The term liberal or left cannot exist without its correlative conservative or right. The term centrist requires a double take to have meaning since the term must logically be in the middle of both ideologies. The greater the tilt of both sides, the wider the center so that a centrist such as Eisenhower implied left and right in moderation, particularly after the popularity of the New and Fair Deals of FDR and Truman, respectively. On the other hand, a centrist such as Nixon — mentored and contained while Ike’s VP — on his own tilted to his former self and heavily favored the right, particularly since his southern strategy meant that the left could no longer rely on the south to sustain a viable majority. Nevertheless, he still had to stiffen the tilt because of continual Democratic control of congress and the wide swath of anti-war protestors. By the second term he was emboldened by the sharp tilt to the right of the southern democrats, and had it not been for his resignation, the table would have been set for Reagan in ‘76, rather than ‘80.

Carter, a southerner, was able to mollify the rightist trend of the south and in so doing could restore the wide track of centrism until the oil crisis and hostages harried his administration. Reagan in ‘80, because of a mandate, was able to swing the nation to the right, though checked minimally by an obstinate Democratic congress.

By the time Clinton entered the office, centrism returned proportionately left as was Eisenhower’s ever so slight tilt to the right. When GW Bush took power, together with a Republican congress, centrism was dumped and the Reagan legacy revitalized even more so. Still, it would be a mistake to presume that the nation is firmly planted in ultraconservative soil, which can erode at any given time, just as the left had after Johnson. Now, however, the crucial probability is that only the well-right of center has been able to wield power; whereas the left in the post-Kennedy-Johnson era is always under the duress of having to lean but gingerly to the left. Because of the current scenario, the left in practice is the party of apologists while the right is the party of relatively unlimited action.

In light of this, why, then, is there so much criticism of liberals when they are but voices in the wind and carry little weight even in the Democratic Party? If Kerry, ostensibly liberal, is elected, there is no chance for him to take the nation to the far left as GW — with the help of 9/11 and the war — is able to swing the nation to the far right. At best, Kerry would be firmly planted in centrist soil where the plants may bend but slightly to the left.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 23, 2004.