I like this piece and think you and I are fairly closely aligned. I would like to see the remaining 7% of uninsured people get health coverage. I’ve also never voted for a Republican for president (I think Trump is completely unfit for office, that he committed treason by inciting a coup, and that he is a total fool in the truest sense of the word, along with being wrong about many important issues. He is accidentally correct about a few things and I think he may effect some good too against some left-wing excesses).
I’m also pro-choice though I think abortion is unfortunate when it is purely elective. I’m sure as hell not having my wife carry an expired fetus to term. I’ve become more conservative about tax and business regulation. I can’t vote for these super-MAGA candidates for top offices though.
Left, right, and center have been insufficient labels for a long time. Personally I am partial to Timothy Ferris’ construction of an equilateral triangle in The Science of Liberty where one corner is liberalism, one of conservatism and one of progressivism. In a later chapter, opposite liberalism, he adds a fourth corner, equidistant from conservatism and progressivism, labeled authoritarian/totalitarianism. Almost no one falls on only one point; most are on one of the lines or may straddle two lines.
The term "liberal" is a misnomer as far as its use in US politics is concerned, where it's supposed to refer to left or left-leaning views. The term "progressive" is more appropriate and philosophically unambiguous.
The key divide between left and right is not much ideology (most people aren't that ideological nor really trained and informed about ideology), the divide is about values. On the left, the value that you consider to be above all others is justice, on the right it's freedom.
The right then considers that, given that each individual is free, everything that happens to that person is her sole own responsibility so whether you're successful or you're struggling, it's on you, you deserve you fate.
The left, on the other hand, considers that the government, representing the people, must ensure that policies are implemented that treat all people fairly, equitably because without the action of governance, injustice will "naturally" take place.
So to situate yourself on the political landscape, ask yourself whether, on most issues, you value justice over freedom (left) or the other way around (right) or you don't really care (center).
That's one way to look at it but it's not particularly accurate. Many of those on the left value freedom, particularly personal freedoms. Some of those on the right also value such freedoms but as you recall McCarthyism was on the right. And today many on the right want to control all sorts of choices like marriage, which books are available, introduce prayer back into schools and so on. You will find those who want to suppress freedoms on both sides as well as those who support it. Values in general , however, can be a determining factor.
You’re talking about professional politicians. They are a particular case with a very specific agenda: earn and keep power. Most of them will act against the values they profess if it’s politically convenient.
Also prioritizing one of those values doesn’t mean *dismissing* the other one.
I feel like the problem with “centrism” is that 99% of self proclaimed centrists these days are just Trump voters either soft launching their conservatism or using the label because it makes them feel more enlightened. As someone who’s views also can’t neatly be packed into a single label, I still fully identify with the term “liberal”, because I think it best captures my beliefs. I would probably even go so far as to argue that there’s no such thing as a centrist, because at the end of the day, our beliefs have to resolve to one party when we vote, and almost nobody votes in a truly “centrist” manner.
What’s funny is that on the right, we think entirely the opposite. We think 99% of centrists are leftists, and we can argue this case beyond a reasonable doubt in many ways, such as in the issues those people choose to fixate on, and when. But I do agree with your point that the entire concept of centrism isn’t nearly as prevalent as many would like to believe.
I think a lot of people share your view about self-IDed centrists actually being Trump voters. Probably because that happens frequently enough. I've personally never voted conservative because my overall values are definitely more liberal, but I'm not a fan of a binary system because it is so limiting on how we can best address different issues. I do think there are many people who are swing voters though, and in that way, perhaps they are more centrist?
Long ago Steve Allen had a show called "what's My Line?" where panelists would ask yes or no questions about a contestant's occupation or something special about them. The shtick became if they were not getting close was to ask , "Is it bigger than a breadbox?" . In 4th grade in 1958 I decided that worked for me and "I'm bigger than a breadbox" was my designation. Fits better today than ever as you can fit a lot of seeming differences into a breadbox and has become my response when asked what I am. When I die I will be cremated and my ashes put into a vintage breadbox I've picked out with a plaque
with my name, birth and death dates and boldly printed , "No Longer Bigger than a Breadbox".
