Lamont's candidacy also has become a priority for many liberal websites, such as Daily Kos -- whose founder, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, recently appeared in one of Lamont's television advertisements. With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.
"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."
http://www.latimes.com/...
I think that pretty succinctly sums up the media sound-bite, the take home message about the attempts by the Democratic grassroots to take down folks like Lieberman and others who are like him. It makes us look really bad, and it reinforces the message that we're just extremists, just more of the same old Democratic-party-interest-groups-that-hate-middle-America. Many Americans view themselves as centrists and will view with suspicion this movement that at first glance is so out of the mainstream.
But this isn't really about centrism at all, it's about the way that centrism has been framed. Democrats and Republicans alike have shown that "centrism" means staking out a very carefully chosen perch that is as close as possible to the middle of the 25-75% margins of whatever the current "acceptable" political belief is. As thereisnospoon demonstrated so well a while ago, this has given Republicans a perfect strategy - they figured out that all that they need to do is to cleverly shift those 25 and 75% percent benchmarks rightward, and then the "centrists" will move in lock-step to the right with them! Brilliant!
This "centrism" is usually practiced by the learned politicos who couple their finger-in-the-wind politics with big-money donations, playing in the sandbox with lobbyists, and generally ignoring "the people" who elected them. I think they give centrism a terrible name. But under the mantle of centrism, they have a single word that captures why we should reelect the Liebermans of the world, and should fear the Lamonts.
I believe this site and many Democratic activists embody centrism, properly defined. What unites us is not a set of single-issue beliefs, not at all, as there is much dissent and plurality which flourishes here on many vital topics. Centrism is "people-powered politics," honesty, and representative government achieved through debate and dialogue. It is not finding your particular spot along the left-right spectrum by carefully pinpointing the 50% mark, and minutely adjusting your location based on the political balance of the constituencies that elected you.
Centrism means that as a politician you form your opinions based on a careful assessment of reality. Reality at the moment may have a liberal bias, but it shouldn't: realism should be the defining mark of a centrist politician. Centrism means that sometimes, when your constituency believes differently than you do, you reconsider your stance based on their reasoned argument. Other times, you engage in debate and convince them that your reasoned argument is correct in this case. Dialogue is a key feature of the centrist politician, so that he or she can do their best to find the true center, as delimited by reality.
This true centrist politician will thus have views that are diverse. It is clear that on some issues - the war in Iraq or climate change, to name a few - reality is best represented by a position on the current "left." On other issues, perhaps such as in regard to immigration or the economy, a view that is a bit more "centrist" is the best. Right now, Gore is demonstrating just how powerful it is when a politician seeks the truth and then tries to convince others to come around to that view. Even some Republicans who disagree with him find this appealing and refreshing!
So, then, centrist governance is embodied by a two-way-street of dialogue and debate - not focus group politics, not finger-in-the-wind positioning. Such spineless behavior does not deserve the mantle of centrism.
And this is why Dkos can embody centrism, as it is a forum for debate about reality and about the best policy positions. While there is much ideological diversity, what we can usually get excited about and unite around are the politicians who embody these traits of reasoned opinion and dialogue, politicians who are willing to listen but are also committed to upholding what they do know is truth, even when it is unpopular.
But if we are going to redefine and embrace centrism, this requires us to be reasonable and reasoned as well. If Ned Lamont or Busby or Gore comes to us after they've been elected and says, "look, you guys, you're wrong on this one" and puts forth a convincing case as to why, we need to listen and encourage that dialogue. This is truly the potential of the internet to revolutionize governance - it is where that debate and the changing of minds can happen.
So, most urgently, we must take back the "centrist" frame! This is Lieberman's and folks like him's best defense, and as is apparent, the label couldn't be further from reality. The idea of taking back our government is not ideological, but about electing an honest government. At YearlyKos and anywhere else, we need to redefine this label in the media, and make it clear that our goals are not partisan or extremist, but centrist. Surprise them! I'm sure they'll be taken aback at first, as it does seem very counterintuitive given the current meaning of the word, but the more it's said, the more it can be ours.
And it couldn't be a more accurate mantle, as it's really the most succinct way of describing what we're fighting for in November.