Explicitly Centrist or Not?

I know that Andrew, Gene and Gabriel have put a lot of editing into that page, and are still not entirely pleased with it.

That said, here is my opinion.

I came to the Whigs last year after a friend told me I was a throw back to the old Whig party. I realized he was right and started looking around and found the MWP. What attracted me was the fact that they didn't fit into any "normal" category but were pragmatic in nature.

Being pragmatic goes beyond labels such as Left, Right or Center.

In my view, the MWP will take anyone's ideas if they are rational and will work, regardless of ideology. This was the hallmark of the Whigs of the 1800s. Even more, the Whigs have been the standard bearers of Locke and Hume. The TEA Party may talk a lot about the Founding Fathers, but the Whigs of the 1700s *were* the Founding Fathers.

So my hope is that the Modern Whigs remember the history behind the name during every discussion about policy and apply logic and critical thinking at every step they take and not shy away from any idea just because it has been proposed by the Left or the Right. Instead, apply the principles that Whigs have always espoused, those of classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment.

When I was campaigning in 2010, I discovered / reaffirmed something -- different people have very different views on what is "pragmatic," what "works," etc.

Whether we call something centrist or not, like in any good debate, we have to decide what specifics represent our theories and what specifics distinguish us from the specifics of the two big parties (and here I'm talking their theoretical specifics, the ones they sell to voters, not necessarily their [in]actions). We won't agree on everything, but if we agree on very little, if we're too "big tent," we'll be mostly a moral reform party. That will happen with too much emphasis on "each state its own decision," etc.

If our version of reform is simply to be honest and well intentioned and for each individual to understand pragmatism their own way, our unifying forces will be very weak. After all, integrity and pragmatism are principles espoused by the MoveOn left and the Pat Buchanan right.

On the grand scale of things, the MWP seems very center right. But then the Republicans are far-right and the Democrats centrist with a center-left element.

It really doesn't make sense for us not to call ourselves centrists. "Centrism" is a vague term in American politics and it can be up to us and our supporters to define what it means.

"Being pragmatic goes beyond labels such as Left, Right or Center."

I almost couldn't disagree more. Almost everyone believes their views are the pragmatic ones. All it really means is 'what works'.

I could hardly be more of a hard core centrist, and yet I'm self aware enough to see that my view of what pragmatic is is heavily colored by my personal political views.

Saying you are for pragmatic politics doesn't tell that person anything about what you believe.

If you try and build something that isn't clear about who you are trying to represent, you will continue to not get much of anywhere.

What you describe is an issue advocacy organization, not a political party. A political party is supposed to represent the view of it's members. What Jim said didn't answer my question at all.

"If our version of reform is simply to be honest and well intentioned and for each individual to understand pragmatism their own way, our unifying forces will be very weak. After all, integrity and pragmatism are principles espoused by the MoveOn left and the Pat Buchanan right."

Jeff's comments here are spot on. Vagueness does not work in politics.

"It really doesn't make sense for us not to call ourselves centrists. "Centrism" is a vague term in American politics and it can be up to us and our supporters to define what it means."

I mostly agree with this. The MWP should call itself centrist IF, and only if, it specifically works to target centrists as it's base. And it should clarify what centrist means, the center of the electorate, as opposed to trying to define it as meaning anything else, pretending there is a centrism ideology or anything like that.

Jeff,

You are right that we must decide on what specifics represent our theories and that is where the National Associations come in. We have our principles in "What we Believe" and examples of Whig thinking in "Where we Stand". The policy specifics are going to come from the National Associations. Members, Policy Experts and candidates will be able come together to build policy. It will not come from one person but form citzens working together with methods and research in a way to help build effective policy. I think that given our methods and approaches, and the fact that people are coming to the Modern Whigs because they are tired of the ideological approches of the Dems and Reps. we will be a party that does not cater to extremes.

All the best,
Andrew Evans
National Chairman
Modern Whig Party

What do the terms centrist, moderate, and Modern Whig mean? That is the real question of this whole debate. First let’s start off with centrist and moderate (some will debate that they are very separate terms, I personally disagree but that is probably a discussion that will go around in circles).
A lot of what I will write about centrist and centrism comes from the old American Centrist Party website text that I and others wrote back in 2005. I am not claiming that this is the “official” definition of centrist (as I think the official definition is part of the problem here, but yet an issue we must deal with).
Centrist- n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
Moderate-n. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme.
The above are dictionary definitions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com

From www.americancentristparty.net- A Centrist is an independent and someone who does not hold themselves to the party politics of the right or left. Being a Centrist allows you to have your politics a la carte, to have the freedom of political thought. A Centrist can support some liberal principles and some conservative principles while having the freedom to disagree with both. A Centrist cares about finding the right workable solution to a problem regardless of whose idea it is or whether it is from the right or the left or from anywhere else.
A Centrist is independent and puts solutions ahead of politics and will push ahead on their own to create effective efficient solutions in service to the American people when others will not work with them. A Centrist values and practices non partisanship but at the same time will stick to the principles of the maximizing citizen choice & responsibility & the public good.
Centrists do not compromise just for compromise sake but work to find common ground to grow from and work with. While a Centrist will honestly try to work with others a Centrist holds strong convictions and will always take a firm but reasonable stand on any issue. There is no hard and fast rule as to what a Centrist is and that is part of the independence of being a Centrist. However, Centrists usually agree on an efficient government, fiscal responsibility and restraint, and freedom of choice on personal issues, and a strong diplomacy and national defense.

Why Centrism?
Centrism allows you to have your politics a la carte and the freedom of political thought. There are good liberal principles and good conservative principles but also many negative ones as well. Just focusing on one or the other closes off many options to political thought and solutions. Centrism also offers the freedom of pushing ahead on your own to create effective solution when others choose not to work together. Centrism has no creed except to listen to the public and enact the most efficient & effective solution in the interest of the American people.

Most Americans are an independent centrist; they just don’t know it yet. The liberal and conservative movements have gotten off track from positive principles by caring about scoring “political points” against the other. Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on righteousness or correct thought. Each side gives a pass to their own that they would never tolerate from others.

Centrism offers people an opportunity to work together for real solutions that make sense. While Centrists will disagree with each other on certain issues, Centrism brings people together by being open to political thought and ideas. Being pragmatic and open minded when it comes to political thought can bring about new ideas and merging of existing ideas to help solve critical issues America faces. Centrism also offers the freedom of pushing ahead on your own to create effective solution when others choose not to work together. Centrists are not beholden to special interests and politics as usual and offer a reasonable plan for public service that will work. Centrism has no creed except to listen to the public and enact the most efficient & effective solution in the interest of the American people.

Read over the above sections several times, look around the Modern Whig website. You will see striking similarities. The above sections were written with the aid of ACP members, myself, and centrist media personalities and authors. The similarities you see on the Modern Whig website are not because of me ( a lot of the writing is not even mine, it’s a mixture of several people based off of edits, thought, and conversations with fellow Whig members over the years.) The similarities in thought, and plans for action between the Whigs and ACP is why I as national chairman reached out and pushed for the merger.

Years though before I was involved with the Whigs their thoughts, approaches, and plans were still the same as today. That is why the message works. Look around at other centrist organizations and sites and you will see the similarity to the Whigs.
I have personally read several books on centrists and centrism; I have talked at length with media personalities who are centrist. I have talked at length with people who are centrist. Still, I am not an expert on centrism and with all respect neither are they. Why? Because centrist is not an ideology that is set in stone for most part like American liberalism and American conservatism. We all know the taglines for both.

American liberalism-support for civil rights, support for individual choices on social issues, generally higher taxes and larger more involved government and regulation, generally seen not as strong on defense as the right.

American conservatism- fiscal responsibility with lower taxes and smaller government would prefer more regulation on social issues, less government regulation, generally seen as stronger on defense than the left.

Looking at those generalizations there at first glance there are very few compatible views, which is one reason why partisanship, which does not have to be a bad thing, has morphed into hyper partisanship where each group generally goes into their respective corners and dig in and are virtually intractable.

Look at the current debt ceiling issue, again the bi partisan “Gang of Six” (I am not trying to debate their independence or centrist qualities just making a point) is trying to get the Democrats and Republicans to work together. Six….out of 100 Senators….Six….that is part of the problem that number is insanely low.
Is centrism just supposed to be a mix of left and right positions thrown together like chocolate and vanilla ice cream? I personally don’t think so as that is still being too narrow when it comes to governing. Just believing that there are only basically two approaches to governing is still too limited, in my opinion.

I personally don’t believe that is the type of message that is going to reach the American people. We have to show them that we are accountable to them, encourage them to work with us, and let them know we will not be constrained by ideology.
Who is the one or group to define centrism? The answer is not one person, or a group of people, but the American people. There is not list of what centrism is and what centrism isn’t, not an accepted list anyways. We all might have our own personal centrism or beliefs which is fine, but just as in with the Modern Whig Party we must come together to take our ideas and put them in to effective public policy.

How does all of the above fit into the Modern Whigs? Let’s look at the Modern Whig website and the terms Modern Whig and Whiggery or Whiggism.
From What We Believe-The Modern Whigs are a pragmatic, common sense, centrist-oriented party where rational solutions trump ideology and integrity trumps impunity.

Our core modern Whig philosophy relies on several fundamental tenets:
INDEPENDENT THINKING, Modern Whigs try to practice independent critical thought. We sprang up as a reaction to ill conceived public policy that did not represent the will of the People. Today, we witness policy debates based on ideology, not on concrete solutions. Critical thinking means challenging all assumptions, and mapping and analyzing all possible solutions based on facts and potential outcomes, not on party ideology. Whigs are also keenly aware that much of what constitutes political debate today are people "parroting" others' opinions without reliance on facts or their own self discovery.

