2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2007/08/22/the-center-sphere/
0
0
  |   24 comments

Does such a thing exist?

 Supporting the war effort and dismissing the president in a single breath won’t win you many friends around the blogosphere. But perhaps this is the niche that the “Center-sphere” will carve out, if such a thing is to exist. After all, when both sides are screaming at you, you may have done something right (despite Matthew Yglesias’s reservations).

 Read the whole thing here.

 So what say you folks?  I think the Left (and it tends to come from that direction) has a fair argument when they say that war support often gets cloaked as “moderatism,” whereas the critics often get Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) thrown in their face.  Is that fair?

But more to the point, is there a “center” growing in the blogosphere?  If so, well what role can it play other than a contrarian one? 

UPDATE:

Mr. Donklephant himself, Justin Gardner, has a great point on this topic:

I think there is a center-sphere, but it’s much more hard to nail down than your traditional left/right blogopsheres. Particularly because there are fewer unifying factors involved. We aim to keep people honest and potentially give rise to a third way, but that can mean many different things ultimately.

Another thing, I don’t think war support is “moderatism” and I think BDS is an easy thing to say to people you don’t want to listen to. In the end, we’re talking about a body politic that is incredibly diverse but is being represented by two very specific points of view. Which is one reason why I think the moderate blogosphere will only grow, while the others will start to shrink eventually. Because in the age of information, the best ideas (not ideology) win.

At least that’s my hope.    

