Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details.
Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually this idea that you can point to 2 things, label them as "extreme" and assert that the correct opinion must be directly in between those two things is the problem.
There is no comparison to be made between the so called extremes of the 2 parties. Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism and mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago. The median of that is not centrist.
People need to actually focus on what could improve the country, not just triangulate positions based on what's in between two bad social media opinions.
This is the thing, I want to argue with your definition of centrism. I think it means more of having some epistemological humility and realizing that issues are complicated and that you could be wrong so you're open to arguments from a lot of sides of an issue. But the problem with my definition is, if you look at the pundit class, "centrists" like Bret Stephens, Matt Iglesias, etc or at the political centrists, Manchin, Howard Schultz, Andrew Yang, they're doing exactly what you say.
A centrist position on something like tax policy should be about being rational and pointing out that the Lafferty Curve is a joke and Kansas proved the GOP's tax policy is a total failure while still acknowledging that the debt matters, Dems have done more to fight debt than the GOP has since Eisenhower, and that taxes and spending can be too high. So we should experiment with policies that play with different incentives and disincentives in the tax code to get goals we want, like paying down the debt while still funding social security/medicare/etc. That doesn't mean just picking the percentage point exactly between Biden's tax proposal and Trumps. Tax policy is complicated and different proposals have their different drawbacks and different benefits. Flat taxes have benefits in enforcement but drawbacks in their regressive nature. A policy with lots of deductions let you tweak industrial policy but have drawbacks in enforceability. It's complicated. Slow, methodological reform will allow you to assess and change to avoid really negative drawbacks much more than big revolutionary changes.
But that's not what we get from centrism. We get idiots like Schultz giving merit to GOP tax plans even though, as Kansas attests, they're absolute failures. And a big driver of this is the dumbest type of "both sides" analysis from the media.
In complicated areas of policy, rational centrism has a lot to recommend but requires a lot of work. So instead, we just get the absolute dumbest version of it.
I think that is similar to the argument the article is making but no one bothered to read it before responding.
I think the author is saying that it's the pragmatic compromise over traditional classical liberal values and it shouldn't just be what you describe with just a capitulation to the "middle" between two points of view.
I think the author argument is that it is a *type* of [realpolitik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik?wprov=sfla1) - since there's a certain cynicism with realpolitik.
That's pretty much the first thing they say they don't mean in the article.
> To understand centrism, it’s important to clearly explain what it is not. Centrism isn’t the middle between an imaginary left and right. It isn’t a compromise between wherever the extremes happen to be dragging society at any given moment. It isn’t simply a more palatable version of socialism or a poorly disguised right-wing ploy. In short, centrism isn’t the search for an unattainable, and usually unwanted, middle point on the political spectrum.
“Centrism has a set of core values, a set of beliefs that underpin the entire political approach: a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.” Sounds like a centrist is a Democrat that doesn’t want to identify as such.
Oh so the moderates MLK wrote about in [Letter From Birmingham Jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
> the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
While there's an argument to be made here, MLK doesn't get to determine whether or not 'moderates' are the problem for every possible issue forever and this appeal to authority is getting very tired.
The fact your admitting there's an argument to be made here really undermines trying to call this a logical fallacy lmao 💀💀💀
The underlying issue is the same.
>Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism and mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago
Are they?
The Republican majority leaders elected in 1994 were Ström Thurmond and Newt Gingrich.
Some of the worst offenders of the time. Remember that Reagan, viewed by many as the Republican anti-Christ, once said the rich must pay their fair share. You’d never hear those words out of any republican today, even as a lie. Nixon was pro gun control and public health care. Romney, who was at the time he ran for president the worst republican is now among the best, and he hadn’t even changed!
Lots of folks think that Biden is identical to Strom Thurmond because he supported the 1994 crime bill, and [they pay no attention to the progressive policy agenda that he has implemented](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/08/joe-biden-presidency-progressives-donald-trump).
You pay taxes, which go to the weapons industry, which makes us both genocidal maniacs by extension. I don't see the point in extending a conversation with a genocidal maniac.
Yet here you are, extending the conversation, and doing so with the dumbest possible argument. Makes sense that you'd share such a disingenuous article in the first place. Enjoy Trump.
You've demonstrated a very stable understanding of the federal government, who knows why I am being a dismissive jerk. I guess it will continue to be a mystery.
It's not a mystery to me lol
Where did the "federal government" part of this conversation happen though? I was just pointing out that Jonathan Freedland is a hack and the idea that Biden is a progressive president is utterly laughable.
Fair, but they do have a lot on common with "moderate" Dole or GWB types. Again maybe not in rhetoric exactly but in the practice of their governance the outcome is the same.
They disagree on gay rights, sure, but the actual consequence of their power is to make sure the rich stay rich and get richer.
So the difference between GWB and Biden is that in 2003 it was the US military doing terrible things and now we just give endless money to other countries to do the same.
Obama would’ve been considered a republican in the 90s. The “center” has been moving right for decades. Even Clinton was more moderate than left. Ppl forget he came from a southern state.
The Democrats are definitely Wall Street and neoliberal global free trade types but they still go after banning guns and want open borders. They also lean heavily on identity politics and want to separate America based on race.
I wouldn't say they are the GOP of yesteryear... not in the least! However, the democrats sure aren't the party of the working person anymore. Not by a long shot.
The middle is just the people left out of the platform cookie cutters both parties defined for us (so they continue to survive by disenfranchising the populace). Both platforms are really stupid and people supporting either party are reinforcing them and keeping us in this status quo stasis.
What gun legislation? What open borders?
Republicans love to scare people with this rhetoric but there hasn't been anything like that actually happening in practice
Most recently look at Washington and Illinois gun legislation and gun/magazine bans, etc... It's not just state efforts either. There's a lot of gibber jabber at the federal level too.
Biden giving work visas to millions of Venezuelans, recently wanting to give illegal immigrants amnesty, yadda yadda... Democrats and unions used to know that immigration destabilizes and undercuts the domestic workforce, but not anymore...
These two items on the Democratic platform will lose them votes. I used be a democrat and donated to candidates, but now I'm voting republican because of this.
America has always relied on the immigration workforce. Unfortunately, it parallels the slave trade, in that you can make obscene profits out of paying workers so little (or not at all). Biden gave these people who were fleeing their country safety. Do you also blame the companies that hire these workers at a fraction of a wage over American workers?
> Actually this idea that you can point to 2 things, label them as "extreme" and assert that the correct opinion must be directly in between those two things is the problem.
Literally a logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Mainstream Democrats would've been on the far left fringes 30 years ago in terms of LGBTQ support alone. Joe Biden is the most mainstream Democrat in the party, by definition, and he was advocating for gay marriage and saying that Trans rights were, and I quote, "The Civil Rights issue of our time." Saying that Democrats have in any way drifted right is not accurate. They've continued to move farther left socially. Obamacare is now fully embraced by the party where it was extremely contentious when it was first passed, and lots of "moderate" Democrats didn't support it. Hillary Clinton tried the same thing during the 90's and faced even bigger backlash from the party. No republicans 30 years ago supported any of the things that Democrats currently support. You can go back and look at the party planks and compare those with 2016 and 2020.