Modern Whigs come from a place of discovery. We assume that the best solutions are still waiting to be discovered by an empowered and engaged electorate, and that the current two party system is an impediment to our progress as a Nation. An undivided electorate who can approach issues with an open mind, without prior prejudice, is what our Nation needs to forge bold new solutions built on firm common ground. We believe in American ingenuity!

MERITOCRACY is another pillar of the modern Whig methodology: we believe that society should reward merit, which is a combination of intelligence, talent, competence and hard work. Merit is determined through an objective evaluation of an individual’s professional accomplishments, educational achievements and personal character. Similarly, solutions to problems should be formed and judged in a rational manner based on a process of discovery, analysis and proposed solutions based on their merits, not on prior prejudice, pure self interest or false beliefs.

INTEGRITY is as fundamental a pillar to modern Whigs as Independent Thought. Integrity means honesty and a commitment to an ethical approach to politics. We believe in and strive to practice integrity in thought and integrity in action. Whigs practice what they preach, live up to their promises and do not make promises they cannot keep. Integrity also means accountability: no one is above the law and everyone lives by the same rules. You'll find modern Whigs near mum on issues of social morality, as these are personal. On issues of ethics or integrity, however, we will hold our officers, leaders and candidates to the highest of ethical standards, above today's actual legal requirements.
These are the core tenets that form the foundation of the Modern Whig philosophy. These concepts allow us to look for genuine, long term solutions to our problems not just for today, but for the next generation as well. Each of our members are encouraged and expected to contribute to this process by helping to shape the discussion and choosing competent people to hold office.
Modern Whigs are neither Conservative nor Liberal and do not wish to be confined to the traditional left-right political spectrum. In fact, in a purely historical or classic context, we can be considered Conservative Liberals. Really! In our current political reality, this seems like nonsense doesn't it? It is, however, patently true. How? To borrow a phrase from President Clinton's campaign, "It’s the system stupid!"

Beyond philosophical tenets, modern Whigs also promote a concrete platform of political ideals and policies which we believe are the most critical issues to the welfare of our country. These principles bind us as moderates, unify us as Americans, and come from a place of inclusiveness, not division.
These are ideas of what the Modern Whigs believe not our public policy, Whig thinking on issues and stance comes from Where We Stand, and public policy will come from members, policy experts, and candidates debating, researching, and collaborating in our National Associations, which are about to be launched after being developed for the last two years.

You can see some left and some right in the Modern Whig Party although you should never be able to say that the Whigs are conservative or liberal because we are not. That is because our members are coming to the Whigs because we offer a different and better way than just liberalism or conservatism. We offer the same principles and values that our Founding Fathers had, along with the methods and approaches to allow the average American to take their rightful place as the leader in the citizen-government relationship.

We have the freedom to take what we test and what is prove what is good from both sides. We also have the freedom to put forth our own solutions and these again come from our methods, such as polls, forums, collaboration, National Associations, and Whig Academy. Are the Whigs centrists according to this term: Centrist- n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate. Yes , in the fact that we believe that using our tools, methods, and traditional Whiggism we will come to solutions that are the most effective which will take out the extremes which are not effective. For example under a pure left or pure right government most people who are reasonable would agree that the government would not be effective for the average person, which should be and is the goal of government according to the Modern Whigs.

Are the Modern Whigs centrist in that we just take a position in the political center? No, what is the center, there are no set ideological scorecards for centrism. There is not even a set scorecard for Whiggism, there are ideas and ideals to go by. The most important ideal is that we are flexible when it comes to public policy. We research, test, debate and collaborate to support and put forth the most effective policies possible. That cannot happen by just following a scorecard and checking off the boxes. That can only happen by being practical, pragmatic and open minded. We have firm principles we believe in and issues that we know effect the lives of all Americans, our strength comes from our members and our methods. Our member and our methods will determine what policies the MWP puts forth. I do believe that the Whigs are a centrist oriented party on the current left, center, right political spectrum because our thinking shows we are not liberal or conservative and our policies will naturally exclude the extremist positions because they are not effective and our members are tired of ideological extremes.

Are the Whigs just going to go after those who consider themselves centrist? There are a good number of people out there who are who don’t even know the term. I get emails all the time from people interested in the party who are “dyed in the wool Democrats” and “conservative frustrated Republicans” and they become members because they realize the ideological approach of their respective parties are not working anymore. We are open to all Americans who want to join in with us, and those who are out to try to get us to go to the extremes will find their voices drowned out by the Whigs who realize that a rational, balanced approach using our methods is what will work most effectively.

Andrew, my God man! I only have a lunch 1/2 hr to read that!

