:20 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi