Beyond the Debate Stage: The Case for Respect and Centrism

The Time Has Come to Get Serious About Addressing Polarization and Fostering Unity in Government

This topic has been simmering in my mind for a while now. It came to a boil watching the June 27 presidential debate.

President Biden clearly struggled to articulate basics of his policies. He spent a week preparing for the debate. He knew the topics likely to be the subjects of moderators’ questions. Yet, when attempting to wrap up a meandering response to a question about his tax plan, he blurted: “Look, if — we finally beat Medicare.”

Former president Trump was just as dismaying, in a different (and, for Trump, typically mendacious) way, at one point calling Biden “a Manchurian candidate.¹ He gets money from China.”

Questions about Biden’s mental acuity have been dogging him for months, if not years. Trump took active steps to overturn the results of the 2020 election, one of his many affronts to constitutional order and political norms. I’m not a fan of the term but count me among the double-haters. I still can’t believe these are our two major party choices for the highest government office in America. In my opinion, neither are fit to be president.

How the hell did we get here?

I think we’re here because politicians have placed winning above solving actual problems for far too long. In too many cases our elected leaders have failed to come together to find compromise solutions to those actual problems.

It’s not just me. Check out the results from a Pew Research poll asking residents of 12 high-income countries “how satisfied they are with the state of their democracy.”

Count me among the dissatisfied. The fix? We need respect and centrism in our politics to foster unity, effective governance, and public trust. I’m optimistic we can turn things around, current evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Team Red vs. Team Blue … In a Cage Match

Political tribalism is out of control. In his article, “When Will Americans Tire of Hardball Politics?” Christian Schneider discusses the increasing polarization and aggressive tactics in American politics, likening it to a sport where winning is prioritized over governance.

America has simply become two teams, with fans of each willing to defend dishonorable behavior in order to see their favored side win. “Issues” are now simply set by random musings of presidential candidates, forcing their acolytes to adopt a new set of principles to fit those of their leader.

We need to reject the extremism and return to decency and constructive debate. (Biden and Trump argued over their respective golf games, for the love of God.) Schneider emphasizes the need for politicians and voters alike to focus on common goals and solutions rather than relentless partisan battles. It can happen. And did —recently! The 2021 infrastructure bill passed with bipartisan support. A solid majority of us believe the government should take care of roads and bridges, help local utilities provide clean drinking water, expand broadband internet and clean up toxic Superfund sites. Alas, that legislation is an outlier.

And while I like the sports comparison for our current political dysfunction, it doesn’t go far enough. There’s a better analogy about a “sport” that’s really an entertainment business: professional wrestling. From a July 3 essay by political journalist Jonah Goldberg:

We’re supposed to want the best to emerge from political competition. We’re moving away from that ideal and toward professional wrestling, where we pretend it’s a real sport. The definition of merit moves from excellence and qualification to entertainment and kayfabe narratives of heroes and villains who deserve to win or lose based on nothing other than what will titillate the fans. Every day, the parties become less like Major League Baseball—which has an interest in regulating the sport so that the competition hinges on excellence—and more like the WWE where the “sport” is regulated to provide the most drama and entertainment.

Compromise Is Not a Dirty Word

In my heart of hearts, I believe regular folks, who don’t obsess over politics, are dying for a change. That’s not just wishful thinking. A recent survey shows the public has a strong desire to have our elected officials work together instead of holding out to the bitter end on contentious issues, former city manager Ron Holifield wrote in his 10 in 10 Newsletter last week.

The need to improve our public discourse is critical to government at every level—national, state, and local. While stories from around the country might have us believe that Americans want their leaders to fight out their differences, a recent national survey conducted by the American Bar Association tells a different story. According to the survey, almost everyone said they want government leaders to work toward compromise and not hold their ground until they win. Nearly 4 out of 5 (79%) said they support compromise. Only 13% supported government leaders holding their ground.

In my 33 years of reporting on and working in local government, the best governance occurred when political leaders treated each other and the public with respect instead of contempt. Tempers flared in public meetings and folks sometimes loudly disagreed, but a steady focus on listening and achieving workable solutions ultimately won the day.

Ron and the Alliance for Innovation (AFI) are actively looking for examples of “community engagement models and strategies that have successfully lowered the temperature and fostered cooperation in discussions about delivery of local government services in their community.” He’s asking local governments to share their experience by sending an email to AFI Public Discourse Task Force – Community Engagement. Please shoot them a line if you can. The task force’s mission “is to provide actionable, implementable, and usable resources and guidelines to facilitate responsible, ethical public discourse in local government.” It plans to have a report completed by November. I’ll share it here when it comes out.²

We leave this section with a great quote about the infantile mindset that prevents our national parties from working together from Kevin Williamson, national correspondent for The Dispatch.

The politics of cooties is what makes compromise and consensus-building impossible in Washington: the notion that an idea, or a piece of legislation, or even a figure of speech becomes infected when it is taken up by the other side, by … them. That was the case made against that self-abasing dope from California [Kevin McCarthy] who used to be speaker of the House by that beady-eyed dope from Georgia [Marjorie Taylor Greene] who led the effort to oust him: that he relied on Democratic support to get certain things done. That’s the case the beady-eyed dope from Georgia is trying to make against a gutless dope from Louisiana [Mike Johnson] currently serving as speaker of the House: You can’t use Democrats’ votes to pass a bill—those votes have cooties!

Getting members of the other party to support one’s own priorities in Congress once was a sign that you were what the old-timers used to call “good at politics.”

A return to the good old days of parties and politicians working together requires we quit playing to the outliers on the political spectrum and beat a path back to a sane middle ground based on the reality that we live in a complex, plural society.