Andrew and I seem to be of the same mind so I'll comment without reading....

when we discussed ( many discussions including a group discussion at our Convention) issues and policies, oddly the issue of right/left doesnt truly come up. We speak of moderate policies, using more hard metrics and removing "sensationalism" from policy discussions, and re-engaging the electorate on an intellectual, NOT emotional, basis..

Right? Left? I disagree with Solomon here; the fact is the body politic has been drinking too much "ideological" kool aid, when the issue is not ideology at all. If we assume MWP will function as a disruptive innovator in the field of politics, it would be natural then to assume that there is a "market learning curve" that needs to be assailed to foster better understanding of what MWP is. Only when that understanding is realized so citizens turn their " Red Blue Show" lights off and realize, maybe, that this new path is much less artificial than the old path, and may, therefore, come closer to finding truth. Until then, yes, the message is oft misunderstood by improperly framing it using the current paradigm.

The two corporate parties play to ideologues well; I perceive that as a way of defending the status quo. So I may submit to all, the faster we get out of the ideological trap, the better off we ALL are, and the quicker we can coalesce the center of the body politic into its true power base and disarm the corporates once and for all.

So you "centrist" blogger types may think on this for a while. Not saying that my perception is 100% correct, but if we view this from a strategic perspective - the only way we can convince folks that we have indeed invented a better mouse trap, is for them to appreciate the logic and objectivism of that new mouse trap without their rose and cornflower glasses on.

The rise of independent voters to me, is empirical validation that the commonly held left/right ideological yardstick is splintered - permanently.

Our base is critical thinking, self proclaimed moderates, who clearly see the system, as evidence by policy outputs, as locked in a state of permanent disfuntion. they can be Rep, Dem, or mostly, Indp.

Lastly, in the traditional sense MWP might be considered right -leaning, but I prefer to view that as "hold stricter views of Constitutional primacy" and "generally are wary of undue Federal encroachment.

I personlly have allowed my intellect to be completely subverted by Modern Whig thinking, that I look at the current system with the same quizzical " WTF??" , as many see us. Yet, there is no doubt in my military mind we are the vanguard of the future. Whether is called the Whig party ten years out, or not, as long as the changes we would have implemented become permanent, we have succeeded in our mission. It will NOT be a two party system anymore, and we wont have everyone, and I mean EVERYONE from the poor to Wall Street bankers to elected reps, with their faces in the feeding trough.

One last point, vague? maybe right now, as we need to get our Associations up and running and craft much more detailed policy output. But when the American public see our RAS plan ( Renewed American System), it will be anything but vague.

Gun-loving and gay embracing freaks maybe. Really hard to pigeon-hole, undoubtedly. But vague? Patently not. We'll make the corporates look vague and intellectually hollow. Finally the public will see all the little emporers without clothes in their failed policies and beat-to-death mantras with no concomitant efficacy.

"Right? Left? I disagree with Solomon here; the fact is the body politic has been drinking too much "ideological" kool aid, when the issue is not ideology at all. If we assume MWP will function as a disruptive innovator in the field of politics, it would be natural then to assume that there is a "market learning curve" that needs to be assailed to foster better understanding of what MWP is. Only when that understanding is realized so citizens turn their " Red Blue Show" lights off and realize, maybe, that this new path is much less artificial than the old path, and may, therefore, come closer to finding truth. Until then, yes, the message is oft misunderstood by improperly framing it using the current paradigm."

As I've said over and over, this statement tells me precisely nothing about what you believe. You keep saying "We're not that" pointing to the dems/reps & red/blue, but you don't say what you are, besides in very vague terminology that also says next to nothing about you.

"The two corporate parties play to ideologues well; I perceive that as a way of defending the status quo. So I may submit to all, the faster we get out of the ideological trap, the better off we ALL are, and the quicker we can coalesce the center of the body politic into its true power base and disarm the corporates once and for all."

There is no centrist ideology. There is no ideological trap in the center.

"So you "centrist" blogger types may think on this for a while. Not saying that my perception is 100% correct, but if we view this from a strategic perspective - the only way we can convince folks that we have indeed invented a better mouse trap, is for them to appreciate the logic and objectivism of that new mouse trap without their rose and cornflower glasses on."

Christ... you folks really aren't hearing what we're saying.

Think of it this way...

You turn your TV on and you see a commercial. This commercial comes on and goes into detail as to why other products their new product is competing with aren't up to snuff. It then shows you a picture of the new product, says its better, and then the commercial is over. No details as to why it's better, just says it's better and asks for your money.

This is what this site communicates. I've spent more time trying to figure out what you guys are about than 99.9% of people will ever spend, and I can't tell if you're centrists or not. If that is the goal, then you say "We're the party that represents centrists. This is what centrists believe (based on polling averages), so that is the position we are going to fight tooth and nail for."

