Centrists
I was interviewed a while ago on Mr Media's blog and he asked me about my political beliefs. The idea of what a Centrist means has always baffled me as a belief system. I understand calling yourself that, but not as a bargaining tool. Right wing bloggers like Hugh Hewitt use the word "center/right" to hide their extremism to a guy like Wolf Blitzer.
ANDELMAN: I have one last question: many people find that their political views become more conservative as they get older. Are you seeing any sign of that within your own beliefs?
AMATO: What is the center? Do you know what I mean? Has anybody defined what the center is? I believe that we all through our experiences in life, we all come to decisions and conclusions which we are comfortable with morally, what we think is the right thing to do. So that’s how I’ve developed my convictions, so they are not changing, they’re only getting stronger since I’ve been involved with blogging and in the political process.
As always, Duncan nails the "Centrism" riff:
Let's be clear that "centrism" is, for the most part, a cosmetic pose for the benefit of Beltways journalists who know that The Most Important Thing Is To Be A Centrist.
In terms of what those centrists actually support in terms of policy, I'd say there are roughly 3 kinds of things. Occasionally they live up to their name and push through genuine compromises between left and right. More often than that they push fake "split the baby" compromises which achieve nothing genuine but have the appearance of doing "something."
And, most often, "centrism" is used as a cover for what amounts to bipartisan endorsement of corruption in the name of furthering the Might and Majesty of the establishment powers.
A reform-minded president's first act should be to sign a law that reads as follows: "The federal government of the United States having been illegitimate and illegal since January 20, 2001, all laws, regulations, executive orders, and acts of commission or omission enacted between that infamous day and 12 noon Eastern Standard Time on Jan. 20, 2009, are hereby declared invalid and without effect."
I have found that if anything I'm becoming more liberal as I age.
And, most often, “centrism” is used as a cover for what amounts to bipartisan endorsement of corruption in the name of furthering the Might and Majesty of the establishment powers.
That's it in a nutshell.
To me centerism would mean regardless of what I believe in, I don't feel the need to force other people to believe it. I.E. I look for a politician who shares my beliefs. But not one who promises to legislate them.
As a genuine centrist, I object to this co-opting and corruption of the term by fair-weather conservatives who want to distance themselves from batshit crazy arm of their political philosophy.
So what IS a centrist really? I'll tell you. A centrist is someone who looks to do the most good at the least cost REGARDLESS of political affiliation. In most cases, that means looking for a literal middle-ground solution to whatever the problem is at hand. However, if that's impossible and the consevative answer solves the problem best, then it should be implemented. If not, then the liberal solution should be used. That's centrism. Everything else is bullshit partisan hackery in disguise or pathetic, weak indecisiveness seeking legitimacy.
How it REALLY works...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG-O-FyQMrg
I've been in the pox-on-both-your-houses camp for a long time. I think that makes me a centrist.
By centrist lights, I've always been liberal. I've grown far more radical/emphatic as time goes by (cue Dooley)....
Umm, some people grow more conservative, but many also grow more liberal, specifically, more tolerant.
When both Democrats and Republicans are right of center, being a "centrist" in today's society means hugging the paper thin divide between two nearly identical belief systems. If someone were to be a true centrist between the true Right and the true Left then they'd ironically be to the left of the Democratic Party.
All I know is that over the years I've only become more conservative in terms of my environmental practices. And the last 7 years have made me look hard to the left and pay close attention off to the sides. If something calling itself the center includes Republicans or Invertebratocrats® I'll be sure to avoid it like the plague.
The corporate empire is the real adversary, and many politicians and most of the media owe them allegiance.
I've always found that the claim of "centrism" is most often either a doge by the intellectually lazy or right wing establishmentarians dressing up their extremism to move the ball to the right. It is meaningless to say that both sides are equally right or wrong and disingenuous to equate the anti-science, economic chauvinist, religious intolerance, out and out bigotry, lawlessness and corruption of today's Republican party with anything that comes from the left wing of the Democratic party.
DLC Centrists want to be nice to the monster.
