Comment by krapp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by krapp | Hacker News Reader

    The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet. It will say at its Thursday launch: "How will we solve the big issues facing America? Not Left. Not Right. Forward."

Well... they have a catchy but ultimately meaningless slogan. It's no "Make America Great Again" but it'll fit on a bumper sticker.

Unfortunately for them, "centrism" is an often morally bankrupt and intellectually lazy philosophy based on the premise that a correct solution always lies between two opposing, equally invalid ideologies. But the center-point between ideologies (assuming such a thing always exists) more often than not simply serves the interests of the status quo and its injustice.

The centrist view of racial equality gets us Jim Crow laws. The centrist view of LGBTQ rights stops at "civil unions" but not actual marriage. The centrist view of science "teaches the controversy" of creationism. The centrist view of Hitler seeks peace in our time. Sometimes there is no valid middle ground and compromise is giving in to evil. You're not going to get anywhere with the black community, or womens' rights, or climate change or immigration or any issue Americans actually care about with centrism. Sometimes, you have to pick a side and make a choice.

The US doesn't need another party committed to never actually taking a strong stance on any issue, it already has the Democratic Party. But I guess it'll be fun watching these folks siphon votes away from the left and win Trump a second term.

Damn I hate US politics sometimes.

You seem to misunderstand centrism to such an extent that you're essentially attacking a strawman. Centrism isn't an imaginary middle-point on a spectrum between opposing ideologies. It's essentially just a pragmatic selection of various political ideas, depending on the person and their situation.

Most of the self-described "radical centrists" I've met aren't attempting to perform any sort of ideological balancing act between left and right, it's just that they simultaneously hold a particular mix of ideas from both the liberal & conservative parties in such a way as to never be able to fully side with Republicans or Democrats. They find themselves split by a zig-zagging line across so many different issues that they must reject both major parties.

For example, someone who deeply supports abortion rights and LGBTQ marriage, but also feels strongly about the 2nd Amendment might describe themselves as a centrist. Those are all strongly held beliefs and none of them occupy any middle ground. It's not intellectually lazy or morally bankrupt to hold a mix of ideas that don't fit neatly into either major party.

How does a party of such people organize? What policy positions could they hold on abortion, lgbtq rights, and gun rights that will lead to wide appeal?

That is the million dollar question. But perhaps quantitative research would show that there is a golden balance, where a particular centrist set of policies actually can attract a significant set of voters?

This is how I've always seen it as well, though I consider myself independent.

It's funny the issues you mention are commonly held by quite a few people I know, myself included. "Why can't the gay couple up the street get married, while smoking weed and shooting off some rifles?" is how I describe my views.

I've definitely noticed that the amount of people I meet with views like that have been a little rarer lately.

So you have one centrist with those opinions, and another centrist with the exact opposite opinions. I’m not sure centrist is a useful label.

Yeah my sense is that people who call themselves centrist are actually almost as authoritarian as the republicans, just with a different set of cultural norms- cosmopolitan or aspiring to be cosmopolitan rather than rural and patriarchal.

I’m other words, the social liberal/economic conservative crowd. Truly a marriage of convenience: raising the minimum wage is going to make your nanny more expensive, but gay rights costs you nothing. And my property taxes are too high. When they see people marching in the streets many of these folks get scared and run to the republicans.

What you're describing is usually what happens when Democrats and Republicans compromise on things, but there's no reason that approach should define "centrism."

For example the Libertarian party is often described as fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal." This approach takes the "best" ideas from either party, as opposed to splitting the difference on every issue.

But don't the 'best' ideas on the left tend to assume strong central government, whereas Libertarian prefer a more limited government?

Not really. Bear in mind the far left encompasses anarchists, for example. Leftists consider the state and the market economy to be two components of a larger capitalism system that work together, rather than the state being somehow separate from capitalism, as if capitalism could somehow operate without property law, courts, regulations, a monetary system and a police force. The ultimate goal of the left is to abolish the state altogether and replace it with something more local and participatory.

>The ultimate goal of the left is to abolish the state altogether and replace it with something more local and participatory.

That's the ultimate goal of Marxism, not the left. The left is not synonymous with Marxism. In the context of this conversation, which is American party politics, leftism is considered to encompass, by default, every political and social movement not in the camp of laissez-faire capitalism or conservative Christian ideology, and what gets called the "far left" in the US would be considered at best center right anywhere else in the world.

And that "leftism" would include things like UBI, socialized healthcare and education, established rights for gay marriage and abortion, free and open source software, CRT, wage equality, labor laws and unionization, and any number of other things which have no interest whatsoever in abolishing the state, but which rather depend upon the preexistence of a state with strong regulatory power.

“The US doesn't need another party committed to never actually taking a strong stance on any issue, it already has the Democratic Party.”

Brutal. I laughed out loud!

I think you're more describing libertarian or apathetic than centrist.

I always think of centrists as just not towing the party line. Some ideas on some side, some on the other. At least, that's what I mean when I describe myself as a centrist.

Unfortunately, being a centrist gets you no friends. Both sides think you're an idiot for even entertaining the other side.

Party of Manchin!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com