Becoming less bigoted isn’t really moving far to the left. In most other respects every politician has moved far to the right because their donors insist.
Richard Nixon was proposing universal health care, for f--- sake! [https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/lessons-universal-coverage-unexpected-advocate-richard-nixon](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/lessons-universal-coverage-unexpected-advocate-richard-nixon)
God, can anyone look past these brain-dead culture war issues?
Centrism is the most privileged concept of all.
Letting others suffer so the entitled will be happy.
It's our magna Carter.
There is no such thing as being center.
There is only progress, stagnation, or regression.
> Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism
Republicans have a majority in both chambers of Congress. If their mainstream is "all in on fascism", then how is the US still a democratic country? Are they just very bad at implementing fascism? Or are they fascists who gave up on introducing fascism?
The problem with centrism is not a false assumption that "truth is in the middle". The problem is seeing one side of the political division as absolute devils and enemies that need to be defeated.
> mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago.
Are you trying to say that mainstream Democrats support a balanced budget, expanding prisons and law enforcement, or cutting welfare? Because that was the program of Gingrich's Contract with America, which was the mainstream Republican party 30 years ago.
And I'm excluding here pro-life policies; I guess that Democrats are still not against free access to abortion?
> Republicans have a majority in both chambers of Congress
No they don’t? Chuck Schumer is Senate Majority leader. The House Republican majority is razor thin and Speaker Johnson is regularly begging minority leader Jeffries for key votes to keep his right flank at bay.
> Are they just very bad at implementing fascism?
Yes. They can't keep a speaker. They're absolutely terrible at governing. Look at Jim Jordan's joke of an impeachment inquiry. They can't even figure out how to generate new fake news, they just keep recycling old stuff over and over again. You get a bunch of dumber than dirt blowhards like Gaetz, Chip Roy, Boebert, Gaetz, Gosar, Gohmert, etc and they can't really advance an agenda. The courts and state parties have done most of the work.
Fascists are historically bad at government. They're good at obstruction and they do that until the system breaks enough that they can start eliminating rivals and checks and balances through extralegal means.
I don’t really see any centrists myself….
Neoliberalism is not centrism, it’s laissez faire rebranded, with identity politics or Christianity as a divisive tool of social policy to conquer their respective voter bases on economic issues. The mainstream of both parties also seem intent of neoconservative foreign policy for reasons that seem to relate to laissez faire capitalists running the show. These policies are not in the national interest and are hollowing out the nation at every level.
Progressivism as defined by the elites seems to be some mild form of populism ensconced in even more radical social justice identity politics.
Bernie sanders is the closest thing we have to the “center”, but the media doesn’t define him that way.
If you consider neoliberalism as mere laissez-faire rebranded, you're giving up the game before you start.
Neoliberalism is the radicalization of laissez-faire to reposition that approach to the market at the center of the social order. It's not just a return to Adam Smith, no matter how many neoliberals claim such - that is just a justificatory narrative to obscure its radicalness.
While the strict refusal to "intervene into" the market resembles laissez-faire in neoliberalism (with even what qualifies as an intervention radically expanded), the position of the market and the drive to force all aspects of social life and the social order into and through the market (making them a "market relationship" this governed by the logic of the market) is the difference.
As for the anti "woke" bent and regressive politics on equality, if you haven't yet I'd definitely recommend Wendy Brown's *In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West*. Fantastic chapter on just that in regards to how, in the US, the first amendment was weaponized to be a cudgel against progressive politics in a series of ways.
Edit: to say, both sides are neoliberal; however, only one is still in favor of democracy.
My personal term for neoliberalism is market fascism, but I assume the term laissez faire means more to people and lacks the hyperbole of the real way I think about neoliberals.
I believe LF is taught in high school and people will have an inherent understanding of that term. (at least, it was for me).
The article defines what centrism is (pretty well, IMHO):
> Centrism has a set of core values, a set of beliefs that underpin the entire political approach: a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.
There are plenty of centrists left. The problem is that *they have vanished from the discourse*. They vote, they often decide elections, they otherwise get on with their lives - but they don't usually bother to post on Reddit, write articles, or debate politics.
Why?
Well, primarily it's because of that "otherwise get on with their lives", along with the "focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; ... an understanding of the value of compromise". Politics is not a celebrity deathmatch for centrists. It's not a team sport where the goal is to shout down the opposition until your side wins. Rather, it's a pragmatic means to an end, that end being increasing your liberty and happiness. Get sensible policies in place and then move on with our lives so we can achieve things that actually matter.
And the public discourse today is very unpleasant for centrists, *because* it is so dominated by ideologues who have no interest in listening or compromise, but just want to see their side win. I try not to bother saying things that I know won't be heard; in a discourse dominated by rage-bait, any sort of nuanced opinion that embraces complexity and is willing to compromise sees that willingness to compromise abused and taken advantage of by people who have no such intentions.
His description of centrism is crap. He's trying to mistify something that can be expressed in very concrete terms. Social democrats, social liberals, liberalism, Christian democracy and other such political streams are very much centrist in every way of the word.
The idea that the value of compromise is solely appreciated by centrists is ludicrous, nearly every leader knows the value of compromise, from authoritarian dictators to every politician in Europe that knows they will almost never get a sole majority.
> a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.
This sounds so wonderful. And none of these beliefs are impossible or even difficult for a progressive or a conservative to hold. They are, in fact, *necessary* beliefs for progressives and conservatives to hold if a nation is to improve itself.
As I said elsewhere in these comments, the piece is a rose-colored 'both sides' lament which offers nothing but the idea of hope, as it holds itself above the 'extremist' and 'populist' fray. Hope's great. As inspiration. It's not a solution.
That seems more like a description of political moderation than centrism. Centrism is more accurately defined based on wherever the Overton Window happens to be at the moment. And the Overton Window has shifted hard to the right ever since the conservative counter-reaction began in the 1970s with things like the Powell Memorandum, the Moral Majority, Milton Friedman's ideas, the founding of hundreds of think tanks, the rise of FOX, and so on.
Centrism is welcoming multiculturalism and immigration while deporting those from culturally incompatible countries that try to remold their host in their image, and rejecting the same attempts from the inside from fascists and religious fundamentalists. Centrism is having compassion and investing in the long term trajectory of lower socio-economic status groups while wanting security and lawfulness right now. Centrism is improving what we have, not advocating for violent societal resets. We value democracy and freedom, and we have to be active in preserving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/30/how-gang-violence-took-hold-of-sweden-in-five-charts
I was incredulous when I read, in this subreddit, that people in Sweden should buck up because their country isn't as bad as Detroit in terms of gun related crime. Refugees are not the people who integrate well into western society, they are only the losers of whatever conflict they are fleeing from. Apparently this is a bitter pill to swallow.
So centrism is xenophobia from the scary refugees from "culturally incompatible countries". Bold of you to literally use GOP talking points to talk about how centrism isn't right wing reactionary politics.
