Why the label of centrism might be often misapplied

[amorphous_constellation]

I just wanted to make a quick note of something I feel is important.

Ok so let's take a closer look at centrism. Most people's idea of a centrist, I suspect, involves a person who feels lukewarm about everything. And people think of politics in terms of gravity, meaning that if you have 'shifting views,' views where there is some gravitational effect from an opposite side, attenuating an aggregate position, that this can only temper one's position toward the 'lukewarm'

Sometimes centrism does exist, and this is what it is: it involves a person's views actually being lukewarm.

But I suspect that when a person has views from opposing sides, they often will strongly, or moderately, believe in each of their views, and this is an attitude that is explicitly not lukewarm. This kind of political thought has nothing to do with someone who does have a lukewarm feeling about things. However, both of these types of people would probably be easily put in the same bucket, they are both described as centrist

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm a little biased here, perhaps, as I consider myself a centrist, in some ways.

It has nothing to do with being lukewarm (ie. Not a right or a left winger). Rather it is about thinking a pragmatic focus on the issue at hand is better than taking a consistent, overarching ideological position.

Using myself as an example, I often lean left on individual issues, but by no means always. I often vote centre-left here in Australia, but I have at time voted centre-right.

In many ways it's a tougher and more invested position to take, since I can't just take voting cues from my party of choice, and I can't use an overarching ideology to determine my position on issues.

If course, reality is that I'm biased, like everyone. So it's more about trying to step aside that bias, and engaging my brain in evaluating policy and positions.

On any individual policy or position, I can be very passionate. What I'm not passionate about is 'The Left' or 'The Right'.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I just wanted to make a quick note of something I feel is important.

Ok so let's take a closer look at centrism. Most people's idea of a centrist, I suspect, involves a person who feels lukewarm about everything. And people think of politics in terms of gravity, meaning that if you have 'shifting views,' views where there is some gravitational effect from an opposite side, attenuating an aggregate position, that this can only temper one's position toward the 'lukewarm'

Sometimes centrism does exist, and this is what it is: it involves a person's views actually being lukewarm.

But I suspect that when a person has views from opposing sides, they often will strongly, or moderately, believe in each of their views, and this is an attitude that is explicitly not lukewarm. This kind of political thought has nothing to do with someone who does have a lukewarm feeling about things. However, both of these types of people would probably be easily put in the same bucket, they are both described as centrist

IMO, centrism is taking a moderate view of thing. Regarding, say, abortion, the far right would want to outlaw abortion altogether, the far left would want to allow it up until almost birth, and the centrist would want it allowed until maybe viability. Regarding gay rights, the far right would not want gay marriage allowed, the far left would want to possibly force churches to marry gays, and the centrist would allow churches to decide for themselves. That's now I see it, as a reasoned view, not knee-jerk or emotional, and definitely not lukewarm.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

On any individual policy or position, I can be very passionate. What I'm not passionate about is 'The Left' or 'The Right'.

Ok, that's fine, but then if you show passion, on whatever set of issues you like, then that's where I now have a hard time defining that as centrism. I guess I just that when passion is applied, it automatically must become something else. A centrist, imho, seems like someone who can be swayed, can be convinced, and is lukewarm. If you made up your mind on any given issue, then you are the antithesis of that, as you have passionately made up your mind on an issue, and maybe are beyond being swayed on that issue

 

[amorphous_constellation]

hat's now I see it, as a reasoned view, not knee-jerk or emotional, and definitely not lukewarm.

Ok, but I guess I would understand a 'reasoned' view to be closely associated, as far as I can tell, with something like a lukewarm view. They have an important thing in common, both are pliable. Now if you take someone that has views on both sides of the political spectrum, and have made up their minds on those issues, such that their views are not pliable, then they are not on the Left, they are not on the Right, and they are not a Centrist. They are something else

 

[ADigitalArtist]

IMO, centrism is taking a moderate view of thing. Regarding, say, abortion, the far right would want to outlaw abortion altogether, the far left would want to allow it up until almost birth, and the centrist would want it allowed until maybe viability. Regarding gay rights, the far right would not want gay marriage allowed, the far left would want to possibly force churches to marry gays, and the centrist would allow churches to decide for themselves. That's now I see it, as a reasoned view, not knee-jerk or emotional, and definitely not lukewarm.

I don't know a single leftist who holds either of those two perspectives, and also speaking as a leftist so far left the US has basically nothing to offer me. That sounds like the middle between two propagandas then the actual ideological middle.

And that's the problem with wanting to be a centrist, it's easy to manipulate when the Overton window has been shifted to one extreme. Thinking the best option is somewhere in the middle is literally an appeal to middles/moderation fallacy.

 

[Stevicus]

I just wanted to make a quick note of something I feel is important.