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7829
    C Stanley An influential center in the blogosphere would be very helpful, but I don't see it. I started reading blogs last summer, and right at that time there were a number of centrist/independent bloggers all writing about how they'd become radicalized by the Bush administration. Not a good sign, when the center doesn't hold.
  2. Posted by Michael van der Galiën
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7834
    Michael van der Galiën I do believe that there certainly is a 'market' for centrists - criticizing both sides is part of establishing oneself in that market as a force to be reckoned with. There is, however, more to it. For blogs, this also means controling the comment sections, and generally, joining forces with those who have the same agenda. The market for centrist blogs is, though, smaller than the ones for liberal and conservative blogs. It seems to me that if one wants to have easy and fast success, one should embrace one of the sides completely and have a go at the other side. At this blog and at TMV, CS, Donklephant, RCPB, it is handled differently, but we also have to realize that the top of people we will reach on any given day will be lower than that of the top liberal and top conservative blogs. Between 30 000 and 50 000 should be doable - but more than that I consider to be impossible for a centrist blog. Luckily we are slightly right of center, so perhaps we will be able to appeal to more people ;)
    I started reading blogs last summer, and right at that time there were a number of centrist/independent bloggers all writing about how they’d become radicalized by the Bush administration.
    Agreed and people who did that made a mistake imo. The strength of the center is that it should be able, not just to piss everyone off, but also to appeal to quite some people... from all ideologies. Or at least treat them with respect. I do have to say that I wonder what defines a Centrist blog. Do you all consider this to be a Centrist blog? If so, why? If not, why not? The Moderate Voice? Donklephant? Central Sanity? Why why why? What is the defining term?
  3. Posted by Kevin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7830
    Kevin I think a site that offers self-proclaimed centrists/moderates/whatever an outlet to network as diarists, much like Kos and I think(?) RedState do, would be valuable. Community plays a big role I find in blogging.
  4. Posted by Michael van der Galiën
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7831
    Michael van der Galiën Kevin: yes. A very big role. More so than most people think. Not just commenters, but also being in touch with fellow bloggers.
  5. Posted by Andy
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7832
    Andy There are far fewer people who are "centrist" on all or most issues than people who are left or right on those issues.
  6. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7840
    C Stanley Controlling the comment sections must be very difficult- but it is important IMO. TMV used to regularly have comment sections with 100+ posts; now a great number of the articles have no comments or just a few. I think people are fed up with the flaming, the double standards, etc. And when Jason tries to moderate, he's seen as a right winger so he's accused of being an authoritarian bent on censorship of liberal views. It would be a lot better if one of the more liberal bloggers there would step in when the liberal commenters cross the line. There's also an issue of the frontpage articles being inflammatory (not mentioning any names, of course). Joe seems to feel very defensive and understandably gets tired of people who criticize the lack of moderate tone, but personally I think there is room for constructive criticism along those lines. If the articles are written in a way that provokes or insults people of opposing views, of course you are going to see people react to that in the comment section (or stop reading altogether).
  7. Posted by mikkel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7841
    mikkel Centrism for centrism's sake is bound to be contrarian and not popular. I think moderates should take a page from the conservative movement of the 80s and figure out a set of shared ideals to rally around.
  8. Posted by Kevin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7842
    Kevin Andy: I think that's fair, however I'll ad a caveat. Most bloggers, pundits and other members of the chattering classes (of which I will gladly identify myself) have an ideological bent. However, I think most Americans would probably identify themselves as "moderate" if pushed, just like everyone thinks they're middle-class. That might not be true, but perception is power. Nothing bugs me more when I hear Kos, or some equivalent on the Right, talk about "Americans want to see (blank)!", and then proceed to talk about some poll that shows Americans support one of their token policy pets on that given day. I think most people think a lot of different stuff, and even change their minds about that stuff from time to time. I think there's an awfully big place at the centrist table for those people.
  9. Posted by Kevin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7843
    Kevin mikkel: I agree. Maybe it's The New Republic Syndrome (TNRS).
  10. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7844
    Interested
    I do believe that there certainly is a ‘market’ for centrists - criticizing both sides is part of establishing oneself in that market as a force to be reckoned with. There is, however, more to it. For blogs, this also means controling the comment sections, and generally, joining forces with those who have the same agenda.
    Your right, of course. But like the nominees - each side will mirror each other. The more shrill and whiney the left gets the more you'll see the opposite on the right.
  11. Posted by Alan/Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7835
    Alan/Tom I don't really think there's much of a market for centrism in the blogosphere---while I think the mainstream media overemphasizes the conflict, the blogosphere IMHO is more shrill than mainstream media sources and thus seems more amenable to more partisan voices. I do have to wonder, though, what "centrist" means. I've heard people here complain that TMV is getting too liberal, and mabye they're right. But couldn't it also be true that the political center has shifted to the Left?
  12. Posted by Jason Steck
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7836
    Jason Steck
    I think the Left (and it tends to come from that direction) has a fair argument when they say that war support often gets cloaked as “moderatism,” whereas the critics often get Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) thrown in their face. Is that fair?
    Perhaps, but there is also a converse. Opposition to the war is often considered by "progressives" to be a prerequisite to receive civil treatment and those who don't immediately and enthusiastically agree with them have "neocon" thrown in their face. The problem is two-sided -- anyone who disagrees with the purists in any detail is immediately assumed to be on the "other side" on everything. Moderation is difficult to articulate when you have partisans from both extremes constantly hijacking and misrepresenting everything. That is why moderates need to carve out their own realm where the partisans are encouraged to participate, but not to hijack and dominate.
