Look, centrism is a real thing. There are people who really do like to analyze each and every problem from a more or less unbiased viewpoint and form strong opinions without the influence of ideology, while being ready for a compromise. Anyone who was serious about being a centrist I ever talked to defined their ideology this way.
With that being said there also are right-wingers who like to masquerade as centrist or sometimes moderate left just so they can use their supposed position to more effectively plant their ideas and try and normalize them.
But the thing I’m sick and tired of is when people try and pretend that this is true for every centrist, while ignoring the real problem that there are radical elements that try to masquerade as moderate ones and in doing so are polarizing and actively destroying our society.
This view only works in a world where the right and left have a common view of reality and a common agreement on what the outcome should be, they just disagree on how to get there.
Which is why being centre-left or centre-right makes logical sense, since the positions and policies within those halves are consistent with their perception of reality and desired outcomes. And being unbiased about which position to pick within those ideologies is perfectly reasonable.
But being a centrist between the left and right doesn’t make sense, as the view of reality and goals is entirely distinct. There’s no middle ground between “cutting social services for the poor because you believe poor people deserve to be poor, and that hierarchical societies are inherently right”, and that “we should increase social spending to help those that are less fortunate because an equal society is inherently just”.
Deficit spending is fucking us as a nation. We cannot add new programs that we cannot afford. I neither believe that total equality is a good thing, nor that absolute hierarchy is a good thing. But having a well-structured hierarchy that facilitates movement around the hierarchy is valuable both from a structural standpoint and from a social standpoint.
Poor-specific social programs should be cut, and replaced with a UBI that is pulled from a universal (including stocks, bonds, etc) sales tax.
A federal health insurance that negotiates with medical suppliers to reduce costs, and that requires hospitals to charge the actual costs.
Being ideologically in between the left and right doesn’t mean that the left and right will provide reasonable options to vote for - just that you’ll vote for them if you can.
As you’ve seen with the massive inflation due to bank bailouts and covid spending (money just printed), we literally must stop the deficit spending, or else the economy will grind to a halt - like with covid, but way worse.
But centrism isn’t about finding the geometric mean of the two sides it’s about analyzing each problem separately, making compromises and initiating slow change.
Look, centrism is a real thing. There are people who really do like to analyze each and every problem from a more or less unbiased viewpoint and form strong opinions without the influence of ideology, while being ready for a compromise. Anyone who was serious about being a centrist I ever talked to defined their ideology this way.
With that being said there also are right-wingers who like to masquerade as centrist or sometimes moderate left just so they can use their supposed position to more effectively plant their ideas and try and normalize them.
But the thing I’m sick and tired of is when people try and pretend that this is true for every centrist, while ignoring the real problem that there are radical elements that try to masquerade as moderate ones and in doing so are polarizing and actively destroying our society.
Being centrist in America is just being right wing then generally. America is very skewed to the right globally
This view only works in a world where the right and left have a common view of reality and a common agreement on what the outcome should be, they just disagree on how to get there.
Which is why being centre-left or centre-right makes logical sense, since the positions and policies within those halves are consistent with their perception of reality and desired outcomes. And being unbiased about which position to pick within those ideologies is perfectly reasonable.
But being a centrist between the left and right doesn’t make sense, as the view of reality and goals is entirely distinct. There’s no middle ground between “cutting social services for the poor because you believe poor people deserve to be poor, and that hierarchical societies are inherently right”, and that “we should increase social spending to help those that are less fortunate because an equal society is inherently just”.
There is. It goes like this:
Deficit spending is fucking us as a nation. We cannot add new programs that we cannot afford. I neither believe that total equality is a good thing, nor that absolute hierarchy is a good thing. But having a well-structured hierarchy that facilitates movement around the hierarchy is valuable both from a structural standpoint and from a social standpoint.
Poor-specific social programs should be cut, and replaced with a UBI that is pulled from a universal (including stocks, bonds, etc) sales tax.
A federal health insurance that negotiates with medical suppliers to reduce costs, and that requires hospitals to charge the actual costs.
Being ideologically in between the left and right doesn’t mean that the left and right will provide reasonable options to vote for - just that you’ll vote for them if you can.
As you’ve seen with the massive inflation due to bank bailouts and covid spending (money just printed), we literally must stop the deficit spending, or else the economy will grind to a halt - like with covid, but way worse.
But centrism isn’t about finding the geometric mean of the two sides it’s about analyzing each problem separately, making compromises and initiating slow change.