Social issues are hard to honestly put on a left-right scale, and I like the politicalcompass.org left-right and authoritarian-libertarian axes used on their grid, where the authoritarian-libertarian scale measures how someone thinks social standards (including the economic system) should be enforced.

As an example, I follow social liberal (center-left) economic philosophy (which is what “liberal” in the United States refers to, vs. right/center-right neoliberalism and classical liberalism) and a moderately libertarian philosophy in regard to social issues and application of a social liberal or social democratic economic system. As a reference, I would be at around (-2 , -6) on the Political Compass. So I’m in the libertarian left quadrant, but I’m not as far left as socialists or as far libertarian as anarchists: Basically, I think we should decentralize the federal government while progressively moving towards center-leftism applied on a state and local level and mostly libertarian social policies. Capisce?

I feel sure, perhaps cynically so, that he cannot make the two sides speak, or engage in constructive dialogue. In fact, I think he wasted at least a year thinking he could do this—- this is when I decided, I think like you, that he may be too mature (or too nuanced and evolved) for American politics, or politics period. And I also wonder if that first year was not just a case of him misunderstanding his genius— he did not know where his own talents were. I thought he was in his element when he was working to reach people— on a community level an on a national level, when he gave his deliciously nuanced speech on race.

I think he has always been right that most people hold views that are left and right and that there is more overlap than the beltway understands. But on the level of national discourse, the right is dedicated to a really myopic goal: anything Obama says, even if they said it first, is wrong. So, for Obama to be effective, I think he needs to accept the immaturity— even infantile—- nature of the beast, and lower himself a bit.

I see signs of it and I would like to see more— why? Because I think, if he can find it in himself to let them have it again and again and again with strong rhetoric and a strong bearing, he can again hold the center left of center, and he can start pushing real change through. He really has the power to reach and persuade and the savvy to pull of what he pulled of with OBL.

Let him not waste his time getting the right to engage in real debate. It is a fool’s wager— and he would be playing with fools. Not everyone on the right is a fool but there is too much of it out there. Do you really think Palin or Bachmann can debate anything? They just cannot. Until smart Republicans jump ship or join forces with Obama (seeing him as a centrist), or at least engage in real debate with him— I will read and listen to David Frum for example—-there is no chance of any real engagement— and I think it needs to be left behind as a goal—- it is too lofty, too accomplished, etc. and it is going to leave him kind of spinning his wheels— and the status quo (or the center) will remain intact.

And the following is a subject for another time: there is also a real friction between liberals and democrats. We are not the same. As I get older, I have more tolerance for real politics. But Obama has a more interesting relationship to the left than to the right, I think. His policies have generated some intensely intelligent criticism.

He wants people with different convictions to come together, discuss their differences, find a way to agree to some common position and act on it. His desire for open debate and open negotiations is not instrumental. It is a fundamental commitment, very difficult to execute in these polarized times.

Jeff,

Obama has made great speeches promoting civil, open-minded politics, but I believe that, as president, there is still much more he can do. There are many organizations out there promoting civility (many of them belong to this coalition: http://www.thataway.org. If he would team up with them, the impact could be great.

And while a pure centrist could be considered one who makes decision based on pragmatics not politics;in actuality though, I think the center, be it center-left or center-right, will be continuously contested and relative to the political temper of the public.