American patriots of every political stripe want to sock the monster in the gut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1yjS2vbi4
My own political views are all over the place. I prefer to call them as I see them. Working under an ideology, whether right or left, clouds my thinking. Centrist is just another cheap branding word like "soccer moms" or "nascar dads". I'd rather have a democratic politician with their head screwed on straight than a corrupt republican - but I would also prefer the vice versa. Competence, intelligence, compassion and problem solving are what matter - not your stripes.
In the early years following the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, their foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto was asked to define his place on the political spectrum. A Catholic priest he replied (I'm paraphrasing): "If you take Jesus as the center, I'm a little to the right..."
"Centrists" and "moderates" are being split off with the "libruls" and nonexistent "Leftists". Heck! "Secular Progressive" has become a curse.
I even heard a local radio host claim, unchallenged, that, "Moderates don't exist. Anyone who claims to be a moderate is just a liberal that doesn't even believe in their own agenda".
It's hard to fight such monumental idiocy.
Ask a self proclaimed "centrist" to define what they mean by alleging that the Democratic party is "far left" and you will get back regurgitated Republican talking points. It's a pose designed to marginalize anything that doesn't swallow the beltway elite agenda whole.
This "centrist" crap and the 'the middle" or 'the mainstream" is a bullshit. We are sum of our experiences and the environment around us. Each of us seeks balance in our world, but there is no safe middle, and once we begin to decide perceptions and actions on issues and ideas, rather than classes and identities, we will reduce conflict and contradiction, and favor awareness and reaction. You know and react, or you don't know and speculate. We can watch the rest of the herd run away, be scared and follow, but that does not mean a lion waits in the grass. It's time to stop grazing 24/7 and open our eyes.
As conservatives might be saying now:
"The problem with the majority is that they are out of touch with the mainstream."
In the presidential primaries, the candidates are either liberal or conservative. In the general, the candidates are both centrists. Throughout, they are master marketeers. The voting public doesn't mind this contradiction becuase we love great marketing.
Dave @ 2:
Me too. I'm more liberal than I used to be, and more secure in it, too.
And --->#1 L.A. Confidential Says: I could totally go for that. Nice thought.
Lyon @ 4:
So, as Republicans see torture as GOOD, the best case scenario would be to open a cost-effective Ford-like assembly line proccess to waterboard, and save everyione a bundle?
Very nice answer John!
And Duncan's Centrists riff is spot on.
At this point it looks like we don't really have ANY progressive politicians available anymore, they just do the fascist thing and occasionally toss out a non starter that they know will go no where just to keep the masses mollified.
Then as you say, they cover it up with the "centrist" stink bomb.
Very disappointing to say the least.
The political spectrum looks something like this:
Left-Socialist-Liberal-Conservative-Fascist-Right
Traditionally, both Liberals and Conservatives were centrist ideologies in that they advocated liberal (small l) democracy. Both are capitalist ideologies with Liberals seeking to perpetuate capitalism by regulation and providing a social safety net while Conservatives reject regulation and the social safety net. The political spectrum has shifted to the right so that today's Liberals are more like what Conservatives used to be, representing the democratic (small d) wing of the economic elite while Conservatives have moved towards Fascism representing the totalitarian wing of the economic elite.
Manila Ryce @ 9:
That's me; left of the whole works, nearing anarchy.
As long as the chief goal of Politics is to protect the privileged, it has outlived it's usefulness.
I'm not left wing and I'm not right wing, I'm middle of the bird! :-)
Some people can't go about their daily lives without resorting to labels. To them, labels are either an advertisement tool, or a way they can avoid analyzing their surrounding. If they don't have to think too much and can classify one person or another into their little mental boxes they are content. Likewise they use labels to mislead others into thinking they're reasonable, well informed, thinking people.
For example, not a day goes by when Fixed Noise doesn't try to pawn off the label "left wing crazies" onto their audience. The same goes for labels like "Islamofascist", or "Liberal". Once they are able to squeeze a person into the "liberal" category, no more thought is needed. He's a "liberal", therefore he's fair game. In other words, bash away.
As I've mentioned previously, labels can also be used as an advertisement tool to promote one's agenda; Bush, for example, loves labeling people who disagree with his policies "America haters", or worse, "terrorists".
