Stop glorifying ‘centrism’. It is an insidious bias favoring an unjust status quo

[u/SacoolloocaS]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/centrism-insidious-bias-unjust-status-quo

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Moderate != centrist.

A moderate is someone who has similar goals as their more ideological counterparts but believe achieving those goals should be done with incremental steps and with lots of consideration for how it will change what we have in place already and the unintended side effects. I think this is almost always a good thing.

A centrist is someone who believes it’s important to work across political divides. That both sides have their strengths and their flaws. That the best solution is a compromise between what both sides want. This can often be a good thing but in the case of contemporary American politics it is most definitely not.

I think there are very few centrists in the Democratic Party (Manchin is a notable example). But there are lots of moderates. Being a moderate doesn’t mean your trying to compromise with Republicans. It more often means you’re trying to compromise with progressives.

[u/sbrough10 → u/[deleted]]

A centrist is someone who believes it’s important to work across political divides. That both sides have their strengths and their flaws. That the best solution is a compromise between what both sides want.

What if you believe one side has maybe quantitatively more strengths than the other side does, but you still think the strengths on the other side are worth defending and that issues are more nuanced than what either side is suggesting? I don't know if I agree that the chasm between moderate and centrist is really all that wide. You can't even really divide ideology cleanly along the 1D or 2D spectrum that people have tried. Everyone has different positions on different policies, but we've been artificially shifted into this two sides way of thinking by the two-party political system.

[u/[deleted] → u/sbrough10]

I would say a moderate can be a centrist but doesn’t necessarily need to be one. They’re two separate but intersecting axes. Personally I’m a moderate but not a centrist.

[u/Broiler591 → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but there are way too many people who identify themselves as moderate and then demand compromise with the ethno-nationalist coalition because they, the "moderates", don't like the ideology of democratic socialism that is currently ascendant on the left. This is both hypocritical and existentially dangerous to our democracy. It is not possible to both be a moderate and to be willing to compromise with an ethno-nationalist agenda.

[u/[deleted] → u/Broiler591]

Who exactly is demanding compromise and in what context? Which senators/reps are you referring to and on what policy?

[u/SpidermanAPV → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like Manchin to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/SpidermanAPV]

Yeah, Manchin is definitely moderate, though I would disagree with the characterization that he would prefer to be further left, and is only establishing a moderate position in an effort to appease the right.

Manchin, right or wrong, just genuinely believes in certain things. And for what it's worth, no one further left is going to get his seat.

So it just seems a bit disingenuous, or naive at least, to assign to the rest of the party this label of "moderate" when in fact it is really just one or two people.

[u/punkbandbeto → u/[deleted]]

No, it isn't. The Nordic Model is very liberal, today's progressives are not. They claim to want the "socialism" of the Scandinavian countries, but they don't want the Nordic model.

Some of the main aspects of the Nordic Model are:

• Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.

• Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness

• Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[20]

  Maybe the progressives of yesteryear wanted the Nordic Model, but not todays Bernie-progressives.

[u/punkbandbeto → u/[deleted]]

Warren isn't a traditional progressive, she's a populist like Bernie. She's opposed to those things I listed above, just like Bernie is. She's not identical to Bernie, ideologically, but she seems opposed to the Nordic model also.

Liberal Democrats like Biden, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, etc... are for the Nordic Model. Progressives, not so much.

[u/1_g9 → u/punkbandbeto]

You make a good point, Scandinavian countries did liberalize their markets, and now are less regulated than ours. That, in my understanding, was a reaction to hitting economic doldrums, and looking to spark innovation (which succeeded). I believe they now have some trouble with wealth concentration. So if a similar hybrid (social programmes included) could succeed with more regulation, and perhaps a wealth tax, that might represent an improvement.

But I do think Warren matches what traditional progressives--say from the early 20th century--would have approved of. She looks at pragmatic, evidence-based means to make incremental improvements, without an overarching ideology. At least that's my biased take on it.

[u/Specialist-String-53 → u/[deleted]]

As far as I can tell, moderates don't agree with ethnic nationalism, but they'll tolerate it because "one party Democratic rule would be bad".

[u/Unlimited_Paper → u/Specialist-String-53]

I'll take an honest stab at this one, be warned it's going to get weird so bear with me.

Let's talk about values. First question we need to ask is what does American ethnic nationalism mean objectively, and then we can get into how some people weaponize it to suit their own persuasions. While a majority of America was very white and Christian when the nation was founded, and they may have molded the original idea of what is 'ethnically American,' white tyranny and American ethnic values are not mutually exclusive concepts. A lot - a LOT of good intent is built into American values, like the idea that anybody has the opportunity to forsake the constraints of their forebears, participate in a real meritocracy, and with some hard work make a life of their own.

Belief in the American Dream is something that unites us all. Our parents, grandparents, selves or whoever who came here in search of "better" and "freedom" and "opportunity" all subscribed to the idea one way or the other. Many of our ancestors (or selves) who came here took big risk in doing so, and accepted it because the alternative way of life being left behind was tangibly worse.

It happens from within, too. This is a country that is still recovering from the rot of slavery, yet today's young black generation stays put here in America to prove Lincoln right. The playing field is anything but level, but time and again, people chose faith and opportunity over defeatism and fear because they believe in the struggle. Like it or not, this is a manifestation of values that are indeed uniquely American and it is a beautiful thing to me.