"The rise of independent voters to me, is empirical validation that the commonly held left/right ideological yardstick is splintered - permanently."

You're wrong. The views of the American people have not changed a whole lot in the last couple decades, excepting a few issues (like gay rights). The parties have lost support not because of some mythical rejection of left vs right, people don't think like that, they're leaving the two major parties because they've moved farther from the center than ever before, making more moderates no longer feel like they're welcome (moreso on the right, but the dems are tooling up to catch up with the GOP).

No details as to why MWP is differnt or "novel"? Really?

The two corporates are falling prey to their own "divide and conquor" strategy; now they themselves cannot hold the middle ground, being "ideological" far too long.

And they proven over and over again that their ideas are moribund, and any truly novel ideas cannot pass their muster, as they attempt protect the stauts quo. ( their party) This causes their further polarization as they defend their inability by lashing out at the opposition - ideologically of course, and this , I beleive, is the root cause of people flocking away from them. Its abad feedback loop we see over and over and over and over....Ideology being secondary, total lack of efficacy being primary.

Am I wrong?

Are you really not reading what I'm saying, or are you just purposefully seeming dense?

The whole gist of my last comment was that you folks almost nothing concrete about what the Whigs ARE, but you spend lots of time saying what you AREN'T.

And your response illustrates my point PERFECTLY.

Well if I may use your word DENSE, I may posit that any open minded human being that takes the time to visit our website and take away that we are espousing only "views" instead of providing a framework to seek solutions through a new system of participation, is being somewhat dogmatic or "dense".

MWP is about how to get the job done right, not about "views". Views have gotten us to were we are today. We choose to LEAD a new path, with a shared VISION, not views.

Only someone who is dense can argue that the current system of participation can create anything remotely like a shared vision of our future. A nation without a shared vision is a nation without moorings that can be easily co-opted by ruling elites.

So dont think of MWP as a political party, as we are NOT in any traditional sense as we try and "upset and replace the poltical epistemology" of the middle American voter.

Centrist then? Non-ideological ( in a partisan sense)? Stricty by definition. Our charter is The Constitution, our guide is objective intellect seeking good solutions and our masters are The People. What is so hard to understand about that?

We're not in it for "the party". Service and Solutions.

Maybe that is what is vexing you? We're too true blue to be real to a political activist? Good. Meaning we're exactly where we should be for citizens. Not the elites, not the media, not the bloggers. In fact, IMHO , following logic here, if we are truly successful the MSM will not dig us at all as our movement strips them of their gained "authority" to move opinion and elections and puts it into a virtual "cloud" well beyond their control. If successful we will destroy the staus quo over time and many will challenge it as they are inextricably woven into the current paradigm.

That's OK. We reckon there are AT LEAST 100 millions citizens who are looking for real change, not "views".

BTW, How many billions will Fox lose in revenues over a time when the nation completely unasses the ideological diatribe and gets to work building common ground? So MSM is part of the problem.

There is no doubt in my military mind.

And if someone can't see any of that, well, they may be too.

I'm reluctant to wander into this discussion, which seems to have gotten a little ad-hominem (!), but I actually have a related question.

By philosophy, I appear to be a very Whig, and I'm happy to have found a political community that understands the dire consequences of hyper-partisanship on the American republic, has a strong and growing following, and has some specific policy ideas for the future. I look forward to cooperating with other Whigs to help avert a looming political catastrophe brought on by over-rigid ideology.

I know I belong in the Modern Whig movement. On the other hand, I just don't know if I should belong in the Modern Whig Party. I think this distinction is at the root of the frustration on this thread.

What are we trying to achieve here, to reform modern political parties, or to replace them? Do we represent a new organization of individuals working to get our candidates elected instead of Democrats or Republicans? Or are we working to convince Democratic and Republican elected officials to act more according to Whig principles? Is there such thing as a Whig Democrat or a Whig Republican, or are there just Whigs, Democrats, or Republicans?

I understand clearly large portions of the "Whig vision," and I appreciate Andrew's analysis above clarifying that we're centrist, not in the sense that you can just place us on a single place on the traditional left-right political spectrum, and that we don't intend on being constricted by the traditional ideologies. These are important aspects of Whiggery. But what we do with them, I think, is different depending on what we want to become.

If we are a political party, we run campaigns based on how we are one thing and our opponents are another, which is less desirable for the American public. We raise money and we work to open up the system so it no longer a broken, hyperpartisan, two-party system by changing the laws controlling who can be on the ballot. We fight hard against the established parties and special interests to enact the policies outlined in the "Where We Stand" section--giving states funding in a lump sum according to population, for example, de-link insurance benefits from employment (oh, finally someone is talking about that!), and pass laws investing in the American infrastructure for the 21st century--although, in typical Whig fashion, we are more concerned (as a group) getting these things accomplished than getting credit for it. We try to win seats in Congress and keep them, and someday we run a candidate for President.