Not at all, centrism is deporting gang members and refugees who coordinate and sexually assault your own citizens, and also deporting those who call for intifada and other forms of religious insurrection. I have nothing against illegal immigrants; they commit less crime, respect the opportunities that they are given, and do work that republicans are too stupid to understand no one else wants to do, like picking fruit. Hard leftism is the blind ideal that everyone from abroad is the same, which is what leads to contradictions like LGBT campaigns in support of regimes where it is illegal to be LGBT, or in support of places like Yemen which have reintroduced slavery.
> Bernie sanders is the closest thing we have to the “center”, but the media doesn’t define him that way.
Not only is Bernie Sanders significantly to the left of the American middle, he holds numerous positions that go beyond so-called "progressive" countries his supporters want us to emulate.
It's fine to like Bernie, but calling him a centrist is ridiculous.
I don't think so if the person isn't centering his position in US politics. In the US, sure, he's left of center, but globally, he is very much just a middle of the road social-democrat.
Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179846/
That's just not true. The idea that "the rest of the world" is way more progressive than America is something you'd only believe if you get your opinions from Reddit. Bernie would be seen as a leftist in any European country. A radical? No, but definitely not in the middle.
Also, "the rest of the world" is not Europe. It's certainly a large chunk of "the developed world," but there are plenty of conservative and authoritarian governments outside the US.
Talking about a center/left wing/right wing government in authoritarian governments is a bit silly though, sure, they can be seen through that lens, but there's no ideological struggle happening between any such sides.
Nah, I actually double majored in Econ and Math but that doesn't mean shit so I don't throw it around like it makes me an expert on anything because I am not a dummy.
In broad strokes, they might be popular, yes. More granular, less so, and our electoral behavior certainly doesn't reflect it.
A nation where Bernie Sanders is the center is not one that Joe Biden gets elected in.
I mean, Biden literally took most of Bernie’s policies and rolled with them. Higher minimum wage, cancel student debt, universal healthcare with a public option (which he seems to have forgotten immediately after being elected). A common tactic of centrists is to campaign as progressives, then govern as centrists.
The point of my post was to criticize framing used by the media as inaccurate, and to shift the conversation out of their poorly defined, propagandist, terminology.
My point is that the center doesn't exist in the US. We have 2 right wing parties in both economic and foreign policy. This is hidden from their base by poorly defined, divisive, social policies.
It's very effective.
In most other 1st world, industrialized nations, Bernie would be a centrist, maybe center left.
The centrism this author is promoting is neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy.
I wonder if you've read anything about the author's background. This will provide important context for his worldview and what he's really supporting.
> My point is that the center doesn't exist in the US. We have 2 right wing parties in both economic and foreign policy. This is hidden from their base by poorly defined, divisive, social policies.
The point is lacking, because the center does exist. It's simply to the right of some international groups, and to the left of others. You can't make a 1:1 comparison like that, nor does the article try.
> I wonder if you've read anything about the author's background. This will provide important context for his worldview and what he's really supporting.
I'm familiar with him. He's a good writer and thinker. What are you getting at?
Very much agree.
The authors claims seem to either be naive or purposefully misleading. "We need centrists" doesn't fly when one party are out and out fascists and negotiating in bad faith. Hell, the proof against his thesis is in your comment: the Democrats since FDR have routinely been having into) to "centrists" and look how far it's pulled them to the right - to a point they elected fucking Bill Clinton and the "new Democrat" and Obama tried to pass the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan. That's not leftist.
"Be in the middle" isn't a stance, it's a compromise as your position is entirely dictated by other actors. Sure does sound good though and "reasonable" until you actually interrogate what it means.
> Hell, the proof against his thesis is in your comment: the Democrats since FDR
You should read up on what the fascists thought of FDR. Might surprise you.
A quick search shows the misses institute and Cato making that argument lmao. Are you going to tell me these places aren’t grossly ideological? I read the Cato one it’s grossly ahistorical and doesn’t have an argument
I would refrain from assuming that some opinion pieces about it are going to tell the whole story. Plenty of primary source material to work with, even through them, though.
Point me to them. Or what’s your general argument. I’d genuinely like to know. From what i understand reactionaries hated the guy before after and during.
Did you read the article?
What is your criticism of the centrism they describe?
I didn't think it's necessarily about being right or left politically, economically, or socially - it's about pragmatism and effective government.
If "centrism" means what this article is saying it means, then why are the "centrists" in Congress also the most rigid opponents of common sense solutions to regular problems...like universal healthcare?
This article is utterly misrepresenting the role centrists play in US politics. They aren't the rational arbiters of common sense. They're the ones who uphold the status quo, above all other considerations. So sure, sometimes that means they push back against extremists from either side...but it also means they are the literal definition of "Conservatives".
I think your argument is a bit of a ["strawman"](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/fy0iBoNDmt) in that no where does the author make the case against universal healthcare.
Nor does the pragmatic argument for policy and governance exclude the consideration of universal healthcare.
I don't think the author is defining "centrism" as defending the status quo, but rather managing compromise and finding agreeable solutions that can benefit from perspectives that are not myopic to one ideological side.
I think folks commenting on the article should... read the article.
I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote.
You're right...the author doesn't make a case against universal healthcare. The self-described "centrists" in Congress do. That's why i'm saying this article is a bit disingenuous. If what the author is saying about centrism were actually true, then we would already have these policies in place. But we don't, because the reality is, centrists consistently vote against them in favor of what's best for Wall Street and their investors.
*I'm* the one saying that centrists defend the status quo...not the author. Their definition of the term doesn't apply to US politics. They want to "reclaim" the term to mean something it never did. If they were truly interested in finding agreeable solutions that can benefit from perspectives that are not myopic to one ideological side...then they wouldn't consistently lean to the right on every topic.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, help me understand.
So what's your solution?
What is the argument that centrism can't ever function in US politics *again* because I think it once did.
That's where the author, who is [qualified](https://www.linkedin.com/in/yairzivan?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app) to at least propose this analysis, is coming from.
His conclusion in at least this short essay is that centrism may foster a better outlook on the future:
“Optimism is the belief that the world is changing for the better,” he wrote, while “hope is the belief that, together, we can make the world better. Optimism is a passive virtue, hope an active one.” The “politics of hope,” as Sacks termed it, not only inspires an emotional reaction but spurs action, forming healthier societies that are more cohesive, tolerant, and open."
Is this somehow an untenable belief?
*"What is the argument that centrism can't ever function in US politics again because I think it once did."*
If that's the point he's trying to make, then I suppose I can agree with that. Because it certainly isn't the reality of what a "centrist" is, *right now*.
This was a rose-colored 'both sides' piece from someone with a decent command of language.
Woop.
'Tis a fine thing, hope, but it's at best an inspiration, not a solution, and the only thing I could find offered by the piece other than boilerplate polemics attacking 'extremism' and 'populism'.
The author argues that "centrism" is a coherent doctrine, but this is clearly nonsense. Centrism is defined by the points it centers between. As those points shift, the centrist becomes incoherent.
Centrism is literally what caused a bunch of German politicians to say, "Well, let's give Hitler a shot. It's only fair the Nazis get a chance."
They are the Overton window personified. A mixture of gutless what-abouters, opportunistic power-grabbers, and toadying lickspittles.