Ok so let's take a closer look at centrism. Most people's idea of a centrist, I suspect, involves a person who feels lukewarm about everything. And people think of politics in terms of gravity, meaning that if you have 'shifting views,' views where there is some gravitational effect from an opposite side, attenuating an aggregate position, that this can only temper one's position toward the 'lukewarm'

Sometimes centrism does exist, and this is what it is: it involves a person's views actually being lukewarm.

But I suspect that when a person has views from opposing sides, they often will strongly, or moderately, believe in each of their views, and this is an attitude that is explicitly not lukewarm. This kind of political thought has nothing to do with someone who does have a lukewarm feeling about things. However, both of these types of people would probably be easily put in the same bucket, they are both described as centrist

Defining "centrist" would depend upon how one defines the political spectrum overall. I never thought that being a moderate was "lukewarm," although I suppose it can vary from issue to issue. Some might see centrists as "fence-sitters," which is how some people view agnostics, too.

A lot of it depends on context in a given situation. When most people in society are moderate and centrist, then there's a reasonable expectation of compromise and political harmony. But it also involves paying attention and listening to people, particularly those who point out there might be problems to deal with. If problems are dealt with early and proactively, then society's problems can be avoided - and most people would be content and satisfied with a moderate, centrist government.

But the other side is that it produces a lazy, effete, arrogant bureaucracy which views itself as untouchable and is prone to corruption. That's where moderates and centrists begin to falter, since the expectation of moderates is that they'll maintain a cooperative and harmonious attitude, with no desire to rock the boat. Even if they can recognize the system as corrupted and flawed, their primary interest is in maintaining that system no matter what.

Whenever there are omens of discontent or signs of public disorder, angst, and general dissatisfaction, that's when the moderates (more than anyone else) need to take heed. If they've become too corrupted and/or too insular to the point where they're ineffectual, either unwilling or unable to address society's problems, then that's where they fail.

There's nothing wrong with being a centrist or a moderate, but it can be a problem if they grow unaware or out of touch with things.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't know a single leftist who holds either of those two perspectives, and also speaking as a leftist so far left the US has basically nothing to offer me. That sounds like the middle between two propagandas then the actual ideological middle.

And that's the problem with wanting to be a centrist, it's easy to manipulate when the Overton window has been shifted to one extreme. Thinking the best option is somewhere in the middle is literally an appeal to middles/moderation fallacy.

In fairness, I don't know a single centrist who is centrist because they "want to be centrist." They simply have genuine opinions that fall in the middle of the current political spectrum. Or hold combinations of leftwing and right-wing views.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok, that's fine, but then if you show passion, on whatever set of issues you like, then that's where I now have a hard time defining that as centrism.

Fair enough. I think you might at least want to be aware there are other definitions and versions of centrism than the one you're rolling with, though.

As one example;
Radical centrism - Wikipedia

I guess I just that when passion is applied, it automatically must become something else. A centrist, imho, seems like someone who can be swayed, can be convinced, and is lukewarm. If you made up your mind on any given issue, then you are the antithesis of that, as you have passionately made up your mind on an issue, and maybe are beyond being swayed on that issue

Only if you want to judge such things at a micro level. The people you seem to be describing would be either apathetic about politics, or would only be centrist on an issue by issue basis.

However you could easily enough point to a 'leftist', and you'd be doing so more on the overall ideology they're subscribing to, or the position they take on the preponderance of issues.

A centrist is merely evaluating the issues from a starting point that is neither left nor right (in theory....like I said, everyone is somewhat biased).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok, but I guess I would understand a 'reasoned' view to be closely associated, as far as I can tell, with something like a lukewarm view. They have an important thing in common, both are pliable. Now if you take someone that has views on both sides of the political spectrum, and have made up their minds on those issues, such that their views are not pliable, then they are not on the Left, they are not on the Right, and they are not a Centrist. They are something else

You don't think it's possible to passionately believe the far right and far left are self-serving imbeciles, and that effective governance requires conciliatory positions to be adopted for the greater good?
That seems strange.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Defining "centrist" would depend upon how one defines the political spectrum overall. I never thought that being a moderate was "lukewarm," although I suppose it can vary from issue to issue. Some might see centrists as "fence-sitters," which is how some people view agnostics, too.

A lot of it depends on context in a given situation. When most people in society are moderate and centrist, then there's a reasonable expectation of compromise and political harmony. But it also involves paying attention and listening to people, particularly those who point out there might be problems to deal with. If problems are dealt with early and proactively, then society's problems can be avoided - and most people would be content and satisfied with a moderate, centrist government.

But the other side is that it produces a lazy, effete, arrogant bureaucracy which views itself as untouchable and is prone to corruption. That's where moderates and centrists begin to falter, since the expectation of moderates is that they'll maintain a cooperative and harmonious attitude, with no desire to rock the boat. Even if they can recognize the system as corrupted and flawed, their primary interest is in maintaining that system no matter what.

