Comments following the article-- from the site : Think Progress _What Problem Would A ‘Radical Centrist’ President Solve?_ (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/278419/what-problem-would-a-radical-centrist- president-solve/) By Matthew Yglesias on July 25, 2011 Alongside the _various other problems_ (http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2011/07/here-comes-friedmans-radical-center.html) with pining away for a _third party president representing the “radical center”_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman) and not beholden to special interests, I do have to wonder what problem this is supposed to solve. Imagine replacing Barack Obama with a hypothetical non-party president, who we’ll posit is to the right of the actual President Obama and also utterly free of interest group ties. How does that get us closer to a bipartisan agreement on the debt ceiling? It’s still the case that you need Democrats and Republicans in Congress to agree if you want to pass something. So you’re in the same boat. The main difference, as far as I can see, is that getting executive branch nominees confirmed would be much more difficult for a nonpartisan president. Essentially every nominee would be greeted with overwhelming hostility from all quarters as Senators seek leverage points to influence executive branch policy. The only reasonable course of action would be to form some kind of enduring relationship with one party or another and its base of constituency groups. Otherwise how are you supposed to govern? America’s political parties are entrenched precisely because _getting major political change is hard_ (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/24/277451/how-to-move-americans-politics-to-the-left/) . To circumvent them both effectively, you’d have to do all the work of replicating an entire national political party not just elect a president (as the Republicans did in the 1850s). But at that point, you also might just work inside one party or the other. I suspect that what a lot of people who think they’re not happy with the current two parties are really unhappy with is some mix of “the voters don’t agree with my views” and “American political institutions are poorly designed.” I sympathize with both of those concerns. I wish more voters agreed with me about more things, and I also wish our institutions were less prone to gridlock. But just having some different person sit in the White House wouldn’t do anything to change the fact that bipartisan agreement is both hard to achieve and necessary to enact major change. ============================================ This is an absurdity of an essay. Its main characteristic is complete lack of political imagination. The author cannot see any potential for Radical Centrism to begin with and, in transposing the idea onto a hypothetical RC president, doesn't even try to fathom just what someone like that could do. In other words the writer is a political partisan who is invested in a partisan worldview who refuses , on principle, to think about how a non-partisan president might use his powers of office toward achieving Radical Centrist goals. Of course it would help if he knew something about RC beyond some bare minimum. What could a Radical Centrist president do ? By extension the question is what could any Radical Centrist in any political office do, given the fact that he ( might be "she" ) has no political party support. There are several possibilities, and with some serious research any number of additional ideas might suggest themselves. For example : Both major parties want to pass legislation. For this they need presidential agreement, otherwise they face a veto. In other words, if either the Democrats or the Republicans want to pass favored legislation, an RC president could bargain with them for measures that he wants passed into law. OR he could demand, as price for his signature, that bills brought to his desk should contain Radical Centrist provisions favored by his administration. As well, a president could require, in exchange for his approval, provisions in new laws that mandate inter-party cooperation, at least for some new laws. The president has a "bully pulpit." Assuming the role of "preacher in chief" he could use that kind of platform to evangelize for Radical Centrist ideas. With only minimal luck this ought to be sufficient to change public opinion on any number of issues or policies. The president is supreme in foreign affairs and could easily cultivate positive relationships with foreign leaders who have ideas that are compatible with Radical Centrism. Some of these relationships might well benefit the United States and contribute to a new political climate. As well, since the president has this power, he has additional bargaining leverage with Congress. If legislators want something related to their own interests in foreign affairs the WH could ask for and expect their help on selected issues. The president could use his political megaphone to create public demand for reforms in how Congress operates. If successful, this could contribute to a "Radical Centristification" of the legislature and a new spirit of co-operation between at least some members of the House or between at least some senators. That is, a president could create reforms in Congress even if he has no partisan support at the outset. A president makes appointments to cabinet and other high status posts. Assuming that there would be relatively few Radical Centrists who would be eligible for these positions he would need to appoint Democrats and/or Republicans. OK, he could seek out those party members who, while not Radical Centrists themselves, at least share some RC ideas and values. As well, in some cases appointments might be used to bargain for RC provisions in classes of legislation and the like. These are just five approaches ; each has considerable potential. And this is just a start. Billy
-- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
