Centroids:
Matt Miller's unsuccessful campaign for Congress should be an object  lesson
for Radical Centrists in how not to run a campaign. For that matter, to  
judge from
what I have seen so far, the same can be said for Mark Warner, who won 
his re-election to the Senate but ran a half-baked campaign and  almost
came in second. However,  Warner, so far, is far less of a Radical  Centrist
and more of a standard issue Democrat and we can let the story of his
campaign be set aside for now. At issue is Matt Miller's loss,  someone who
ran and campaigned as a Radical Centrist.
 
 
There are several observations to make based on the following  article:
 
(1) To achieve success a politician needs to be perceived  as relevant
by the voters. It was not the case that Matt Miller's ideas were  "bad,"
they were very good, its that he seems to have made no effort to  connect
with the real-life concerns of actual voters. In effect he brought a  knife
to a gun fight, or brought an  iPad to a gunfight.
 
(2) There are three basic approaches to RC, call  them:
High Standard Deviation
New Perspective  -not compromise, but synthesis of  views
Originality -some altogether new solution to a problem  that is neither L 
or R
 
My view is that  you need all three  and Miller seems to  have focused his 
attention
entirely on New Perspective. 
 
High Standard Deviation means combining several strong  positions from
Left and Right (maybe with "Other" in the mix) and hitting each  position
very hard, as if each position really matters to you. If you are going to  
preach,
in other words, be a fundamentalist Baptist about it, not lukewarm in any  
way.
Miller never understood this basic principle.
 
The opportunity to shine as a genius (or as someone who is very smart)  
comes
with the Originality approach. And this helps balance the  HSD part of the
equation when you let it all hang out and are on fire for your  values.
Based on the article, anyway, Miller never seems to have done  this;
apparently all of his good ideas were reasonable, rational, and  humane.
Which is fine if you are happy with  12% of the vote but not  nearly
what you need if you want to win.
 
Originality is an invitation to be BOLD, energized, unique, and  memorable.
I don't see where Miller was any such thing.
 
(3)  Politics is a form of war. To be good at  it means picking your fights.
It is pure delusion to think that politics is a gentleman's pastime, or  
something
that is similar to a cocktail party where the best drinks win. 
 
Politics is all about controversy, about attacks and counter-attacks, it  is
a blood sport where the losers usually end up dead.
 
To use metaphor that makes a point: 
You need to  love to kill  if you want to be successful  at politics.
You need to be a Marine about it, in other words.
 
Matt Miller seems to have operated on principles that could not  possibly
have resulted in success. He was an idealist at a gunfight. What you need  
to be
is Clint Eastwood at a gunfight, or maybe Charles Bronson. And this is  true
even when, personally, someone is a "really nice guy." There is far more  to
politics than what anyone sees on TV or during speeches at banquets.
You need to fight to win, with everything you've got.  That is what 
politics is all about, not something else.
 
Left for another time is the question about whether you can really be  a
Radical Centrist and win if you run as either a Democrat or a  Republican.
Personally, I now have serious doubts.
 
 
Billy
 
 
 
 
=======================================
 
 
 
New Republic
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





 
June 16,  2014




 
 
 
 
 
I'm Supposed  to Be a Cynical Journalist, and I've Fallen in Love with a 
Politician.  The excruciating pain of watching Matt Miller lose 


 
 
 
 




 
 
By _T.A. Frank_ (http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/ta-frank)   
 
