Home | About | Donate

Move to the Center! And Then? Move to the Center!


Move to the Center! And Then? Move to the Center!

Tom Gallagher

Whatever else you might want to say about the corporate types who dominate the Democratic Party, you’ve got to give some of them an “A” for audacity.

The latest to register for top scores are Mark Penn and Andrew Stein who have raised the cry, “Back to the Center, Democrats” in a New York Times op-ed piece. Now, in case any of you have forgotten, Bernie Sanders did not actually win the Democratic nomination.


The OP-ED by the two "centrist" propagandists is typical garbage from the corporate-whore wing of the Democratic Party. The issues they promote and the candidates who espouse them lost two consecutive mid-term elections and were too blind and corrupted to see or make any course corrections - that record is hardly one to be lauded. The Clinton-Obama model of politics has lost the respect and trust of the people enough that their latest anointed shill for corporate/banker/wall street/war-machine candidate was despised and hated enough the other most despised candidate won despite his depravity, pathological lying/deceits, and mental illness - such is the record of the elite "centrism" espoused by the Times propagandists the Dem party has descended to!

Bernie Sanders championed issues that inspired millions. He did not gain the nomination and was betrayed by the DINO establishment, and has some warts as most politicians, but who else is/can lead progressives out of the wilderness? Some bash Sanders for perceived "failures", supposed betrayals, and complicity with the DINO wing, the "sheepdog" crap, but they offer nothing of substance in Sanders' place - no viable candidate or leader polling more than 1-3% - IMO they are as destructive and divisive as the Penn/Stein BS. Changing the status quo corporatocracy will not be magically accomplished overnight!

The "Center" is dead and the Centrist Dem Party with it unless they change/reform utterly from corporate-whore "centrism"! Idiot myopic blather like Penn & Stein push is the dying bleating of a proven losing corrupt party establishment.


More evidence the NYT Op-Ed authors are blatant political opportunists and the editorial staff idiots to give them a platform. Andy Stein and Ann Coulter - yeah, that coulter - were also an item - go figure.


Looking down the road all you see in the center is road kill.


Penn and Stein "move to center" - is the 2017 version of a social block being told to 'move to the back of the bus'. How very partyingly democratic to decline specifics of race. Remember that what pushed Johnson off his 'center' was the sheer scale of the articulation of position that shrank his [ahem] like a soaking in cold water. Come to think of it cold water is increasingly more valuable than oil is countless ways with exponentially verifiable swathes of society joining the chorus for as many different reasons. Indeed, diversity is grand!

I tend to keep the tragedy in Haiti very much front and center as the schematic model being advanced by the likes and ilk of the "Clinton Foundation". Engineered by toxic dependency and styled to perpetuate PRECISELY THAT, it must constantly slide its dead weight on the acid of insinuation, (too far left), which erodes the ground of any potentially altruistic byproduct, equivocate as much as possible to veil to shenanigans, and partake in lavish distractions and circus as the failures are created so that they can claim insight to (never) fixing them.

Too far left? me thinks not.


I have no problem with the Ds staying a centrist, corporate party.

Because all they'll be doing is motivating the left to abandon them en masse. The process is already underway--it has been for decades--I look for it to gain momentum until the D-party is but a memory.


The Democratic Party is a coalition of various groups. Decades ago it included southern conservatives but now it is entirely center and left of center. Probably the main part of the coalition several decades ago was organized labor but that group is much smaller and doesn't seem to be closely aligned with either party. So the question is how do you put together a coalition that is big enough to consistently win elections. Without being able to count on organized labor the Democratic Party is struggling to win elections outside of larger cities, and particularly in more rural areas. The biggest reason for this appear to be racism. The Democratic Party is considered to be the party of blacks. Since the civil rights movement the Democratic Party has been associated with supporting the needs of African Americans. And Republicans have told people that blacks are the only ones helped by social programs when in fact many whites or helped and in some cases more than blacks. The association between Democrats and blacks even got much stronger with the election of Barack Obama. Trump was able to win the election (although virtually all polls showed he would lose) by riding the backlash against the Democrats who are viewed particularly in rural areas as supporting blacks and neglecting the needs of whites. The problem of the Democrats is what to do now.


Sorry for all bold caps, but for some reason, people seem to wilfully forget that fact.
Just because the GOP has gerrymandered/suppressed Democrats out of existence in the "Red" states, and are setting about to eliminate them nationally once and for all, doesn't mean the Democrats were wrong on strategy, or on policy. If you want to take control of the nation, you will have to A. be LOYAL to your party at all costs, and
B. see above.


