Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Two kinds of centrists and the 2024 election

Two kinds of centrists and the 2024 election
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Moderate centrists occupy a place on the political spectrum that sits between progressivism and conservatism, roughly between the two 30 yard lines of a football field. Those 40 yards are neither purely Democratic nor purely Republican yards. They are largely centrist yards. Indeed, according to Gallup, 40 percent of American voters identify as independents; and although not all independents are centrists, most of them are.


Bold centrists can also be placed in the forty yards which sit between the pure Democrats and pure Republicans. They either want some unique synthesis of the left and right or some standpoint that transcends the left and the right. Georg Wilhem Friedrich Hegel was famous for generating a synthesis out of a thesis and an antithesis. Some Third Way Thinkers like the UK's Anthony Giddens have tried to transcend left and right to create a new democratic point of view.

A moderate centrist would propose a compromise on paid parental leave and child-care: six weeks of paid leave rather than 12 weeks and a child tax credit (which can be used for child-care) of $2,800 (up from $2,000) for children under five rather than $3,600, as well as $2,500 (up from) $2,000 rather than $3,000 for children between six and 17. The higher numbers were instituted as part of the American Rescue Plan Act which has expired. A bold centrist, like myself, would call for 24 weeks of paid leave and a choice of either $15,000 for child-care or a $15,000 tax credit for a stay-at-home parent. The moderate centrist finds a monetary middle ground; the bold centrist, in contrast, addresses a major cultural divide and tries to accommodate both sides with a unique policy solution.

In truth, it is not helpful to think of bold centrists as sitting between progressives and conservatives on some political spectrum. For bold centrists take the same approach to politics as the leading 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein took to philosophy. Wittgenstein held that philosophy was not a doctrine but an activity.

To say that bold centrism is not a doctrine is to say that it is not primarily a belief system made up of a set of positions on a set of public policies, including immigration, transportation, health care, climate change, guns, taxes, foreign policy and family policy. Bold centrists must, in the end, take a stance on all of the policy issues. Yet being a bold centrist means you place more emphasis on the activity taken to arrive at the policies than the policies themselves. Being a bold centrist requires imagination, interaction with rival camps, an interest in finding a creative synthesis, and the patience it takes to reach this place.

The current discussion about centrism in Washington is focused on the efforts of No Labels, the source of the influential Problem-Solvers Caucus on Capitol Hill, to elect a moderate centrist ticket for president in 2024 "if the environmental conditions are right." The fear expressed by well-known Democrats ranging from Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution to former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt is that a No Labels centrist ticket -- perhaps with West Virginia Democratic Senator Joseph Manchin and former Utah Republican Governor Jon Huntsman running for president and vice-president -- would lead to a Trump presidency.

We will not find out until April 2024 if No Labels runs (though they will not fund) the moderate centrist ticket. And they have every right to run a moderate centrist ticket. Yet, what this race needs is for a candidate or organization to step forward with a bold as opposed to moderate centrist agenda. Perhaps the Forward Party headed up by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, former Republican Congressman David Jolly, and former Republican New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman will produce a bold centrist agenda and generate the kind of activity needed to produce viable public policies. To date, the Forward Party seems more on the moderate centrist side than the bold centrist side, but it is too soon to tell.

It is conceivable that President Biden will change course and become a bold centrist himself. Indeed, this may be precisely the kind of development his campaign is going to need for him to be re-elected. But one way or another, campaign 2024 needs exploration of both moderate centrism and bold centrism because our country needs a very serious look at the overall concept of centrism. Thus, it may be best for our democracy if the race for president has two centrist tickets, not one.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less