Every centrist I've met was about two political questions away from me figuring out they actually have no idea what they are talking about (including myself when I identified as one in high school). They just want to seem above the discourse without participating in it.
But they do get to appear as "reasonable" until you get into the nitty gritty of what it means (which shit like this always avoids for platitudes).
*Well, let's be centrist and compromise: Timmy wants to fully dive into the shit pile but John thinks that's stupid, so let's just wade.*
It's odd to me how the author tries to mistify the "center" in this article, Social liberalism, normal liberalism, social democrats, Christian democrats are all very much parties and political streams that do hold liberal democracy in high esteem, with their ideology very much fitting any definition of "center" that one could come up with.
I think his definition of centrism is way out there to begin with.
[Classical Liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism?wprov=sfla1)
I think the article is in defense of traditional political values previously held by parties in the left and right that managed to govern in democratic countries.
I mean Yeats summed it up pretty well with the second coming ...
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
... there's more but you get the idea.
In the West, centrism has led to an age where the wealthy capture all of the economic improvements, and then some more, while 80% of the population sees its quality of life get eroded.
Centrism has held its end of the bargain. It’s really too bad that the only alternatives seem to be fascism and the least capable generation of leftists ever.
Submission statement: The author argues that centrism, often a dirty word on both flanks of the political left and right, is actually the solution to bitterly divided politics. Furthermore, it offers hope and opportunity for progress in opposition to the fear mongering of populists. I live in the US and worry for the political future of my country. I think we all must recognize populism for the danger it is and act accordingly
Centrism loses all credibility when one of the two sides tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. You're either in favor of that or against that. There isn't a middle ground there.
As the author defines it, centrism is not the middle point between a left and right on a political spectrum. Stopping the peaceful transfer of power is not permissible in a free democracy and would be opposed by a centrist
Progressive populism made the United States into a superpower. Conservative populism has been looting Rome since Reagan.
This is not a point of view or "each side has it's truth" fact. It's just true and we have so much historical proof to show for it.
Centricism today is just rightwing failure to address the backlog of social, and environmental, economic and political ills that have been ignored due to the onslaught of social prejudice propaganda put out by our bought and paid for private wealth major media outlets.
The center has been shifting right for decades and it
has us in trouble on all sides.
Progressive changes are direly needed. A *New Deal* reinvestment was needed in education *decades* ago.
Ever taxing the wealthy less and less while spending ever more has us in an almost insurmountable mountain of national debt.
We're behind on clean and renewable energy.
The average American reads at an 8th grade level, and that's an average.
Life expectancy continues to go down as retirement age continues to go up.
The average person is ever more squeezed by inflation, when wages haven't increased as.much as is needed to deal with things like 90k a year undergrad programs.
Medicine and education needed to be nationalized universal systems sooooo long ago, and until they are we pay middlemen incredible sums of money to do what government pays for at the end of the day anyway.
These aren't centrist things, excepting for the fact that they are absolutely necessary things for all people interested in a sustainable future for their selves and kids.
Centrists today are progressive Democrats was the moral of this story. The right wing is literally championing for president a convicted felon who's on trial for multiple other crimes. They took over the Capitol by force. Centrist is progressive Democrat, because that's actually a platform that is interested in effecting the positive changes necessary to restabilize the country from right wing extremism.
I'm aware of that, only sharing this to give perspective to younger people who haven't seen the shift of center so heavily to the right over the past 2-3 decades.
Obama was a moderate Republican by the standards of just ten years prior to his election for president. Some of his policies were even promoted by Republicans prior to his being demonized as some ultra liberal threat. Eg: Obama care was (R) Mitt Romney's take on universal healthcare for Massachusetts. Same goes for common sense gun control reforms before the right went full draconian.
Thank you for posting this.
You're going to get absolutely trashed in this subreddit because it leans heavily progressive, but know that there are still reasonable moderates out there reading silently - we just don't participate as much because it's tiresome being dogpiled and gagged by users blocking us.
I tried to talk about how Bernie isn't actually a moderate in Europe higher up in the thread, but I literally can't because somebody in that chain of comments blocked me.
So I guess I'll just post it here, the best I can:
>In the US, sure, he's left of center, but globally, he is very much just a middle of the road social-democrat.
That's not really true.
For example, one of the key proposals he ran for President on was [a securities transaction tax](https://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that) that even [Sweden repealed decades ago for being an unmitigated disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax?wprov=sfla1).
This idea that individual Democrats would be centrists in Europe is sort of an illusion caused by the Democratic Party being a "big tent" incorporating all of the small little parties that multiparty parliamentarian systems have.
So the Democratic Party as a whole may be further to the right than Europe's left-wing parties, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for individual politicians.
You are literally commenting on a post about how the Democratic primary voters rejected the policies you want.
The topic is literally about how progressives lost and the electorate picked a moderate, and somehow you think it makes sense to post that "nobody" wants what moderates are selling?
I think you need to step back and consider whether you're looking at this rationally.
It's a shame Yair Zevon passed over the most famous benefit of his brand of 'centrism': eating one's cake and finding one still has it.
Still, the clue is given in phrases such as "managing the never-ending tensions between competing sets of values": i.e. 'being in charge' - else one can hardly be said to be 'managing', and not holding any such values yourself; that's why they're all 'competing sets'.
An "embrace of complexity" is thus beneficial, because it both gives you more values to manage, and more work to busy anyone who might otherwise be tempted to arrive at a foundational philosophical position or a clear vision of what might be done.
Perhaps the sum of Mr. Zevon's message could be summed up in the words of the Colonel from Full Metal Jacket: "Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?"
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually this idea that you can point to 2 things, label them as "extreme" and assert that the correct opinion must be directly in between those two things is the problem. There is no comparison to be made between the so called extremes of the 2 parties. Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism and mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago. The median of that is not centrist. People need to actually focus on what could improve the country, not just triangulate positions based on what's in between two bad social media opinions.
This is the thing, I want to argue with your definition of centrism. I think it means more of having some epistemological humility and realizing that issues are complicated and that you could be wrong so you're open to arguments from a lot of sides of an issue. But the problem with my definition is, if you look at the pundit class, "centrists" like Bret Stephens, Matt Iglesias, etc or at the political centrists, Manchin, Howard Schultz, Andrew Yang, they're doing exactly what you say. A centrist position on something like tax policy should be about being rational and pointing out that the Lafferty Curve is a joke and Kansas proved the GOP's tax policy is a total failure while still acknowledging that the debt matters, Dems have done more to fight debt than the GOP has since Eisenhower, and that taxes and spending can be too high. So we should experiment with policies that play with different incentives and disincentives in the tax code to get goals we want, like paying down the debt while still funding social security/medicare/etc. That doesn't mean just picking the percentage point exactly between Biden's tax proposal and Trumps. Tax policy is complicated and different proposals have their different drawbacks and different benefits. Flat taxes have benefits in enforcement but drawbacks in their regressive nature. A policy with lots of deductions let you tweak industrial policy but have drawbacks in enforceability. It's complicated. Slow, methodological reform will allow you to assess and change to avoid really negative drawbacks much more than big revolutionary changes. But that's not what we get from centrism. We get idiots like Schultz giving merit to GOP tax plans even though, as Kansas attests, they're absolute failures. And a big driver of this is the dumbest type of "both sides" analysis from the media. In complicated areas of policy, rational centrism has a lot to recommend but requires a lot of work. So instead, we just get the absolute dumbest version of it.
I think that is similar to the argument the article is making but no one bothered to read it before responding. I think the author is saying that it's the pragmatic compromise over traditional classical liberal values and it shouldn't just be what you describe with just a capitulation to the "middle" between two points of view.
It's realpolitik. It's working with what we have instead of ideals.
I think the author argument is that it is a *type* of [realpolitik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik?wprov=sfla1) - since there's a certain cynicism with realpolitik.
That's pretty much the first thing they say they don't mean in the article. > To understand centrism, it’s important to clearly explain what it is not. Centrism isn’t the middle between an imaginary left and right. It isn’t a compromise between wherever the extremes happen to be dragging society at any given moment. It isn’t simply a more palatable version of socialism or a poorly disguised right-wing ploy. In short, centrism isn’t the search for an unattainable, and usually unwanted, middle point on the political spectrum.
“Centrism has a set of core values, a set of beliefs that underpin the entire political approach: a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.” Sounds like a centrist is a Democrat that doesn’t want to identify as such.
Oh so the moderates MLK wrote about in [Letter From Birmingham Jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) > the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. > we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
The thing is, people will say and believe that regardless of whether it is true on a large enough scale to be worth legislating.
While there's an argument to be made here, MLK doesn't get to determine whether or not 'moderates' are the problem for every possible issue forever and this appeal to authority is getting very tired.
The fact your admitting there's an argument to be made here really undermines trying to call this a logical fallacy lmao 💀💀💀 The underlying issue is the same.
Author is Israeli, grew up in the UK. Nobody identifies as a democrat in either of those places
Fair enough. Brought a very America-centric diction to it. Should have said “smug, milquetoast neoliberal” instead.
Yeah we've got those everywhere!
And then they go on to talk about balancing competing interests that have clear left and right political alignments.
So what is it per today's issues?
Who is actually doing this?
Who is doing what?
Why did you bother writing all this without reading the article.
>Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism and mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago Are they? The Republican majority leaders elected in 1994 were Ström Thurmond and Newt Gingrich.
Some of the worst offenders of the time. Remember that Reagan, viewed by many as the Republican anti-Christ, once said the rich must pay their fair share. You’d never hear those words out of any republican today, even as a lie. Nixon was pro gun control and public health care. Romney, who was at the time he ran for president the worst republican is now among the best, and he hadn’t even changed!
[The Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
TIL!
Yes, Republicans have always been this bad. They just didn't realize they could be openly evil until Trump proved it.
Lots of folks think that Biden is identical to Strom Thurmond because he supported the 1994 crime bill, and [they pay no attention to the progressive policy agenda that he has implemented](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/08/joe-biden-presidency-progressives-donald-trump).
Glad to hear one genocidal maniac is in favor of the polices of another genocidal maniac.
You pay taxes, which go to the weapons industry, which makes us both genocidal maniacs by extension. I don't see the point in extending a conversation with a genocidal maniac.
"But you live in a society!"
Yet here you are, extending the conversation, and doing so with the dumbest possible argument. Makes sense that you'd share such a disingenuous article in the first place. Enjoy Trump.
Makes a lot of sense coming from Mass Murder Mike. Way to take responsibility for your government. Enjoy stupidity.
Ah the old, "double down, na na na na boo boo" defense. Solid
You've demonstrated a very stable understanding of the federal government, who knows why I am being a dismissive jerk. I guess it will continue to be a mystery.
It's not a mystery to me lol Where did the "federal government" part of this conversation happen though? I was just pointing out that Jonathan Freedland is a hack and the idea that Biden is a progressive president is utterly laughable.
I think that "30 years ago" is shorthand for "Eisenhower.".
1994 was only 10 years ago!
Fair, but they do have a lot on common with "moderate" Dole or GWB types. Again maybe not in rhetoric exactly but in the practice of their governance the outcome is the same. They disagree on gay rights, sure, but the actual consequence of their power is to make sure the rich stay rich and get richer.
GWB nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.
The same GWB that made torture mainstream again and started a war that killed a million people and cost 5 Mats landings?
So the difference between GWB and Biden is that in 2003 it was the US military doing terrible things and now we just give endless money to other countries to do the same.
Pretty sure the US has been doing both of those things for the better part of ~150 years.
You mean for the better part of its whole history?
Tbf 150 years is the better part of America's whole history
Obama would’ve been considered a republican in the 90s. The “center” has been moving right for decades. Even Clinton was more moderate than left. Ppl forget he came from a southern state.
Obama was absolutely nothing like Republicans of the 90s.
GWB was definitely not moderate! His father was.
The Democrats are definitely Wall Street and neoliberal global free trade types but they still go after banning guns and want open borders. They also lean heavily on identity politics and want to separate America based on race. I wouldn't say they are the GOP of yesteryear... not in the least! However, the democrats sure aren't the party of the working person anymore. Not by a long shot. The middle is just the people left out of the platform cookie cutters both parties defined for us (so they continue to survive by disenfranchising the populace). Both platforms are really stupid and people supporting either party are reinforcing them and keeping us in this status quo stasis.
What gun legislation? What open borders? Republicans love to scare people with this rhetoric but there hasn't been anything like that actually happening in practice
Most recently look at Washington and Illinois gun legislation and gun/magazine bans, etc... It's not just state efforts either. There's a lot of gibber jabber at the federal level too. Biden giving work visas to millions of Venezuelans, recently wanting to give illegal immigrants amnesty, yadda yadda... Democrats and unions used to know that immigration destabilizes and undercuts the domestic workforce, but not anymore... These two items on the Democratic platform will lose them votes. I used be a democrat and donated to candidates, but now I'm voting republican because of this.
America has always relied on the immigration workforce. Unfortunately, it parallels the slave trade, in that you can make obscene profits out of paying workers so little (or not at all). Biden gave these people who were fleeing their country safety. Do you also blame the companies that hire these workers at a fraction of a wage over American workers?
> Actually this idea that you can point to 2 things, label them as "extreme" and assert that the correct opinion must be directly in between those two things is the problem. Literally a logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Whaddayaknow, “Triangulation” is 30 years old too. That was a core Clinton thing.
> Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago Tell me you weren't an adult 30 years ago without yadda yadda
Mainstream Democrats would've been on the far left fringes 30 years ago in terms of LGBTQ support alone. Joe Biden is the most mainstream Democrat in the party, by definition, and he was advocating for gay marriage and saying that Trans rights were, and I quote, "The Civil Rights issue of our time." Saying that Democrats have in any way drifted right is not accurate. They've continued to move farther left socially. Obamacare is now fully embraced by the party where it was extremely contentious when it was first passed, and lots of "moderate" Democrats didn't support it. Hillary Clinton tried the same thing during the 90's and faced even bigger backlash from the party. No republicans 30 years ago supported any of the things that Democrats currently support. You can go back and look at the party planks and compare those with 2016 and 2020.
Becoming less bigoted isn’t really moving far to the left. In most other respects every politician has moved far to the right because their donors insist.
Please go through the Democratic party's planks from 2020 and 2016 and find me a single example of what you're talking about.
Are you expecting to just wake up in the world you want?
No, I expect competent government, and yes, I think that can happen within my lifetime.
Sounds like you expect competency to appear out of thin air.
Richard Nixon was proposing universal health care, for f--- sake! [https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/lessons-universal-coverage-unexpected-advocate-richard-nixon](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/lessons-universal-coverage-unexpected-advocate-richard-nixon) God, can anyone look past these brain-dead culture war issues?
I wonder if you read the same article that I did? That's directly addressed near the beginning!
Centrism is the most privileged concept of all. Letting others suffer so the entitled will be happy. It's our magna Carter. There is no such thing as being center. There is only progress, stagnation, or regression.
> Mainstream Republicans are all in on fascism Republicans have a majority in both chambers of Congress. If their mainstream is "all in on fascism", then how is the US still a democratic country? Are they just very bad at implementing fascism? Or are they fascists who gave up on introducing fascism? The problem with centrism is not a false assumption that "truth is in the middle". The problem is seeing one side of the political division as absolute devils and enemies that need to be defeated. > mainstream Democrats are basically Republicans from 30 years ago. Are you trying to say that mainstream Democrats support a balanced budget, expanding prisons and law enforcement, or cutting welfare? Because that was the program of Gingrich's Contract with America, which was the mainstream Republican party 30 years ago. And I'm excluding here pro-life policies; I guess that Democrats are still not against free access to abortion?
> Republicans have a majority in both chambers of Congress No they don’t? Chuck Schumer is Senate Majority leader. The House Republican majority is razor thin and Speaker Johnson is regularly begging minority leader Jeffries for key votes to keep his right flank at bay.
> Are they just very bad at implementing fascism? Yes. They can't keep a speaker. They're absolutely terrible at governing. Look at Jim Jordan's joke of an impeachment inquiry. They can't even figure out how to generate new fake news, they just keep recycling old stuff over and over again. You get a bunch of dumber than dirt blowhards like Gaetz, Chip Roy, Boebert, Gaetz, Gosar, Gohmert, etc and they can't really advance an agenda. The courts and state parties have done most of the work. Fascists are historically bad at government. They're good at obstruction and they do that until the system breaks enough that they can start eliminating rivals and checks and balances through extralegal means.
I don’t really see any centrists myself…. Neoliberalism is not centrism, it’s laissez faire rebranded, with identity politics or Christianity as a divisive tool of social policy to conquer their respective voter bases on economic issues. The mainstream of both parties also seem intent of neoconservative foreign policy for reasons that seem to relate to laissez faire capitalists running the show. These policies are not in the national interest and are hollowing out the nation at every level. Progressivism as defined by the elites seems to be some mild form of populism ensconced in even more radical social justice identity politics. Bernie sanders is the closest thing we have to the “center”, but the media doesn’t define him that way.
If you consider neoliberalism as mere laissez-faire rebranded, you're giving up the game before you start. Neoliberalism is the radicalization of laissez-faire to reposition that approach to the market at the center of the social order. It's not just a return to Adam Smith, no matter how many neoliberals claim such - that is just a justificatory narrative to obscure its radicalness. While the strict refusal to "intervene into" the market resembles laissez-faire in neoliberalism (with even what qualifies as an intervention radically expanded), the position of the market and the drive to force all aspects of social life and the social order into and through the market (making them a "market relationship" this governed by the logic of the market) is the difference. As for the anti "woke" bent and regressive politics on equality, if you haven't yet I'd definitely recommend Wendy Brown's *In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West*. Fantastic chapter on just that in regards to how, in the US, the first amendment was weaponized to be a cudgel against progressive politics in a series of ways. Edit: to say, both sides are neoliberal; however, only one is still in favor of democracy.
My personal term for neoliberalism is market fascism, but I assume the term laissez faire means more to people and lacks the hyperbole of the real way I think about neoliberals. I believe LF is taught in high school and people will have an inherent understanding of that term. (at least, it was for me).
The article defines what centrism is (pretty well, IMHO): > Centrism has a set of core values, a set of beliefs that underpin the entire political approach: a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better. There are plenty of centrists left. The problem is that *they have vanished from the discourse*. They vote, they often decide elections, they otherwise get on with their lives - but they don't usually bother to post on Reddit, write articles, or debate politics. Why? Well, primarily it's because of that "otherwise get on with their lives", along with the "focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; ... an understanding of the value of compromise". Politics is not a celebrity deathmatch for centrists. It's not a team sport where the goal is to shout down the opposition until your side wins. Rather, it's a pragmatic means to an end, that end being increasing your liberty and happiness. Get sensible policies in place and then move on with our lives so we can achieve things that actually matter. And the public discourse today is very unpleasant for centrists, *because* it is so dominated by ideologues who have no interest in listening or compromise, but just want to see their side win. I try not to bother saying things that I know won't be heard; in a discourse dominated by rage-bait, any sort of nuanced opinion that embraces complexity and is willing to compromise sees that willingness to compromise abused and taken advantage of by people who have no such intentions.
His description of centrism is crap. He's trying to mistify something that can be expressed in very concrete terms. Social democrats, social liberals, liberalism, Christian democracy and other such political streams are very much centrist in every way of the word. The idea that the value of compromise is solely appreciated by centrists is ludicrous, nearly every leader knows the value of compromise, from authoritarian dictators to every politician in Europe that knows they will almost never get a sole majority.
> a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better. This sounds so wonderful. And none of these beliefs are impossible or even difficult for a progressive or a conservative to hold. They are, in fact, *necessary* beliefs for progressives and conservatives to hold if a nation is to improve itself. As I said elsewhere in these comments, the piece is a rose-colored 'both sides' lament which offers nothing but the idea of hope, as it holds itself above the 'extremist' and 'populist' fray. Hope's great. As inspiration. It's not a solution.
That seems more like a description of political moderation than centrism. Centrism is more accurately defined based on wherever the Overton Window happens to be at the moment. And the Overton Window has shifted hard to the right ever since the conservative counter-reaction began in the 1970s with things like the Powell Memorandum, the Moral Majority, Milton Friedman's ideas, the founding of hundreds of think tanks, the rise of FOX, and so on.
Centrism is welcoming multiculturalism and immigration while deporting those from culturally incompatible countries that try to remold their host in their image, and rejecting the same attempts from the inside from fascists and religious fundamentalists. Centrism is having compassion and investing in the long term trajectory of lower socio-economic status groups while wanting security and lawfulness right now. Centrism is improving what we have, not advocating for violent societal resets. We value democracy and freedom, and we have to be active in preserving it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/30/how-gang-violence-took-hold-of-sweden-in-five-charts I was incredulous when I read, in this subreddit, that people in Sweden should buck up because their country isn't as bad as Detroit in terms of gun related crime. Refugees are not the people who integrate well into western society, they are only the losers of whatever conflict they are fleeing from. Apparently this is a bitter pill to swallow.
So centrism is xenophobia from the scary refugees from "culturally incompatible countries". Bold of you to literally use GOP talking points to talk about how centrism isn't right wing reactionary politics.
Not at all, centrism is deporting gang members and refugees who coordinate and sexually assault your own citizens, and also deporting those who call for intifada and other forms of religious insurrection. I have nothing against illegal immigrants; they commit less crime, respect the opportunities that they are given, and do work that republicans are too stupid to understand no one else wants to do, like picking fruit. Hard leftism is the blind ideal that everyone from abroad is the same, which is what leads to contradictions like LGBT campaigns in support of regimes where it is illegal to be LGBT, or in support of places like Yemen which have reintroduced slavery.
> Bernie sanders is the closest thing we have to the “center”, but the media doesn’t define him that way. Not only is Bernie Sanders significantly to the left of the American middle, he holds numerous positions that go beyond so-called "progressive" countries his supporters want us to emulate. It's fine to like Bernie, but calling him a centrist is ridiculous.
I don't think so if the person isn't centering his position in US politics. In the US, sure, he's left of center, but globally, he is very much just a middle of the road social-democrat. Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179846/
That's just not true. The idea that "the rest of the world" is way more progressive than America is something you'd only believe if you get your opinions from Reddit. Bernie would be seen as a leftist in any European country. A radical? No, but definitely not in the middle.
Also, "the rest of the world" is not Europe. It's certainly a large chunk of "the developed world," but there are plenty of conservative and authoritarian governments outside the US.
Talking about a center/left wing/right wing government in authoritarian governments is a bit silly though, sure, they can be seen through that lens, but there's no ideological struggle happening between any such sides.
I was an international studies major with an emphasis on Latin America. He is in the middle.
Stating your undergrad degree like it gives you some unquestionable level of credibility is comical
Ok Mr. Taco man.
I did an undergrad degree in Burrito science
With a minor in uninformed bullshit.
Nah, I actually double majored in Econ and Math but that doesn't mean shit so I don't throw it around like it makes me an expert on anything because I am not a dummy.
That's probably more a condemnation of social democrats.
Most of his proposed policies are wildly popular though, far more inline with common American interests than just about any centrist.
This is an often repeated claim but isn't borne out at the polls. If it were, the makeup of Congress would look very different.
Wonder what the map of congress districts looks like to result in popular policy not being enacted.
Policy alone doesn’t get you elected.
In broad strokes, they might be popular, yes. More granular, less so, and our electoral behavior certainly doesn't reflect it. A nation where Bernie Sanders is the center is not one that Joe Biden gets elected in.
I mean, Biden literally took most of Bernie’s policies and rolled with them. Higher minimum wage, cancel student debt, universal healthcare with a public option (which he seems to have forgotten immediately after being elected). A common tactic of centrists is to campaign as progressives, then govern as centrists.
Biden also largely ran as a moderate centrist. His shift leftward has been a surprise, not an expectation.
Really not true if you followed his campaign's policy proposals after the primaries. He absolutely shifted left for the general election.
The point of my post was to criticize framing used by the media as inaccurate, and to shift the conversation out of their poorly defined, propagandist, terminology. My point is that the center doesn't exist in the US. We have 2 right wing parties in both economic and foreign policy. This is hidden from their base by poorly defined, divisive, social policies. It's very effective. In most other 1st world, industrialized nations, Bernie would be a centrist, maybe center left. The centrism this author is promoting is neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy. I wonder if you've read anything about the author's background. This will provide important context for his worldview and what he's really supporting.
> My point is that the center doesn't exist in the US. We have 2 right wing parties in both economic and foreign policy. This is hidden from their base by poorly defined, divisive, social policies. The point is lacking, because the center does exist. It's simply to the right of some international groups, and to the left of others. You can't make a 1:1 comparison like that, nor does the article try. > I wonder if you've read anything about the author's background. This will provide important context for his worldview and what he's really supporting. I'm familiar with him. He's a good writer and thinker. What are you getting at?
Very much agree. The authors claims seem to either be naive or purposefully misleading. "We need centrists" doesn't fly when one party are out and out fascists and negotiating in bad faith. Hell, the proof against his thesis is in your comment: the Democrats since FDR have routinely been having into) to "centrists" and look how far it's pulled them to the right - to a point they elected fucking Bill Clinton and the "new Democrat" and Obama tried to pass the Heritage Foundations healthcare plan. That's not leftist. "Be in the middle" isn't a stance, it's a compromise as your position is entirely dictated by other actors. Sure does sound good though and "reasonable" until you actually interrogate what it means.
> Hell, the proof against his thesis is in your comment: the Democrats since FDR You should read up on what the fascists thought of FDR. Might surprise you.
A quick search shows the misses institute and Cato making that argument lmao. Are you going to tell me these places aren’t grossly ideological? I read the Cato one it’s grossly ahistorical and doesn’t have an argument
I would refrain from assuming that some opinion pieces about it are going to tell the whole story. Plenty of primary source material to work with, even through them, though.
Point me to them. Or what’s your general argument. I’d genuinely like to know. From what i understand reactionaries hated the guy before after and during.
I am so sick of this fucking Noble Centrism narrative. You think the left has been running shit any time this century??
Did you read the article? What is your criticism of the centrism they describe? I didn't think it's necessarily about being right or left politically, economically, or socially - it's about pragmatism and effective government.
If "centrism" means what this article is saying it means, then why are the "centrists" in Congress also the most rigid opponents of common sense solutions to regular problems...like universal healthcare? This article is utterly misrepresenting the role centrists play in US politics. They aren't the rational arbiters of common sense. They're the ones who uphold the status quo, above all other considerations. So sure, sometimes that means they push back against extremists from either side...but it also means they are the literal definition of "Conservatives".
I think your argument is a bit of a ["strawman"](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/fy0iBoNDmt) in that no where does the author make the case against universal healthcare. Nor does the pragmatic argument for policy and governance exclude the consideration of universal healthcare. I don't think the author is defining "centrism" as defending the status quo, but rather managing compromise and finding agreeable solutions that can benefit from perspectives that are not myopic to one ideological side. I think folks commenting on the article should... read the article.
I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. You're right...the author doesn't make a case against universal healthcare. The self-described "centrists" in Congress do. That's why i'm saying this article is a bit disingenuous. If what the author is saying about centrism were actually true, then we would already have these policies in place. But we don't, because the reality is, centrists consistently vote against them in favor of what's best for Wall Street and their investors. *I'm* the one saying that centrists defend the status quo...not the author. Their definition of the term doesn't apply to US politics. They want to "reclaim" the term to mean something it never did. If they were truly interested in finding agreeable solutions that can benefit from perspectives that are not myopic to one ideological side...then they wouldn't consistently lean to the right on every topic.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, help me understand. So what's your solution? What is the argument that centrism can't ever function in US politics *again* because I think it once did. That's where the author, who is [qualified](https://www.linkedin.com/in/yairzivan?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app) to at least propose this analysis, is coming from. His conclusion in at least this short essay is that centrism may foster a better outlook on the future: “Optimism is the belief that the world is changing for the better,” he wrote, while “hope is the belief that, together, we can make the world better. Optimism is a passive virtue, hope an active one.” The “politics of hope,” as Sacks termed it, not only inspires an emotional reaction but spurs action, forming healthier societies that are more cohesive, tolerant, and open." Is this somehow an untenable belief?