You can never be too "right wing" for our media. Coulter can call John Edwards a fa*&ot and get booked on the TODAY Show as an analyst. Pat Robertson can blame 9/11 on Americans and be praised for endorsing Giuliani, but if John Kerry makes a bad joke--he's attacked for weeks by the media...sigh...
L.A. Confidential @ 1:
Fantastic! Yes!
And let the war crimes trials begin January 20, 2009 at 1:00 so that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and their whole murderous gang can be brought to justice and live out their days moldering in a cold dank prison cell.
No, Duncan did not "nail it" and nor does the mainstream press. But Arthur M. Schelsinger, Jr. did--squarely on the head.
Besides the term "centralist" I'd question if the words "liberal" or "conservative" had any meaning either. In my mind a liberal is someone willing to try something new and untried. A conservative, wanting to just keep doing the same thing done before.
Now it's those that call themselves "conservatives" wanting a 'new word order'. And also mouth the platitude that 'everything changed after 9/11'. And other such crap.
Its more a question of fighting to keep our democracy or just be "center" and allow it to decay into tyranny through silence.
John Amato @ 27:
And yet the studies say the media has a left bias.
If it's on the level I just don't understand.
But then again, it's not on the level is it.
I really expected better from this site than this holier-than-thou rhetoric.
The need to deny the existence of ideologies that are actually in the CENTER is polemic from the pundits. How is it so alien to understand that someone could support gun rights without being against all gun regulation, support rational welfare strategies without resorting to unlimited hand-outs, and support capitalism without supporting corruption in that very system? The insinuation that those who stand in the middle are corrupt by definition is appalling.
The left/right, liberal/conservative distinction and specturm derives from where people sat in parliament during the french revolution. The continued use of this distinction to try to capture any and all political views - as if political views were all sortable on a single plane - is a chief cause of stupidity in modern American politics.
How would I define my beliefs if forced to do so on this spectrum? I would actually be a left wing conservative or a right wing liberal. But according to the demands of the left/right spectrum such views are confused or unintelligible or paradoxical. Better not to use the stupid terms at all.
The center is where Rahm Emmanuel and Tom Tancredo are trying to stop illegal entry.
Symes@31 Says:
What studies? Ones conducted by the MRC? LOL! Are media conglomerates pro organized labor? How many labor shows on TV do you see as opposed to business shows? Are they anti-capitalist? Do they cover working and middle class interests or those of the corporate elite? On what basis would a corporation like a media conglomerate have a left wing bias? It makes no sense at all.
Being in the center on an issue means taking shit from anybody else who sees that issue in black & white.
I support the right to bear arms, but i also have *no problem* with background checks and waiting-periods. Some will blame me for inner-city violence (and death). Others will say i'm helping to unravel the fabric of our nation (which, you know, also results in death). To those in the extreme left or right (in this particular example), everything is in black and white and so therefore i'm wrong: there should *of course* be no "compromise".
Being in the middle on an issue; seeing things from a non-black-and-white perspective; that's called *balance* - not _compromise_.
If the term "centrist" is a bullshit term, then what about "extremist"? What about "progressive". Under what useful circumstances (nuanced, or black & white) could those terms be defined as disparate with regard to their legitimacy?
What is the point of all of us coming here and watching these videos and discussing this? If we all already agree on an issue then we have no action items beyond raising money and contacting our representatives. Those are important things, but obviously people on the other side are raising the same money and contacting the same politicians. We're not gonna change *their* minds and they're not gonna change *our* minds.
If that's all there is, then this would amount finally to *organized bitching*, which, is therapeutic but not particularly useful.
If there is no middle then there is no fucking hope, whatsoever. Because the middle is the answer. Getting people who aren't already politically active to participate in what *we're* doing will have THE BIGGEST impact on moving *our* issues forward. Getting those people engaged in the process is paramount. It's called "advancing an agenda", and it doesn't happen by getting others who *already agree with you* to... keep on agreeing with you.
