Who or What is a “Centrist”?: Making Amy’s Case
“In my view there is no such thing as an ‘ideological center’.
The ideological center is a myth that simply cannot and does not exist in the world of high stakes, prime time political reality.”
A “centrist” is someone who creates euphemisms to hide the fact that they aren’t committed to the fight and sacrifice required in bringing about the economic and social changes necessary to achieve social and economic justice, but will be among the first to take advantage of, and benefit from, the changes someone else fought and sacrificed to achieve…
A “centrist” will “compromise” on the rights, interests, and concerns of others not at the negotiating table, instead of fighting for the right of others to be at the table and speak for themselves.
A “centrist” is the individual who is involuntarily caught between what appears to be opposite poles in the struggles for social and economic change and justice and has no posture or position either way because he/she, “Never really thought about it…” (Read: Never had to think about it…)
A “centrist” is the person who is in favor of change as long as she/he doesn’t have to live with the consequences of it.
The “centrist” is the person who, politically, wants to have his/her cake and eat it too.
08/17/2019 @ 11:01 am
Nailed it!
08/17/2019 @ 11:41 am
While i agree, largely, w your and Amy’s sentiments, what you have here are slogans and not a better understanding, bryond the slogans, of what centrism may be in the US political context in this era.
08/17/2019 @ 1:46 pm
“…what centrism may be in the US political context in this era…”
Given the fact that I don’t acknowledge or agree that an ideological center exists, “centrism” in this, or any era, is, from my perspective, little more than the status quo wearing new clothes…
Neither you nor Kosh has been able to adequately articulate what “centrism” purports to be….
That’s because it is a false ideology…
See: The Myth of the Ideological Center In American Politcs by posted here by Ron Powell
The ideological center is a myth that simply cannot and does not exist in the world of high stakes, prime time political reality.
08/17/2019 @ 3:12 pm
Ron I do not raise centrism, never have. So it isn’t my call to define it or to explain it. You raise it. Responsibility here’s yours.
08/17/2019 @ 6:48 pm
You can’t define that which does not exist.
08/17/2019 @ 6:52 pm
Re your comment about slogans:
If Wasserman-Shultz, Brazille, the Clinton’s and the rest of the DNC had done a better job of sloganeering ,(messaging), Trump wouldn’t be where he is today….
08/18/2019 @ 8:57 am
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/17/this-political-scientist-completely-nailed-the-2018-blue-wave-heres-her-2020-forecast/
This is why the DNC blew it.
If we’re going to look at the very nebulous concept of centrism, which really isn’t a key concept to either Jon or me but is to Amy, we should probably address two paths to getting there. One has to do with voters, in this case voters who are not ideologically driven, just vaguely in favor of a status quo, but these are not passionate voters who are likely to show up unless angered by something. The other has to do with politicians, and here it’s based on their version of pragmatism: This is what it takes to get elected and stay in office, regardless of our actual ideology. However, it is no longer is what it takes to get elected because it ignores the base and doesn’t defuse the opposition, which is what my link is about.
08/17/2019 @ 2:56 pm
Judgement as definition.
08/17/2019 @ 6:57 pm
Of course…
The challenge to you is to do better or refute the veracity of the assertions made here…
In my view, you can’t define that which does not exist…
08/18/2019 @ 11:18 am
If it does not exist, it seems it also cannot be judged.
It is not for me to take up a challenge you took on yourself and failed. (IOW, google it.)
08/18/2019 @ 2:21 pm
The judgment is not on the notion of a nonexistent, mythological ‘ideological center’.
The judgment is on/of those who wish or choose to characterize or identify themselves as “centrist” while there is no correlating or corresponding ideology to speak of…
The books and references are full of euphemisms and platitudes re “centrism” but no substantive definitions that aren’t much more than saying that ”centrism” is the status quo wearing new clothes…
You criticize but offer no critique or criteria for doing so…
08/19/2019 @ 11:12 am
“Social and Economic Justice” My two favorite meaningless terms. Just to who? So, if I am a doctor who spent four years in college, four years in medical school, and four years in an internship and residency, who has $400,000 in loans, I should have my money taken away from me so the guy with no education who works at the counter at McDonald’s can make $15.00 an hour? That is just?
Why don’t all liberals just admit that their definition of justice is those who think they are smarter than everyone else will have all the money, and they will dole it out as they see fit. Democrats today are not socialists – they are communists. Ocasio-Cortez is the biggest of all, wanting to take over the whole structure of the country so she and her cronies can determine how people should live.
Here is what I will tell you. When executives at Google, Amazon, and Facebook all give up their money and work for $20.00 an hour, and so do all Hollywood actors and directors, then I will listen. Until then, social justice is nothing more than a call for communism.