The Case for Centrism and Normie Politics

Centrism is perhaps the strongest antidote to the polarization and extremism that’s infecting the body politic, according to Yair Zivan, writing in The Atlantic. He starts his argument by stating what centrism is not.

Centrism isn’t the middle between an imaginary left and right. It isn’t a compromise between wherever the extremes happen to be dragging society at any given moment. It isn’t simply a more palatable version of socialism or a poorly disguised right-wing ploy. In short, centrism isn’t the search for an unattainable, and usually unwanted, middle point on the political spectrum.

The core values of centrism, he writes, “focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.”

It’s about acknowledging there are no perfect solutions. There are tradeoffs to all major policy and/or legislative programs. It’s also about listening to and respecting constituents.

“When centrists govern, it is with the aim of making sure that no one is entirely overlooked, even if no one gets everything they want,” Zivan says.

You might be surprised at some of the advocates of this kind of political thinking. TaraElla is a self-described “singer-songwriter, author and multidisciplinary thinker.
My mission is to end the divisiveness of the 21st century West, by promoting a libertarian reformist philosophy.” She also happens to be trans. She writes on Substack and recently posted on “The Classical Liberal Case for Normie Politics.”

The term “normie” has been used derogatorily to describe individuals unfamiliar with niche subcultures, particularly in political contexts, where it refers to those who avoid far-left or far-right ideologies and stick to mainstream liberal or conservative views, TaraElla writes. A normie orientation means bringing common sense to political discourse, avoiding the distortions of political subcultures and echo chambers.

Therefore, to embrace a ‘normie’ orientation would just mean bringing the common sense of common people to the table, to help us make a judgement on what is real, what is sound, and what is a good solution. While this common sense is not always perfect, it is at least better than being enmeshed within a certain political subculture and its echo chambers, and getting a distorted picture of the reality as a result. In a society where the extremes are increasingly getting their way, normie-ism is perhaps the best tool to stop them in their tracks.

Maybe we double-haters can rally around a new political alliance. I’d be the first to join the Centrist Normie Party.

Real-World Examples of Civility and Centrism

I would be remiss if I didn’t note efforts by some politicians to foster civility and cooperation amidst the crazy-making political divisiveness. Route 50 has reported on the National Governors Association’s Disagree Better initiative that promotes understanding and cooperation across political lines. It emphasizes most people don’t hold extreme views and encourages constructive dialogue. The goal is to build a more civil political environment by recognizing shared values and fostering respectful discourse.

“Study after study shows that our social fabric is fraying fast,” Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said. “Republicans and Democrats increasingly viewed the other side not just as misguided, but as immoral and dishonest. Thirty percent of Americans have ended family relationships because of politics. The proportion of Americans who believe political violence is acceptable has reached new highs. Threats against members of Congress have increased tenfold since 2016—not by 10%, by 10 times.”

As part of the Disagree Better initiative, governors around the country are taping videos with those of opposing parties. Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, for example, talks with Republican Jack Coburn, mayor of Lonaconing, Md., a small, rural town.

“Working together means acknowledging our differences, recognizing different perspectives and finding a better way to disagree,” Coburn said in the video. “We can listen to the other side, ask questions and have important conversations.”

Colorado Democrat Gov. Jared Polis, who co-founded Disagree Better with Cox, noted some universities are successfully teaching students to disagree better. He noted that before taking just such a course at Colorado State University, 44% of students said they felt uncomfortable having conversations with someone they disagreed with on politics. “After the course, 100% said they were either comfortable or very comfortable having conversations where they disagree.”

Strategies to Promote Respect and Centrism

I wrote a post last summer about a process agencies can follow to successfully implement controversial but sound proposals. The principals that undergird that process incorporate much of what I’ve shared above. It acknowledges people have different worldviews and competing interests. The approach works because it treats people with respect, explains clearly and simply the pros and cons of different solutions, and responds quickly and honestly to residents’ legitimate questions and concerns. If you’re new here since last August, it’s worth having a look at it.

If, like most readers, you aren’t gonna click that link, here’s the shorthand approach to the process, which is designed to achieve Informed Consent³. It was created by my good friends at Bleiker Training. They call it the Life Preserver.

Whatever you say, write or do, make sure that your Potentially Affected Interests all understand the following four points:

1. There really IS a serious Problem, one that just HAS to be addressed.

2. You ARE the right entity to address it … In fact, given your Mission, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE if you did not address it.

3. The approach you are using – for addressing the problem at hand – is Reasonable … Sensible … Responsible.

4. You ARE listening; you DO care. If, what you’re proposing, is going to HURT some interests, it’s NOT because you don’t care; it’s NOT because you’re not listening.

 © Bleiker Training

In an era marked by political divisiveness and a focus on party loyalty over good governance, it’s essential to recognize the value of centrism and respectful dialogue. The god-awful presidential debate should focus Americans on the need for a shift toward cooperation and compromise. By embracing moderation and pragmatism, we can address complex issues more effectively and rebuild public trust in our democracy. Frankly, it’s past time to prioritize practical solutions over the partisan garbage slinging and work toward a more unified and productive political environment. Let’s advocate for respect and centrism to create a better future for all. If we can get started in that direction, that painful 90 minutes we suffered through June 27 will have been worth it.

Onward and Upward.

1. The term "Manchurian candidate" is an apparent reference to a 1962 film of the same name, when an American POW in the Korean War is brainwashed as an unwitting assassin for an international Communist conspiracy.

2. Disclosure: I do occasional consulting for SGR, Ron Holifield’s consulting firm.

3. The Bleikers define Informed Consent as “the grudging willingness of opponents to (grudgingly) “go along” with a course of action that they are — actually — opposed to.”