Jim, thanks for defining the center right here. I think what we have is a misunderstanding of definitions. I accept your definition of the center, and don’t see that echoed at all in what our media or punditry call the center. The general understanding seems to be that it is just splitting the difference between the two extremes, and that is what I have rejected. As you define it, it seems to be a call for rationality, for facts, perhaps combined with realpolitic. And I think there are conservatives and liberals who can both act rationally, and based on facts.But in our media, the middle is seen as just splitting the difference. Even at this moment, during Obama’s press conference–and it’s great to see him keep hammering his message home–the first question was why is he doing this rather than working with Republicans on a bill that could actually pass. Of course the questioner was, frankly, an ideologue, or something worse–I’ll try to refrain from name calling–he didn’t identify a single thing the Republicans can or would compromise on during the Obama administration. So he question was really why doesn’t Obama just cave completely. Thankfully, he doesn’t seem willing to give up facts this time around.
The other question I have, regarding your definition, which I like, is how do we get there? We are so ruled by extremes, particularly on the right, which simply denies science and the evidence of their eyes–truly, they are taking their followers back to the dark ages–how do we get through to them with your rational center? I think that is the question.