“Centrism” is the tendency to see two different beliefs and attempt to split the difference between them. The reason why it’s a bad idea should be obvious: truth is independent of our beliefs, no less than any other partisans, centrists ignore evidence in favor of their predetermined ideology.
So what’s the attraction? First, it requires little thought: arguing for a specific position requires collecting evidence and arguing for it. Centrism, simply requires repeating some of what A is saying and some of what B is saying and mixing them together. Centrists often don’t even seem to care if the bits they take contradict each other.
Second, it’s somewhat inoffensive. Taking a strong stand on A or B will unavoidably alienate some. But being a centrist, one can still maintain friends on both sides, since they will find at least some things that you espouse to be agreeable with their own philosophies.
Third, it makes it easier to suck up to those in charge, because the concept of the “center” can easily move along with shifts in power. A staunch conservative will have to undergo a major change of political philosophy to get a place in liberal administration. A centrist can simply espouse a few more positions from the conservatives and a few less from the liberals and fit in just fine. This criteria explains why centrists are so prevalent in the pundit class (neither administration is tempted to really force them out) and why so many “centrist” pundits espouse mostly conservative ideas these days (the conservatives are in power).
Fourth, despite actually being a servant of those in power, centrism gives one the illusion of actually being a serious, independent thinker. “People on the right and on the left already know what they’re going to say on every issue,” they might claim, “but we centrists make decisions based on the situation.” (This excuse was recently used in a fundraising letter by The New Republic.) Of course, the “situation” that’s used to make these decisions is simply who’s currently in power, as discussed above, but that part is carefully omitted.
Fifth, it appeals to the public. There’s tremendous dissatisfaction among the public with the government and our system of politics. Despite being precisely in the middle of this corrupt system, centrists can claim that they’re actually “independents” and “disagree with both the left and the right”. They can denounce “extremism” (which isn’t very popular) and play the “moderate”, even when their positions are extremely far from what the public believes or what the facts say.
Together, these reasons combine to make centrism an especially attractive place to be in American politics. But the disease is far from limited to politics. Journalists frequently suggest the truth lies between the two opposing sources they’ve quoted. Academics try to distance themselves from policy positions proposed by either party. And, perhaps worst of all, scientists try to split the difference between two competing theories.
Unfortunately for them, neither the truth nor the public necessarily lies somewhere in the middle. Fortunately for them, more valuable rewards do.
Exercise for the reader: What’s the attraction of “contrarianism”, the ideology subscribed to by online magazines like Slate?
What does centrism look like in a political system with more than two poles? Does it even exist?
posted by Scott Reynen
on July 12, 2006 #
Aaron, I think this post really shows that you come from a country with only two real parties. I am not sure that any other democracy in the world has so few choices as the United States. The world can be seen from seen from so many different political perspectives, that defining the only important beliefs into liberal and conservative views and dismissing all else is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Chris
on July 12, 2006 #
The collarary to “Unfortunately for them, neither the truth nor the public necessarily lies somewhere in the middle” (which is true) is that neither extreme has a monopoly on virtue or the truth.
posted by Bill
on July 12, 2006 #
Aaron, I think this post really shows that you come from a country with only two real parties. I am not sure that any other democracy in the world has so few choices as the United States. The world can be seen from seen from so many different political perspectives, that defining the only important beliefs into liberal and conservative views and dismissing all else is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Chris
on July 12, 2006 #
Well, this blog entry doesn’t look like a result of “collecting evidence and arguing for it”. There are several allegations here — e.g. that “centrists” try to suck up to those in charge, that “centrists” try to look like “independent thinkers” to the public, that “centrists” try to be inoffensive — that are simply unsubstantiated. And there’s no evidence presented to show that these “centrists” don’t look at evidence… but then again I just got meta here.
There’s not even a clear notion of which people you refer to when you talk about “centrists”. Does Bill Clinton count as a “centrist”, for instance? What about Hillary Clinton? Howard Dean? C. S. Lewis? Ayn Rand? Time for some Lakoff again.
posted by bi
on July 12, 2006 #
What Aaron is describing exists in other countries, too. But it may sometimes be called differently. The “Golden Mean Fallacy”, which is a subset of the phenomenon described in the article, is quite popular with any population.
btw: Note that even in Germany, which has now 5 parties in parliament (recently up from 4), the usual political frames string them up along a one dimensional unit, and they talk a lot about the “center” - which is between the larger two parties are (together around 70%). So I don’t buy the criticism that this post someho shows the deficiency of the two party system in the US. (Note that I do agree that the deficiency is real, I am merel saying it has little relevance to the article).
posted by Sencer
on July 12, 2006 #
Answer to the exercise for the reader: “contrarianism” is the complement of “centrism”, but instead of trying to attract those who agree with the same things you do, you try to attract those who disagree with the same things you do.
posted by Gordon
on July 12, 2006 #
Do these conclusions apply just to centrist pundits and politicians seeking power, or are you trying to apply this (not well evidenced, as noted above) opinion to the greater US population of centrists?