What's funny is I've been saying this most of my life and at some point wondered where it came from as it didn't make sense that I just made it up. I actually had to Google the saying to see where it originated and then it all came rushing back. You get old and stuff like that happens........ just a heads up.
I don't think you are a centrist; as your essay suggests, the term is so confusing it doesn't have much meaning. I think you are an ardent advocate of enlightenment, which is a very good thing. As Steven Pinker explains in Enlightenment Now, the Enlightenment, which brought us into the modern era, reduced hunger and starvation worldwide, double humans' life expectancy, and allowed us to visit the moon. Enlightenment has four facets: skepticism, science, humanism, and progress. Skepticism encourages us to question everything. Science provides a method to reduce our tendencies for self-delusion as we seek answers. Humanism reminds us that we are all in this together; we are one race: the human race. And Progress suggests that acknowledging our past gains will encourage us to do more and do it better in the future. Keep on keepin' on, Katie!!!
82% of white evangelicals support Trump. So we can cross the list of people who fit this diverse politics. The MAGAs the plurality if not the majority of Republicans and so it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to oppose anyone against any Republicans who isn’t MAGA. This is also true of antivaxers who are opposed any vaccine along with any sort of things like raw milk, QAnon, people aware of eating cats, etc. Think of people like RFK, Jr who was once a Dem by at this point is clearly on the far right.
I live in a MAGA county that has run for Trump since 2016. These people see any other diversity in their political identity even if someone of them may have some different views on some issues. The thing is the people I have no interested in the traditional political views that you are interested. They love Trump, and pretty much hate anyone else including even many Republicans.
If you are genuinely a moderate Republican there is no place around for you in the Republican Party anymore. I would like a genuinely moderate Republican Party out there, but the Republicans I know and the people nationally really hate moderate Republicans. The sort of politics you seem to think about such as health care or even things like social security just don’t matter to the MAGAs around me and the MAGAS work.
I am similar to you and I suspect many are. I identify myself as basically a conservative (and am further off in that direction than you are) but some of my beliefs are all over the map. And you note a thought I have had and find hard to articulate: even if my belief on a topic is between the two parties it's not "centrist".
Yes, the greater question would be why do we feel pressured to fit ourselves into one category or the other. It's not really binary. Further, when you identify yourself as one or the other people make assumptions about what you believe or who you are that aren't accurate.
one important angle where i would have expected a more in-depth look: why labels at all? you have mentioned - no matter how briefly - a sporting analogy ... i should like to remind you of a great essay by the unforgettable george orwell (oh, how much we need him now!): https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit ...
I used to go to the r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM subreddit all the time and didn't really understand their interpretation of centrism as though it were literally taking the most middle-of-the-road position on everything. I didn't really believe that was something anyone really did. I always saw it more as how you describe your own values, which could span typical political labels depending on the issue.
Great article. I have written about centrism at length in previous articles. I think the Left/Right political spectrum model is a low definition heuristic that works from a distance but becomes less and less accurate as we zoom in on it.
I (like you) take traditionally RW views on certain issues and LW on others. I average out near the centre line on either side, depending on the test I take.
The key part of centrism for me is a belief in means tested policies. If something is proven to work and achieve satisfactory outcomes, I want it implemented, regardless of whether it is a LW or RW policy.
With voting, I vote towards the centre. If the party in power is leaning too far towards the extreme of it's side, I'll vote for a candidate in the opposite direction who is not an extremist. If I was happy with the ruling party, (they are near the centre line, whether left of right) I'd vote for them to keep up that status quo.
