Why the label of centrism might be often misapplied

[Left Coast]

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.

The ACA instituted more than private plans. It also expanded eligibility for Medicaid - a huge win for low income folks who previously didn't qualify. It forbade people from being denied coverage for preexisting conditions and allowed young people to remain on their parents' insurance till age 26. Again - those aren't nothing and are not just handouts to "big business" or something. Not perfect, certainly quite complicated - but a big deal. Which is why the Right hated it so much.

You might call gay marriage inevitable. Personally I don't think it is, particularly given the pushback we've seen even up to now.

That's not to mention pulling us out of the Great Recession, passage of Dodd-Frank, pulling us out of Iraq, etc. Again, while not perfect, he demonstrably moved the ball forward on a number of fronts.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

Well, I'd say you are fully justified then.

 

[Stevicus]

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

Well, it can be any situation where someone might criticize politician D for doing X while giving a pass to politician R who also did X. The mentality usually jumps out at me whenever I see someone complain about "whataboutism," which is a tacit admission of a lack of principles. It's the same thing as saying "rules for thee but not for me."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

For example if a group traditionally rejects tenants of capitalism, being a tradition doesn't make it more right wing.

One example, might take us back a twelve thousand years ago. Say for example, that the critical mass of the population are still hunter-gatherers. Well what that may mean, is a rejection of the concept of firm borders. Say now, that a small group of people start to establish a farm, and establish rigid borders there. I guess I'd argue, that in that context, the farmers are breaking the conservative status quo, which I would define by what the critical mass is doing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, it can be any situation where someone might criticize politician D for doing X while giving a pass to politician R who also did X. The mentality usually jumps out at me whenever I see someone complain about "whataboutism," which is a tacit admission of a lack of principles. It's the same thing as saying "rules for thee but not for me."

What's that got to do with centrism though?

 

[Sedim Haba]

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.

If only it was a stalemate... but it's not.
For example, in the US each extreme hates different parts of the Constitution and works
to dismantle those parts. So it gets chipped away from both ends during each pendulum
swing, and our rights get more and more compromised.

Eventually one side will 'win' because rights will be effectively abolished and then they will
crush the other side. A one-party system. You can see it today, in Chicago. That's NOT
a democracy, it's totalitarianism. Don't really matter which side is the victor, we will have
a Fascist state or a Communist state, and freedom is gone either way.

 

[Stevicus]

What's that got to do with centrism though?

In theory, not much, but sometimes people tend to use centrism as a mask, to pretend to be some objective, neutral "voice of reason" when in fact they may not be that at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In theory, not much, but sometimes people tend to use centrism as a mask, to pretend to be some objective, neutral "voice of reason" when in fact they may not be that at all.

Yes, but I think it's probably easier to just admit that all political leanings have those sorts of fraudsters.
The right and left have plenty of people who claim to love freedom, but want to control or reduce those with alternative views, for example.

Certainly there can be hypocrites and fraudsters in the centre, just like on either extreme. Honestly, one of my more passionately held centrist beliefs is that calling out or penalizing such hypocrisy, regardless of 'team', is important.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, but I think it's probably easier to just admit that all political leanings have those sorts of fraudsters.
The right and left have plenty of people who claim to love freedom, but want to control or reduce those with alternative views, for example.

Certainly there can be hypocrites and fraudsters in the centre, just like on either extreme. Honestly, one of my more passionately held centrist beliefs is that calling out or penalizing such hypocrisy, regardless of 'team', is important.

For me personally, I first started noticing such hypocrisy when it came to the war on drugs, which carried the implication that drug laws were justified because marijuana was supposedly harmful, while allowing even more harmful drugs (alcohol, tobacco) to remain legal. Or on the international front, I found myself confronted with arguments that we must aid the Shah of Iran or Somoza in Nicaragua because they are on the side of "freedom" against communism. I noticed the overall mentality was so common that it made me wonder if there was anyone who was a true moderate or centrist.

 

[Aštra’el]

l am often accused of being “Far Right” on this site. According to Political Compass, when it comes to their version of “Left” and “Right” I am actually much closer to Center, and only slightly right-leaning. I am just very Authoritarian.

Regardless. My loyalties are to myself and my God(s), my country, and my family and friends. I am not loyal to Red and I am definitely not loyal to Blue. Some call this being “centrist”, but honestly… the fewer -ists and -isms I let myself be defined by, the better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For me personally, I first started noticing such hypocrisy when it came to the war on drugs, which carried the implication that drug laws were justified because marijuana was supposedly harmful, while allowing even more harmful drugs (alcohol, tobacco) to remain legal. Or on the international front, I found myself confronted with arguments that we must aid the Shah of Iran or Somoza in Nicaragua because they are on the side of "freedom" against communism. I noticed the overall mentality was so common that it made me wonder if there was anyone who was a true moderate or centrist.

Not possible. I am only a moderate within a certain frame. But that is so for us all.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Or on the international front, I found myself confronted with arguments that we must aid the Shah of Iran or Somoza in Nicaragua because they are on the side of "freedom" against communism.

Don't forget money and resources. Suddenly Saudi Arabia and opec might not want to benefit the u.s. or something, and that biden made some comment on that

 

[amorphous_constellation]

View attachment 67517


l am often accused of being “Far Right” on this site. According to Political Compass, when it comes to their version of “Left” and “Right” I am actually much closer to Center, and only slightly right-leaning. I am just very Authoritarian.

Regardless. My loyalties are to myself and my God(s), my country, and my family and friends. I am not loyal to Red and I am definitely not loyal to Blue. Some call this being “centrist”, but honestly… the fewer -ists and -isms I let myself be defined by, the better.

Well I don't think I really follow the whole political compass theory anymore, (and nor do I believe in the overton window) and that's because there is a sort of new theory that is occurring to me. And that, is that all political positions seem basically to have a subjective association whereby that can all be defined as being traditional/conservative or not. Arguably, in other words, every left wing position could be a conservative position

All that needs to happen, is for a tradition to be established from any political view or belief, and then it becomes a traditional/conservative position.

A world with less borders, perhaps no borders, and total free movement was a traditional value, probably for 100,000 years or something. Therefore, at one time, it seems definitionally logical that it was a 'progressive,' who erected the first border/fence around a farm plot. The people who did that, were in favor of change, in contrast to the views of the critical mass of people, at one time. That's just one example of an inversion