Yes, it does seem that many politicians jump on the centrist bandwagon to procure votes. I’m not a fan of that tactic. Centrists I know dislike it as well. However, I don’t believe centrism is in anyway harmful to our political system or the well-being of our democracy. In fact, I’ll be so bold as to say centrism is a good thing.
By your own admission, centrists “ignore evidence in favor of their predetermined ideology” “no less than any other partisans.” What you’re really saying, then, is that they’re no less right or wrong than any other political party? Super. It is, however, another option for people.
So, tell me again why you care if centrism exists and how it’s ultimately bad for the US?
posted by Nicole
on July 12, 2006 #
Independent views of any type (that is, views substantially different from the two party lines) are essentially useless in the US due to the spoiler effect which in turn is due to the simple majority voting scheme we use. Switching to Condorcet or Austrlian-style voting would make such positions more tenable. Until we do so, however, independent centrist candidates should be ignored or should instead co-opt the system by becoming the nominee of the party closer to their views.
posted by PJ
on July 12, 2006 #
bi: That’s because this article isn’t “arguing for a specific position”.
Nicole: I’m thinking here mostly of pundits, politicians, journalists, and academics; not citizens. I’m curious how many regular citizens self-identify as centrists; it seem most have particular positions which other people characterize as centrist (and perhaps they adopt the shorthand) but they take the positions for other reasons.
I didn’t say centrists were no less right than others; the problem is obviously that they’re wrong (as I say in the first sentence). So why is centrism a good thing?
posted by Aaron Swartz
on July 12, 2006 #
“I’m curious how many regular citizens self-identify as centrists”
I believe this is quite a large group, actually. (I personally know quite a few). People feel like the other two parties have become so polarized that they don’t fit in either.
“…the problem is obviously that they’re wrong (as I say in the first sentence).”
Gosh, well, obviously.
(I must have missed the obviously part of the argument.)
posted by Nicole
on July 12, 2006 #
… an unamusing exercise in imaginative strawmen argumentation. Of corse Centrism is none of that. A centrist merely opts not to adopt the set of gerrymandered beliefs dished out by the pundits of leftrightism.
posted by Seth Russell
on July 12, 2006 #
But Aaron Swartz… you are arguing for a specific position, that “centrism is wrong”.
And your argument towards this, it seems, starts with a kangaroo-like leap of logic from nowhere to the assertion that “centrists” don’t base their positions on evidence — I hate to go meta again, but I still don’t see any evidence here for this claim. OK, so now that we “know” that “centrists” don’t base their positions on evidence, let’s make another kangaroo-like leap from “centrists” to “centrism”. Voila! “Centrism” isn’t based on evidence, ergo it’s bad, QED.
Dang, now I really feel like punching some people in the face.
posted by bi
on July 12, 2006 #
I believe this is quite a large group, actually. (I personally know quite a few). People feel like the other two parties have become so polarized that they don’t fit in either.
There’s a huge difference between being an independent (who doesn’t like either party) and being a centrist (who kinda likes both).
posted by Aaron Swartz
on July 12, 2006 #
But is politics really about “truth”? I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the “right” decision is and compromises from both sides should be made. I feel like, ideally, centrists try to make those compromises while still sticking to logical decisions (where a compromise is not logical…).
posted by Bart
on July 12, 2006 #
But is politics really about “truth”? I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the “right” decision is and compromises from both sides should be made. I feel like, ideally, centrists try to make those compromises while still sticking to logical decisions (where a compromise is not logical…).
posted by Bart
on July 12, 2006 #
I’m curious how many regular citizens self-identify as centrists; it seem most have particular positions which other people characterize as centrist…
I think “centrism” is a political misnomer is many instances. For instance, myself, I have strong views on issues that fall fairly equally into conservative, progressive, and libertarian planks. I have strong beliefs about right to own and bear arms and oppose abortion. But I’m for social safety net deals like minimum wage, labor protection, and social security too. And, I believe strongly about civil liberties, freedom of speech, privacy, i.e., 4th amendment issues.