  13. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7845
    C Stanley I agree, Jason; in fact I think it's vitally important for the center to be the point where the two sides meet and overlap. There is a need for venues of conversation between people with opposing viewpoints, who will often agree to disagree but will be forced to challenge their own preconceptions and defend their arguments. There may not be much give and take in terms of partisans and ideologues actually convincing their opponents of the merits of their 'side', but at least each side better understands the other and comes away with a realization that the people on the other side of the debate are not evil incarnate. And of course, people who really are undecided on an issue or general political philosophy can ultimately be persuaded. Alan/Tom: I think it's somewhat true that the center of gravity has shifted to the left (more so in the blogosphere than in real life, in my experience) but I don't think a centrist blog should be concerned with moving as popular opinion moves. It should instead always seek to provide balance and should at times question whether the shifts in public opinion are valid or if there is a bandwagon effect (to some degree, I think they should even be a bit contrarian to those shifts).
  14. Posted by in2thefray
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7846
    in2thefray Where does centrism get you ? Is the compromise of right and left centrist ? Kevin # 8
    However, I think most Americans would probably identify themselves as “moderate” if pushed, just like everyone thinks they’re middle-class.
    I don't agree. I doubt most Americans ever think of the word moderate except when drinking.The majority of Americans are actually pretty black and white imo. The grey of centrist politics and the "framed" questions of way to many polls I think skews the concept of moderate. A classic example the person who states:" I'm a fiscal conservative,social liberal". Is that a centrist or someone that answers questions like this: No new taxes on MY income. A woman has a right to choose,who am I to say otherwise ?
  15. Posted by Alan/Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7837
    Alan/Tom Polls show that most Americans, if not in the exact political center, have political beliefs that are narrowly separated...kind of like a bell curve.
  16. Posted by Kevin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7838
    Kevin In my mind, holding strong policy opinions on an issue should not exclude you from being a centrist. I think centrism is more about the application of policy than it is ideology. But where do people with no party affiliation, and perhaps poistions that span the spectrum, have to go? in2thefray, I think the point is this--most Americans would fail to pass the message discipline test that the Netroots tend to impose. Even Kos has said, a senator in Rhode Island will look differentl than one in Oklahoma, despite them both being Democrats. This is understood in electoral politics, so why shouldn't it be understood in blog debate/discussion?
  17. Posted by Chris
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7826
    Chris The issue is war. War is polarizing; there's no way around it. The stakes are just too high for significant compromise. Most people want to see the war/occupation end, and then the rest are determined to keep it going. Where's the center or compromise for that? Are we only going to "sorta" have our military run Iraq?
  18. Posted by Michael van der Galiën
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7825
    Michael van der Galiën Well that's a stupid remark Chris. Of course there is a middle ground: for instance, - leave ASAP - stay how ever long it may take The middle ground - retreat, but do it slowly, step by step Rhetoric questions are not the best way to debate with the readers at this blog, by the way. They usually tend to truly debate in a civilized manner. We want to keep it that way. No reason to be sharky.
  19. Posted by Chris
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7833
    Chris Anyways, that's not an acceptable middle-ground for the pro-war crowd unless the retreat is going to take 10-20 years, in which case it wont be acceptable to the anti-war crowd.
  20. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7847
    C Stanley Well, I hope I won't get in trouble for saying this, but I happen to think that middle approach is pretty stupid. If the current troop level is unable to maintain enough security in the country, then how would it be possible to do so with fewer troops? What would the mission of the (fewer) troops be? Staying in the green zone? We tried that for almost four years: it led to the situation we have now. It was only after we started the COIN strategy of putting the troops in forward bases, in the Iraqi neighborhoods, that there has been any improvement in the security situation (not to mention the other tactical changes like patrolling the neighborhoods on foot, meeting with Iraqi community leaders, small building projects which could be completed without disruption by insurgents/terrorists, planning bigger projects, etc, etc. So now that we've found a strategy that works we're supposed to think it makes sense to revert back to the one that didn't work?
  21. Posted by Chris
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7848
    Chris It's weird agreeing (90% at least) with C Stanley.
  22. Posted by Michael van der Galiën
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7827
    Michael van der Galiën "So now that we’ve found a strategy that works we’re supposed to think it makes sense to revert back to the one that didn’t work?" OR was i just trying to point out that there IS a middle ground and actually say in my post that we should wait until the reports, etc.?
  23. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7828
    C Stanley LOL- I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of you personally, Michael. I get that you were just pointing out that such a position is possible and could be described as a middle ground. I just wanted to chime in with my opinion on it; food for thought, that's all.
  24. Posted by Kevin
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #7839
    Kevin I would actually like it Chirs if you could talk more about how polarizing war is. Aside from Vietnam, I can't recall any American foreign intervention and/or war that caused this level of polarization. This is without question the most over-analyzed war in the history of mankind. I can't imagine we would ever have been able to defeat the Nazis were there the Netroots. My God, what would they have said of Dresden? I can't imagine how they'd deal with a truly terrible action by the U.S. But generally speaking, Americans have rallied behind presidents for wars. Even in Congress, the Tafts and the La Follettes of the world not withstanding, you often had bi-partisan support for military action. So please, I'd love to hear how war puts centrism in an untenable place.