There's an ocean of people out there who see themselves as being "in the center" on so many issues - the kinds of issues that hold extreme influence on how these people will vote. So what's our plan?: we tell them "You're in the 'center'?! Centrism is complete bullshit. Don't be a loser; there is no middle."??
imo we need to be a little more thoughtful and deliberate in trying to get those fence-sitters under the tent. I mean, is there room enough to at *least* respect what others REFER to *themselves* as?
Snowball @ 35:
None at all, I agree with you, yet the studies are saying the opposite.
Google it up, I did earlier today in response to a wingnuts claim. Sad to say I had a hard time refuting him with anything originating from a University or source that I could claim as unequivocally unbiased in and of itself.
If you have such a source study, please share it so I can beat them around the ears with it.
Wow, this is a wonderfully thought-provoking and well spoken thread...
I would have called myself a centrist until i read the original post; it caught me in the vacuum of self perception. A centrist i may be (and my political compass graph was right on the Y-axis), but to say so invokes the connotation that the original post describes. Like many others, i really hate the labels in general...mostly because they can become a cop out for explanation, and hence thought. But we're bound by the laws of language to use labels, everybody except Prince.
So what should people call themselves who cannot see only one side of an issue and believe that a middle ground is possible in most cases? The middle ground is not merely a way to make everyone almost happy; it is the place where concerned parties acknowledge each others facts and feelings. If all goes well, the concerned parties come to an overall agreement and then act in the best interests of everyone concerned. The middle is the central tenant of Buddhism.
So maybe that group that "occasionally lives up to its name" should get a new label, maybe independent? Or, ideology free. Or, political agnostic.
Lyon @ 4:
If I could hug you through the internet, I would. This is exactly what I was about to type out. I find solutions on both ends of the political spectrum. The horror of this administration has pushed me left, but the historical stances of each part have their merits. Pretending one side has all the answers is just foolish.
I thought I was a centrist until the judicial coup of 12 December 2000. Then I became a patriot. Sic Semper Tyrannus.
Dave @ 2:
Centricism more or less 50% legitimizes right wing ideology......which as a whole is a deceptive attempt to return those places in the world who have risen above it back to a state of feudalism with a massive differential between the aristocrasy and the "peasants".......while they aren't in my opinion DEAD WRONG about every issue (anyone who thinks "their side" is 100% right is an idiot), granting a them a full half measure of credence is HIGHLY unwarranted.
V V
jackpine savage @ 38:
Some interesting thoughts. Buddhism has a lot of appeal for me personally because it is really a practical guide towards sanity. It teaches you the harm of wallowing in your own self drama. In the realm of politics, drama and impracticallity are revered.
"centrism"- abolishing social security, invading Iran with a happy face
So if I don't subscribe to the radical edges to any part of any ideology, and I think there is a balance, I'm a dupe? I'm a stooge?
If you really see this as black and white and no grey, I'm sadder for my country now having known in John. I've been a reader for years, and this is the first time I've ever been stunned by the idiocy of a post.
You can legitimately be in the center and thing that some things from one angle are wrong and some from the other are.
I am a centrist in general, but I'm somewhere in the center of Ron Paul and Kucinich. To hell with the anarchists and the fascists. To hell with the people that want to invade my privacy, and to hell with folks who think there is no good war (no current wars are). To hell with the JudeoChristoIslamo religious radicals and the militant atheists, both who refuse to let people live.
To hell with all of you, who because of blind hatred of your opposite, fail to see a huge middle ground, where the America I was born into exists. You are as bad as the disgusting Roves of the world, needing to divide us into camps. Guess what? We're all people, we're all Earthlings. There is so much common ground to work from, and you want to make people pick teams.
Fuck you all, if you can't see that the middle, a balance.
Vitam Vas @ 42:
If you truly believe/mean what you wrote, you are a fool. Centrism does not denote I agree with 50% of this, and 50% of that. It doesn't mean I agree with gun control but I balance that by being for the death penalty.
