As I read Steven Pearlstein's article this morning in the Washington Post ("Time for the Blue Dogs to Show Their True Colors"), I flashed back to Mark Warner's kickoff tour in the spring of 2008. As I wrote at the time:...on the plane ride to Richmond, Mark Warner joined the reporters (and me) for some questions and answers. A number of questions attempted to gain greater clarity on what "radical centrist" [Note: Warner used that phrase repeatedly in speeches on his kickoff tour, from Abingdon to Roanoke to Norfolk to Richmond...] means, and to the best that I can gather it's all about facing big challenges in ways that get the job done, even if those are NOT the ways things have traditionally been done in Washington. It also means governing from the "center out," as opposed to the "extremes." Asked to identify a few senators who might be part of his group of 10-12 "radical centrists," Warner demurred for now, even when Jim Webb's name was mentioned specifically as the prototypical "radical centrist." Overall, Warner strikes me as very disciplined in terms of his message, but the specifics remain to be fully fleshed out (or maybe they HAVE been fleshed out but he's saving them for later?).Well, according to Steven Pearlstein - and I wholeheartedly agree with him on this - it's time for the "Blue Dogs" to finally decide, are they "the mushy kind of centrists just trying to reconcile the demands of liberal leaders with the demands of their more conservative rural districts, or [are they] radical centrists who reject the tired, interest-group-driven ideas of the left and right and seek fresh solutions based on free markets, balanced budgets and social compassion?"
If the latter -- "reject[ing] the tired, interest-group-driven ideas of the left and right and seek[ing] fresh solutions based on free markets, balanced budgets and social compassion" -- is what "radical centrism" is truly about, then I'm truly intrigued. And I'm also intrigued at the potential leadership role that Mark Warner could play in this version of "radical centrism." Certainly, Warner has proven that he can get things done, cut across party lines, and connect with voters from across the ideological spectrum. So far, though, I haven't really seen signs of bold "radical centrism" yet, whether we're talking about energy, global warming, or health care. What would "radical centrism" mean exactly in areas like these? As Pearlstein writes, with regard to health care there are things the "radical centrist" wannabes could do, such as:
*"If they really want to solve the doctor shortage in their home states, for example, they could propose a small tax on all hospital services and use the money to provide free education to all medical students -- in exchange for a few years of service in underserved communities."
*"If Blue Dogs were really the courageous fiscal conservatives they claim to be, they would insist on a more modest benefits package for the basic insurance policy that everyone would be required to buy under the House proposal."
And so forth, and so on. The point is, right about now a lot of us would love to see some real "outside-the-box" thinking from the self-professed "radical centrists" - like Mark Warner, for instance - in areas like the ones Pearlstein mentions. And no, I don't include the type of "centrism" that involves "splitting the difference between the warring camps, or making policy by choosing one from Column A and one from Column B." What I want to see is leaders who are unafraid to lead, not worried so much about being in the "middle" or "splitting the difference" as they are in thinking outside the box, being creative, breaking through old ideological and special interest barriers, and getting things done for the American people. That doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it?
