Why the label of centrism might be often misapplied

[amorphous_constellation]

Yeah, I'm not lukewarm.

Alright, I understand, I'm just trying to work through how to think of this.. A center position with applied passion is a dynamic confluence, maybe lukewarm isn't the word needed

 

[Left Coast]

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.

I guess I would need to see a specific example to understand the context of that kind of view. One thing I think generations prior to millennials value more than younger folks is compromise in politics. But that has more to do with strategy than just liking policies that are "in the middle" simply because they're in the middle.

Change is much less likely to happen if compromises aren't made with one's political opponents in a divided democratic system. So getting at least some of what I want requires giving them some of what they want. The current political zeitgeist sees that mentality as weak, "selling out," and so on. Both sides increasingly prefer their purist ideologues who promise to make no compromises.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I think that there were radical challengers during the 60s and 70s, which is how many changes occurred rather quickly. But since that time, it's been somewhat stagnant - at least until the past couple of years.

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.

And that's precisely the type of centrist that we have today.

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.)

A large part of the problem I see is not so much due to moderation, as much as it's a lack of consistent, coherent principles. That may be a sign of hypocrisy, or just being wishy-washy and indecisive.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

I was just using examples of the farthest extremes. Fortunately, most people have more moderate views than that.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

What is the something else?

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

So many things that become forefront. Ethnic pride, political pride, religious price, etc. People just used to be people. Now it seems everyone is waving their flags for who they are. Everyone knew these things about people but we were all just people. I get that certain groups have been marginalized and it's important for people to know they are there, but it seems that even those who have not been marginalized are being "in your face." That or maybe they were marginalized and I didn't know it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well it could be that I'm not understanding Sand Dancer's use of the word 'reasoned.'

I mean reasoned as opposed to emotional or knee-jerk.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

I like to think a true centrist is one who easily compromises and keeps things moving.

The political stalemate that has and is going on for decades now indicates, in general terms, there are no real centrists in government anymore. It's either left or right outside that designation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I guess I would need to see a specific example to understand the context of that kind of view. One thing I think generations prior to millennials value more than younger folks is compromise in politics. But that has more to do with strategy than just liking policies that are "in the middle" simply because they're in the middle.

Change is much less likely to happen if compromises aren't made with one's political opponents in a divided democratic system. So getting at least some of what I want requires giving them some of what they want. The current political zeitgeist sees that mentality as weak, "selling out," and so on. Both sides increasingly prefer their purist ideologues who promise to make no compromises.

Speaking for myself, I've become jaded against compromise because it was used as a political tactic to shift the Overton window to the right (re: ratcheting.) A mark of Obama's presidency was making things worse trying to compromise with those only interested in taking advantage of that. As a result Obama mostly got jack all done and things like healthcare reform was little more than a castrated house of cards conservatives pulled so much from it was easily knocked over later. And it was a pretty anemic change in the first place.
A platform built on hope and change didn't even slightly move the needle, and now changing to systems the rest of the world has already figured out is 'too extreme' or must be done 'very slowly.'

So I can only conclude that you're not more likely to get change if you compromise your principals, values or policy to convince the other side to work with you. All they'll do is reach out a hand and take a step back, then demand you continue meeting them in 'the middle' which more and more resembles their side.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I was just using examples of the farthest extremes. Fortunately, most people have more moderate views than that.

Thats the thing, are those really examples of what the furthest extremes believe? I see people looking to ban abortion who call themselves centrist, and I've never seen any leftist, even the far left socialists, who think abortion should have no consideration for viability.

I'm extremely left wing by American standards, and I'm very pro separation of church and state and would never suggest forcing churches to preform gay marriages. Or even things more socially acceptable like interracial marriages.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So many things that become forefront. Ethnic pride, political pride, religious price, etc. People just used to be people. Now it seems everyone is waving their flags for who they are. Everyone knew these things about people but we were all just people. I get that certain groups have been marginalized and it's important for people to know they are there, but it seems that even those who have not been marginalized are being "in your face." That or maybe they were marginalized and I didn't know it.

As a marginalized person. yes, I can come across as in your face, but that is because otherwise you maybe not notice me.

 

[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

E.g. for Dansh politics I am lukewarm as it takes place within the idea of welfare state. But try to question that as such for its core idea and I become a dogmatic fundamentalist. The same with say human rights or democracy as such.
So it depends.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

I'm a quadrant compass fan, which means that both left and right have overlap in certain things ranging in the y axix of the compass. Both left and right have continuance of authoritarian to libertarian beliefs.

However, I disagree that anything can be perceived as left or right wing. For example if a group traditionally rejects tenants of capitalism, being a tradition doesn't make it more right wing.

If rejection of capitalism is considered the norm in a society then yes, any capitalism will be seem as far right wing. But that's literally describing the overton window.