But a stronger impetus for politican “centrism” is the “shapeshifter” ability to be perceived as falling on either side of the issue. Not taking a definitive stance, but yet issuing “code key” syntax in speeches or other PR ploys to give adherents of a position fodder for believing the candidate is sympathetic to their policy wishes.
posted by naum
on July 13, 2006 #
“There’s a huge difference between being an independent (who doesn’t like either party) and being a centrist (who kinda likes both).”
I guess I don’t see independent and centrist as mutually exclusive. Yes, there are independents (and we’re talking about independent with a little “i” here) who eschew both parties for a different set of ideologies. But there are also a lot of people who consider themselves independent but have centrist ideologies. They pick positions on issues that may be in line with either of the major parties. Again, I’m still not certain how this is wrong. Apparently, it’s wrong because Aaron says it’s wrong.
“I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the ‘right’ decision is and compromises from both sides should be made.” — Bart
Bart brings up a point which I think is important. In the world of politics and debate, issues that are black and white are rarely debated. It is the gray issues that spark the fiercest debate. Why? Because there is no universal right or wrong “answer.”
posted by Nicole
on July 13, 2006 #
Nicole: as Rumsfeld tells us, “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Often “there is no universal right or wrong `answer’” is really a code for “actually there’s a whole lot of data to tell us what the right answer is, but looking at data is boring, so let’s take a cue from Rumsfeld — instead of focussing on what’s known, let’s focus on what’s unknown. And you can’t criticize me based on something that’s unknown, can you? w00t!”
Therefore, never mind that James Madison explicitly wrote in support of extended government, and Benjamin Franklin wrote against absolute property rights — if you oppose “small government” libertarianism, you’re going against the Founding Father’s wishes and distorting the Plain Meaning(tm) of the US Constitution! (Don’t believe me? Look for the web site named “Ravenwood’s Universe” and click “Libertarianism”.) Really, many heatedly debated issues do have universal right or wrong “answers”, it’s just that some people choose to ignore evidence in favour of their own pet answers. Rumsfeld 1, evidence 0.
posted by bi
on July 13, 2006 #
“Often “there is no universal right or wrong `answer’” is really a code for ‘actually there’s a whole lot of data to tell us what the right answer is, but looking at data is boring’”
Yes, I certainly agree that there are some issues where this is true (coming from both end of the political spectrum), but then aren’t you still blinded by your own personal biases? What you consider to be a universal truth may be muddy to another. That’s just how it is when dealing with human beings.
posted by Nicole
on July 13, 2006 #
Nicole: well, that the whole point of this thing called “evidence” isn’t it? To demonstrate to neutral — or even hostile — parties that something’s indeed a universal truth, not just my personal biased opinion.
posted by bi
on July 13, 2006 #
If you think that there are only true or false, no multi-value, paraconsistent, fuzzy logic and that dialetheism is hogwash - well, like Yoda says: “Much to learn, you still have.”
If you truly care about learning epistemology, toss that collectivistic indoctrination-anchor you have wrapped around your neck.
The two-party system is some of the most pathetic on the surface of the earth, with only barriers instilled so that no other political party or direction shall ever rise.
posted by A-Dollar-a-day
on July 14, 2006 #
Eh… if dialetheism isn’t hogwash, then I can claim that you, A-Dollar-a-day, are an idiot, and that I, bi, am always right — and you’ll have no way whatsoever to disprove my claims, because whatever’s been disproved can still be true.
But why let boring things — like James Madison’s actual words and deeds — get in the way of some cool metaphysical wankery? Seriously, this blog post, and some of the replies, are brilliant exemplars of fact-free writing.
posted by bi
on July 14, 2006 #
bi: In an attempt to avoid taking this discussion too far off topic, I haven’t done well explaining my point. To explain my point by referring to specific examples of the topics I’m referring to would probably take it much farther off topic (capital punishment, abortion).
I actually applaud you for your ability to see things so black and white (and Aaron, for you two seem to share this capability). I, however, don’t always see things so precisely this way or that. Does that mean I’m weak or somehow wrong? No. Does that make me less informed or less intelligent? No.
posted by Nicole
on July 14, 2006 #
Centrist, bah. Independent, bah. I prefer the term “radical moderate.” :-)
posted by misuba
on July 14, 2006 #
Nicole: well, capital punishment happens to be an issue which I don’t yet have a strong stance on. But that’s not because “there is no universal right or wrong answer”. I’m pretty sure that there is an answer to this question, it’s just that I don’t know what this answer is. Maybe one day when I get around to looking at the facts carefully, I’ll find it.
misuba: what on earth’s a “moderate moderate” then?
posted by bi
on July 14, 2006 #
There do exist conspicuous centrists, those pundits who score points by affecting a skeptical view of both parties, while a more cynical person might observe they’re searching for truth by averaging two groups of liars.
