In his poem “The Second Coming,” the Irish poet William Butler Yeats famously wrote “the center cannot hold … the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Washington has lately seemed a case study of that sentiment, with its hyperpolarized environment, where extreme partisanship is rewarded and bipartisanship treated with distrust on both sides of the aisle.

But a surprising collection of voices feels increasingly compelled to speak out against this trend.

At a dinner hosted by Hunter College last week, I heard former Democratic congressman and presidential candidate Richard Gephardt and a former Bush administration EPA director and New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman, both extol the virtue of Centrism for the future strength of their parties and discuss the need for more civility in American politics.

Mr. Gephardt argued that the Democratic Party ought to reassert the strong foreign policy and pro-military tradition associated with Harry Truman. Ms. Whitman built upon her recent book “It’s My Party Too” by defending the vision of a big-tent Republican Party she sees as under assault by social conservatives demanding a lockstep approach to issues such as choice and the environment.

Hearing these two divergent voices from the Democratic and Republican parties agree about the need for centrism was refreshing. I was far more surprised, though, when Richard Gilder, the Chairman of the Club for Growth (and an investor in this newspaper) stood up and personally expressed a desire to see the Republican Party move closer towards the center on issues such as the environment. I called him up later to get him to expand upon these unexpected remarks on the record.

The Club for Growth has been associated with increasing ideological combat within the GOP by targeting Republicans it sees as weak on the issues of taxes and spending, and challenging them in the primary. Mr. Gilder made no bones about the core purpose of the Club for Growth but offered a more expansive vision.

“The Club will always stay on the right as far as the issues we care about – tax cutting and smaller government,” he said, “but my own personal feeling is that growth means being open to ideas about immigration and the environment, issues on which many Republicans are divided.”

For example, “We are working with the Environmental Defense Fund on the issue of crop subsidy, which is Big Government, and is unfair,” Mr. Gilder said. “It is an example of where we can find common cause with the environmental folks.” Likewise, even as congressional Republicans and the White House circle around the issue of immigration reform, Mr. Gilder articulated a pro-growth argument on immigration, saying, “We know that immigrants are good for our long-term economy. The issue is how you strike a balance against illegal immigration, which is wrong.”

Mr. Gilder’s comments indicate room that exists for political growth within the GOP while still staying true to its increasingly under-assault fiscal conservative principles. In this, Mr. Gilder points out some future Republican stars who frequently take heat from the far-right. “The exciting guys in the party are on the coasts, Arnold and Rudy … These are Centrist Republicans. They have been good on taxes. And while we do not take a position on social agenda, we are perfectly happy with their approach. Issues like school choice and cutting taxes, stronger defense, smaller government, that is the future.”

Against most appearances, there may be a surprising opportunity for common ground between the frequently warring wings of the Republican Party.

The moderate Republican Main Street Partnership usually sees itself at odds with the Club for Growth, boasting that they won six races in the last election cycle that pitted a Club for Growth-backed Republican primary candidate against a moderate incumbent.

In response to Mr. Gilder’s comments, the Main Street Partnership’s executive director, Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, replied, “I’m pleased that Dick Gilder recognizes the need for the Republican Party to take centrist positions on issues like the environment and immigration … While we have had our differences in the past, recognition that centrist candidates often have strong records on fiscal issues, and an end to divisive primaries, might achieve more fiscal restraint in Congress.”

While these comments stop far short of an intra-party cease-fire, they offer some evidence of a counter-cyclical trend away from the ideological extremism.

Among Democrats, party faithful have yet to come up with a coherent analysis of their most recent electoral defeat. But while liberal activists have been quick to blame centrist organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council for diluting the difference between the parties, a surprising new number of centrist party think-tanks have been formed in the wake of the Clinton administration, among these are the Center for American Progress, the New Democrat Network, and The Third Way.

A co-founder of the Third Way, Jim Kessler, dismisses the fashionable left-wing attacks on party centrists by saying “it is faulty analysis at best and self-deception at worst,” but expands his definition of mission by saying “the challenge of being centrist is not to be a split-the-difference ideology but to be a dynamic movement that develops new reform solutions.”

Against the prevailing hyper-partisan winds, centrist voices and organizations persist.

Looking toward 2008, there is increasing likelihood that the center of American politics will reassert itself as the center of gravity for both parties. Both the Republican and Democratic parties will be strengthened when they show room for growth, and for the moderate majority of Americans, it offers some hope, against much evidence, that the poet Yeats was wrong – the center can hold.