For decades Left-Liberal position was generalized as "fewer guns, more butter," meaning that less money should be spent on the military and more for domestic social programs. The Right-Conservative position was "more guns, less butter," meaning the government should focus on defense and let private charity instead of government address poverty.
What then, was a Center-Moderate? Well, that's easy. A moderate would be someone who agrees with the Right on one issue and the Left on the other. Therefore, a centrist is a person who wants more guns AND more butter. Or, someone who wants fewer guns and less butter.
So, ironically, we have two kinds of "centrists" who are actually farther apart from each other than are the Left and the Right. The "more guns, more butter"faction was long affiliated with the Democratic Party - remember Korea and Vietnam, anyone? -, until they supported Ronald Reagan's proposal for a LOT more guns and drifted toward the GOP. Those who remained in the Democratic Party are liberal hawks like Joe Lieberman; those in the Republican Party are called neoconservatives. For many such Big Government types, social and moral issues like abortion can change the balance in favor of one party or another, but their general economic and foreign policy views are the same.
The "less guns, less butter" faction are the libertarians, and they were long associated with the Republican Party as they viewed economic issues such as tax cuts as more important than militarization. With the predilection of Republican Presidents to plunge this nation into war against countries that do not threaten us, libertarian support for the GOP is waning.
And then there are moderates who disagree with the Left and the Right not in philosophy, but in degree. These moderates want neither more nor fewer guns, and neither more nor less butter, but are generally satisfied with the present amounts. What distinguishes such people are that they complain about corruption and partisan bickering, but in terms of policy, they don't disagree much with the status quo. The want butter, but not too much, and they want guns, but not too much; these are all details they would just as soon leave to experts. Despite their denials, they are swayed more by personality than policy. They are easily persuaded and will support a policy until it fails - such as the war in Iraq. They are the core "swing" voters.
We could however, be entering a new era. In the 2008 Presidential election, it is likely that "butter" issues will hardly matter. The issue will be guns - specifically, war. The parties could be realigned, and the ideological spectrum redefined. It wouldn't matter if one is "Left" or "Right," but rather if one is a dove, a hawk, or a moderate. Or, a non-interventionist, an idealist, or a realist.
As of today, Republican front-runners are largely uncritical of President Bush's wars, and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Congressional leadership knock the President mainly for incompetence in execution rather than for his overall policy. But the voters are increasingly turning against the war. Will there be anyone running on a peace platform? Will Rep. Dennis Kucinich take the Democratic nomination, and Rep.
Ron Paul the Republican? As desirable as that may sound, it is highly unlikely either will succeed.
But how about a Kucinich-Paul ticket? Or Paul-Kucinich? Can such a thing happen? If both are willing, the answer is yes.
Unfortunately, the same party that could produce this ticket could just as likely produce a Lieberman-McCain ticket promising never-ending war.
Such possibilities present themselves in the
Unity 08 movement. This is a way to circumvent the coronations of Presidential candidates after just a few primaries. Once the Establishment-anointed front-runners pile up victory after victory, other candidates can drop out and seek the Unity 08 nomination, which will be voted on online by those who have registered at the website. The "catch" is that the candidates must select as a running mate someone from the other party. Unity 08 also intends to let its members - who could potentially include every voter - decide the main issues of the campaign. Candidates therefore can't set their own campaign agenda, and there will be less room for spin.
If war is the central issue, then Unity 08 could attract candidates like Paul and Kucinich, particularly if they drop out of their party races early and focus on Unity 08.But better-funded and better-organized factions could take over Unity 08 just as they control the two parties, by recruiting their followers to take over the site. If we get something like Clinton-Clark on the "left," Romney-[Jeb] Bush on the Right, and Lieberman-McCain as the Unity 08 "center," Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee will have found a new friend, but nothing really changes.
Perhaps Unity 08 won't be able to produce a genuine peace ticket. But perhaps the membership will be large enough and diverse enough to produce a ticket genuinely moderate on the war - Chuck Hagel-Joe Biden, perhaps? If the voters are given even just the possibility of a responsible foreign policy for a change, that might be enough to achieve victory. And if Unity 08 succeeds, our politics will never be the same.