Some employees of the media industry actually are conspicuous centrists; they claim to be unbiased, and as evidence point out their product stands right in the middle of the two big factions, giving equal attention to both.
Of course, we can try a thought experiment. Take any official enemy nation we can think of; suppose a citizen considered himself a centrist for having beliefs right in the middle of two powerful government factions. How seriously would most people we know respect this “centrism”?
posted by Tayssir John Gabbour
on July 14, 2006 #
You may be forgetting the importance of centrism in the process of the dialetic. Without the synthesis of two ideas, there would be no advancement. Never underestimate the power of the dialectic, as the synthesis becomes the new thesis, then a new antithesis merges with the old “centric” view to become the new synthesis, and so on, and so on.
As for contrary statements, I’ve often wondered how many confuse it for being diverse in outlook. For evolution of thought (and advancement in the dialectic mentioned above), it’s required for two contrary thoughts to exist at the same time.
posted by Oswyn
on July 15, 2006 #
I think many centrists (including myself), don’t attempt to “see two different beliefs and attempt to split the difference between them”, but rather take two different beliefs, find the common ground between them, and make progress where agreements can be made.
Take the abortion issue. Most people in both the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp believe that there should be fewer rather than more abortions, regardless of a woman’s right to have one. So instead of constantly battling over the fundamental right, why don’t legislators put effort into education, counseling, and other programs that reduce the number of abortions? That doesn’t involve either side giving up their fundamental view, but makes positive progress on the issue rather than wasting time fighting.
posted by Jason Pratt
on July 19, 2006 #
Ditto what Jason Pratt says: centrism isn’t about just taking arguments from either side and putting them together.
It’s about trying to find the truth in the arguments of many conflicting parties and work out a real solution to a problem instead of one tinged by historic beliefs and assumptions.
posted by Danno
on July 20, 2006 #
Jason Pratt: then again, methinks many people will be up in arms against even the idea of sex education. Seriously, sometimes the only way to make progress is to kill some holy cows. If “centrism” means to avoid offending either side (under the pretense of finding a “real solution”), then it’s as wrong as a wrong thing that’s wrong.
posted by bi
on July 21, 2006 #
“Unfortunately for them, neither the truth nor the public necessarily lies somewhere in the middle.”
Except when it does (the truth that is).
100 years ago left-wingers believed that the human mind was a blank slate that was shaped by nurture and not by nature. This resulted, for instance, in the bolsheviks believing that they were creating a New Soviet Man.
100 years ago right-wingers believed that the human mind was shaped by nature and not by nurture. This resulted, for instance, in racist imperialists believing that they were doing good because the darkies were better off being ruled by the white man.
Today, thanks to science, we know that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Anyone who held a centrist position in this matter 100 years ago was the closest to being correct.
posted by david mathers
on July 31, 2006 #
You picked a terrible example, David. Nobody ever believed that humans were a complete blank slate in any literal sense — everyone knows blank slates can’t learn. And nobody believed that environment had no effect — everyone knows that completely pre-programmed robots can’t learn either.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on October 24, 2006 #
You’re right, I expressed that pretty badly. Of course you’re right, no one sensible was ever that extreme. Everyone knows that both nature and nurture matter, but…
Although right wingers of the past believed that you had to be both born properly and raised properly in order to grow up to be a legitimate aristocrat, my point is that being born with the right genes was one of the requirements, not that it was the only requirement.
And left wingers of the past, well, I’ll just quote Trotsky that under Communism
posted by david mathers
on November 5, 2006 #
Your comment system is truncating at quote marks. My Trotsky quote was the final sentence on this page:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm
posted by david mathers
on November 5, 2006 #
While on particular issues the “truth” might lie entirely on one side, I don’t see why, in the context of two competing parties/belief systems/whatever, one of them must have a monopoly on the truth.
[…] to get a place in liberal administration. A centrist can simply espouse a few more positions from the conservatives and a few less from the liberals and fit in just fine.