If we are a political movement (like the Tea Party, for example), we work within the existing parties to achieve our goals. We work to find Democrats and Republicans who share our vision of the future of America and persuade them to run as "Whig Democrats" and "Whig Republicans." We lobby elected officials to vote for the policies outlined in "Where We Stand" instead of working to get our candidates elected. We run informational campaigns to ensure that the American public knows that a Whig, be they Democrat or Republican, puts the people first and that the Whig is the candidate in the election (particularly primaries) that deserves their vote.

It seems like we intend on being a party (though not a "traditional" party, in the sense that we want to be decentralized and pursue local solutions to local problems instead of mandating a one-size-fits-all policy). Most of our objectives will still be served if we're a movement, and we won't have to deal with the hyper-partisanship issue directly.

I'd like to hear the response of established Whigs to my attempt at distinction. Are we a political party or a political movement? How would you define the distinction? How can we apply our central belief in compromise and common-sense solutions if we're a party working to get elected against hyper-partisans? I guess I'm just trying to understand, in the long run, where we hope to be.

-Jess Stricklan

Wow, this topic is a little heated but it does need to be resolved.

I tend to agree with Solomon in that we should take firm stances on issues and avoid the appearance of wishy-washy ideals. But this of course can wait until we're a little better founded. What I don't think some people understand is that this is a new independent party that is still getting its feet wet, and until we have a solid parliament of owls giving their two cents we can't yet take a stand on anything as a party other than the ideals of common sense and logic.
Are we centrist because we always pick the middle of the road solution based on a poll? Or are we centrist because we sometimes go right, sometimes go left and sometimes we choose the middle path?

However, Solomon, I disagree with your method of determining centrist views. Using a poll to pick the center path or majority path is dangerous for 2 reasons. One, the majority often votes with their morals which may be contradictory to logic and common sense. Case in point would be DOMA. And two, the center of the road results of a poll may be contradictory with one another. Case in point, would be that I think the majority of Americans would say lowering taxes would be beneficial and a similar majority would say increasing government projects and benefits is also beneficial...those are almost mutually exclusive.

Rather than leading from the rear, asking people what they want and then blindly giving them that, why not lead from the front. Use Whig ideals of common sense, and logic to determine the best outcome and explain to the citizenry the logic behind our stance. Just because the extreme right holds some idea of value doesn't mean it's not the logical choice. Just because the extreme left believes something is correct doesn't make them wrong. Using logic to base our decisions in may make us fall in line with the Republicans every now and then, and sometimes we'll fall in with the Democrats, and more often than not, we'll likely agree with a plurality of both but we still maintain the center on average.

Are we centrist because we always pick the middle of the road solution based on a poll? Or are we centrist because we sometimes go right, sometimes go left and sometimes we choose the middle path?

The latter Robert. When one employs simple problem solving methods, they ought be entirely agnostic to extraneous variables like " left right" etc, or internal variables like promoting the party line. If you pick an issue/policy and go through the six steps:

When solving a problem, utilize this six-step problem solving process:
1. Identify and define the problem.
2. Analyze the problem.
3. Develop possible solutions.
4. Select and plan the solution.
5. Implement the solution.
6. Evaluate the solution.

As long as you pay strict attention to #1 in defining it, ideology should not be an issue, and if it is, it may not be framed in the same left/right/centrist model that folks seem to dwell on.

Trying not to ADD any HOMINEMs here, but it would be utterly presumptuous and foolish for MWP to make detailed policy planks without expert input. We know the DEM and REP groups do it all the time, but this does not mean it is correct. As a "numbers guy" whose Masters is in International Political Economy, I am really comfortable with macro econ, national numbers, geo politics and trade YET, any detailed policy needs more than only one mind in the trust.

So frankly, to expect a fairly nubile party like MWP to have fully detailed positions is, well, wrong from our point of view. It also speaks to this core principle: We not here to tell folks what to think, but to show them HOW to think and to empower them to get better FACTUAL information with the added tool of perspective to help them make wiser, more enlightened choices, in the common good.

And to do that in a permanent, system changing fashion, MWP must run candidates, win elections and lead by example. You know darn well the current corporates will not dismantle the very system they incubate in; they are not irrational actors.

However, and this comes from a MWP mind trust, if MWP disappears ten, twenty, thirty years out, but has made a real permanent change in the nature of political participation, our mission will have been secured. This concept flies in the face of bureaucratic self perpetuation, but, here it's Service and Solutions, not Self Perpetuation.

The rule of Self Perpetuation may be the root of our ills today. So MWP disses it, including to ourselves. Maybe this helps understand MWP and our original charter better.

I know I'm coming late into the party on this topic but I think I can help - and I think I can help with one simple word: "branding".