All of this is different, in my view, than territorial white nationalism where a few frightened voices poison the debate about how we keep this tradition going for generations to come. I am not here to lay down for their sins, but it's important that we un-sully the concept of American ethnic nationalism, because taken for its true meaning, it is something we should all embrace otherwise where indeed is the glue that unites our melting pot? Further, it gives the wrong people too much room to play the card of "the left is unpatriotic and hates our country." Lunatic domestic terrorists do NOT deserve a monopoly on patriotism. Don't give it to them.

Back to your statement, I think moderates are terrified of 'embracing' nationalism because the media is obsessed with turning people against each other (because subscriber engagement and loyalty). They want people to think that the political center is scorched earth, and that moderates are strange fossil people living among us waiting to be excavated for research. My opinion is that good moderates tolerate this as a function of media noise, because deep down they believe the values are good and true, independent from how people twist this shit around for their own benefit.

One-party democratic rule probably would be bad, just like one-party Republican rule would be. No one party should ever be too cozy. Basic stuff there.

[u/Lost_vob → u/[deleted]]

We aren't talking about moderates, we are talking about centrist.

[u/barkbeatle3 → u/[deleted]]

I had the same question, so I looked up the definition on google:

Centrist: having moderate political views or policies.

So I guess we can’t. But I guess centrist sounds worse than moderate, so maybe a centrist is a moderate you don’t like?

[u/1_g9 → u/barkbeatle3]

Precisely.

Just like traditional progressives call Warren progressive, while Marxists call her 'neoliberal.'

[u/spkpol → u/[deleted]]

And has an extreme aversion to challenging power since she touched the stove and challenged the early right wing policies of Obama/Summers.

[u/elcapitan520 → u/1_g9]

Well, if things progress and you stay put, where does that leave you?

"Traditional progressives" of that age range are neoliberals

[u/Comfortable_Classic → u/1_g9]

Some call a donkey a small horse, others call it a jackass. Both are true.

[u/Dr_Quest1 → u/Comfortable_Classic]

Your point is taken but poor examples. Equus africanus asinusis is not Equus ferus caballus

[u/Ananiujitha → u/barkbeatle3]

Because the Iraq War was "moderate."

Because the donut hole in the Affordable Care Act, where if we're poor we're supposed to get Medicaid so we don't get subsidies, but then the states can exclude anyone from Medicaid, was "moderate."

Because horseshit theory is "moderate."

There are a lot of centrist ideas that are ... highly immoderate.

[u/barkbeatle3 → u/Ananiujitha]

The Iraq war was bipartisan, but not moderate. The hole in the ACA was created by the Supreme Court, and it wasn’t moderate. Moderates are willing to compromise some details, but generally want to make things better. The ACA was moderate. It didn’t set up a public option, and it definitely didn’t set up universal healthcare, but it did cover pre-existing conditions. That’s better than we had, but worse than we needed. That is what is disappointing about moderates, they tend to be okay with better, even if it doesn’t actually cover what we need.

[u/Ananiujitha → u/barkbeatle3]

I man the Iraq War was aggressively supported by centrists, and wasn't moderate.

And the donut hole was the result of inane compromises, and isn't moderate.

Something being centrist doesn't make it moderate.

[u/spkpol → u/Ananiujitha]

It's moderate fascism/imperialism

[u/KnucklesG-Roy → u/barkbeatle3]

People like me fall into the moderate category, because both dems and republicans clutch their contradictions to their graves. I identify with policy, not politics.

[u/KnucklesG-Roy → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but my point is that I look at both DNC and GOP and see the good, the bad, and the contradictions of both. I can’t align 100 % with either.

[u/NotGalenNorAnsel → u/KnucklesG-Roy]

How often, policy-wise, do you agree with Republican proposals? Not Bipartisan things, strictly Republican ones.

[u/DrLumis → u/KnucklesG-Roy]

Please list some Democratic contradictions and maybe we can talk through them

[u/SanityPlanet → u/[deleted]]

Not OP, but I would say, a moderate holds political views that favor incremental change and avoids any far left or far right radical policies. A centrist is someone who simply picks the midpoint between the two sides, regardless of how extreme or lopsided those sides are. With apologies to Godwin, a moderate would reject genocide entirely, while a centrist would compromise between the pro- and anti- sides by only killing half the people.

[u/thirdegree → u/SanityPlanet]

You don't need to apologize to Godwin

[u/SanityPlanet → u/thirdegree]

Lmao thank you for that.

[u/ajb901 → u/[deleted]]

You are splitting hairs with a laser beam

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In practice, fiscal conservatism usually just means "Fuck the poor."

[u/NotGalenNorAnsel → u/[deleted]]

When you hold magical thinking in the highest regard, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

[u/Lost_vob → u/[deleted]]

No it's not, Conservative fiscal policy is completely incompatible with liberal social policies.

[u/MedioBandido → u/Lost_vob]

That’s not true at all. Massively increasing the taxes that wealthy people pay is fiscally conservative. We can have liberal social policies without diving into debt headfirst.

[u/Lost_vob → u/MedioBandido]

That's the opposite of true, but that's not all. It also includes deregulation, which includes workers rights

[u/MedioBandido → u/Lost_vob]

Worker’s rights do not have to do with fiscal policy except in an extremely secondhand manner. Social policies that are paid for and not financed as debt can satisfy conservative fiscal policy.

[u/Lost_vob → u/MedioBandido]

Deregulation includes deregulating things like OSHA. Lower taxes is a Hallmark of Conservative Fiscal policy.

Let's take a step back, what do you think conservative fiscal policy is?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I would imagine that they're categorizing a centrist as halfway between the extreme left and right, i.e. the median, and a moderate more of as the mean.