Pushing the SCOTUS further rightward and widespread gerrymandering were made possible by Bill Clinton's zealous promotion and signing NAFTA, resulting in the GOP taking control of Congress in 1994. This was the first time the GOP controlled the House of Representatives in 40 years. Fibbing about extramarital sex resulted in Gore losing in 2000, giving Cheney and his puppet the keys to the 21st century.

Obama further empowered the GOP to push courts rightward and expand gerrymandering by handing control of Congress back to the GOP with his corporate welfare program designed as health care reform.


Yes, Democrats should move to the center. Considering how far right they've drifted, this would mean becoming a great deal more progressive.

Now, considering Obamacare: everyone recognizes that it still leaves a lot of people out who cannot afford insurance. But the Democrats' message is that Obamacare is enough--there is no reason to do more. Doesn't this obviously imply that there are many, many people who do not deserve health care?


Edmund, Seriously, be "LOYAL" to your party at "ALL" costs?

Does anyone else here wish to take this one? I'm done with these at all costs Democrats.


The center is mostly a media construct as the nature of objective journalism is to have a bias toward the status quo. People do align by isms and political affiliations but most people do not fit neatly on a timeline. There are people who are moderates but they are fickle (wishy washy may be too negative a word) as they tend toward listening to various arguments and choosing. Problem is who is arguing what and how affects where those people come down. Playing to the middle is a loser because you can never shift the argument and you are playing to a fickle crowd.


And a path off a cliff.


We don't forget the fact of Hillary's popular vote total, it is because it doesn't reflect the full truth of Democratic Party support or lack thereof.

Clinton cleaned up in strong blue areas as she should have, but the electoral college trumps the red/blue raw vote totals. She didn't win several Midwest Blue States, so it CAN be said she messed up on strategy and/or policy.

A significant amount of her popular vote total can be ascribed to an anti-Trump vote. She did receive 'lesser of two evil' votes. I know plenty of people like myself that did the 'hold the nose' vote for Clinton. I didn't enjoy doing that.

As a Michigander, she ignored my state except at primary time (which Sanders won here) and only in the last week or so and she narrowly lost my state to Trump.

Her message was lost here. It was 'attack Trump' exclusively at the end. That's not a vision of the future for her ideas. And what were her ideas? Incrementalism. Boldly going where mamby pambys have gone before.


I'd like to agree with you but in America I think a portion of lefties have this utopian third party rising hope. Historically it just doesn't happen because the electoral college and state ballot requirements throws a wrench into the formation of a strong third party.

A democracy such as France with coalition party politics can result in a third party emerging out of a cloud suddenly as it did in their last election. But their new party is a centrist one and who knows what will be the long term conditions as so many of their candidates have zero political experience. Their democracy is now ladled with rookies. Some say that is a good thing, but contrasting, experience counts.

At any rate, where's that lefty third party to supplant the Democrats? The Greens? There's a party shooting itself in the foot. Jill Stein was not well known and had no political experience (actually working as an elected official). Then she went on some sort of Clinton helping crusade (publicity stunt?) after the election was over.

It's depressing to me. I'm disappointed with the Dems but where do I go? As it stands today, it appears that trying to change the party from within seems the 'easier' path, thus the Democratic Divide now raging. The Progressive Wing needs to win that battle.


Lrx, once again spouts his pro corporate propaganda., not out of ignorance, but rather intentionally.

It is abhorrent.


Ed, Hillary LOST the only election that has ever mattered - the electoral college. And that has nothing to do with gerrymandering, since it's a state-by-state total, and I don't recall the Republicans re-drawing the state boundaries.

Ultimately people have a choice - they can either choose to be loyal to a party apparatus, and hope that they can get enough people to support the apparatus, regardless of its ideals, or they can support their ideals, and find, or even found, a party that ultimately represents those ideals.

After all, I don't see the Whigs around any more...



I don't know where that third or fourth or fifth party is.

But I know that building one or two or three should start now rather than later.

I also know that bringing down the D-Party is getting easier by the week. If that's where we start--wonderful.


Last time I checked:

No one was required to vote for a party.
Viable parties paid attention to the needs of their bases.
Viable parties offered policy that appealed to their bases.
Viable parties were coalitions who didn't tell some members of their coalition to STFU.
Parties on epic losing streaks considered making significant changes.
Parties on epic losing streaks went the way of the dinosaur.
Winning the popular vote was a pathetic consolation prize.
I owe your party nothing.