I think what Solomon is trying to establish is an answer to the question, "What does the MWPs "brand" mean?" If one looks at the "Where We Stand" section, one can easily see where the MWP stands on most issues. Some seem to need more fleshing out, but most are pretty concise.

But, unlike the Dems and Reps, the MWP doesn't have an identifiable brand. When one hears "Democrat" one automatically recognizes something on the spectrum of Leftist/liberal and, conversely, hearing "Republican" connotes images of Rightist/conservative. Sure, there are Blue Dog Democrats and and Rockefeller Republicans... but most would agree that the two respective political parties represent the two political ideologies to varying degrees.

From my point of view, if the Whig party is a party of pragmatists then they are NOT explicitly centrists. By definition, a centrist is a moderate. However, by definition, a pragmatist does what works. The two aren't synonymous because what works may be something quite radical or extreme. In fact, the two concepts may be quite at odds. That's not to say one should be unwilling to compromise or hold moderate views. But, again, if one is to identify as a pragmatist one has to include the possibility that bold (e.g., extreme/radical) ideas might be best in some cases.

So, at least as far as I'm concerned, the MWP brand should embrace the pragmatism label, identify itself as a pragmatist ideology geared toward moderation while holding the conviction that all good - and actionable - ideas are potential tools to a better future ... and use that when trying to evoke a branded emotional response from constituents.

"Actionable" is a key word because a good idea isn't necessarily actionable. It might be a good idea to surround the sun with solar panels and electromagnetically transmit the power back to Earth - but it's not really actionable.

I hope that makes sense.

-David Kaplan

P.S. On a personal note, as a centrist myself, I think that the public perception of centrism and moderate politics is the reason why centrist parties are so underrepresented in American politics. The fact is, while it may be moderation and compromise that get the job done in day-to-day politicking, it is the bold assertions and ideas that turn out voters in favor one's candidacy. I hope that the MWP is willing to occasionally take more bold stances on some issues because I think few people are going to vote for the guy/girl that just takes a mash-up approach to politics without offering viable but bold and original ideas of their own.

Very well said, David!

You wrote...So, at least as far as I'm concerned, the MWP brand should embrace the pragmatism label, identify itself as a pragmatist ideology geared toward moderation while holding the conviction that all good - and actionable - ideas are potential tools to a better future ... and use that when trying to evoke a branded emotional response from constituents.

That is what we are trying to brand the MWP as and it has been working overall. Instead of actionable, replace that with effective. We support the most effective policies ( which are going to be much more fleshed out via our Whig Associations/Roundtables).

We also realize that real leadership requires sometimes changing course when something is not working, not changing based off of public opinion polls, but actually data and result. That type of change is not flip flopping but humble, effective, and realistic leadership.

I think Kaplan is on to something. I always liked the term centrist because it implies a center of gravity, a touch-point if you will. It gives the visual representation of being politically between Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right. However, I think the term pragmatic is more fitting; you don't necessarily have to take a "moderate" stance on an issue, like fiscal responsibility for example.

OK, I'll 'BITE' and jump down this rabbit hole with y'all...., again......

First, part of my preception is that words may have unintended symbolism which lies beyond their definitions, and in the context of common usage, may be more defined by common (mis)usage than by actual defintion.

E.g., I ( and might be MWP as well) define myself as a classical liberal but never utter that unless its to someone who is as well versed in political history as I am and gets it. ( and I am not all that well versed, but do know that definition).

Because if I utter classical liberal, most of our fellow citizens will latch onto liberal and frame me incorrectly.

You can say moderate, you can say pragmatic, and you can say centrist. However, if you really dig into MWP philosphy( as I have, as part of the mind trust creating it ) and focus on something Drew Scholtens added to the methodology piece, truth and persepctive. The word that may best define the stance of MWP in the context of today's common usage is BALANCED.

As in , "a better balance is neccessary in today's politics", or "you can view MWP as the balanced alternative". " As a balance in our personal lives is important, so is balance in our political representation."

and if the word BALANCED invokes a murky position on the arguably invalid right/left continuum, than it is indeed the proper term. Or, most poignantly, if it allows you to put MWP smack dab in the center of that continuum WITHOUT the pejorative common usage connotations of moderate or centrist, it might be the ONLY word to use to describe MWP properly in the mind of the voter.

For the reasons stated above, I am also a bit of a "word nazi" and would, if I could, forbid the term "third party" to be uttered by any MWP officer at any time. VERBOTEN! :o) I simply prefer we dont use that term.

Because you dont want to lose the hearts and minds of potential supporters before you've even begun to fight.

The power of the quill should never be underestimated. And the weapon is ours to harness.

MWP aims to be the BALANCED ALTERNATIVE.

What do you mean by BALANCED?

Balanced by Truth and Persepctive.

I'm a new member of the Modern Whig Party so I have not been part of much discussion, however, when I talk about the appeal of the Party, I describe it as a pro-governance party.

