"Centrism"

[Husar]

Then why is this thread called centrism when it should be called liberalism instead?

[Idaho]

For a great example to this: Try opening your own gas station.

Within months you'll be bankrupt. The other gas stations near you will simply run at a deficit until you're broke, and they will have no problem doing that, as well, Shell won't notice a couple of their gas stations losing a couple of millions for a few months...

A free market economy is neither possible nor desirable. Laws, rules and regulations, that's the way to go.

EDIT: On centrism; "centrism" isn't about "taking a little from both sides" or "refusing to take sides" or whatever. Centrism is simply the ideologies who belong on the middle of the ancient left/right-scale. Liberalism is one of them, and I'm sorry, but I can't say that liberalism "refuses to take sides", nor does it just "take a little from both sides". Liberalism is an independent ideology, no less offensive than capitalism, socialism, fascism or whatever.

In British political terminology, Liberalism means support for deregulated capitalism. The yanks use the term to mean socially liberal with some greater government social provision.

I am not sure what centrism really means on this thread. In the UK it would, in prior times, mean a position between the traditional left (labour) and right (tory/conservative). These days the two parties differ mainly on style rather than substance, so it is largely a redundant term.

[HoreTore]

In British political terminology, Liberalism means support for deregulated capitalism. The yanks use the term to mean socially liberal with some greater government social provision.

I am not sure what centrism really means on this thread. In the UK it would, in prior times, mean a position between the traditional left (labour) and right (tory/conservative). These days the two parties differ mainly on style rather than substance, so it is largely a redundant term.

Centrism cannot mean anything other than "the ideologies between the dominant ideology on either end of the political spectrum". usually, that will mean anything in between socialism and conservatism. And in most cases, that means, among much else, liberalism.

It's gets redundant in the case of one or two-party states(like china or the US) though.

[Lemur]

A cowboy might tell you "A man that sits astride a fence, is bound to get a sore crotch." [...] I say that if one stands in the middle of the street, he is likely to be run over. Also, Arron Tippin sings "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

Also, you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. And the apple never falls far from the tree. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Birds of a feather flock together. The pen is mightier than the sword. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Don Corleone]

The words "normal", "mainstream", "centrist", "middle-of-the-road", and "moderate", used in a political context, are useful because they inform me that I'm speaking to a political playah...

It's a well established tactic of both parties and their more ardent followers to define themselves as exactly moderate, and the other side of a particular issue as "The most virulent, unhinged, extreme {right, left} wing of the far {right, left}". Play buzzword bingo listening to one party talk about the other and you'll see what I mean.

When everyday folks use it, i realize they're either 1) too afraid of what other people think about them 2) incredibly naive and really believe that they just happen to be perfectly centrist on each and every issue or 3) some sad combination of the two.

I freely admit I'm pretty right of center. I'm more left than most rightys, but calling me a "right-wing nutjob" is almost a compliment these days.

[Idaho]

The problem with the notion of centrism or moderate capitalism is that is largely ignores or fails to address any of the major problems endemic to capitalism.

Take these two stories on the Beeb today:

Cambodian Ethnic Groups Swindled Out of Land. This kind of practice is inevitable with capitalism. Someone has to get in their first, and the most ruthless are rewarded the greatest. This is what's known as 'opening up new markets'. The reason they were previously 'not open' is because there were already humans there surviving on that land. Those humans surviving on the land don't make anyone a fat profit and don't have any idea about the way the outside world works. So instead of this land supporting humans - it now provides profit by way of rubber sales.

Now take this one: UK firms can't afford pension committments. This is another case of capitalism funnelling money to the top. The reason that many of these final salary schemes no longer have enough money is due to top executive pay. Top people in the companies gave themselves massive payrises just prior to retirement. So that their 'final salary' was much higher than their actual working salary. This means that ordinary workers who have been paying into a scheme for 20 years have basically had their money stolen by top execs.

In what way does 'centrism' address either of these issues any more than any other mainstream capitalist party (labour/conservative/republican/democrat)?

