Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation By Steve McIntosh J.D. A Publication of The Institute for Cultural Evolution May, 2016 Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation By Steve McIntosh, J.D. ContentS: e Problem with Centrism e Disrupting Influence of the Progressive Postmodern Worldview transcending Postmodernism rough a More Inclusive Worldview A new Political Practice—Increasing the Scope of What We Can Value examples of Values Integration in Specific Political Issues Conclusion yper-partisan political polarization is crippling America’s democracy. Even if our next Hpresident is elected with a strong majority mandate, she or he will nevertheless find themselves severely constrained by the inevitably obstructionist opposition. As Francis Fukuyama observes in his latest book, Political Order and Political Decay, America’s government has become a ‘vetocracy’ wherein our system of checks and balances has devolved to the point where each party has an effective veto on the positive programs of the other. And within our evenly balanced, highly competitive two party system, this has produced a seemingly intractable form of gridlock that now paralyzes our government. In response to the problem of hyper-partisan polarization, mainstream political commentators and analysts usually prescribe some version of centrism. Prominent centrists contend that the straightforward solution to polarization is for politicians to ‘meet in the middle’ and compromise for the greater good. ese moderates argue that most Americans are not ideologically polarized, and that our government’s gridlock has been artificially created by structural obstacles to cooperation, such as congressional district gerrymandering and the outsized influence of hyper-partisans in primary elections and campaign finance. Centrists have outlined policy positions designed to appeal to both sides on a wide variety of issues, and they are encouraged by the growing number of voters who identify as independent. Indeed, national polls seem to indicate that if any truly centrist presidential candidate could make it past the primaries, their election would be virtually assured. Yet if centrism is so politically desirable and potentially achievable, why does it continue to fail to succeed? Why are we more polarized now than at any time since the civil war? It’s not as if this problem has only appeared recently; this contemporary version of hyper-partisan gridlock has been paralyzing our democracy for over twenty years. Notwithstanding these concerns, I remain sympathetic to the laudable goals of centrism. Returning to a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, pragmatically focusing on getting things done, Institute for Cultural Evolution • www.culturalevolution.org • July, 2016 2 McIntosh Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation and rejecting ideological purity in favor of realistic moderation, are all seemingly reasonable prescriptions for ameliorating our polarization problem. But again, despite the logical appeal of these centrist remedies, even aer decades of high-level advocacy for this approach, hyper- partisanship continues to prevail. We know from history that a political culture of cooperative moderation is possible in America. e postwar period from 1945 until about 1968, known as the ‘liberal consensus,’ was characterized by exemplary cooperation through which significant legislative achievements were accomplished. e cultural conditions that made this period of consensus possible, however, were disrupted (for good and bad) by the upheavals that began in the 1960s, and which have now permanently altered the cultural landscape of American politics. Since then, a significant portion of Americans have come to adopt a new set of values that are oen opposed to the mainstream establishment values which once served as the foundation of our nation’s relative political solidarity. And this points to the conclusion that polarization is primarily a cultural problem that ultimately requires a cultural solution. e Problem with Centrism e problem with contemporary political centrism is that it remains rooted in a worldview that is in the process of being superseded by the progress of history. While this mainstream worldview (usually called ‘modernity’ or ‘modernism’) continues to constitute the cultural center of gravity for most of the American electorate, it can no longer serve as a stable center. It is being increasingly pulled apart on both sides by competing moral systems—a cultural tug of war between the enduring values of the traditional worldview that preceded modernity, and the emerging values of a progressive ‘postmodern’ worldview that now seeks to transcend the culture of modernity. Modernist values include scientific rationality, economic prosperity, meritocracy, and individual liberty. ese values, which originally emerged during the Enlightenment, provide many of the core principles on which the American nation was founded. ese mainstream values will undoubtedly continue to guide a significant part of American culture well into the future. But as I argue in this paper, modernity’s former power to engender loyalty and foster political will is being eroded by a growing number of citizens who question many of modernity’s deeply held assumptions about economic growth and what it means to succeed and live a good life. And these cultural developments are resetting the ‘center’ of American politics in a way that calls for a larger container—a ‘post-postmodern’ or ‘metamodern’ worldview that can integrate a wider spectrum of values and thus provide a higher form of ‘centrism’ which can restore some degree of political cooperation. As I discuss in greater detail elsewhere,1 throughout America’s history modernity has had to contend with the older and distinct worldview most oen referred to as ‘traditionalism.’Yet Institute for Cultural Evolution • www.culturalevolution.org • July, 2016 3 McIntosh Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation while traditionalists have oen stood in opposition to modernity’s progress on issues such as women’s rights, civil rights, immigration policy, and the separation of church and state, by the time of the postwar liberal consensus, modernism and traditionalism had reached something of a cultural truce. Under this tacit cultural agreement, the political contest between liberals and conservatives was effectively constrained by the socially conservative, traditionalist morality defined by America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. But as mentioned, beginning in the 1960s a third major worldview has emerged in American culture. is progressive countercultural worldview, which for descriptive Centrism cannot purposes I will refer to as ‘postmodernism,’2 now competes with traditionalism to define the morality of the generate passion for modernist majority. its positions or resist is cultural contest for the moral soul of modernity, the pull of passionate which has been waged between progressive partisans from one postmodernists and socially conservative traditionalists side or the other for the last fiy years, may seem to place modernism squarely in the center. But as the political and cultural power of traditionalism wanes, and postmodernism continues to gain ground (as evidenced by Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly large constituency3), the old modernist center has lost the ideological gravity necessary to garner the allegiance of voters within America’s increasingly divergent cultural landscape. As the 2016 presidential contest demonstrates, passion for change is driving American politics. But as centrist proponents themselves sometimes admit, centrism’s largest deficiency is its inability to generate much passion for its positions, or to otherwise resist the pull of passionate partisans from one side or the other.4 Centrism’s commendable emphasis on moderation makes it relativistic in its very constitution—the center is defined by the relative middle of the le and the right. Yet as ‘the middle’ continues to shi, centrist positions can become untenable. While many centrists like to think of themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, by this logic Donald Trump’s supporters, who are mostly fiscally liberal and socially conservative, could also claim to represent the ‘sensible center.’ As the leist political commentator George Lakoff writes: ere is no middle in American politics. ere are moderates, but there is no ideology of the moderate, no single ideology that all moderates agree on. A moderate conservative has some progressive positions on issues, though they vary from person to person. Similarly, a moderate progressive has some conservative positions on issues, again varying from person to person. In short, moderates have both political moral worldviews, but mostly use one of them.5 is conclusion is borne out by social science research which shows that despite the large number of voters who now register as independent, most independents reliably lean to one side or another, and are actually more partisan than the least politically engaged members of either the Democratic or Republican parties.6 Institute for Cultural Evolution • www.culturalevolution.org • July, 2016 4 McIntosh Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation e political philosophy of centrism is thus unable to overcome polarization because its cultural foundations are no longer strong enough to pull voters into the moderate middle. Attempts to promote a vibrant ‘third