 

[Left Coast]

Speaking for myself, I've become jaded against compromise because it was used as a political tactic to shift the Overton window to the right (re: ratcheting.) A mark of Obama's presidency was making things worse trying to compromise with those only interested in taking advantage of that. As a result Obama mostly got jack all done and things like healthcare reform was little more than a castrated house of cards conservatives pulled so much from it was easily knocked over later. And it was a pretty anemic change in the first place.
A platform built on hope and change didn't even slightly move the needle, and now changing to systems the rest of the world has already figured out is 'too extreme' or must be done 'very slowly.'

So I can only conclude that you're not more likely to get change if you compromise your principals, values or policy to convince the other side to work with you. All they'll do is reach out a hand and take a step back, then demand you continue meeting them in 'the middle' which more and more resembles their side.

Although ACA did get diluted, I don't think it's accurate to say ACA "didn't even slightly move the needle." Millions of people got health insurance coverage who didn't have it before. That's far from nothing. Gay marriage was federally legalized thanks to Obama's 2 Supreme Court picks.

Obama was far from perfect, but his administration still has accomplishments to be proud of.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Although ACA did get diluted, I don't think it's accurate to say ACA "didn't even slightly move the needle." Millions of people got health insurance coverage who didn't have it before. That's far from nothing. Gay marriage was federally legalized thanks to Obama's 2 Supreme Court picks.

Obama was far from perfect, but his administration still has accomplishments to be proud of.

They 'got' to be required to pay into subsidized private healthcare which covered barely anything at all. Even less after the fines for not enrolling were removed.
If the goal were being able to get people on board with government subsidized minimalist private healthcare insurance, then sure, yay us. But that was a Romneycare goal. The net result of ACA was there was, especially after it's funding was gutted, US government subsidized awful insurance people had to take for lack of actually good healthcare coverage.

That's what I mean by barely moving the needle. Giving a band-aid to a hemmhorage and paying private health grifters for the pleasure. It's an extremely pro corporate lobby way to go about healthcare and I resented the attempt over better measures we could have done if we were less concerned with getting conservatives to play nice with us.

While gay marriage bans being struck down federally was a historic achievement, it wasn't surprising given the public favor and large amounts of states already abolishing DOMA. It was hardly a bold move, even if it was a move, I'll give them that.
However, the bans on most state and federal records were penned by democrats reaching across the isle to appeal to conservative family values.
If Obergefell v Hodge is, in the future, struck down like Rowe vs Wade, the instant state bans on gay marriage would be because of Clinton's bill.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Alright, I understand, I'm just trying to work through how to think of this.. A center position with applied passion is a dynamic confluence, maybe lukewarm isn't the word needed

I daresay some centrists might be. Just don't think of it as a necessary quality of a centrist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A large part of the problem I see is not so much due to moderation, as much as it's a lack of consistent, coherent principles. That may be a sign of hypocrisy, or just being wishy-washy and indecisive.

What type of principles do you mean? Could you give me an example?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most people's idea of a centrist, I suspect, involves a person who feels lukewarm about everything.

Why on earth would you suspect such a thing? You need to interact with a more intelligent cross section of citizens.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thats the thing, are those really examples of what the furthest extremes believe? I see people looking to ban abortion who call themselves centrist, and I've never seen any leftist, even the far left socialists, who think abortion should have no consideration for viability.

I'm extremely left wing by American standards, and I'm very pro separation of church and state and would never suggest forcing churches to preform gay marriages. Or even things more socially acceptable like interracial marriages.

Well, couple of quick thoughts...

1) Just because someone says they're a centrist, doesn't mean they are. They could be misguided on what a centrist is, they might be working from an alternative definition, or they could be using it as a self-serving political label.

2) Just because someone is a centrist doesn't mean they'll be in the moderate middle of every single issue. That type of 'centrist' is frankly reactionary and lacking in leadership.

I daresay I wouldn't be see as a centrist at all in American politics, as I'd land on the left of many issues. But I'd describe myself as a centrist anyway. Your mileage on that may vary.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, couple of quick thoughts...

1) Just because someone says they're a centrist, doesn't mean they are. They could be misguided on what a centrist is, they might be working from an alternative definition, or they could be using it as a meeting label.

2) Just because someone is a centrist doesn't mean they'll be in the moderate middle of every single issue. That type of 'centrist' is frankly reactionary and lacking in leadership.

I daresay I wouldn't be see as a centrist at all in American politics, as I'd land on the left of many issues. But I'd describe myself as a centrist anyway. Your mileage on that may vary.

I agree. The problem exists, in my opinion, when people try to inform their worldview as 'the middle between two points on the line is the most correct outcome.' Nobody wants to be called extreme (generally. I think the only way to make it out of the US' current predicament is to take measures that would be considered extreme.) So both people existing on the left and right would want to be thought as 'the rational middle.' Which is both a problem because it mischaracterizes what the middle is by bringing left and right non-middle views into it, and because the middle between two points isn't always the best option.