08/19/2019 @ 11:52 am
https://i.redd.it/304mw7nksz631.jpg
08/19/2019 @ 3:37 pm
That is a nice idea. Too bad that socialism really does not exist anywhere on the planet. True socialism is when the PEOPLE control the means of production – not the government. Governmental control is communism, which is what Ocasio-Cortez is supporting.
By the way, if Capitalism is so terrible, why are the two biggest and most successful economies on the planet using it and are growing faster than anywhere on earth? Answer: because when people have the incentive to earn to have better success they will earn it. When the government guarantees that people will be paid then it becomes the Soviet Union.
The real question to ask is why do you hate something that works? The only reason is that anyone supports Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Warren, and the like is because they want to be paid to do nothing.
08/19/2019 @ 6:20 pm
Do you day drink (while watching Fox News & reading Breitbart) much, Robert?
What you obviously don’t do is try to do is understand socio-economic systems or have a freaking clue about what Ocasio-Cortez’s, Sanders’ or Warren’s policy positions really are.
P.S. Why do you hate our military, fire fighters and police so much?
08/20/2019 @ 10:34 am
Considering that i spent eight years in the army and my son is in the navy i don’t think i hate the military at all.
I don’t read Breitbart news at all, and I watch all three cable “news” outlets no matter how unwatchable CNN has gotten.
I think you need to spend more time reading the Washington Post where Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff admitted her green new deal had nothing to do with preserving the planet and everything to do with taking over the economy. Hmmm, government takeover of the economy? What does that sound like? Communism.
if all you got is insults for me, you really have nothing at all. Let’s understand that I debate this stuff with Alan every day and he is one of the most knowledgeable people you will find and we both hold our own.
08/20/2019 @ 10:40 am
So you and your son took part in and “benefited” from the government’s socialist military organization? How very “communistic” of you!
08/19/2019 @ 6:50 pm
“…if I am a doctor who spent four years in college, four years in medical school, and four years in an internship and residency, who has $400,000 in loans…”
If we were able to take the profit out of pain and suffering, you could become a doctor debt free…
08/19/2019 @ 7:48 pm
Not to mention that, for the life of me, I can’t see how a guy trying to make a living wage to feed his family (not to mention working 1 – 2 other jobs because $15 doesn’t even come close) is taking money out of some doctor’s pocket.
P.S. Why didn’t that doctor “pull himself up by his own boot straps” and pay for his education by working at McDonalds, instead of taking student loans from the GOVERNMENT!!!!! ::gasp::???
08/20/2019 @ 10:16 am
So a person who has to study 20 hours a day to stay up with his studies is supposed to work a job for $9 or $10 an hour, 40 hours a week? Is that really what you are proposing? So, I guess that person never sleeps.
08/21/2019 @ 1:55 am
So your idea of capitalism is that the richest family in the world should be subsidized by the far poorer public. The Waltons hire people part time so they don’t need to pay benefits, sending their employees to emergency rooms for care. You don’t seem to object to picking poor pockets.
The difference, of course, is that if poor people get more money, demand for goods and services skyrockets, helping our economy, while if the ultra-wealthy get more money, it sits and creates nothing because they have a history of not investing in ventures that hire people in any numbers.
So you’ve kept track of liberal sources and yet somehow don’t understand what people like Elizabeth Warren want. They do want areas that used to be in the public sector, like prisons, returned to the public sector because the primary responsibility of the public sector is their mission, not the profits of stockholders outranking their mission. Aside from that, let’s see:
Nationalizing major industries
Not allowing people to invest in companies any more
Preventing people from getting rich
are not part of Warren’s beliefs. Or Bernie’s.
Their version of Socialism is based on the Western European model.And we all know there is no private ownership and are no rich people in Sweden. Except of course there are.
Do you like democracy? Let me tell you how it works now. Even if middle class voters elect someone, what overwhelmingly happens is once they’re in office, they ignore the priorities of their middle class constituents. We know this because survey information among that population doesn’t become policy. However, for wealthy constituents it does become policy. Wealth as it is currently distributed and regulated is toxic to democracy.
What kind of distribution are we looking at?
The poorest 60% of America’s population owns well under 5% of America’s wealth. The poorest 40% of America’s population collectively owns less than one third of a percent of America’s wealth. So America shouldn’t be for Americans.
And of course, with wealth that skewed, a whole lot of America’s customers are AWOL.This destroys demand, which is of course terrible for….capitalism.
In other words, this kind of skewed demand is not only toxic to democracy, it’s bad for business.
A model that’s bad for both democracy and business doesn’t strike me as logical. Or patriotic.
Why does something for nothing to the Waltons disturb you so much less than something for nothing to the poor? The subsidies to the rich are actually more expensive.