It means that I think that any absolutes are wrong. That There IS a debate to be had over abortion, and how we use it (although ultimately, from a practicality standpoint, it has to be legal so it can be safe, regardless of morals). That there is a debate over when to use military action. That there is a debate about healthcare and how to balance a system that doesn't work for at least 20% of Americans. That there is a position between locking down the borders and giving everyone guns and between letting complete border anarchy. That there is somewhere between Ridiculously high and regressive taxation and letting the rich get off completely.
If you get far enough to the left, or to the right, you wind up in the same place. Fascism. We've got fascism of the right currently. Would fascism from the left be any better?
Wow. The people freaking out about this evaluation of the use of "Centrist" are hilarious. If you read it clearly, it's about the term being used by members of the right, sometimes the quite extreme right, to claim they aren't that far over. It's about the cover of centrism being abused to frame the discussion and make their position seem more palatable. The post and what's quoted use terms and phrases that are distinctly non-absolutist, and leave room for the people who actually do sit in the political center, but strives to point out that a painfully large amount of it is just this hackery and fakeness. And, amusingly or tragically, the people who claim to have such a "nuanced view" of matters are taking the commentary that some self-proclaimed centrists are fake as an attack upon all centrism and themselves.
Congratulations, I don't know whether to laugh or cry because of this demonstration of such superior understanding of nuance and ambiguity.
my definition of "centrist"would be....down the middle leaning one way or the other...but still be willing to negotiate.and to come to a agreement that benefits the nation as a whole....Now I consider myself a centrist leaning left.I'm definitely not a radical left dem or liberal..but I do consider myself a liberal..I don't think the word liberal has a bad connotation anymore.as a matter of fact I proudly tell people I'm a liberal....the looks on their faces is priceless...it's hard for them to look me in the eye.....after all the bullshit this admin has reeked....well that's a diff story.Centrist ....I could see how someone would think it's corrupted....lately...it has been.....
I have to say...I've shifted more left since 2000......I can't see how someone couldn't.
I think under normal circumstances people grow more conservative about their money and more liberal about their social views. The Bush cartel hasn't been normal circumstances though. I know lifelong republicans that think Bush is a bigger disaster than I do. I think under this administration there are no true centrists. The centrists now believe Bush is a disaster and a failure just not a criminal.Their is the 25% that think he is brilliant and then there are the centrists that think he is a failure and a horrible president and then there is the rest of the country that see his administration as a criminal enterprise.
When it comes to morals, I think centrism is very evil because by definition it contains SOME evil.
For instance if centrism is applied to taxes, then it means that in some circumstances theft is ok, but in others it is not. So, centrism in taxes means it is alright to justify theft, but only sometimes. But this is contradictory, because theft is either right or it is wrong. The result here is that if one is centrist in theft, it means that one thinks theft is moral. That kind of centrist person is confused.
But in politics, being a centrist does not mean you are contradictory or need any guidance from those who profess that being a centrist means you are nothing. Only those who are absolutely convinced that one party (dem or GOP) is good and the other evil could possibly think that being a centrist is bad. These people make the mistake of thinking that one party is good and the other bad.
But what if BOTH "sides" contain bad or evil things? What is so wrong about picking and choosing those things which are good from each party, and form a political set of beliefs based on them? What is so wrong about throwing away those things which are evil from both sides and not support them?
I don't think anyone can honestly say that we all should support one side or the other, or else shut up about it. That would be like telling someone they can't say something is bad because it belongs to the set of beliefs of a political party which is mistakenly thought of as being ipso facto correct.
Being a centrist in politics is MUCH BETTER than being either a pure democrat or a pure republican.
Nerrin @ 47:
Correct -- this thread isn't designed to be an attack on centrists but on the far right's coopting of the term to make their policies seem less authoritarian and to make the left's idea seem wacky.
marbotty @ 51:
Bullshit. No where in the original post does it mention the right's co-opting of the term, and John's original answer distinctly says the center doesn't exist. Look through the posts again. Half of the people posting effectively state that if you are a centrist, you are a right wing shill. To bad they don't recognize there are shills on both sides.
mudshark @ 49:
Have you actually shifted? Or has the playing field shifted under your feet, moving you left, because teh freaks on the right pulled it their way?
