Suboptimist

Great linguist, bad political scientist.

Honestly, now that all my friends have packed up and left town, I think starting school is less scary. Now I think of starting school as having something to do again.

I’ve been struggling to find a reason to blog lately. Usually, I use this web space as forum to talk about issues in linguistics during the school year, while I talk about other crap during the summer. I don’t know how well that works. I really don’t want this to be specifically a linguistics blog. I have other things I enjoy talking about, but so often I am bombarded with linguistics, so it’s an easier thing to write about. Today, I’ll be writing a little about politics, and a little about linguistics, only because this man, a linguist, wrote this article, about centrism (or centrists), or rather how he doesn’t believe it exists. As an aside, I know this article is about a year old, but not an entire year yet!

Lakoff has decided that centrism is a self-serving metaphor. One created by more conservative Democrats uncomfortable in their own skin. More specifically, there is no defining value of center. Anyone who reads this blog knows I am not a very gifted writer, so I will address the issues point-counter-point and in seriatim.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought — call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I’ve called “biconceptuals”: progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don’t form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a “center.”

Let’s break it down further:

There are two systems of values and modes of thought — call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives.

The core assumption here is correct. There are conservatives and liberals (which Lakoff arbitrarily decides to call progressives).

And there are lots of folks who are what I’ve called “biconceptuals”: progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don’t form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale.

This is actually where the core of my disagreement with Lakoff lay. There are those of us, indeed the majority of us, who call ourselves centrists, but are not, ahem, biconceptual. Here, Lakoff is making two assumptions. First, that political ideology is somehow categorical and discrete and second, that people who call themselves centrists are espousing both conservative and liberal views, e.g., I can be conservative fiscally and liberal socially. Most people I know who think this way call themselves libertarians, but whatever.

No single set of values defining a “center.”

And this is where Lakoff goes from being on shaky ground to be outright wrong. There is a set of values defining center, and they aren’t conservative or liberal ones. They espouse compromise and consensus. Not a subtle difference. As centrists, we believe that while either party can be right, very often they aren’t. Often, the extremes create false dichotomies. We see from history that most of our progress has been made from accommodation of the opposition. What we know from the drafting process of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution show that a great deal of compromise went on. The alternative is almost never good.

Lakoff goes on and makes his core argument (I’m skipping over his arguments about liberals being morally elevated above all else):

The very idea that there is a “center” marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term “center” suggests there is a “mainstream” where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.

…

It is important to stand up to the DLC [Democratic Leadership Committee], and to the idea that there is a unitary mainstream center, that they are it, and that progressives are extremists and deserve to be marginalized.

The idea of a center marginalizes nobody. The idea of a center is that we don’t need to fall into lock-step with one side or the other to do the right thing. If anything, this Third Way position has been marginalized in American politics. In short, Lakoff is guilty of exactly what he accuses centrists of doing: complete disregard for and oversimplification of alternative points of view. I think Lakoff should address his own discomfort with being a liberal before he casts aspersions on the center.