Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
PREFACE
Let me start by saying that I am not a centrist. I am not arguing that you should be a centrist or independent. I am arguing against mischaracterization of others.
Much of what I see here in Lemmy against centrism or Independents is made up of bad strawman arguments largely consisting of: “There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can’t pick a side (and are also fascists)!”
The other (also poorly thought out and blatantly strawmanned) argument I see over and over here when discussing this topic consists of:
Left Wing: “Let’s not kill trans people.”
Right Wing: “Let’s kill all trans people.”
Centrists: “Let’s kill some trans people.”
THE CRUX
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being dead-centre in the middle of any two positions. That would be an astoundingly stupid position to undertake.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides (or 2.5 sides if you’re from Canada).
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting massive limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services including universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets can be made effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded properly.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by the two-party system.
Now, I have been trying on Lemmy for months. I have frequently encountered wilful misunderstandings about centrists / independents. I have frequently seen discussions state that they feel these groups are all secretly right wing and just won’t admit it, which is wild to me.
AND ONE MORE THING
In my estimation, the reason Lemmy members often run into situations like this is because they don’t witness the centrist also vehemently argue with right-wing policies frequently.
The posters only see the arguments with them and therefore have a skewed view of centrists / independents and their politics. In short, if you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
Remember, the right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with their stupider points as well. So no, these people are not secretly right-wing and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum and only serves to limit conversation.
The entire crux of what you are saying is dependent on the topic of conversation, I rarely if ever have seen a centrist stand up strongly for anything in conversations on both the internet and real life. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone claiming they were a centrist on the internet speak up emphatically defending a point of view that is generally attributed to the left. It’s almost always calling for less extreme action.
If someone was truly centrist and identified as such because they identified very strongly with issues on both sides I feel like we’d see more of them holding some extreme views on both sides. I’ve yet to witness that. A centrist is really just someone who doesn’t want to rock the boat or change the status quo, which is a valid thing to be but if someone wants things to stay the way they are I don’t really think they are an ally or even really living in this reality
One could make the argument that wanting the status quo is an inherently conservative position, no?
This is generally true which leads to some really counter-intuitive-to-Americans things like Scandinavian conservatives being against/for reducing immigration (as expected) but basically in favour of what many Americans would consider nanny state-like social welfare policies. That said I do think conservative tends to have a “smaller government, business-favoring” bend in general no matter where you go but that could be not entirely right.
Whenever talking to my European friends I always try to explain that our(American) conservatives are their far-right and our democrats are a lot closer to their conservatives/centrist parties. It really helps keep things straight.
Really, as we’ve seen in the last few years, American conservatives aren’t even really for “smaller government” with how many policies they’ve put forward that ostensibly increase state meddling in people’s lives.
Yeah, I actually suspect it could be possible that people who are more dedicated to libertarian than right wing politics could break away from the conservatives at some point. There are some odd shifts on the verge of happening in American politics right now. (Ex: Asian/Latino conservatives becoming more of a thing, Democrats aligning more support m with business. You even see bizarre stuff like the right courting labour/Union votes in the Midwest which is not one I had on my bingo card).
Tbf the right courting labor unions shouldn’t ever work if the people they are courting have any brains…I guess if they wanna go with the angle of “immigrants will replace you as laborers at your jobs” they might have a chance, but even then…
At the same time I think the folly of the left is in taking its traditional allies for granted - whether they have brains or not they may switch if they feel neglected enough.
Removed by mod
This feels like an oversimplification and surely depends on the status quo in question. What about someone who wanted (to take a US example) Roe v Wade to stay as it was, or affirmative action programmes to stay in place?
I agree that it changes based on the choice of topics, the location of the argument, and perception. Certainly in any given argument, any centrists involved may be on your side of that particular issue and therefore are appearing left-leaning to you at the moment. See Penn jillette, Richard Dawkins, and scads of psychologist authors for example of centrists who often appear to be one side or the other depending on the issue presented (and have been mislabeled as both sides by people not willing to understand nuance).
However, people not looking for them does not mean that they are not there. Them not coming out and identifying themselves continually does not mean they are not there.
Most of the centrists I’ve spoken to also tend to argue the issue, and not the side. They see sides and at-all-costs group membership as a form of lunacy.
Just like anything in the world, your perception is not always reality, especially when it seems that you are looking to enforce an opinion, not find the truth.
And I don’t feel you have to hold extreme views in order to be a centrist either. I don’t even call myself centrist because I hate labels and don’t like the way they encourage group-think. There’s scads of centrists I wouldn’t get along with as well.
I’m Canadian and voted Liberal in the federal election, but I do understand US politics to a degree. I thought Trump was an absolute fool, and fools do so love their own. I understand to some degree why he won, though I feel voter apathy played as large a part as well.
Regardless, if I took a stance that would be typically right-wing, would that be me defending them? No. You can arrive at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. You can also follow your heart and feel that you’ve been nothing but good, and royally fuck things up.
For example, I believe in much tighter immigration controls, if not outright eliminating most of it for now. You may look at that and call me a racist or traditionally right-wing. You would be wrong. The race is irrelevant, and it’s an environmental and economic stance that led me there. Our current immigration policies allow pushing down the minimum wage, makes UBI more difficult (if not impossible) to implement, and allow countries that are outstripping their resources to simply place those people elsewhere instead of dealing with their population issues in a realistic way. This is one of many things that has also irreparably damaged the environment.