I was at no risk of  being in the tank for Matt Miller—no, not I. For one  
thing, I am a journalist, bound by the ethics for which my trade is admired. 
For  another, politics is an odd business, and those who go into it are odd 
and  egotistical people, not like me, a normal and virtuous journalist. 
Also, there  was too much salivating in this race. When Democrat Henry Waxman 
announced in  January that he’d be retiring from Congress, having represented 
much of Los  Angeles County for 40 years, the effect was like granddad 
leaving behind a  rent-controlled penthouse to an uncertain heir. (“I knew 
instantly in my gut  that this district, the 33rd District, and his position 
was 
something I knew I  could make a difference in”—pronouncement by City Hall  
politician Wendy Greuel, not a resident of the 33rd District.) 
And yet Miller’s campaign interested me. In Los  Angeles, Miller is a minor 
celebrity, best known for hosting a public-radio show  called “Left, Right 
& Center.” And he has written two quite good books, The 2% Solution and The 
Tyranny of Dead Ideas. In the 1990s, he did some time in the  Office of 
Management and Budget under President Clinton, followed by a stint at  The New 
Republic, and today he does some private-sector consulting at  McKinsey. In 
short, Miller’s a writer-wonk, a journalist—not, again, that this would make 
me partial to the man. On May  1, more than a month before the primary, 
Miller also picked up an endorsement  from the Los Angeles Times, so if Miller 
had  qualifications that I considered to be worthy, these were likewise 
noted by some  of Miller’s most prominent fellow opinion journalists. So there. 
Eight days before the primary, I headed out to  watch the man campaign. The 
event took place in the backyard of a spacious house  in Pacific Palisades, 
Miller’s own neighborhood, a wealthy pocket of hillside  Los Angeles next 
to the ocean. Crossing a bridge over a koi pond at the  entrance, I 
introduced myself to the host, Chuck Davis, a friend of Miller’s  since the 
1980s, 
when both were at Brown University. (I suspect Los Angeles is  now run by 
alumni of Brown, but that is another story.) On hand for visitors,  along with 
snacks and beverages, were stick-on tattoos that read, in black  lettering, “
MATT MILLER FOR CONGRESS! ENDORSED BY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES”—created 
because political consultant Stan Greenberg told Miller  to tattoo the Times 
endorsement on his forehead. Of the  couple dozen guests, nearly all over 40, 
several had applied the “Mattoo,” as  the campaign called it, to various 
non-forehead parts of their body. I grabbed  one and attached it to my 
clipboard. 
 


Miller is 52, tall and bespectacled, resembling a  lean Norm Macdonald. 
That day, he wore gray slacks, frumpy black slip-on shoes,  and a blue polo 
shirt that allowed his arm Mattoo to be visible. An audience  member asked 
about Mattoo durability. “This has been through several days of  showers,” he 
assured her. Then, after thanking his hosts, and, with a gesture  toward a 
lush canyon view, noting “how many beautiful ways there are to live in  Los 
Angeles,” Miller launched into his stump speech. 
For the “center” of “Left, Right & Center,”  he was surprisingly 
forceful, denouncing health care “oligopolies” and deploring  how campaigns are 
financed. He proposed a wonky carbon tax that would rebate all  the money to 
the taxpayer, and he said he would push the federal government to  encourage 
teacher hiring policies similar to those in Singapore and Finland. He  was 
also playful. Asked about lavish defense procurement, he said solemnly that  
we should “shrink the Pentagon down to the size of a triangle.” (He followed 
up  with a serious answer.) Asked about gerrymandering and partisanship, he 
noted  that he considered Rockefeller Republicans to be sadly endangered 
and urged that  they be bred in  captivity.








 
The questions he got were much more substantive  than what journalists 
would ask, and the answers he gave were much more  thoughtful than what normal 
candidates would provide. He explained that he  wanted to be on the budget 
committee in order to take advantage of those brief  intervals every two to 
four years when there is a window for meaningful action.  Unlike just about 
any candidate, he wrote his own policy papers, and a number of  his proposals 
used ideas blessed by conservatives, in order to make prospects of  passage 
more likely. 
Cover enough campaigns and you realize that  entering politics in earnest 
is like a promise to amputate everything  interesting about yourself. It is a 
vow of hack. But I had to admit that  politics did not seem to have 
destroyed Matt Miller. I eyed my Mattoo. Would it  be unprofessional to wear 
one, 
just for reporting purposes? 
When I returned home, I scrolled over to see what  Miller’s chief rivals, 
the presumptive Democratic front-runners, were saying.  Greuel had taken to 
her Facebook page to condemn Clippers owner Donald Sterling  for racist taped 
remarks (“disgusting and disgraceful”), to condemn an odious  poster drawn 
up by opponents of Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis  (“deeply 
offensive”), and to assure voters of her commitment to “work tirelessly  to 
preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare.” State Senator Ted Lieu  
had taken to Facebook to condemn the recent scandal over wait times at V.A.  
hospitals (“shocking and unacceptable”), to condemn child sex-trafficking (
“Our  children are not for sale”), and to assure voters of his commitment “
to protect  medicare & social security.” 
Five days later, I joined Miller and his  campaign’s chief of staff, Ben 
Sherman, to watch Miller canvas at the Santa  Monica Farmers Market. Much 
swallowing of pride is required of a candidate at  such times. 
Miller: Hi, I’m running for Congress. Do you live in the  area?