[Husar]

When everyday folks use it, i realize they're either 1) too afraid of what other people think about them 2) incredibly naive and really believe that they just happen to be perfectly centrist on each and every issue or 3) some sad combination of the two.

I freely admit I'm pretty right of center. I'm more left than most rightys, but calling me a "right-wing nutjob" is almost a compliment these days.

You see, that's rubbish, why would a centrist have to believe they're exactly in the center? Do you believe you're "exactly" on the right? It's more like a tendency in both cases. Of course people who would end up with a 0.0 and 0.0 on the political compass would be rare but you could say everybody within a radius of 3 or so would be a centrist in a way. A person who is completely with the conservatives on social values but agrees with the democrats on foreign policy and is similarly divided about many other issues would probably call themselves centrist because if they call themselves leftist then you'd think they completely agree with the democrats on social values and that would be wrong, if they say they're on the right then the leftists would start calling them warmongers etc. so they go and call themselves centrist. That doesn't mean they're stupid or don't have ideals, it kust means that they don't fully agree with either side and want a bit of both.
Why is that so hard to understand? When you have two piles of excrement, would you chose to sit down in one or rather stand in the middle and be a "centrist"?

[Centurion1]

Aye, i don't agree with republicans blindly but it is true that i prefer their ideology. I think what really defines a centrist is someone who doesn't blindly follow a political party but selects candidates on their individual feelings on issues. Past that, i almost always agree with republicans.

[HoreTore]

Aye, i don't agree with republicans blindly but it is true that i prefer their ideology. I think what really defines a centrist is someone who doesn't blindly follow a political party but selects candidates on their individual feelings on issues. Past that, i almost always agree with republicans.

That would be an "independent".

But for two-party states like the US or the UK(for now, at least...), then yeah, centrism is basically that. The problem with US politics is that they don't have a centre; it's just those two parties, with nothing in-between but the inside bickering of those two parties.

For everyone else, however, a centrist party are those parties in the middle of the parties on either end. In Norway, for example, it's as follows:

Left: Red(communist coalition party), Socialist Left Party, Labour Party
Centre: Centre party(previously Farmers Party), Christian People's Party, Left(a liberal party)
Right: Right(a conservative party), Progress Party

[rotorgun]

Also, you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch. And the apple never falls far from the tree. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Birds of a feather flock together. The pen is mightier than the sword. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Thank you Lemur. It is all so much clearer now. Could you please explain how these cliches explain your position on centrism better than the ones I used? ....and now for something completely different.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"center" is a relative value based on equidistant sides. I don't agree that we all feel that our raised opinions form the center to anyone or anything but ourselves. You are talkign about the center as it relates to others, therefore the definition exists outside of your own feelings.

See-Saw analogy is a fine one. You wouldn't say that you were in the center siting on the extreme of one side, would you? Clearly is has a value. It doesn't mean that you are "moderate", rather that your opinions are at the center of a bell curve of opinions.

[Lemur]

Thank you Lemur. It is all so much clearer now. Could you please explain how these cliches explain your position on centrism better than the ones I used? ....and now for something completely different.

Your entire post on centrism consisted of cliches, so I thought I'd pitch in, assuming that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, or the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.

I guess what I was trying to say was that a watched pot never boils.

[rotorgun]

Your entire post on centrism consisted of cliches, so I thought I'd pitch in, assuming that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, or the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.

I guess what I was trying to say was that a watched pot never boils.

Indeed. I was a little tired when I answered with that post. That was all my dull brain could come up with at the time. I'll try to elucidate better next time I'm in dreamland.


I guess I take the main view that a centrist viewpoint is something of a cop-out to me. It's kind of like avoiding what is difficult in a political or moral argument by compromise. A good example in history was the way that dealing with slavery in the early United States was avoided by the parties tacitly agreeing not to legislate for or against it in the congress. Both sides couldn't introduce any language in a bill that mentioned limiting it or the abolition of it by taking a centrist position. Sort of like "A stitch in time, saves nine"