It would be a mistake to dismiss the OneMaine political organization founded by recent independent gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler as simply an extension of his campaign or a personal political vehicle designed to carry him to victory in the next election.

It is those things, but it’s also an expression of deep cynicism in the people of Maine and a dull and misshapen lens through which to view our state’s politics and policy choices.

The argument behind OneMaine is that the political system in our state has fractured into two polarized and hostile camps, with good policies lying unused in the middle of the two. We must simply use “pragmatism” and “common sense” to find these answers to our problems.

The story is seductive in its simplicity. The policy solutions that OneMaine and Cutler claim are so obvious go undefined, the “special interests” that they say have driven us to this point go unnamed, and all concrete issues such as unemployment, health care and education go unaddressed.

Setting aside for a moment the argument about whether Maine’s political system is, in fact, in such dire straits, their answer to a polarized policy landscape would make things worse, not better.

Political scientists have a concept called the “Overton window,” describing the range of ideas in a certain policy area that are considered to be within the mainstream and not too extreme. They note that policies can be made more palatable not just through advocacy for their merits, but through the introduction of new ideas that seem more radical.

One example in Maine is gay rights. The idea of basic protections for gay and lesbian Mainers in employment, education and housing became much more acceptable as the conversation shifted toward the idea of equality in marriage.

A more sudden and extreme version of this kind of dynamic was seen in the recent federal debate about the debt ceiling. Republicans who were willing to default on our nation’s debt were able to extract previously unthinkable cuts to government programs.

This and other, similar effects mean that the response to a political movement focused only on compromise and finding the “middle” rather than on a larger sense of right and wrong is attempts to move the middle. More extremism, not less.

But even this refutation of the idea behind OneMaine ignores political reality. Policy choices don’t lie along a single continuum of liberal to conservative. Each issue area offers a constellation of competing interests, ideologies and policy choices. There is no middle.

Neither is there an easy spectrum on which to place politicians. Should U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud be considered a liberal for his strong opposition to free trade agreements? A conservative for his “A” rating from the National Rifle Association? Or do they cancel out and make him a moderate despite the fact that he isn’t moderate in his opinions on either issue?

More importantly, the force that most shapes government policies is not the noisy clash of the ideologies of political parties, but quiet exchange of money for power.

During the federal debate about health care reform, one might assume that the common-sense, moderate position might be for the United States to at least consider a universal system similar to 41 of the world’s 43 most industrialized nations, whether it be Switzerland’s comprehensive insurance program, Britain’s national health service or Canada’s provincially based universal single-payer system, all proven to cost less and save more lives.

Because of hundreds of millions of dollars spent on television ads, lobbyists and in direct contributions to politicians by insurance companies and other powerful interests, none of these options was ever on the table. Before the debate even started, these interests were able to shift the “middle” to friendlier, more profitable ground.

A blog post by the OneMaine PAC’s finance director, Justin Schair, admits that outside money in campaigns is “a crisis in America’s politics today.” Their answer, however, isn’t a policy solution, such as working to repair and strengthen Maine’s landmark Clean Elections act.

Instead, they solicit more money in order to give it to candidates based on their “pragmatism.”

Cutler has been involved in politics for a long time and should know the depth of these complexities. He’s been a corporate lawyer for some of America’s most powerful business interests for even longer and knows their degree of influence. To pretend otherwise on both accounts is pandering. It’s a cynical attempt to gain support by replacing policy with platitudes. It may get him elected, but it won’t improve our politics.

Mike Tipping is a political junkie. He writes the Tipping Point blog on Maine politics at DownEast.com, his own blog at MainePolitics.net and works for the Maine People’s Alliance and the Maine People’s Resource Center. He’s @miketipping on Twitter. Email to [email protected]