Woman: No.

Miller: Hi, I’m running for Congress. Do you live in the  area?

Couple: [Silent staring ahead and  walking.]

Miller: Hi, I’m running for Congress. Do you live in the  area?

Couple: No, France!
I asked Miller if it was hard to approach people  out of the blue; he said 
he enjoyed it. “Hey there, good-looking,” Miller said  to a lady walking 
the other way. “Do you live in the area?” It was Jody Miller,  Matt’s wife. 
She’d had luck with some of the market-goers, she said, and she  reported 
that one elderly lady seated nearby had offered her vote in exchange  for Jody’
s dress. “Take it off,” Matt ordered. 
In his studies of optimism, psychologist Martin  Seligman has found that 
pessimists are more likely to be realistic than  optimists are. This can be 
useful in financial planning; but in politics,  optimism is best. Matt Miller 
estimated that half of his approaches were  successful in at least getting 
out the word. I estimated that about a fifth  were. Jody Miller said she didn’
t expect so many out-of-area tourists to be at  the market. I thought I didn
’t expect so many liars to be at the market. Still,  he’d connected with 
at least a couple dozen interested people, and one had even  volunteered to 
man phones. 
I don’t want to say that I was becoming a silent  cheerleader at this 
point. For instance, when Miller made another campaign  appearance and observed 
that many of his fellow Democrats were leaning on  “values-based appeals 
without doing anything that changes the conditions or the  prospects of 
ordinary 
Americans,” I didn’t mouth, “Woo-hoo,” or raise my fist.  That would have 
been unprofessional, plus I was holding a drink. But still.  Could a 
non-hack really make the cut? 
Three days later, it was time for the primaries.  I slept poorly on Monday, 
but surely just because I’d had late coffee. On  Tuesday night, impatient, 
I checked my laptop, but no final results. The next  day, I saw that Matt 
Miller had not made it into the top two. He’d come in a  respectable fifth, 
with 12 percent of the vote. Democrat Ted Lieu had secured a  run-off spot, 
with 19 percent of the vote, and so had a Republican named Elan  Carr, with 22 
percent. Only 13 percent of voters had participated—the usual. 
I checked Carr’s campaign page and found that he  had taken to Facebook to 
condemn the Holocaust (“one of history’s most  despicable atrocities”), to 
condemn cruelty to animals (“people who  intentionally torture animals 
should go to state prison”), and to invite  supporters to a $1,000-per-plate 
dinner “hosted by my friends Sheldon and Miriam  Adelson at the Four Seasons 
Beverly Hills.” 
Life as we know it had resumed. 
On Thursday morning, Miller and I met up for a  cup of coffee in Pacific 
Palisades, and there was no mistaking the comedown. As  I asked him about 
insights and plans, he noted evenly that, 24 hours out, he’d  not had a lot of 
time for reflection. He was going to take a vacation with his  wife and 
daughter. But he was happy he’d given it a try. “I think politics is a  really 
worthy calling,” he said. “If good people don’t do this, how do we expect  
anything to get better?” 
Once again, victory had gone to the standard  sorts. Still, I confess: Some 
of us might have come out less jaded. For all the  grubbiness, apathy, 
bribery, hackery, and phoniness in the game, for all the  votes to be gained by 
a firm stance against cat torture, American democracy  still works well 
enough that getting involved tends to make you less, not more,  cynical. Miller 
had lost, just as we’d known he would. But he’d done remarkably  well in a 
four-month campaign, raising more than $800,000, and, with twice the  time, 
he might have come in fourth. Or better. Right? 

-- 
-- 
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

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to