This is just the "enlightened centrism" theory I think. There's no inherent virtue in neutrality between abstract issues. And acknowledging uncertainty or being

This is just the "enlightened centrism" theory I think. There's no inherent virtue in neutrality between abstract issues. And acknowledging uncertainty or being flexible to reevaluation doesn't necessarily lead you to neutrality either. You're also trying to frame it so that anyone who does consistently choose a side is inherently an extremist, and that these two extremes are "liberal" and "conservative." The idea that political extremes are more similar to each other than to a moderate position is called horseshoe theory, and it has very little support among political scientists. It doesn't even apply in this case because, again, the two "sides" in american politics aren't even opposite extremes. In most peer countries the democrats would be solidly center-right and the republicans are off to their right. On the far left is a gaping hole where communists, anarcho-syndicalists, revolutionary socialists etc would be. In practice people who call themselves moderate are usually consistently aligned with one of the two major parties, they just don't want to incur the social costs of that alignment in at least one context. Or and relatedly, they want to present themselves as being morally and intellectually superior to both, too "enlightened" to be duped into taking sides like inferior thinkers. There's nothing wrong with understanding yourself and your world well enough to pick a side on an issue, or find allies for it. Again the self-questioning you describe isn't unique to centrists nor the reason for their centrism. My positions are extreme, as are those of many of my friends and associates. We doubt too. Yet we find that we must act anyway, and risk being wrong or foolish.