The Problem With "Centrism"

[ZombieNixon]

Throughout this post (essay, rant, incoherent babble, whatever you want to call it), you will be seeing the words "center," "centrist" and "centrism" in quotes a lot. Like this: The problem with "centrism" is that the "center" is always moving, and these days "centrists" are moving right.

Let me reiterate. The problem with "centrism" is that the "center" is always moving, and these days "centrists" are moving right. If the Democrats are stuck somewhere in the "center-left" and the Republicans are galloping rightward at light speed, isn't the "center" moving to the right of where it previously was? The average of 0 and x increases as x increases. Simple math. When one end of the spectrum is moving faster than the other, the "center" of yesterday is not the "center" of tomorrow. Take the guy on The Daily Show a few nights ago. He was citing President John F. Kennedy and Senator McCain as examples of good "centrists." Now, we on DU know that McCain is moderate on a few issues, but when push comes to shove, toes Republican party line. JFK may have been a "centrist" of his day, but most Kennedy policies were on par with or to the left of (in today's terms) the policies of Bill Clinton, and we all know what a left-wing loony Bill Clinton is, right?

Mr. "Centrist" on The Daily Show also called Rudy Giuliani a good "centrist." ::LAUGH:: Being "centrist" entails being in the "center" on most issues, not one extreme on one issue and the other extreme on another, as is Rudy.

There is a big difference between "moderate" and "centrist." "Moderate" seems to be a fairly consistent position. You pick a spot, not on the far left and not on the far right, and stick with it. If the spectrum moves so far that racial equality is a far-left wacko position, so be it. You are, in your own mind, a moderate, because you arrived at that position through a rationale of moderation. A "centrist," by these guys' reasoning, is the guy who shifts with the political wind, always scouting out the spot in the middle of the mush and sitting in it, no matter what it may be, and decided to strike a compromise in 1940s Germany by throwing some of the Jews in the oven, but not all. A moderate, by comparison, would have recognized Nazism as an extreme position, and had nothing to do with it.

I for one, will no longer be using the word "centrist" without quotes (as in ""centrist"") because there is no such thing a true centrist (without quotes), except the guy who always bases his political opinions on those around him, the guy who's a liberal in New York and a conservative in Alabama. I know there are some people on DU who call themselves "centrist," but when you wake up tomorrow and the "center" is to the right of where it was, will you still be a "centrist?" Are you a "centrist" or a moderate?

:rant:

[IntravenousDemilo]

1. The big problem with liberals and, for that matter, other moderates...

...is that they are merely progressives who are dragging their feet. It's time to quit dawdling!

[ZombieNixon]

4. CW holds that the American electorate is by and large moderate,

so out goal should not be to necessarily pull the Dem Party to the left, but to make our party a "moderate" party by bringing the voters to us, not by changing our positions, but by changing how we talk about them, so as to show voters that Dem positions are in fact their positions. If we move the center left (the actual center, not the "centrist" center), a liberalization of the country will follow.

[Mark E. Smith]

2. The Problem With The Left Seats And The Middle Seats On The Titanic

...is that they're all going under if they can't figure out some way to work together.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. An excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

The Democratic party's attempts to stake out a position in the "center" has done nothing but make us look unprincipled and to somewhat justify the "flip flopper" epithet. The party needs to get wise to the fact that abandoning principles and shifting with the wind is not the way to win elections.

[libertypirate]

5. How does the center fix anything...?

Why don't peope get this democracy is not supposed to be distorted into sides. It is about solutions, and the idea that their could be a center defeats the notion of having a solution.

We have to look at our problems like we want to solve them not win. It's 180 degrees from reality.

[RC]

8. You are wise beyond your years.

"We have to look at our problems like we want to solve them not win."
Children play games.

[readmoreoften]

6. Yeah, I had no idea what that guy was talking about.

We have religious fascism supporting big business at all costs on one side and "please temper your religious fascism slightly if that's okay with you and please give a few measly concessions to working Americans so we can continue to help your big business" on the other. What is the middle between "kill 'em all" and "please show us a little mercy"?

[ZombieNixon]

7. "Please show us slightly less than a little mercy,

but it's OK to kill most of us if you want to."

[Turn CO Blue]

9. I posted a similar thought in November...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1388477&mesg_id=1388477>


Turn CO Blue Wed Nov-24-04 06:58 PM
Original message

Oh sure, just keep moving to the Center -- my counterpoint

Everyone with Centrist views assumes that there is some zero-point on a static line - some allegedly agreed-upon, permanent "middle" ideology, that is grounded and moderate in nature. I disagree. Here is an illustration of what I think happens every time the Dems move toward the illusionary "Center":

1. If the Dems keep moving to the Center, then we have participated in an open agreement with the Right's set of values, positions, arguments and ideology or a least an agreement with most of it.

2. That will prompt the Repubs to have more confidence in their agenda and to begin to push the more controversial and hardline right-wing positions even harder -- with the result being that they move even farther to the Right.

3. That means that there is a now a new Center (because the Left moved over to the "old center" and the Right moved farther Right)

4. Repeat steps 1-3 (like a bunch of cowards after every election) until the "Left" (wink, wink) has become bunch of Fascists in their ideology, and the Right is...well, I can't even imagine what's worse and more right-wing than Fascism.

So, just because there is a certain set of right-wing positions in 2004 -- doesn't mean that there aren't going to be new agendas and more extreme sets of values to "embrace" in 2008, or 2024, until the end of time.

Once the political landscape is set for oppression, censorship, wealth-mongering, war-mongering, hyper-nationalism, etc., etc. - there will be NO MODERATION, due to the very nature of those evils.

This illustration is obviously too simplistic, especially for you guru's out there who really understand government theory and political science - but I was trying to make a point.

[ZombieNixon]

10. "New Center" vs. "Old Center" is exactly right

Now is a period of the right's dominance, so the word "new" means "more right-wing than before," like "New Democrat," "New Republican," "Neo-Conservative," "Neo-Liberal." back in the 60s, during liberalism's heyday, "new" meant "further left," as in "New Left," et. al.

[Maple]

11. The 'center' is always

between the left and right wing.

Where the majority of people are. No extremes.

Mainstream thought.

[welshTerrier2]

12. neither label holds much value

so, you sit comfortably in the middle of the political spectrum and yet you agree (hypothetically) with the premise that big money plays a much-too-influential role in our democratic processes ...

you are mr. reasonable and you don't want to entertain any of that Marxist stuff ... the idea of socialism sends shivers down your spine ... but still the problem of big money buying government favors and electing only those endorsed and sponsored by big money remains ...

you refuse to take extreme measures like those proposed by those wackos on the left ... but you have to do something ...

so you propose ideas like making lobbyists disclose their activities ... you limit "gifts" by lobbyists to government officials ... you push for some flavor of campaign finance reform ...

and in the end, nothing changes ... absolute control over America's democratic institutions by big money remains ...

the question is then posed to you, mr. moderate: having tried your various moderate methods to solve the problem, are you now willing to look at more "extreme" solutions? where will your pragmatism be if your initial moderate ideas fail to resolve the problem? are you committed to resolution or are you constrained by your "moderate" beliefs?

and look at the same scenario from the left ... mr. lefty sees the corporatocracy all too clearly ... he has no faith that moderate tinkering will solve anything ... dancing around the edges of the problem without directly capping wealth will never challenge the entrenched power structure ...

but mr. lefty has no political support for his "extremist" ideas ... he cannot sell those so conditioned to the "freedoms of free enterprise" that such governmental restrictions on the rights of individuals to amass wealth is ever a good idea ...

so, mr. lefty agrees to support the moderates if they will also acknowledge that harsher measures may ultimately be required to return power to the people and restore our democracy ...

is mr. lefty a moderate because he is willing to try the moderate solutions first?

the point of all this is that, regardless of labels, corporate tyranny and the excesses, greed and abuses of the super-wealthy are destroying the ideals on which this country was founded ... and labels like moderate or left seem irrelevant when viewed in the context of sequencing the proposed remedies ... it seems to me that we must do what we must do ... if we quibble over the order or proposed remedies and seek to label people according to their sequencing preferences, fine ... but the far greater point is that the problem must be solved ...

it should be an easy unity for those identifying with the moderate center and those on the far left to find tolerance for all views dedicated to solving a jointly observed evil ... labeling only serves to divide us ... identifying our shared understanding of what must be changed is the starting point ... and agreeing to do whatever is needed to solve the problem, unconstrained by labels on the political spectrum, is ultimately the only label we all should strive for ...

[ZombieNixon]

13. Consider the impromptu survey my AP Gov. teacher did.

1st day of class: do you consider yourself a Conservative, Moderate or Liberal?

Results:
Conservative - 8
Moderate - 12
Liberal - 1 (me)

The "conservatives" in this class are beyond hope; this is Freeperville I'm living in. However, the "moderate" majority of the class, and me, the flaming liberal, agree on most things: gov't spending, Social Security, even Bush's intelligence and gay marriage. Recently, I've even started to convert one of the "conservatives" a gun-toting Mormon. So, yes, self-described moderates and liberals should be able to agree, and do.