6 ms·

I don't think you understand the point of centrists. Centrists agree that choices need to be made. Centrists think that some of those choices should go in one

I don't think you understand the point of centrists. Centrists agree that choices need to be made. Centrists think that some of those choices should go in one direction, some in the other, and most in a direction not presented by either side. Centrists believe in logic, discourse, and evidence to get to choices, over ideology. Centrists believe in looking for solutions which work for everyone when possible. Etc. Everyone hates centrists, since if you disagree on charters OR abortion OR charters OR race OR police OR .... with someone on the left or on the right, they think you're a horrible person. You'll always disagree on at least one axis.

gbrown 6y ago
IMHO that’s usually just a platitude - got an example?
- woofie11 6y ago
  Sure. Charter schools: They work great with proper checks-and-balances. They should be not-for-profits, follow extensive transparency laws, have salary caps, and strong civil rights protections. They should compete with public schools without restrictions beyond that. If public schools go under because of better competitors, more power to them! Medicine: Works great pure free market. Works great purely nationalized. What we don't want is a complex network of regulations from lobbyists combined with mandatory insurance (whether by government regulation or by practicality). Both the far-right and the far-left solutions would work great! We've landed in a no-man's land in between. Gun control: It's a reasonable policy, but rule-of-law should prevail. We've got a Constitution for a reason, and we should follow it, even if it feels unreasonable. If we disagree, we should amend it. Race: The left is correct about most of the problems, and bonkers about most of the solutions. We need to have an open national discourse about changes, and to do that, we need free speech and to get rid of cancel culture. The left's oppression of free speech contributes to the systemic oppression they're trying to eliminate. ... and so on. You don't need to agree with the above, but they're strong, principled stances, agreeing with neither side.
  - gbrown 6y ago
    I’m not sure those are centrist positions. On the first one, I disagree with you on the science. On the second, you explicitly pointed put why centrism is bad (and with important qualifications, I sort of agree with the point you were making there). With respect to guns... meh that might be centrist, but it’s not really specific enough to base actual policy and constitutional law on - the history is also much more complex than you imply. With respect to race, I’d suggest you’re painting with an absurdly broad brush that doesn’t reflect the actual ideological spectrum. In my opinion, trying to be “centrist” is more of an aesthetic choice than actually related to ideology. What I will give you is that any community where honest discussion of actual, specific issues is impossible is toxic... but in practice I see that critique most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      1) You don't need to agree. 2) Each of those is an essay or two to justify. Of course they're not specific. This isn't a political essay. I'm giving examples -- enough to understand the gist, not the nuance. 3) In modern America, all of these views piss everyone off -- left AND right. If you articulate most of them, you'll get fired WHOEVER your boss is AND uninvited to the family dinner. That this "critique [is] most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs" is precisely because everyone else is afraid to speak. In a functioning civic society, we'd have many opinions like the ones above, and we'd all discuss them and work towards the best solutions. I've found that the best solution to "dishonest provocateurs" is still to assume the best intentions until shown otherwise.
      - gbrown 6y ago
        1. I know, I also don’t think its meaningfully “centrist”. 2. Not sure what your point is here - you originally pointed out why either right or left solutions would be good, but the compromise is bad. 3. I don’t think that’s true - believe it or not it is still possible to discuss actual issues. I certainly do, with people who disagree with me. So... there are a few positions on which you might be a “moderate”, but I don’t see any argument actually presented for why centrist solutions are preferable to those backed up by an actual ideological goal.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Independents are all over the map ideologically: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-... People over-estimate the degree to which our political parties represent an inherently consistent set of policy ideas. For example, social liberalism and being pro-immigration are intertwined in the US. But the socially liberal women prime ministers of Denmark and New Zealand are also anti-immigration. About 1 in 6 Democrats believe abortion should nearly always be illegal. African Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, have a similar split to Republicans when it comes to same-sex marriage and whether belief in God is a necessary prerequisite to morality. The political parties are a compromise amongst groups of people with heterodox views. They’re not something that ideologically must be bundled together.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    That's probably more true of the Democratic party, which is in fact a coalition of several large and somewhat disparate blocks (in particular, the black vote, which strategically prefers the concentrated vote over the most ideologically representative one --- Ismail White's book on this is pretty interesting). I don't think there are comparable forces in the Republican party --- though there were before the "ideological sort".
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      There are at least two significant and distinct forces in the Republican Party: pro-business and free enterprise people, and (mostly religious) social conservatives. You can find more if you look carefully — by no means Republican Party is a monolith.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Yes, there are two different kinds of white people that constitute the majority of the Republican party. (I'm not trying to be overly snarky here.)
        6y ago
mixmastamyk 6y ago
A centrist appreciates balance and pragmatism, also realizes no-compromise extremists are part of the problem.

