>On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Kelley wrote:
>
> > At 08:36 PM 2/9/01 -0500, Michael Pollak wrote:
> >
> > >Is possible in your scheme for there to be centrist populists?
> >
> > what on earth could that possibly mean?
>
>In Jesse's case, it means someone who is pro-choice and pro-drug
>legalization, and pro-gun and anti-big government. Centrist in the sense
>of using strong (and cheap) emotional single issue appeals from both the
>right and left armories, which seem naturally opposed only because current
>party logic makes them impossible to combine in a Dem or Repub campaign,
>and the combination of which corresponds more closely to the majority
>opinion.
>
>Michael
i'd say that this makes him more an American libertarian than "centrist". i wouldn't say that pro-drug legalization is a majority opinion. pro-choice-- does this mean that he's for unrestricted access to abortion? if so, then he's definitely nowhere near the mainstream opinion there. he's not "pro gun", he's pro-second amendment, btw, (particularly if you want to label it "pro-choice" as opposed to "pro-abortion) and, again, the 2A and public opinion is pretty complicated. the last time i looked, most people supported *some* restrictions on guns. so it depends on what you mean by "pro-gun".
i don't see what the point of calling it "centrist" is. all that's been identified is something that's pretty old in polisci lit: people tend to be socially "liberal" and economically "conservative".
the problem with centrist is that it elides historical analysis of these opinions and policy orientations. what would have been "centrist" in 1970 surely isn't what is "centrist" today or what was "centrist" in 1900.
all in all, however, i'm still lost as to exactly what the damn dispute is.
kelley