In an age where Donald Rumsfeld has to be looked at as a "moderate," we have an awful lot of political spectrum to cover to get back to the "center"

More and more people on our side of the political divide are homing in on a development I wrote about many moons ago, when I passed on my friend Peter's insight that in the Age of Bush we inhabit a political universe where Donald Rumsfeld is a moderate.

The Far, Far Right has been so successful at obliterating all strains of more moderate thinking in the Republican Party, and--less noticed--dragging with it large weasel-gutted chunks of the Democratic Party (with the enthusiastic collusion of surrender-monkey outfits like the Democratic Leadership Council), that terms like "center" and "moderate" have lost any semblance of real-world meaning.

On social policy, for example, you qualify as a "moderate" if you oppose, or at least have reservations about, reinstitutionalizing slavery. Then there's the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was never even a legitimate "conservative" issue to begin with. As I've pointed out frequently, the most vocal opposition to the idea, when it was still something that was going to happen, came from conservatives who were smart enough to see that it was a bone-headed idea, and the guts to speak out when a lot of liberal opponents of the idea were more muted. (Of course that changed just about the time the "idea' turned into active policy. Those outspoken conservatives suddenly went silent.)

The way the political debate shook out, the Far, Far Right framed it so that voicing even the hint of doubt--one of the bedrock American values--was branded as treason, and large chunks of Americans, successfully clouded in screeching ignorance by the Far, Far Right's deep-rooted commitment to blinding ignorance, bought it. Low-life subhumans like Ann Coulter could, at no public cost whatsoever, proposing having all these traitors killed.

Now, I do believe that the American political system has a built-in drive to bring itself back to the center when it has veered too far in one direction or another (and we know which direction that's likely to be). But it's far from a scientific process. And one of the ways it may get short-circuited is when the political spectrum is itself as misaligned as the Far, Far Right has succeeded in doing. What the FFR-ists label "extreme left" is by any functionally intelligent reading "significantly right of center."

And now that we've had two terms of governance by people who should, almost without exception, be permanently confined to either mental institutions or prisons, their hard-core supporters are scrambling desperately to weasel out of responsibility. In a creepily psychotic way, it's to the credit of some of them that they have dug in and are supporting to the death the war inflicted on the world by war-crimes aspirants like Cheney and Chimpy. If you haven't read Frank Rich's tribute yesterday to people like Bill Kristol, who seems to be angling for coronation-by-acclaim as the World's Dumbest (and Most Malicious) Human, "Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death," it's a must-read. (For those who aren't on the NYT's list of "select" people allowed access to its sequestered columnists, I'm going to post it separately.)

Meanwhile, I'm particularly pleased to see that David Sirota, in what an end note describes as a "sample" column he's written for his new syndicator, Creators Syndicate, has taken the vanished center as his subject.

(That end note reads: "Creators Syndicate will begin syndicating David Sirota's columns beginning on September 10, 2007. Until then, please enjoy these sample columns." Meanwhile, readers are urged: "Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read David Sirota's column in your hometown paper.")

Find Your True Center

If Democrats ever want to regain their status as a majority party, they must move to the center. But that means moving to the real center--one very different from Washington's definition of the term.

Inside the Beltway, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., is called a "centrist" because he still supports President Bush's misguided policies in Iraq; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., proved his centrist credentials when he helped gut consumer bankruptcy protections; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., is a centrist because he votes for corporate-written, wage-destroying trade deals. And former senator John Breaux, D-La., now a corporate lobbyist, was labeled the ultimate centrist after working to stop Congress from cracking down on the drug and health industry profiteers who backed his campaigns.

These are just a few examples of how many high-profile Democrats promote the Beltway's idea of centrism--focused on perpetuating the status quo and abetting the influence of corporate interests that finance political campaigns. But with a centrism like this, so far outside the real center of public opinion, no wonder the Democratic Party keeps losing congressional elections.

On the Iraq war, for instance, polls show a majority of Americans want a timetable for drawing down troops. On economic policy, most Americans support stronger government regulations to protect citizens. On trade, polls show the public is widely suspicious of free-trade deals that have destabilized the middle class. And on health care, surveys show that about two-thirds of those asked want a government-guaranteed universal health-insurance system--even if it means tax increases.

The Republican-controlled Congress seems too out of touch and too corrupt to care about, much less resolve, any of these issues. Democrats, therefore, could make serious gains, but only if they reject Washington operatives who preach split-the-difference strategies that have led to repeated election defeats.

Anger at the Bush administration's misguided policies on Iraq is bipartisan, meaning that Democratic candidates who take a strong position in favor of an exit strategy will be able to attract Democratic and traditionally Republican voters.
Similarly, on economic policy, the Republicans' conservative base is increasingly ready to bolt if a bold, establishment-challenging alternative is offered. (A 2005 public opinion survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, for example, showed that about half the GOP's core voters support the "government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes" and an astounding three-quarters support an increase in the minimum wage.)

These are votes ripe for the Democrats' taking. But, sadly, they are being neglected. Democratic congressional leaders still publicly say there will be no official party position on Iraq. Meanwhile, a faction of Democratic lawmakers continues to vote for corrupt GOP economic policies, such as a bankruptcy bill written by the credit-card industry, an energy bill written by the oil industry, a Central American Free Trade Agreement that further depresses American wages, and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that drain resources from health-care programs.

These Democrats seem all too comfortable in the minority, and all too complicit in Washington's pay-to-play culture--and they are undermining the party's ability to hone a sharp and authentic message.

Thankfully, a movement is building outside the Beltway that will help the Democrats in spite of themselves. Thousands of online activists are pressuring Democratic incumbents to get more aggressive on Iraq and to stop supporting Big Money interests on economic issues. In some districts, they are fueling serious primary contests, such as the recent effort against Lieberman. Meanwhile, Democratic governors and state legislators are pushing major ethics reform packages and bills to force corporate America to pay its fair share of taxes and worker benefits. These positions are helping state-level Democrats win in some formerly Republican strongholds. By pursuing similar policies at the national level, and rejecting Washington's faux centrism, Democrats will be able to reclaim a congressional majority.