I believe that more people should run for office out of a genuine desire to serve the country and be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. This happens all the time at the local level but rarely happens at the State or Federal Level.

Right now, most in State and Federal elective office seem to have an agenda or are beholden to a specific special interest. I am very suspect of any candidate that says they 100% pro/anti anything.

I feel that centrism and pragmatism are the results of well-intentioned people seeking public office and I believe that is what makes the Modern Whig Party the best vehicle for change.

Trying to define centrism or take positions on many issues isn't the best idea at this time.

I like to give a specific example. I serve on a local government board and there is a total of 7 of us. There is a range of those that are left on the political scale and those that are right and everywhere in between. I consider each one of them "Whig" at heart because when an issue comes up or there is a decision to be made, each of us looks for the best possible solution, not just the answer that is "right" or "left" or "center". None of us are there for a specific agenda and outcomes are based on the merits of the idea, not the ideological source of the idea.

The party definitely has an ideology, everyone does to some extent or another. The party's apparent support for states rights, economic nationalism, school vouchers, etc. are all fairly conservative stances in particular. In general, a lot of this sounds similar to the 1990s Reform Party.

Conservative? Eh, I prefer "Constitutional Moderate". It truly is a better descriptive term.

Santorum is considered conservative. And he sure 'aint' no Whig.

The funny thing about discussions like this, is that they are inherant in Whigism and also why (in general) the Whigs fractured as a party. The "middle", "center", "pragmatic", "moderate" etc, have an excessive amount of variance depending on personal point of view. Coming to complete agreement is essentially impossible. The question is, can we exist as a flexible entity, or will a lack of cohesiveness result in too little conviction accross the breadth of our membership?

I beleive Alan, it comes down to framing. How do WE frame ourselves? This is a critical issue to the brand. Here we had someone with an outside agenda ( a "centrist" blogsite ), who maybe was too steeped in the current paradigm, to really "get" what we are ( well , when one is driven by agenda its hard to be open minded anyhow) . What truly bothers me is that the discussion was so volumimous, which indicates to me that many of us, internally, still dont get the "zen" of being a Whig. So when challenged by someone who truly dont get it, we stumble and fall all over ourselves, when the response ought have been pat.

" We Whigs challenge anyone to pigeonhole us into the neat and tidy categories of today's political paradigm, which are our mission to replace".

Watch that framing. It is our MISSION to revise it. To my simple mind's eye, its akin to dealing with someone with deep insecurites, they simply cannot see the truth even when it hits them in the head as they interpret much through the filter of personal needs and unfulfilled wants. That's bullshit. Man up.

We must unass that crap Whigs, we must be utterly secure in who we are. Beyond their lables, and beyond their false leadership.

Morga2001 -

To get a better mix of those elected at the State or Federal Levels, there needs to a more Realistic number of representatives at those to levels. I hold that the country has too little representation. This, I hold, is a major part of our discontent in the aftermath of too little representation in the crafting of the laws which led to our current economic disasters.

We can discuss economics later. Off topic or not, I'll continue.

Without Proper representation, our government is void of any sense! Without increasing the House Members to design specifications - 6,000 or so - there is No Sense in the Federal government process.

In Nevada, we face a similar shortage. I've written and sent to our state Legislators a detailed amendment via e-mail, but only received 2 replies. A mail campaign is needed or more people sending e-mail.

This lack of representation Must Be Addressed at these two levels before any other issue, I say in all humbleness. Representation was the most discussed issue in the first Convention.

How can we overlook this extremely important oversight ?

In my oh so humble opinion, its the inflexability of the current system that has caused so much strife. When people hold firm to ideaologies and political views, they are more often than not unwilling to sway from them for the sake of compromise. This is the current state of things in our system. I am new to the party( as in I registered as MWP today )so I am still learning but I believe that a flexable entity is far better suited to weather any storm than a rigid one is.

We as Americans have over the past forty or so years solidified ourselves ar progressive or conservitave, which are blanket terms at best, for the polorization of our political system. Many Americans feel disenfranchised by this polarity, and as such many people are finding that they are far more flexable in their convictions than they once believed, I am among them. People can be moved, and more importantly, they can taught things that can, and sometimes do, change their views and stances.

Is it for us, the MWP, to set rigid standards and cement ourselves in one set of ideas or another? IMHO, absolutly not. MWP's appeal, or its appeal to me anyway, is that it is not bound by the ideology of political stances. We can be moved by our members through our methods and through education, not to cement what MWP stands for and against, but to figure out whats wrong, how to fix it, and ultimatly fix the proplem. Its our flexablilty that makes us attractive in a landscape defined by rigidity and polorization.

It is the gathering of many personal view points that makes this flexability possible. When all Ideas are considered, weighed, measured and found acceptable or wanting, than all ideas were included, not just those deemed appropriate for the parties ideology.

All the best,
David Wilson
Tampa Bay, Florida.