Don’t you mean the other way round? (Or do you mean “eschew”? ;-))
This criteria explains
criterion.
posted by saharvetes
on February 13, 2007 #
Aaron, reading your article, I got the impression that all these people (centrists or whatever we call them) who do not consider themselves neither rightists nor left-wingers and are a bunch of �not very smart� ignorants who �steal� other people�s ideas. Well, you are used to living in a very polarized political system and, maybe, your views can be in such case somewhat justified and reasonable. I, on the contrary, come from a country of a multi-party system and believe me, day by day more and more people (including me) are getting so fed up with all these political battles between the right and the left side, that centrism seems to be the only alternative, the only positive point among this whole mess. I�m not saying that exactly this political option is unquestionably the best, but, if you really think that it is such a bad idea, then please, come to my country and try to convince all these frustrated people of it� Good luck!
posted by Wolumen
on May 30, 2007 #
Just wanted to give some examples of middle Ground
Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
A month ago, a tree in Bill’s yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe’s new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn’t going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.
We have all been there..
Sam
posted by Sam
on August 11, 2007 #
Your examples of centrism being sensible absurd and you provide no evidence for them. Either God exists or doesn’t — we can’t compromise by taking away some of his powers. Either welfare is helpful or not — we can’t make it better by only raising funding a little bit. And perhaps the Joe thing is reasonable but it’s hardly a political issue; in politics such complaints are inevitably more formalized so the right thing is more obvious.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on November 6, 2007 #
You can also send comments by email.
Comments
What does centrism look like in a political system with more than two poles? Does it even exist?
posted by Scott Reynen on July 12, 2006 #
Aaron, I think this post really shows that you come from a country with only two real parties. I am not sure that any other democracy in the world has so few choices as the United States. The world can be seen from seen from so many different political perspectives, that defining the only important beliefs into liberal and conservative views and dismissing all else is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Chris on July 12, 2006 #
The collarary to “Unfortunately for them, neither the truth nor the public necessarily lies somewhere in the middle” (which is true) is that neither extreme has a monopoly on virtue or the truth.
posted by Bill on July 12, 2006 #
Aaron, I think this post really shows that you come from a country with only two real parties. I am not sure that any other democracy in the world has so few choices as the United States. The world can be seen from seen from so many different political perspectives, that defining the only important beliefs into liberal and conservative views and dismissing all else is ignorant in the extreme.
posted by Chris on July 12, 2006 #
Well, this blog entry doesn’t look like a result of “collecting evidence and arguing for it”. There are several allegations here — e.g. that “centrists” try to suck up to those in charge, that “centrists” try to look like “independent thinkers” to the public, that “centrists” try to be inoffensive — that are simply unsubstantiated. And there’s no evidence presented to show that these “centrists” don’t look at evidence… but then again I just got meta here.
There’s not even a clear notion of which people you refer to when you talk about “centrists”. Does Bill Clinton count as a “centrist”, for instance? What about Hillary Clinton? Howard Dean? C. S. Lewis? Ayn Rand? Time for some Lakoff again.
posted by bi on July 12, 2006 #
What Aaron is describing exists in other countries, too. But it may sometimes be called differently. The “Golden Mean Fallacy”, which is a subset of the phenomenon described in the article, is quite popular with any population.
btw: Note that even in Germany, which has now 5 parties in parliament (recently up from 4), the usual political frames string them up along a one dimensional unit, and they talk a lot about the “center” - which is between the larger two parties are (together around 70%). So I don’t buy the criticism that this post someho shows the deficiency of the two party system in the US. (Note that I do agree that the deficiency is real, I am merel saying it has little relevance to the article).
posted by Sencer on July 12, 2006 #
Answer to the exercise for the reader: “contrarianism” is the complement of “centrism”, but instead of trying to attract those who agree with the same things you do, you try to attract those who disagree with the same things you do.
posted by Gordon on July 12, 2006 #
Do these conclusions apply just to centrist pundits and politicians seeking power, or are you trying to apply this (not well evidenced, as noted above) opinion to the greater US population of centrists?
Yes, it does seem that many politicians jump on the centrist bandwagon to procure votes. I’m not a fan of that tactic. Centrists I know dislike it as well. However, I don’t believe centrism is in anyway harmful to our political system or the well-being of our democracy. In fact, I’ll be so bold as to say centrism is a good thing.
By your own admission, centrists “ignore evidence in favor of their predetermined ideology” “no less than any other partisans.” What you’re really saying, then, is that they’re no less right or wrong than any other political party? Super. It is, however, another option for people.