Something done for good reasons is having bad knock-on effects and we should adjust things before it gets worse. In my experience, a Centrist gets to say “right idea, horrible implementation, let’s fix it” instead of just clinging to an ideal.
Straight up you’re responses are not nearly as thoughtful as I think you believe them to be just this right here
Without even unpacking it this sentence on its face espouses the view that centrists are more enlightened because they don’t fall into group think. But actually illustrates the issue with centrism as a whole, it presupposes that all “left wing right wing” dichotomies are about conforming to what one’s chosen side supports. In my experience that isn’t the case for the majority, my opinions are almost all considered radically left wing but if I have an opinion that doesn’t ascribe to that I’m not changing it to match what other lefties think. My entire political philosophy is “we should make it as easy as possible for other humans to have happy and enjoyable lives” and nothing more, that just puts me on the left of most issues
My issue with centrists is actually pretty well articulated in both my OP and your response about immigration. I don’t think that makes you racist but I don’t think it makes us allies either. Especially as people living in North America one of the big reasons there are so many global immigrants to the US and Canada is because the non western world is a wreck because of what we(predominantly us in the States but Canada and Europe are guilty too) did to the rest of the world both politically and economically. So if you want to shut down immigration we need to spend a shit load of money, time, and likely lives fixing that shit so fleeing to our countries isn’t the only chance most have at a happy and sustainable life. So while I do understand wanting to prevent the bad things that come with immigration you described I think it’s a shirking of responsibility in favor of local benefit.
And that to me is the essence of centrism, claiming to be for something bad for “practical reasons” when in reality it’s just conveniently looking past extremely relevant elements of the issue. An excuse to be cold hearted while shielding oneself from judgement
This will be the last thing I say because I’m genuinely not interested in having a bad faith argument. The points you have been making to defend centrists and centrist viewpoints are the reason I don’t trust centrists. Because y’all always have to try and justify yourselves, which I suspect is because you know your views are unpopular and don’t want to suffer consequences from holding them. Peace out and be kind
As someone who’s a former card-carrying member of the NDP, did model leg with them, worked on campaigns and even was on the council for the federal riding in my area, they’re frankly kinda culty, particular the younger ones, who are the ones driving policy more into the “new left” territory. I got reamed out in model leg for not speaking on party lines.
Give me Tommy, Ed and Jack back. Heck I’ll even take Alexa at this point - those people actually knew how to think and have a discussion.
Anyway my point is that there are those of us out there who’ve been turned off by the samethink within the left, and that is, if you’ve been politically active since say the 90s, a newer thing. It wasn’t always like this. (The right on the other hand was always like that and if anything have become less so, though that’s not giving too much credit either). I think part of why you see the left getting the flak more than the right is more a matter of expectations and what’s changed than anything else. (Which to be fair, is a bit unfair).
Sorry, I meant to reply earlier, but… real life. I don’t like the theme permeating your post that states that centrists are stupid and mean, therefore you won’t debate any longer. It’s the reason one of the rules here is “if you are unwilling to be wrong, then you have lost at the outset.” You have to prove out your ideas, not just state them, claim the moral high ground, and run away.
Also, I’m an Economist by schooling so please keep in mind that when I say that “I don’t think you are arguing for what you feel you are” that I have a bit of experience in the field. The policies you’re arguing for will not produce the results you wish they might and have not done so for any country at any point in history.
I would disagree that the arguments I stated are cold-hearted, and quite the opposite. Looking after the people you’ve accepted into your country and making sure they’re taken care of just the same as any person that has been there since birth is kind. It is good. It is what you should be doing. Why would you accept them if you could not do so?
Would you adopt a child if you already had 12 children and were struggling greatly to care for them? To me, that would be irresponsible. Moreso, it would be cruel to the children brought in. Especially if you brought an honours student home in order to do nothing but, say, wash the dishes at your home. The resources for that child must come from somewhere. Which of your other children would you take them from? Why is it fair to harm your current family simply so you can have more people? Why is simply more better?
Fixing economic systems and building up a more equal and fair economy in your country is a good thing. If your country builds a solid model and fixes itself, you can attempt to help other countries and bring them to where you are. You can model proper systems. You can show them what you did without forcing it on them.
“Fixing” other countries outright? At this stage in politics and international diplomacy, that’s just meddling and reeks of a saviour complex. It will not be welcome unless you’re speaking of simply dumping money on them, but that’s… also a problem. It doesn’t solve the issues that you stated previously because NOTHING will redress those issues. The world stage is not a tit-for-tat system. Damn near everyone has wronged others over the course of history, and also vice-versa. There’s not a running tally, and people would never agree on the harm or reparations owed.
The only realistic thing you can do is wipe the slate clean unless you’d like to try and prove out an argument where you state how we are responsible for the sins of those that came before us and we should wallow in those sins forever.
Historian by schooling and your discipline actually explains all of the things you’ve previously said, study something that’s not made up and almost always wrong
So… Claiming the high ground and running away again and being insulting while doing so.
We don’t do that here. We’re grown ups and I must insist that you try to be one too.
Have an actual conversation (hence the name of the sub) or bow out gracefully and admit that you are not equipped to do so.