As someone who believes in the teachings and the tenets of Christ and not the hatefulness of todays so called "christians" I have found that through my life I have become stronger in my liberalism. I believe in charity and believe that as a chistian nation we should take care of our elderly and our children and our veterans and the poor first as Christ taught. I believe that we should treat other people and other countries fairly and honestly in our dealings with them as Christ taught. I believe that war should be the last resort. I believe that coveting what our neighbor has and trying to forcefully take it from them is wrong. I believe that torture, and murder are wrong. I believe that raping the earth of its natural resources instead of being good stewards is wrong.
Centrism is intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It allows others to define your positions. That's why it always ends up enabling and rewarding the Big Lie. Right wingers can move the goal posts as far as they want and count on vapid "Centrists" to follow them, lemming like, over the edge.
Newton Minnow @ 55:
Just because the goal posts move, don't mean my opinions do. What centrism is, contrary to your nonsense, is understanding that no one, on either side has anything completely correct. That there is a middle ground where the truth is. that when one side is completely wrong all the time (currently the "right") it is ok to say so and disagree without having to tell the left that they re correct too. Your attitude, that dissent from some of your ideas is treason, is the same idea the bushbots push. You could change two words in your post and you'd sounds like a neocon fascist.
Are you that afraid of disagreement?
This post is exactly why the left seems to fuck up a gimme on the political spectrum. The undecideds and the centrists should be courted and understood and not denigrated as shills.
Newton Minnow @ 55:
Wrong.
True centrist values are essentially liberal values. Where the DLC types go wrong is in putting the cart before the horse. They try to adopt positions that are not liberal and call it centrist. Instead, we as liberals need to talk with (and not talk down to) mainstream America and point out how avoiding unnecessary wars (such as Iraq), preserving Social Security, enabling meritorious wealth creation and achieving Harry Trumnan's dream of universal healthcare are centrist goals based upon liberal concepts.
Centrists are already there; we just have do a better job of making that known.
Josh @ 53:
good point.....probably a little of both....which has shifted me even further......but I'm still not way out on the fringe....I think what has happened to the cetrist right was that they got duped to such an extreme that they haven't existed for the last 7 years or more thanks to Newt Gingrich .And now their having a very hard time finding their indentity.If for nothing else...their scared of being called traitors,unpatriotic...or downright liars.I see the GOP suffering for this for years to come.But then again....Diebold.Gotta watch out for them on that one.
of course we can add a list of many like Gdub,DICK,Rush,and a lot more for the reason the playing field has shifted.Coulter,Malkin,Ingram ect ect ect.
Josh @ 52:
Really? It was the second sentence in the post: "Right wing bloggers like Hugh Hewitt use the word “center/right” to hide their extremism"
marbotty @ 60:
Sorry, 4th sentence (second line).
To me, a centrist is a Quisling figure. Centrists are not seeking solutions to problems, they are seeking a seat on the gracy train that rolls on biscuit wheels. Their chief activity, from my perspective, is ingratiating themselves with those whom they take to be key figures within, or representatives of, an emerging power structure. They hope either to earn favorable positions, and maybe even end up weilding power, by betraying the trust of those they have conned into voting them into office. Betrayal is their modus operandi. Despite their rhetoric, centrists serve nobody but themselves. If they succeed, their reward is money, privilege and maybe even power. This is what they want, even if what they want is offered only as scraps from the masters tables. They will sell you down the river in a heartbeat in order to get what they want or to save their own asses. that is why they make such reliable corporatists and stealth neocons.
I do not see centrists, people who exist as a group by virtue of their own definition of themselves, as being a people who can ever be trusted or respected.
"gracy" train should be gravy train.
BTW, the true center is that set of principles, foundations and protections as put forth or codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
marbotty @ 61:
Sorry, I misspoke, I meant in johns actual reply he denigrates centrists in general, not the quasi-bs centrists.
Paul @ 64:
It's amazing that your previous post has it completely wrong as far as what I consider centrism, and this post has it completely correct. I've bolded the most importan part of your statement. WWFFD, as in what would the founding fathers do? Frankly, today, they'd be called a bunch of leftists by the right. But the far left doesn't understand the constitution that well either.