Whenever there are omens of discontent or signs of public disorder, angst, and general dissatisfaction, that's when the moderates (more than anyone else) need to take heed. If they've become too corrupted and/or too insular to the point where they're ineffectual, either unwilling or unable to address society's problems, then that's where they fail.

I think you make some interesting points, and your critique is largely fair on the dangers of there being too many moderates and not enough radical challengers. However I would humbly submit that is not a situation we are likely to be in any time soon.

There's nothing wrong with being a centrist or a moderate, but it can be a problem if they grow unaware or out of touch with things.

I could say the same about the right or left.
For the centre I think the key risk is in allowing themselves to be reactionary, and becoming the middle ground between the right and left.
For example, if the right becomes 'more Right', it shouldn't follow that the centrist becomes a little more right as well, just to find the middle ground.

The type of centrist is standing for nothing more than stasis.

However, a centrist who can hold to a moderate position, and argue it's strengths and admit it's weaknesses in the face of increasing radicalisation does have a purpose in stabilising society, and counterbalancing radicalisation by either side.

(In theory. Real life is obviously messier.)

 

[Sedim Haba]

Back in the day, Centrist was the optimal choice in a candidate.
It meant they were open to various viewpoints , and were willing
to negotiate on issues that were not core beliefs to compromise
on some issues to gain concessions on others.

That's sadly gone today, everyone seems extremist.
Unwilling to budge, compromise, negotiate, or even listen.

Does not bode well for the future.
Everything will swing far left... far right... back... forth...
until no one wins and we all lose.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In fairness, I don't know a single centrist who is centrist because they "want to be centrist." They simply have genuine opinions that fall in the middle of the current political spectrum. Or hold combinations of leftwing and right-wing views.

I think that's what a lot of centrists are but I do know some that seem to be more concerned with not appearing left or right, especially if they're considered 'extreme' left or right, they are actively asserting a centrist identity even if the 'mix' of policy is overwhelmingly right. (In other countries you might see examples of this on the left but I've never seen it in the US because we don't have leftist power structures considered 'non-extreme.' ...or at all.)

See this a *lot* with Gen X liberals who call themselves centrist but really have right leaning views, but you also hear it when trying to push horseshoe theory which tries to paint the left and right power structures within this country as equidistant when they're not. These ones usually take up the 'moderation is key' which really is an appeal to middles.

You also see this with 'social liberal, economic conservative' which I will always and forever think is an oxymoron. Trying to have cake and eat it too, if you will. Because social liberal requires liberal spending or it's just doing the thing everyone hates to be told they're doing. Virtue signaling. I want societies needs to be met by equitable policies, but I dont care enough to want to pay for it. But that's another thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, that's fine, but then if you show passion, on whatever set of issues you like, then that's where I now have a hard time defining that as centrism. I guess I just that when passion is applied, it automatically must become something else. A centrist, imho, seems like someone who can be swayed, can be convinced, and is lukewarm. If you made up your mind on any given issue, then you are the antithesis of that, as you have passionately made up your mind on an issue, and maybe are beyond being swayed on that issue

The joke is in your view is that I as a centrist must watch out for not overdoing my bias of wanting a compromise on everything. That is where I can get dogmatic or not lukewarm. I do get that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For me, centrism is fundamentally about being anti-radical and nominally anti-progressive. A person can be left-leaning or right-leaning but still fundamentally be a centrist if they oppose radical or progressive change (as a consequence, centrism often benefits conservatives even if the centrist themselves are more socially or economically left wing, because it necessarily supports a rigid status-quo that it is dangerous to upset). Another facet of centrism, particularly in a two-party system, is a refusal or inability to ideologically justify siding with one party over the other, preferring instead to hold both in often equal regard publicly. In terms of actual votes, a centrist may still vote either way, but they will maintain the ideological position in public of being kind of a-political or in dispassionately seeing both the merits and demerits of both sides and refusing to take one.

The problem with this is pretty clear when you have a political climate that is constantly shifting one way or the other. If the right shifts further right, the dedicated ideological centrist will often adjust their position to the right in order to remain in the centre (and the same for the left), because that is the only way in their mind to remain between - and therefore ideologically "above" - the political divide. In this sense, it is less about actual ideology or consistency and more about a desire to appear divorced from or "better than" particular political positions; or, in fact, any political positions at all.

It's what I call the South Park Fallacy, where you feel the need to place yourself above political discourse by refusing to take a side and by criticising both sides equally - regardless of the individual merit either side may have - because what's important is not being correct, but everyone else being wrong. It's not that one idea is superior to another because you have considered it and care about it, it's that considering or caring about anything other than a base, neutral dissociation from things people feel strongly or care about makes you better than them.

