Views > July 18, 2008 > Web Only

‘Centrists’ Running the Asylum

By David Sirota

In the asylum that is American politics, beware a candidate like Barack Obama when he is lauded for moving to “the center” — because usually that means he is drifting away from it.

Over the last month, the Democratic presidential nominee has backed a measure to permit warrantless wiretapping and protect telecom companies when they violate customers’ privacy; sent conflicting signals about whether he will reform the NAFTA trade model; and threatened to revise his timetable for ending the war in Iraq. Universally, reporters have billed this dance as a move to the middle. As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama’s shifts are designed “to appeal to the center of the electorate.”

However, empirical data proves “the center of the electorate” is exactly the opposite:

— Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

— Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

— For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to “set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.”

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?

Part of the up-is-down distortion reflects perspective — or lack thereof.

Most politicians and journalists who set the parameters of our political debate live in Washington and make six-figure salaries. They are geographically, financially and socially isolated from the blood-and-guts consequences of today’s two wars — the one in Iraq and the one on the middle class. That insulation skews viewpoints.

Indeed, the center of opinion in the nation’s capital is very different from the center of opinion in the country at large. In elite D.C., a moderate is one who backs job-killing trade deals, legal immunity for corporate wrongdoers, and wars for oil, regardless of casualties. And so when Obama embraces those positions, Beltway opinion-makers really think he’s being a “centrist” — regardless of how far away from the actual center he’s moving.

But, then, not all politicians and pundits are completely ignorant of life outside the palace walls. A calculated Jedi mind trick is at work here, too.

When regular folks talk to friends and neighbors, we sure feel like our desire for privacy, disgust with NAFTA and opposition to the Iraq war are mainstream majority positions — and they are. But then comes the barrage.

Day after day, smiling anchormen, blow-dried correspondents and silver-tongued congressmen follow the Big Lie theory of indoctrination, taking to our televisions, radios and newspapers insisting that crazy is normal, the majority is the minority and — most importantly — the fringe is the “center.” This is no accident.

These voices of the status quo do not want the status quo challenged. They deliberately broadcast messages crafted to get us — the mainstream — to question our mainstream-ness, while convincing politicians that the Establishment’s extremism represents a responsible middle ground.

More Aldous Huxley than George Orwell, these are the methods of modern propaganda, with the celebration of Obama’s “centrism” the latest doublespeak. In this brave new world, language is sculpted to skew the “center,” intimidating the majority from demanding concrete change for fear of looking like lunatics. It is a slickly packaged process of marginalization and demoralization — one with an underlying goal: keeping the real lunatics running the asylum.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Most politicians...are geographically, financially and socially isolated from the blood-and-guts consequences of today’s two wars — the one in Iraq and the one on the middle class.
  YES!

  ...smiling anchormen, correspondents and congressmen follow the Big Lie theory of indoctrination
  YES!

  These voices of the status quo do not want the status quo challenged.
  YES!

  ...these are the methods of modern propaganda ...one with an underlying goal: keeping the real lunatics running the asylum.
  and — YES!

  I think we’ve also been numbed by the election marathon.
  To the old adage —If you can’t Dazzle them with Data, Baffle them with B*ll Sh*t
  another has been added — Buffalo them with Boredom.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jul 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM

  Sirota’s article reiterates an admirable effort to make us rethink uncritical notions of “centrism.” His logic and evidence, however, should not be uncritically accepted.

  Sirota rightly criticizes mainstream media coverage placing recent Obama policy statements as efforts “‘to appeal to the center of the electorate.’”

  Responding to such media coverage, Sirota writes that “empirical data proves ‘the center of the electorate’ is exactly the opposite.” To support this claim, he cites poll results on three important issues.

  Instead of writing “empirical data proves,” it would have been more honest to write, “statistical data suggests.” Yet Sirota goes on to claim that “the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is.”

  This raises three serious questions: (1) Why should any serious progressive accept Sirota’s evidence as “undebatable”?
  (2) Why should any serious progressive assume that there is any such thing as “the center of public opinion” in the first place? (3) To prove his case, isn’t Sirota borrowing “empirical data” from sources that Sirota himself labels disreputable?

  As a serious progressive, I would appreciate answers to these questions.

  Posted by francis frank on Jul 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM

  Sitora makes good points, even if he uses sensationalist language to prove them.  If we’re going to be nit-picky about our definitions, perhaps we could define what it means to be a “serious progressive.”
  Either way, Sitora’s point is that as Obama moves further and further away from his original platforms, he’s disenfranchising the same electorate that pushed him past Clinton in the primaries.  Clinton’s “centerist” politics had obvious undertones of placating to corporate interests in US politics.  Originally, Obama’s appeal was founded in his politics which seemed to lie beyond the narrow scope of American business.  As we can see now, however, Obama is the same as all the other politicians in this country, who prizes winning over principles.  His shift is neither away from the left, or toward the center, or whatever… but rather a move toward campaign money. 
  Personally, I’m strongly considering the Green Party, an organization that seems to actually embrace politics that mirror my own.  I know they won’t win, but I’d be able to sleep at night knowing I voted actively for someone I can support, than blindly for someone who seemed “less awful” than the other guy.  The lesser of two evils is still evil, and frankly I’m sick of evil-ness in our politics.

  Posted by diciteco on Jul 21, 2008 at 7:48 AM

  Diciteco: Fair enough about my use of the term “serious progressive”; upon reflection, that could mean a variety of things. I need to think about it.

  That said, some topics I would like to discuss:

  (1) Clearly Obama is a politician, and a skillful one. Clearly Obama has alienated a variety of erstwhile allies over the course of his political career. (The New Yorker article gives an interesting bio on his Chicago roots.) I am not saying it’s right to “prize winning [or money] over principles,” but should it be surprising?

  (2) Which electorate is Obama disenfranchising, exactly?

  (3) The Green Party is worthy of serious consideration and support.

  (4) “The lesser of two evils is still evil”?  My friend, you pose the problem of a quantitative versus a qualitative distinction. Are you suggesting that there would be no sigificant differences between the goals of a McCain vs. an Obama Presidency? If so, you see McC and O’B as six of one, half a dozen of the other. I happen to differ…

  (5) Sirota supports morally sound positions. The way he makes his points, however--and yes, I am “nit-picky"--is not particularly good. He preaches to the choir and hopes that the unconverted will suddenly join his church.

  Posted by francis frank on Jul 21, 2008 at 7:52 PM

  Diciteco and Francis Frank,

  I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 ($0.50/gal gas tax for alt. energy) and Perot (against NAFTA) and instead of a lousy T-shirt, I got lousy government business (favoritism) -as-usual.

  I am sick and tired of our entire elective system and tired voting against the one I see as the worse choice.

  My decision this time will be made on the earliest impressions of the two finalists — everything now is simply spin to gather votes from various interest groups.

  For a definition of “Centrist” I would look to the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

  Neither candidate’s proposals need to be any more specific than what was offered there, since in reality they can only do what congress proposes and passes on for a signature.

  It would be refreshing to vote for someone who has the general welfare in mind instead of one pandering to all the “special interests” —piecemeal.

  What the Heck

  Posted by whattheheck on Jul 23, 2008 at 7:10 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.

Member Login

Also by David Sirota

• An Unconventional Convention
  
• Will Obama Wave Bayh Bye to the White House?
  
• A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to Denver
  
• Sanity From The Silver Screen
  
• Six Little Words To Fix America’s Wage Crisis
  
• ‘Centrists’ Running the Asylum