So, tell me again why you care if centrism exists and how it’s ultimately bad for the US?
posted by Nicole on July 12, 2006 #
Independent views of any type (that is, views substantially different from the two party lines) are essentially useless in the US due to the spoiler effect which in turn is due to the simple majority voting scheme we use. Switching to Condorcet or Austrlian-style voting would make such positions more tenable. Until we do so, however, independent centrist candidates should be ignored or should instead co-opt the system by becoming the nominee of the party closer to their views.
posted by PJ on July 12, 2006 #
bi: That’s because this article isn’t “arguing for a specific position”.
Nicole: I’m thinking here mostly of pundits, politicians, journalists, and academics; not citizens. I’m curious how many regular citizens self-identify as centrists; it seem most have particular positions which other people characterize as centrist (and perhaps they adopt the shorthand) but they take the positions for other reasons.
I didn’t say centrists were no less right than others; the problem is obviously that they’re wrong (as I say in the first sentence). So why is centrism a good thing?
posted by Aaron Swartz on July 12, 2006 #
“I’m curious how many regular citizens self-identify as centrists”
I believe this is quite a large group, actually. (I personally know quite a few). People feel like the other two parties have become so polarized that they don’t fit in either.
“…the problem is obviously that they’re wrong (as I say in the first sentence).”
Gosh, well, obviously.
(I must have missed the obviously part of the argument.)
posted by Nicole on July 12, 2006 #
… an unamusing exercise in imaginative strawmen argumentation. Of corse Centrism is none of that. A centrist merely opts not to adopt the set of gerrymandered beliefs dished out by the pundits of leftrightism.
posted by Seth Russell on July 12, 2006 #
But Aaron Swartz… you are arguing for a specific position, that “centrism is wrong”.
And your argument towards this, it seems, starts with a kangaroo-like leap of logic from nowhere to the assertion that “centrists” don’t base their positions on evidence — I hate to go meta again, but I still don’t see any evidence here for this claim. OK, so now that we “know” that “centrists” don’t base their positions on evidence, let’s make another kangaroo-like leap from “centrists” to “centrism”. Voila! “Centrism” isn’t based on evidence, ergo it’s bad, QED.
Dang, now I really feel like punching some people in the face.
posted by bi on July 12, 2006 #
There’s a huge difference between being an independent (who doesn’t like either party) and being a centrist (who kinda likes both).
posted by Aaron Swartz on July 12, 2006 #
But is politics really about “truth”? I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the “right” decision is and compromises from both sides should be made. I feel like, ideally, centrists try to make those compromises while still sticking to logical decisions (where a compromise is not logical…).
posted by Bart on July 12, 2006 #
But is politics really about “truth”? I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the “right” decision is and compromises from both sides should be made. I feel like, ideally, centrists try to make those compromises while still sticking to logical decisions (where a compromise is not logical…).
posted by Bart on July 12, 2006 #
I think “centrism” is a political misnomer is many instances. For instance, myself, I have strong views on issues that fall fairly equally into conservative, progressive, and libertarian planks. I have strong beliefs about right to own and bear arms and oppose abortion. But I’m for social safety net deals like minimum wage, labor protection, and social security too. And, I believe strongly about civil liberties, freedom of speech, privacy, i.e., 4th amendment issues.
But a stronger impetus for politican “centrism” is the “shapeshifter” ability to be perceived as falling on either side of the issue. Not taking a definitive stance, but yet issuing “code key” syntax in speeches or other PR ploys to give adherents of a position fodder for believing the candidate is sympathetic to their policy wishes.
posted by naum on July 13, 2006 #
“There’s a huge difference between being an independent (who doesn’t like either party) and being a centrist (who kinda likes both).”
I guess I don’t see independent and centrist as mutually exclusive. Yes, there are independents (and we’re talking about independent with a little “i” here) who eschew both parties for a different set of ideologies. But there are also a lot of people who consider themselves independent but have centrist ideologies. They pick positions on issues that may be in line with either of the major parties. Again, I’m still not certain how this is wrong. Apparently, it’s wrong because Aaron says it’s wrong.
“I think there’s a base set of decisions that should be made based on what is logical which everyone (on the left, center AND right) should aspire to, but then that leaves us with a lot of decisions that people disagree on where neither side is right. With those decisions, I think it’s dangerous for anyone to claim they know what the ‘right’ decision is and compromises from both sides should be made.” — Bart
Bart brings up a point which I think is important. In the world of politics and debate, issues that are black and white are rarely debated. It is the gray issues that spark the fiercest debate. Why? Because there is no universal right or wrong “answer.”
posted by Nicole on July 13, 2006 #
Nicole: as Rumsfeld tells us, “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Often “there is no universal right or wrong `answer’” is really a code for “actually there’s a whole lot of data to tell us what the right answer is, but looking at data is boring, so let’s take a cue from Rumsfeld — instead of focussing on what’s known, let’s focus on what’s unknown. And you can’t criticize me based on something that’s unknown, can you? w00t!”