For all the claims the right tends to make, I think the American Democratic party are, for the most part, liberal centrists who are disinterested in radical change and fall into a lot of the above traps.

 

[Brian2]

I just wanted to make a quick note of something I feel is important.

Ok so let's take a closer look at centrism. Most people's idea of a centrist, I suspect, involves a person who feels lukewarm about everything. And people think of politics in terms of gravity, meaning that if you have 'shifting views,' views where there is some gravitational effect from an opposite side, attenuating an aggregate position, that this can only temper one's position toward the 'lukewarm'

Sometimes centrism does exist, and this is what it is: it involves a person's views actually being lukewarm.

But I suspect that when a person has views from opposing sides, they often will strongly, or moderately, believe in each of their views, and this is an attitude that is explicitly not lukewarm. This kind of political thought has nothing to do with someone who does have a lukewarm feeling about things. However, both of these types of people would probably be easily put in the same bucket, they are both described as centrist

Well that made it all clearer for me.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You don't think it's possible to passionately believe the far right and far left are self-serving imbeciles, and that effective governance requires conciliatory positions to be adopted for the greater good?
That seems strange.

Well it could be that I'm not understanding Sand Dancer's use of the word 'reasoned.' But as for belief, so far I've used the term 'views,' somewhat in place of 'belief.' But I'm glad you brought it up - belief is a strong word, the application of which I think often presupposes 'reason,' and 'views.' It a separate debate, to debate whether all political views are ultimately rooted in belief.

It is also a separate debate, I think, to try and determine what actions or beliefs are possible. This thread is merely about definitions. But I think I was missing something, that you start to describe - a 3rd position, where passion is applied to a lukewarm position as an unchanging whole. In other words, one could be rigidly lukewarm. I don't know if that starts to dovetail with your link on radical centrism, maybe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think that's what a lot of centrists are but I do know some that seem to be more concerned with not appearing left or right, especially if they're considered 'extreme' left or right, they are actively asserting a centrist identity even if the 'mix' of policy is overwhelmingly right. (In other countries you might see examples of this on the left but I've never seen it in the US because we don't have leftist power structures considered 'non-extreme.' ...or at all.)

See this a *lot* with Gen X liberals who call themselves centrist but really have right leaning views, but you also hear it when trying to push horseshoe theory which tries to paint the left and right power structures within this country as equidistant when they're not. These ones usually take up the 'moderation is key' which really is an appeal to middles.

You also see this with 'social liberal, economic conservative' which I will always and forever think is an oxymoron. Trying to have cake and eat it too, if you will. Because social liberal requires liberal spending or it's just doing the thing everyone hates to be told they're doing. Virtue signaling. I want societies needs to be met by equitable policies, but I dont care enough to want to pay for it. But that's another thread.

Make the other thread. I'll come play. I wouldn't think I'm economically conservative, but my economics isn't as progressive as my social views so...have at it. Kinda.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

See this a *lot* with Gen X liberals who call themselves centrist but really have right leaning views, but you also hear it when trying to push horseshoe theory which tries to paint the left and right power structures within this country as equidistant when they're not. These ones usually take up the 'moderation is key' which really is an appeal to middles.

It's what I call the South Park Fallacy, where you feel the need to place yourself above political discourse by refusing to take a side and by criticising both sides equally - regardless of the individual merit either side may have - because what's important is not being correct, but everyone else being wrong. It's not that one idea is superior to another because you have considered it and care about it, it's that considering or caring about anything other than a base, neutral dissociation from things people feel strongly or care about makes you better than them.

From what I can tell, it seems to be a left-wing position, that the idea of an 'enlightened centrist' is often actually a camouflage for pretension. There might actually be a serious sociopolitical problem with doing that, namely that as of now, our entire political landscape has become absolutely drenched in the notion of pretension. I've written some good (I think) posts about this before. A politician practically can't adjust his tie, without having a dozen things be read into it.

As for the overton window, I believe there is actually a fallacy with that concept - namely that humans subjectively give direction to a set of beliefs. In other words, any belief can technically be left-leaning, and any belief could be right wing. Any belief can be subjectively held as being conservative, and that is the weightier of the poles, because humans transform their beliefs into tradition.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well it could be that I'm not understanding Sand Dancer's use of the word 'reasoned.' But as for belief, so far I've used the term 'views,' somewhat in place of 'belief.' But I'm glad you brought it up - belief is a strong word, the application of which I think often presupposes 'reason,' and 'views.' It a separate debate, to debate whether all political views are ultimately rooted in belief.

It is also a separate debate, I think, to try and determine what actions or beliefs are possible. This thread is merely about definitions. But I think I was missing something, that you start to describe - a 3rd position, where passion is applied to a lukewarm position as an unchanging whole. In other words, one could be rigidly lukewarm. I don't know if that starts to dovetail with your link on radical centrism, maybe.

Yeah, I'm not lukewarm.