Governator's Centrist Claims Alienate Progressives

Dr. Lakoff, if he truly said that there were no centrists in Thinking Points, was wrong. I'm not going to say that there are a lot of them, but there are people whose ideology is specifically tailored to head for the center of every issue, even those issues where there are really only two realistic positions.

The centrist I know generally comes out in a position against whomever is spouting the most extreme views. It did not matter whether it is Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion, he'll come out against whoever has more polarized views.

Two centrists head to a bar. When they get to the door, they argue who should go in first for a while, then they finally agree that drinking is bad for your health and head for home. (It doesn't really scan well unless you end it with a bada stiss)

From Dr. Lakoff's other books, I'd say that a politician who was a bi-conceptual and could speak from the heart on issues that favor each side would be tough to beat if he had enough charisma. While it is true that calling yourself a centrist and saying that the electorate in general picks and chooses from the issues are centrists would be a natural use for framing of a bi-conceptual. It sounds too gay a word to get away with even in California.

Dr. Lakoff is correct in saying that centrists are (usually) bi-conceptuals, but you should remember that centrist is both a "stern father" frame and a "nurturing parent" frame. It might be language you don't like, but I think that "centrist" is not an unreasonable term.

It may be true that there are a number of people out there who are very pliable in their positions so that they can try to be crowd pleasers, but these people are not Conceptual Centrists. There is no such group of people who share the same combination of nurturant parent and strict father moral values, nor is there any group of people who share the same set of conservative and liberal issues, that has any legitimate political cohesion in America today.

Your claim that there is an ideology (a.k.a. cohesive moral worldview) that is centrist is incorrect. The activity you describe in your response is a strategy, NOT an ideology. The burden of proof requires much more than the ambiguous tale you weaved about people visiting a bar.

Also, the friend you describe is not a centrist, but a moderator. He is not making moral judgments based on a middle-of-the-road moral worldview that is halfway between Strict Father and Nurturant Parent value systems. Instead, he is opposed to what he interprets as radical views. This is the position of a person who tries to be "reasonable", not a person who weaves his own moral worldview from contrived moral values that are half way between on a perceived moral spectrum.

The very notion of centrism is untenable from a conceptual point of view. It is based upon a metaphor that declares Political Position is Location on a Political Spectrum. This conceptualization of people lining up left to right to stand as either radically left, moderate, or radically right is based on a way of visualizing political positions. But it does not stand the test of empirical scrutiny. Both Joe Lieberman and John McCain are considered to be centrists. They both take some liberal positions and other conservative positions. If centrism were an empirically real thing, both of these politicians would have the same values and take the same positions on all or most issues. This is not the case. Instead, they take very different positions on issues...showing that they are bi-conceptuals and not centrists.

I consider centrist to be an unreasonable term both because it misrepresents the actual mindsets of the politicians given this label and also, of particular importance in my original post, centrism is used by Schwarzenegger as a political move to appear more moderate. He is representing himself in a manner that contradicts the values he expressed previously. He is not a centrist (for it is not possible for him to be a member of a category that doesn't really exist), but rather is trying to assuage constituents who perceive him as being too conservative for their tastes. This is a strategy that may be useful for him and other politicians, but it is not a valid ideology.

Furthermore, he is endorsing centrism when it was progressive values that the voters overwhelmingly expressed. It is not the case that centrists won elections this term. Progressives cleaned house in the elections, revealing a mandate for progressive politics...not a mandate for moderate politics.

There is no such group of people who share the same combination of nurturant parent and strict father moral values, nor is there any group of people who share the same set of conservative and liberal issues, that has any legitimate political cohesion in America today.

Let me get this straight: you are claiming that there is no such thing as a "centrist" because there are no bi-conceptuals who share a common core of ideologies? ...that there is no such thing as a "centrist" because there is no group of people who have exactly the same blend of values?

Let's clarify this right off: I am not claiming that there is a large monolithic group of people who share the same ethical stance on all (or even nearly all) issues. I am not making any claim on that statement: I neither affirm nor deny it, but my eight ball says "Don't Count On It".

Let me further state that I have no idea what this paragraph meant:
While it is true that calling yourself a centrist and saying that the electorate in general picks and chooses from the issues are centrists would be a natural use for framing of a bi-conceptual. It sounds too gay a word to get away with even in California.
I wrote it and I was trying so hard to be cute that I lost track of what I was trying to say. If you refer to this half-paragraph when saying that I am clueless, you are correct. Oops.

The people that I think can correctly be called "centrists" are those who react to (what they perceive as) extremism on every issue. This is a broad generalization that may cover a very small segment of the population, but I know that at least one who exists. His name is Charles Richmond. The existence of one is enough to disprove any statement that generalizes to include "all" or "none".

The very notion of centrism is untenable from a conceptual point of view. It is based upon a metaphor that declares Political Position is Location on a Political Spectrum. This conceptualization of people lining up left to right to stand as either radically left, moderate, or radically right is based on a way of visualizing political positions. But it does not stand the test of empirical scrutiny.

Are you trying to insist that voters are rational? Do you have any basis for this assertion? (I mean, other than "the re-election of Dubya?") There are plenty of studies that show that people make choices for completely irrational reasons that I can dig up if you want to pay me for the effort. If you don't want to pay me, spend ten minutes on Google. There is a whole branch of economics (unless you want to say that that's all economics is) that covers the lack of rationality in choices. It will require you to know a little about probability and statistics to get anything from most of the studies, but I can sum up the gist in a few short words: "people are often stupid". I will steadfastly resist the temptation to digress no matter how much inspiration those four words fill my very soul.

I consider centrist to be an unreasonable term both because it misrepresents the actual mindsets of the politicians given this label and also, of particular importance in my original post, centrism is used by Schwarzenegger as a political move to appear more moderate.

I consider "unreasonable" to be an unreasonable term because it misrepresents the formulation of letters or sounds to contain a semantically false value no matter what context they are used in. Let's face this one square on: are you prejudiced against centrists?

If you are standing on a soapbox and call yourself a bi-conceptual, half of the people are going to be asking, "He said he was a bisexual?" while the other half shrugs. OF COURSE it is an overgeneralization intended to get him votes by getting voters to identify with him. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether the term has any basis in reality (which it does: remember Charles). Getting the people to identify with you so they will vote your way by spouting meaningless blather is a global tradition older than prostitution.

I will note in passing that you use the word "moderate" without flinching, but you gnash your teeth at "centrist." That's like the kettle calling the call-girl "hot".

NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT to what I said. I said that there is an identifiable group (possibly consisting of a single individual) which avoids extremes (as they perceive them) in their voting behavior.

Does this mean that they share a particular ideology? No.

Does this mean that they form a sizable portion of the voting population? Not necessarily, though the possibility exists that they do, despite all the ideological conflicts that should be present in such a group. These people might even form a cohesive bloc with predicable voting behavior. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Bi-conceptual, nurturant parent and stern father do not together encompass all voting behavior. I cannot prove that assertion right here and right now--except with Charles--but I'd give long odds that someone could put together a study that would show several standout holdouts. These frames are useful, but they should be used in full awareness that all generalizations are false.

Besides: people are often stupid. Sometimes they will vote a given way just to keep their spouses from getting a prominent tattoo that says, "I gave Clinton a blow-job, too." Wouldn't you?