Therefore, never mind that James Madison explicitly wrote in support of extended government, and Benjamin Franklin wrote against absolute property rights — if you oppose “small government” libertarianism, you’re going against the Founding Father’s wishes and distorting the Plain Meaning(tm) of the US Constitution! (Don’t believe me? Look for the web site named “Ravenwood’s Universe” and click “Libertarianism”.) Really, many heatedly debated issues do have universal right or wrong “answers”, it’s just that some people choose to ignore evidence in favour of their own pet answers. Rumsfeld 1, evidence 0.
posted by bi on July 13, 2006 #
“Often “there is no universal right or wrong `answer’” is really a code for ‘actually there’s a whole lot of data to tell us what the right answer is, but looking at data is boring’”
Yes, I certainly agree that there are some issues where this is true (coming from both end of the political spectrum), but then aren’t you still blinded by your own personal biases? What you consider to be a universal truth may be muddy to another. That’s just how it is when dealing with human beings.
posted by Nicole on July 13, 2006 #
Nicole: well, that the whole point of this thing called “evidence” isn’t it? To demonstrate to neutral — or even hostile — parties that something’s indeed a universal truth, not just my personal biased opinion.
posted by bi on July 13, 2006 #
If you think that there are only true or false, no multi-value, paraconsistent, fuzzy logic and that dialetheism is hogwash - well, like Yoda says: “Much to learn, you still have.”
If you truly care about learning epistemology, toss that collectivistic indoctrination-anchor you have wrapped around your neck.
The two-party system is some of the most pathetic on the surface of the earth, with only barriers instilled so that no other political party or direction shall ever rise.
posted by A-Dollar-a-day on July 14, 2006 #
Eh… if dialetheism isn’t hogwash, then I can claim that you, A-Dollar-a-day, are an idiot, and that I, bi, am always right — and you’ll have no way whatsoever to disprove my claims, because whatever’s been disproved can still be true.
But why let boring things — like James Madison’s actual words and deeds — get in the way of some cool metaphysical wankery? Seriously, this blog post, and some of the replies, are brilliant exemplars of fact-free writing.
posted by bi on July 14, 2006 #
bi: In an attempt to avoid taking this discussion too far off topic, I haven’t done well explaining my point. To explain my point by referring to specific examples of the topics I’m referring to would probably take it much farther off topic (capital punishment, abortion).
I actually applaud you for your ability to see things so black and white (and Aaron, for you two seem to share this capability). I, however, don’t always see things so precisely this way or that. Does that mean I’m weak or somehow wrong? No. Does that make me less informed or less intelligent? No.
posted by Nicole on July 14, 2006 #
Centrist, bah. Independent, bah. I prefer the term “radical moderate.” :-)
posted by misuba on July 14, 2006 #
Nicole: well, capital punishment happens to be an issue which I don’t yet have a strong stance on. But that’s not because “there is no universal right or wrong answer”. I’m pretty sure that there is an answer to this question, it’s just that I don’t know what this answer is. Maybe one day when I get around to looking at the facts carefully, I’ll find it.
misuba: what on earth’s a “moderate moderate” then?
posted by bi on July 14, 2006 #
There do exist conspicuous centrists, those pundits who score points by affecting a skeptical view of both parties, while a more cynical person might observe they’re searching for truth by averaging two groups of liars.
Some employees of the media industry actually are conspicuous centrists; they claim to be unbiased, and as evidence point out their product stands right in the middle of the two big factions, giving equal attention to both.
Of course, we can try a thought experiment. Take any official enemy nation we can think of; suppose a citizen considered himself a centrist for having beliefs right in the middle of two powerful government factions. How seriously would most people we know respect this “centrism”?
posted by Tayssir John Gabbour on July 14, 2006 #
You may be forgetting the importance of centrism in the process of the dialetic. Without the synthesis of two ideas, there would be no advancement. Never underestimate the power of the dialectic, as the synthesis becomes the new thesis, then a new antithesis merges with the old “centric” view to become the new synthesis, and so on, and so on.
