Centrism Is for Suckers

Because the good old days of personal integrity and putting country ahead of party are over in the GOP.

Rozius: Paul Krugman: Centrism Is for Suckers:

But while this principle might once have made sense, it's just naive today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party's leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee's personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the 'R' after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,' will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties, a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy, are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we�re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician�s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.