A few friends of mine and I have come to see ourselves as "politically homeless," and we know that we didn't invent the term and that we're far from being alone. Like you, we can't fit into any category. I've also found it a rarity to honestly say and be taken seriously that I don't know enough about that highly controversial issue to have one opinion or another, and that's okay. It's the "that's okay" part that usually gets people riled up.
That was great. I’d add that what was left wing 10 years ago is considered right now and vice versa. Then there’s the fact that many subjects aren’t inherently left out right but get adopted according to the context of the binary. That was particularly the case during the pandemic. It’s so tiresome and incurious.
I consider myself a Liberal in that the government has no place to tell its citizens what to believe, who they can marry or even cohabitate with or where they may live, how to spend their money and time. Just after college I joined a church that was very conservative and strict but the longer I stayed the more I became disenchanted with their doctrine and left it for a much more liberal and was happier. The idea of a right wing government based on Christian values is fine if a person chooses it but not a national policy. Do you think that Senator Vance ever read “The Handmaidens Tale”? The focus in that context is just to narrow in a world view for a leading nation.
I guess if you choose sides on an issue without any information based totally on your biases, then you could assign a label to that if you consistently support one political party or the other. Other than that, the whole idea of the left and the right were created by the political parties to differentiate themselves from each other and to divide us. They want you to vote for a party, not an individual. Take any issue no matter how controversial, and when you look at that single issue from all perspectives, most people are aligned and can reach consensus on most of the parts of an issue. For example, just about everyone agrees that an abortion is necessary if the woman's life is in danger. If you went through each aspect such as rape, most people would reach a consensus on many parts of the issue. That's why political parties pick the extreme edges of the issue to argue about instead of reaching a common sense consensus. Therefore, the whole idea of a left and a right is not intrinsic in the population. It is automatically created by indoctrination. While both major political parties use this tactic to get your vote, they serve those who fund their campaigns and their party, the very wealthy power elite. It's not about the 1%, it's about those who have power. They own the special interests and reap the rewards of their investment in political parties and politicians. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it. A realistic solution to all of this mess is described in the book End Politics Now.
This is a good comment. If we sit around the table and talk about a policy agenda, we will all manage to achieve a workable policy. The divide in our country is hugely stoked both by politicians and the media.
I like this piece and think you and I are fairly closely aligned. I would like to see the remaining 7% of uninsured people get health coverage. I’ve also never voted for a Republican for president (I think Trump is completely unfit for office, that he committed treason by inciting a coup, and that he is a total fool in the truest sense of the word, along with being wrong about many important issues. He is accidentally correct about a few things and I think he may effect some good too against some left-wing excesses).
I’m also pro-choice though I think abortion is unfortunate when it is purely elective. I’m sure as hell not having my wife carry an expired fetus to term. I’ve become more conservative about tax and business regulation. I can’t vote for these super-MAGA candidates for top offices though.
Left, right, and center have been insufficient labels for a long time. Personally I am partial to Timothy Ferris’ construction of an equilateral triangle in The Science of Liberty where one corner is liberalism, one of conservatism and one of progressivism. In a later chapter, opposite liberalism, he adds a fourth corner, equidistant from conservatism and progressivism, labeled authoritarian/totalitarianism. Almost no one falls on only one point; most are on one of the lines or may straddle two lines.
The term "liberal" is a misnomer as far as its use in US politics is concerned, where it's supposed to refer to left or left-leaning views. The term "progressive" is more appropriate and philosophically unambiguous.
The key divide between left and right is not much ideology (most people aren't that ideological nor really trained and informed about ideology), the divide is about values. On the left, the value that you consider to be above all others is justice, on the right it's freedom.
The right then considers that, given that each individual is free, everything that happens to that person is her sole own responsibility so whether you're successful or you're struggling, it's on you, you deserve you fate.
The left, on the other hand, considers that the government, representing the people, must ensure that policies are implemented that treat all people fairly, equitably because without the action of governance, injustice will "naturally" take place.
So to situate yourself on the political landscape, ask yourself whether, on most issues, you value justice over freedom (left) or the other way around (right) or you don't really care (center).
