The Centre Line (1)

When someone heard I was changing my blog's direction to political renewal and the pursuit of a more engaged progressivism of the centre, he responded on Twitter: "I hope you start with a definition of 'centrist'." That made eminent sense to me. He later went on to observe that he hears the term all the time but wonders if such a definition actually exists. I have no idea. After almost five years in politics, I have really only begun to seriously hear the term "centrist" emerge amidst all the dialogue surrounding the rebuilding the Liberal party.Perhaps a good place to start is to cast off exact definitions and just talk about what a centrist actually believes. Usually something is defined and then a person says, "Yes, that's me." Let's do it the other way around. Those of us who believe we aren't of the extreme Right or Left, why don't we define ourselves and let "centrism" spring from that? The political world has changed so much in this past decade that the only way to fight for a centrist view of Canada is to say what we think it is. I'll start and you can add your own. The list won't be complete but it might propel us in the proper direction, if our instincts are sound. A centrist:

• rejects the distortions and political propaganda that became common fare in this last election
• struggles to acquire objective information so that only after reflecting on it they can form an opinion
• believes in evidence-based research and practice and not some kind of political dogma
• loyalists aside, doesn't tend to vote for a particular party because of historical allegiance but because of its relevance and policies
• believes in the respectful separation of church and state
• believes that a country of varying regions can still share a common pursuit
• rejects the temptation to place one region of the country higher than the others
• supports the perspective that Canada's founding aboriginals are equal citizens and that their progress is essential to this country's ultimate progress
• rejects inferences or practices of racism or hatred
• believes that "smart" government makes more sense than "small" government
• rejects the exclusion of others just because they are Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Green, or whatever
• recognizes the difference between news and opinion
• believes that local communities form the essence of citizen and political activities
• is troubled by the notion that for-profit corporations are the best stewards of public health
• fully rejects in its politicians the tendency to deceive the electorate or place blind party loyalty above the better good of the country
• absolutely rejects the political instinct for voter suppression as a means for winning government
• adheres to the belief that the need for electoral reform is an ongoing process but that it's not a replacement for seasoned maturity among citizens and their representatives

I turned 60 this past Christmas and have begun purging my accumulated possessions, surprised that I still hold on to certain things I hadn't thought of for years. Maybe we should consider doing the same thing with our political holdings. As Liberals across the country partake of the various renewal exercises, perhaps it would be good to clarify if we are on a rescue or a fact-finding mission of discovery. I would suggest that we could use less of the former and more of the latter. If we are truly interested in re-energizing the grassroots, perhaps it would be better to quit the practice of putting them through the litmus test of seeing if they still adhere to Liberal doctrine. It's not an exam. Successful Liberal regimes have governed from the centre not the past. If we truly believe most Canadians are centrist in outlook and persuasion, then what's the harm in asking them to define the centre line? Let's cull what we learn and begin to define "Liberal" from those conclusions and see what we come up with. It would entail trust in the instincts of Canadians - something we as Liberals have crowed about for years but never quite mastered.All of this will require some kind of streak of daring independence, a break from past practices in favour of best ones. Classic liberalism, and its modern counterpart, have survived because of their adaptive nature. Why not trust it now? Let's not wait for some leader to tell us what to think; let's undertake it ourselves, knowing we might not achieve perfect success. Liberalism never has been perfect anyway, yet for decades has best housed the progressive centre. At times it's better to toss away the compass of our own definitions and be guided by the stars of citizen values - truly a risky endeavour, but, hey, it's not as though what we've been doing for the last decade has been any great guns.

I say it's worth a shot. Send in your ideas.