Josh @ 66:
Josh,
Access your sense of Irony on the first post and you'll have it. I was taking about those who label themselves "centrists" but are anything but. I'm with you all the way.
I have found that as I get older I am less and less conservative (I was never a conservative) because I know more and more about how the world really works.
Look out, it's Disco Joe & the Moderates!
Paul @ 68:
Fair enough. I've just got a hair trigger as this isn't the first instance where I've seen the left essentially take a dump on the middle, without understanding that the real middle is where they need to garner support to work in the right direction for this country.
BDM @ 70:
It's exactly that link that shows what can be horribly wrong with anti-moderate rhetoric. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There maybe be a bunch of fake moderates, or at least fake for what you think they believe, but you offend those that might even be leaning your way by calling them neo-con enablers.
What I want for my country is what 60% to 80% of Americans want. That makes me a centrist, BY DEFINITION. Nevertheless, I'm considered a commie pinko leftist because right wingers control the discourse.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Paul @ 63:
I've read down lower.Nice to see you clarified your comment...........because this was quite the generalization.....
I think for the most part..most people are centrists or down the middle leaning one way or the other.Right now the right wing has been duped,and can't come back to the middle.I would give the credit for that to the NeoCons....and also as a result of the NeoCon agenda,more people on the left have shifted more to the left.Some to the extreme left...and I can't say I blame them..But there will come a time when we all have to sit down with each other and discuss what's best for the country..just never forget the NeoCons and what they've done.....the right wing needs to be reminded of this for a loooooooong time to come.All the republicans I know are saying they will not vote R this time,they say they are thoroughly disgusted with the R party..... I'll be nice,but I won't let them forget......
the religous right is a whole different story altogether.....and even their trying to come back closer to the middle....all I have to say about that is ...."good luck with that."
Josh @ 72:
I stand by the assertion that 'centrists' are neocon enablers. With the Iraq War, FISA, Mukasey, and so forth, over and over again, the right wing corporate agenda is advanced with the help of centrist complicity and/or spinelessness.
Newton Minnow @ 56:
I agree, this is why I am not a centrist and solidly grounded in progressive alternatives to capitalism. The best example I can think of a "vapid centrist" is Chris Matthews spewing his feel good crap every week night. I also think we should remember left/right labels are primarily about economics, not religious or social issues, etc.
are we talikg about centrist population(voters) or centrist Politicians........two entirely different things.
Josh @ 46:
You should maybe look up the elements of fascism. They include moral absolutism in the form of "the enemy" and "US vs THEM", and "let's go back to the good old days". Now this isn't to say that the left hasn't also had a couple of genocidal authoritarian rulers, but the essence of leftist mentality (question status quo and authority, examine why things are done, and to whom benefit accrues, understanding other perspectives than our own........) is diametrically opposed to these things. And by the way, even when authoritarian leftists (who interestingly the foremost expert on authoritarianism classifies as "Right Wing Authoritarians" despite their propensity towards communalism) do take over, the first thing that they do is execute or imprison status questioning learned intellectuals......like a strong (but not exclusive...we have bubbleheads too) element of the American left. So pretty much, you don't really know what you are talking about.
Furthermore, did I or did I not generally disclaim "absolutes". Does the phrase "Anyone who thinks that their side is 100% right about every issue is an idiot" look familiar. Progressives are mostly SOCIALISTS, a position which is INTRINSCICALLY balanced as it is a blend of free market capitalism, with a strong central government which regulates business, and provides a social safety net.
But on the other hand, there ARE some absolutes. For example, killing innocent people for the financial benefit of your slimy corporate friends. WRONG.
Finally, be assured that I can wipe your ass all over this board defending my assertion that right wing ideology is ALL about a return to feudalism.
V V
And so you would obviously agree that centrism more or less 50% legitimizes *left wing ideology*; correct?
If i've misunderstood your original post, please signal as much by wiping my ass all over this board defending your assertion that right wing ideology is all about a return to feudalism.
In the meantime, i'll go lookup the elements of feudalism while Josh is busy with fascism...
lmao :D
Comments are closed on this entry