That's one way to look at it but it's not particularly accurate. Many of those on the left value freedom, particularly personal freedoms. Some of those on the right also value such freedoms but as you recall McCarthyism was on the right. And today many on the right want to control all sorts of choices like marriage, which books are available, introduce prayer back into schools and so on. You will find those who want to suppress freedoms on both sides as well as those who support it. Values in general , however, can be a determining factor.
You’re talking about professional politicians. They are a particular case with a very specific agenda: earn and keep power. Most of them will act against the values they profess if it’s politically convenient.
Also prioritizing one of those values doesn’t mean *dismissing* the other one.
I feel like the problem with “centrism” is that 99% of self proclaimed centrists these days are just Trump voters either soft launching their conservatism or using the label because it makes them feel more enlightened. As someone who’s views also can’t neatly be packed into a single label, I still fully identify with the term “liberal”, because I think it best captures my beliefs. I would probably even go so far as to argue that there’s no such thing as a centrist, because at the end of the day, our beliefs have to resolve to one party when we vote, and almost nobody votes in a truly “centrist” manner.
What’s funny is that on the right, we think entirely the opposite. We think 99% of centrists are leftists, and we can argue this case beyond a reasonable doubt in many ways, such as in the issues those people choose to fixate on, and when. But I do agree with your point that the entire concept of centrism isn’t nearly as prevalent as many would like to believe.
I think a lot of people share your view about self-IDed centrists actually being Trump voters. Probably because that happens frequently enough. I've personally never voted conservative because my overall values are definitely more liberal, but I'm not a fan of a binary system because it is so limiting on how we can best address different issues. I do think there are many people who are swing voters though, and in that way, perhaps they are more centrist?
Yeah I see your point, I just think swing voters are becoming less and less common these days. But idk maybe that’s just my perception 😅
Honestly I have no idea. There's a lot of registered independents though.
Long ago Steve Allen had a show called "what's My Line?" where panelists would ask yes or no questions about a contestant's occupation or something special about them. The shtick became if they were not getting close was to ask , "Is it bigger than a breadbox?" . In 4th grade in 1958 I decided that worked for me and "I'm bigger than a breadbox" was my designation. Fits better today than ever as you can fit a lot of seeming differences into a breadbox and has become my response when asked what I am. When I die I will be cremated and my ashes put into a vintage breadbox I've picked out with a plaque
with my name, birth and death dates and boldly printed , "No Longer Bigger than a Breadbox".
I really love this.
What's funny is I've been saying this most of my life and at some point wondered where it came from as it didn't make sense that I just made it up. I actually had to Google the saying to see where it originated and then it all came rushing back. You get old and stuff like that happens........ just a heads up.
I don't think you are a centrist; as your essay suggests, the term is so confusing it doesn't have much meaning. I think you are an ardent advocate of enlightenment, which is a very good thing. As Steven Pinker explains in Enlightenment Now, the Enlightenment, which brought us into the modern era, reduced hunger and starvation worldwide, double humans' life expectancy, and allowed us to visit the moon. Enlightenment has four facets: skepticism, science, humanism, and progress. Skepticism encourages us to question everything. Science provides a method to reduce our tendencies for self-delusion as we seek answers. Humanism reminds us that we are all in this together; we are one race: the human race. And Progress suggests that acknowledging our past gains will encourage us to do more and do it better in the future. Keep on keepin' on, Katie!!!
I have also read Enlightenment Now and actually all of Pinker’s other books (Better Angels is my favorite). He is great!
Thank you!!! Such a great piece!
82% of white evangelicals support Trump. So we can cross the list of people who fit this diverse politics. The MAGAs the plurality if not the majority of Republicans and so it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to oppose anyone against any Republicans who isn’t MAGA. This is also true of antivaxers who are opposed any vaccine along with any sort of things like raw milk, QAnon, people aware of eating cats, etc. