Centrism isn’t a political position. It’s an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.
Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you’re a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn’t present a political view in and of itself, and as such it’s usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.
Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?
Do you support the state’s monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?
Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what’s best for humanity?
The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It’s unlikely, for example, that you’ll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.
If you’re in the U.S and you’re a self-described centrist, you’re likely a capitalist who’s simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn’t be the main feature of your self-described political stance.
It’s better to just say you haven’t done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It’s much better to accept that humans don’t know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.
As someone who thought for a while they were centrist, this represents how I came to see it better than I could have put it into words.
Centrism is a desire to compromise between the two available options. There is no compromising with fascism. They might pretend to compromise, but they are really just solidifying their position for their next push. A compromise means they accomplish half of their goals and thus will have an easier time getting the rest of them than they would have before the compromise. Especially if their concessions all had nothing to do with real power, like allowing gay marriage. If they can offer the decriminalization of abortion to secure more political power, they can just consolidate that and use it to ban abortion again for everyone down the line. Their primary goal total power, everything else is secondary to that.
I see the Democrats as largely representing the status quo economically and politically with a healthy dose of social of progressivism thrown in. That social progressivism is important, but the economic and political stuff is what really needs to change to fix things. The Republicans, on the other hand, are regressive economically, politically, and socially, which was the case even before their recent descent into fascism. A compromise between those two won’t do anything good, so centrism is out.
Centrism isn’t a political position. It’s an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.
Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you’re a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn’t present a political view in and of itself, and as such it’s usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.
Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?
Do you support the state’s monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?
Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what’s best for humanity?
The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It’s unlikely, for example, that you’ll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.
If you’re in the U.S and you’re a self-described centrist, you’re likely a capitalist who’s simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn’t be the main feature of your self-described political stance.
It’s better to just say you haven’t done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It’s much better to accept that humans don’t know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.
As someone who thought for a while they were centrist, this represents how I came to see it better than I could have put it into words.
Centrism is a desire to compromise between the two available options. There is no compromising with fascism. They might pretend to compromise, but they are really just solidifying their position for their next push. A compromise means they accomplish half of their goals and thus will have an easier time getting the rest of them than they would have before the compromise. Especially if their concessions all had nothing to do with real power, like allowing gay marriage. If they can offer the decriminalization of abortion to secure more political power, they can just consolidate that and use it to ban abortion again for everyone down the line. Their primary goal total power, everything else is secondary to that.
I see the Democrats as largely representing the status quo economically and politically with a healthy dose of social of progressivism thrown in. That social progressivism is important, but the economic and political stuff is what really needs to change to fix things. The Republicans, on the other hand, are regressive economically, politically, and socially, which was the case even before their recent descent into fascism. A compromise between those two won’t do anything good, so centrism is out.
Or rather, the Dems are, as a product of the nature of being such a broad party, centrist.
They’re only left compared to the far right. They try to keep balance far too often, often at the degeneration of the left (or greater good).
I’m not saying it’s bad (it isn’t ideal), but it is what it is.
You say all of this and practically not a word of it shakes out in reality