gbrown 6y ago

IMHO that’s usually just a platitude - got an example?

woofie11 6y ago
Sure. Charter schools: They work great with proper checks-and-balances. They should be not-for-profits, follow extensive transparency laws, have salary caps, and strong civil rights protections. They should compete with public schools without restrictions beyond that. If public schools go under because of better competitors, more power to them! Medicine: Works great pure free market. Works great purely nationalized. What we don't want is a complex network of regulations from lobbyists combined with mandatory insurance (whether by government regulation or by practicality). Both the far-right and the far-left solutions would work great! We've landed in a no-man's land in between. Gun control: It's a reasonable policy, but rule-of-law should prevail. We've got a Constitution for a reason, and we should follow it, even if it feels unreasonable. If we disagree, we should amend it. Race: The left is correct about most of the problems, and bonkers about most of the solutions. We need to have an open national discourse about changes, and to do that, we need free speech and to get rid of cancel culture. The left's oppression of free speech contributes to the systemic oppression they're trying to eliminate. ... and so on. You don't need to agree with the above, but they're strong, principled stances, agreeing with neither side.
- gbrown 6y ago
  I’m not sure those are centrist positions. On the first one, I disagree with you on the science. On the second, you explicitly pointed put why centrism is bad (and with important qualifications, I sort of agree with the point you were making there). With respect to guns... meh that might be centrist, but it’s not really specific enough to base actual policy and constitutional law on - the history is also much more complex than you imply. With respect to race, I’d suggest you’re painting with an absurdly broad brush that doesn’t reflect the actual ideological spectrum. In my opinion, trying to be “centrist” is more of an aesthetic choice than actually related to ideology. What I will give you is that any community where honest discussion of actual, specific issues is impossible is toxic... but in practice I see that critique most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    1) You don't need to agree. 2) Each of those is an essay or two to justify. Of course they're not specific. This isn't a political essay. I'm giving examples -- enough to understand the gist, not the nuance. 3) In modern America, all of these views piss everyone off -- left AND right. If you articulate most of them, you'll get fired WHOEVER your boss is AND uninvited to the family dinner. That this "critique [is] most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs" is precisely because everyone else is afraid to speak. In a functioning civic society, we'd have many opinions like the ones above, and we'd all discuss them and work towards the best solutions. I've found that the best solution to "dishonest provocateurs" is still to assume the best intentions until shown otherwise.
    - gbrown 6y ago
      1. I know, I also don’t think its meaningfully “centrist”. 2. Not sure what your point is here - you originally pointed out why either right or left solutions would be good, but the compromise is bad. 3. I don’t think that’s true - believe it or not it is still possible to discuss actual issues. I certainly do, with people who disagree with me. So... there are a few positions on which you might be a “moderate”, but I don’t see any argument actually presented for why centrist solutions are preferable to those backed up by an actual ideological goal.
rayiner 6y ago
Independents are all over the map ideologically: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-... People over-estimate the degree to which our political parties represent an inherently consistent set of policy ideas. For example, social liberalism and being pro-immigration are intertwined in the US. But the socially liberal women prime ministers of Denmark and New Zealand are also anti-immigration. About 1 in 6 Democrats believe abortion should nearly always be illegal. African Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, have a similar split to Republicans when it comes to same-sex marriage and whether belief in God is a necessary prerequisite to morality. The political parties are a compromise amongst groups of people with heterodox views. They’re not something that ideologically must be bundled together.
- tptacek 6y ago
  That's probably more true of the Democratic party, which is in fact a coalition of several large and somewhat disparate blocks (in particular, the black vote, which strategically prefers the concentrated vote over the most ideologically representative one --- Ismail White's book on this is pretty interesting). I don't think there are comparable forces in the Republican party --- though there were before the "ideological sort".
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    There are at least two significant and distinct forces in the Republican Party: pro-business and free enterprise people, and (mostly religious) social conservatives. You can find more if you look carefully — by no means Republican Party is a monolith.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Yes, there are two different kinds of white people that constitute the majority of the Republican party. (I'm not trying to be overly snarky here.)
      - 6y ago

mixmastamyk 6y ago

A centrist appreciates balance and pragmatism, also realizes no-compromise extremists are part of the problem.