Relative Centrist

I think the defining problem of the moment for the Democrats is the habit of making the political center relative to the two main powers. As an academic in Political Science, one studies the more absolute structure of the political spectrum, but unfortunately, the mainstream does not pay attention to the finer details.

In academic definition, the Democratic Party represents bits and pieces from the three centrist ideologies, neo-liberal, conservative, and classical liberal. If there is any trace of further left socialism, it is faint.

The Republican Party on the other hand, in its leadership, has definite elements of fascist ideology, the far right ideology, with only elements of center-right ideology.

From an academic standpoint, it is clear that the Democrats are approximately the center while the Republican party is to the right. The media and public opinion is not sophisticated enough to comprehend this so it assumes the Democrats are the left party, the Republicans are the right party, and the center is in the middle. Unfortunately for the sake of the Democrats and the country, this puts the relative center to the right of even center-right ideology.

The end result of this unrealistic, relative center, is that in compromise the Republicans win by losing and the Democrats lose by winning. Compromises invariably promote right of center policy. It is in this mindframe that I want to discuss the judicial filibuster compromise.

After my initial horror over the compromise, I've tried finding the good side. Unfortunately, I can't. Paul Waldman at The Gadflyer sums up why I feel the compromise has hurt the Democrats more than even losing.

The Gadflyer: Fly Trap: "Had the Democrats won the vote, they would have retained the filibuster and kept these judges off the bench. But I'm told that Democrats didn't have the 51 votes, so they would have lost anyway. But you know what? That would have been vastly preferable to the current situation. Let's look at the facts:

Under the nuclear option, radicals like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown would have made it to the appellate courts.

Under the nuclear option, the Bush White House would feel free to nominate a rabid right-winger.

Under the nuclear option, Bush would be able to proceed with his project to stack the federal courts with other rabid right-wingers.

And this differs from our current situation how?"

If Bush and the Republicans hold up the ideal end of the deal, the compromise probably is pretty good. After swallowing the bitter pill of Priscilla Owens (who was just confirmed 56-44) and a few other extreme judges being confirmed, future nominees would theoretically be center-right moderates (center-right is acceptable because the Republicans are the majority party) who have a history of being very good judges. But what basis do we have for trusting Bush and the Republican leadership of holding up their word in the name of cooperation? The boy has cried bipartisan too often for us to come running any more.

By sacrificing the center position in a compromise with the extreme right on filibusters, we have won by not having them abolish the filibuster, but we have lost the bigger fight as they will be able to largely shape the judiciary while making far right judges seem more reasonable, more in line with the relative center. It is time for the Democrats to stop accepting this relative center and call the right the right.