The right, or at least what presently passes for the right, seems to be drawn to wacky ideologues, who present issues in oversimplified tidbits, which, true or not, can be digested with little thought. The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world revel in the willful ignorance of their audiences. The Thomas Sowell's, as your blogger friend points out, write more thoughtful books and essays, but know their audience too well to put the same type of thought and complexity into their mass market editorials.

It isn't that there isn't a wacky left - those who like the facts oversimplified, and the Republicans vilified, need look no further than Ted Rall. If they can find him. One might speculate that raving leftist loonies don't generate much market share, even if they do periodically register a salient point.

What is the "centerist perspective"? Is it, "Both sides make good points" - that is, sitting on the fence without presenting an alternative solution? Is it, "Neither side is correct" - that is, a third path entirely? Is it trying to propose a compromise view that displeases as few people as possible, while also pleasing very few? Or is it presenting opinions that nobody likes? Perhaps some combination of the above?

To some degree, the Democrats are "centerist". They are trying to appease a huge number of people with diverse opinions, and thus seem to take weak positions on issues many deem important, to present wishy-washy opinions when forced to speak out, and, on the whole, to be somewhat boring. If true "centerism" means sticking to the middle on every issues, ceterist bloggers probably bore *themselves* to sleep even as they try to add their day's or week's comments.

Looking at some of the content of the blog at issue, I can't help but feel that the author believes his positions are centerist if they aren't what the right is preaching, but at the same time don't align with the opinions of his former colleagues on the left. Is that "centerism"? I guess, to some, it may be.