As for contrary statements, I’ve often wondered how many confuse it for being diverse in outlook. For evolution of thought (and advancement in the dialectic mentioned above), it’s required for two contrary thoughts to exist at the same time.
posted by Oswyn on July 15, 2006 #
I think many centrists (including myself), don’t attempt to “see two different beliefs and attempt to split the difference between them”, but rather take two different beliefs, find the common ground between them, and make progress where agreements can be made.
Take the abortion issue. Most people in both the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp believe that there should be fewer rather than more abortions, regardless of a woman’s right to have one. So instead of constantly battling over the fundamental right, why don’t legislators put effort into education, counseling, and other programs that reduce the number of abortions? That doesn’t involve either side giving up their fundamental view, but makes positive progress on the issue rather than wasting time fighting.
posted by Jason Pratt on July 19, 2006 #
Ditto what Jason Pratt says: centrism isn’t about just taking arguments from either side and putting them together.
It’s about trying to find the truth in the arguments of many conflicting parties and work out a real solution to a problem instead of one tinged by historic beliefs and assumptions.
posted by Danno on July 20, 2006 #
Jason Pratt: then again, methinks many people will be up in arms against even the idea of sex education. Seriously, sometimes the only way to make progress is to kill some holy cows. If “centrism” means to avoid offending either side (under the pretense of finding a “real solution”), then it’s as wrong as a wrong thing that’s wrong.
posted by bi on July 21, 2006 #
“Unfortunately for them, neither the truth nor the public necessarily lies somewhere in the middle.”
Except when it does (the truth that is).
100 years ago left-wingers believed that the human mind was a blank slate that was shaped by nurture and not by nature. This resulted, for instance, in the bolsheviks believing that they were creating a New Soviet Man.
100 years ago right-wingers believed that the human mind was shaped by nature and not by nurture. This resulted, for instance, in racist imperialists believing that they were doing good because the darkies were better off being ruled by the white man.
Today, thanks to science, we know that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Anyone who held a centrist position in this matter 100 years ago was the closest to being correct.
posted by david mathers on July 31, 2006 #
You picked a terrible example, David. Nobody ever believed that humans were a complete blank slate in any literal sense — everyone knows blank slates can’t learn. And nobody believed that environment had no effect — everyone knows that completely pre-programmed robots can’t learn either.
posted by Aaron Swartz on October 24, 2006 #
You’re right, I expressed that pretty badly. Of course you’re right, no one sensible was ever that extreme. Everyone knows that both nature and nurture matter, but…
Although right wingers of the past believed that you had to be both born properly and raised properly in order to grow up to be a legitimate aristocrat, my point is that being born with the right genes was one of the requirements, not that it was the only requirement.
And left wingers of the past, well, I’ll just quote Trotsky that under Communism
posted by david mathers on November 5, 2006 #
Your comment system is truncating at quote marks. My Trotsky quote was the final sentence on this page:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm
posted by david mathers on November 5, 2006 #
While on particular issues the “truth” might lie entirely on one side, I don’t see why, in the context of two competing parties/belief systems/whatever, one of them must have a monopoly on the truth.
Don’t you mean the other way round? (Or do you mean “eschew”? ;-))
criterion.
posted by saharvetes on February 13, 2007 #
Aaron, reading your article, I got the impression that all these people (centrists or whatever we call them) who do not consider themselves neither rightists nor left-wingers and are a bunch of �not very smart� ignorants who �steal� other people�s ideas. Well, you are used to living in a very polarized political system and, maybe, your views can be in such case somewhat justified and reasonable. I, on the contrary, come from a country of a multi-party system and believe me, day by day more and more people (including me) are getting so fed up with all these political battles between the right and the left side, that centrism seems to be the only alternative, the only positive point among this whole mess. I�m not saying that exactly this political option is unquestionably the best, but, if you really think that it is such a bad idea, then please, come to my country and try to convince all these frustrated people of it� Good luck!
posted by Wolumen on May 30, 2007 #
Just wanted to give some examples of middle Ground
Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
A month ago, a tree in Bill’s yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe’s new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn’t going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.
We have all been there..
Sam
posted by Sam on August 11, 2007 #
Your examples of centrism being sensible absurd and you provide no evidence for them. Either God exists or doesn’t — we can’t compromise by taking away some of his powers. Either welfare is helpful or not — we can’t make it better by only raising funding a little bit. And perhaps the Joe thing is reasonable but it’s hardly a political issue; in politics such complaints are inevitably more formalized so the right thing is more obvious.
posted by Aaron Swartz on November 6, 2007 #
You can also send comments by email.