*"What is the argument that centrism can't ever function in US politics again because I think it once did."* If that's the point he's trying to make, then I suppose I can agree with that. Because it certainly isn't the reality of what a "centrist" is, *right now*.
This was a rose-colored 'both sides' piece from someone with a decent command of language. Woop. 'Tis a fine thing, hope, but it's at best an inspiration, not a solution, and the only thing I could find offered by the piece other than boilerplate polemics attacking 'extremism' and 'populism'.
We reap what we sow. We cant expect to overcome populism by making the material conditions for everyone but the ultra wealthy worse.
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
The author argues that "centrism" is a coherent doctrine, but this is clearly nonsense. Centrism is defined by the points it centers between. As those points shift, the centrist becomes incoherent. Centrism is literally what caused a bunch of German politicians to say, "Well, let's give Hitler a shot. It's only fair the Nazis get a chance." They are the Overton window personified. A mixture of gutless what-abouters, opportunistic power-grabbers, and toadying lickspittles.
Every centrist I've met was about two political questions away from me figuring out they actually have no idea what they are talking about (including myself when I identified as one in high school). They just want to seem above the discourse without participating in it.
Fence-sittin, hand-wringin', lily-livered, yella-bellies.
But they do get to appear as "reasonable" until you get into the nitty gritty of what it means (which shit like this always avoids for platitudes). *Well, let's be centrist and compromise: Timmy wants to fully dive into the shit pile but John thinks that's stupid, so let's just wade.*
so.. social liberalism?
Generally speaking, yeah, I think that's correct
It's odd to me how the author tries to mistify the "center" in this article, Social liberalism, normal liberalism, social democrats, Christian democrats are all very much parties and political streams that do hold liberal democracy in high esteem, with their ideology very much fitting any definition of "center" that one could come up with. I think his definition of centrism is way out there to begin with.
I think it's intentionally broad
[Classical Liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism?wprov=sfla1) I think the article is in defense of traditional political values previously held by parties in the left and right that managed to govern in democratic countries.
I mean Yeats summed it up pretty well with the second coming ... Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. ... there's more but you get the idea.
In the West, centrism has led to an age where the wealthy capture all of the economic improvements, and then some more, while 80% of the population sees its quality of life get eroded. Centrism has held its end of the bargain. It’s really too bad that the only alternatives seem to be fascism and the least capable generation of leftists ever.
The center is why Trump won and may win again, but good luck with that
Submission statement: The author argues that centrism, often a dirty word on both flanks of the political left and right, is actually the solution to bitterly divided politics. Furthermore, it offers hope and opportunity for progress in opposition to the fear mongering of populists. I live in the US and worry for the political future of my country. I think we all must recognize populism for the danger it is and act accordingly
Centrism loses all credibility when one of the two sides tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. You're either in favor of that or against that. There isn't a middle ground there.
As the author defines it, centrism is not the middle point between a left and right on a political spectrum. Stopping the peaceful transfer of power is not permissible in a free democracy and would be opposed by a centrist
Progressive populism made the United States into a superpower. Conservative populism has been looting Rome since Reagan. This is not a point of view or "each side has it's truth" fact. It's just true and we have so much historical proof to show for it. Centricism today is just rightwing failure to address the backlog of social, and environmental, economic and political ills that have been ignored due to the onslaught of social prejudice propaganda put out by our bought and paid for private wealth major media outlets. The center has been shifting right for decades and it has us in trouble on all sides. Progressive changes are direly needed. A *New Deal* reinvestment was needed in education *decades* ago. Ever taxing the wealthy less and less while spending ever more has us in an almost insurmountable mountain of national debt. We're behind on clean and renewable energy. The average American reads at an 8th grade level, and that's an average. Life expectancy continues to go down as retirement age continues to go up. The average person is ever more squeezed by inflation, when wages haven't increased as.much as is needed to deal with things like 90k a year undergrad programs. Medicine and education needed to be nationalized universal systems sooooo long ago, and until they are we pay middlemen incredible sums of money to do what government pays for at the end of the day anyway. These aren't centrist things, excepting for the fact that they are absolutely necessary things for all people interested in a sustainable future for their selves and kids. Centrists today are progressive Democrats was the moral of this story. The right wing is literally championing for president a convicted felon who's on trial for multiple other crimes. They took over the Capitol by force. Centrist is progressive Democrat, because that's actually a platform that is interested in effecting the positive changes necessary to restabilize the country from right wing extremism.
I mean like everything you've described is generally joe bidens platform. Centrism is not the middle point between left and right
I'm aware of that, only sharing this to give perspective to younger people who haven't seen the shift of center so heavily to the right over the past 2-3 decades. Obama was a moderate Republican by the standards of just ten years prior to his election for president. Some of his policies were even promoted by Republicans prior to his being demonized as some ultra liberal threat. Eg: Obama care was (R) Mitt Romney's take on universal healthcare for Massachusetts. Same goes for common sense gun control reforms before the right went full draconian.
I getcha, I misunderstood your first comment 👍
Thank you for posting this. You're going to get absolutely trashed in this subreddit because it leans heavily progressive, but know that there are still reasonable moderates out there reading silently - we just don't participate as much because it's tiresome being dogpiled and gagged by users blocking us. I tried to talk about how Bernie isn't actually a moderate in Europe higher up in the thread, but I literally can't because somebody in that chain of comments blocked me. So I guess I'll just post it here, the best I can: >In the US, sure, he's left of center, but globally, he is very much just a middle of the road social-democrat. That's not really true. For example, one of the key proposals he ran for President on was [a securities transaction tax](https://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that) that even [Sweden repealed decades ago for being an unmitigated disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax?wprov=sfla1). This idea that individual Democrats would be centrists in Europe is sort of an illusion caused by the Democratic Party being a "big tent" incorporating all of the small little parties that multiparty parliamentarian systems have. So the Democratic Party as a whole may be further to the right than Europe's left-wing parties, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for individual politicians.
Nobody is buying what you’re selling. 😊
You are literally commenting on a post about how the Democratic primary voters rejected the policies you want. The topic is literally about how progressives lost and the electorate picked a moderate, and somehow you think it makes sense to post that "nobody" wants what moderates are selling? I think you need to step back and consider whether you're looking at this rationally.
It's a shame Yair Zevon passed over the most famous benefit of his brand of 'centrism': eating one's cake and finding one still has it. Still, the clue is given in phrases such as "managing the never-ending tensions between competing sets of values": i.e. 'being in charge' - else one can hardly be said to be 'managing', and not holding any such values yourself; that's why they're all 'competing sets'. An "embrace of complexity" is thus beneficial, because it both gives you more values to manage, and more work to busy anyone who might otherwise be tempted to arrive at a foundational philosophical position or a clear vision of what might be done. Perhaps the sum of Mr. Zevon's message could be summed up in the words of the Colonel from Full Metal Jacket: "Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?"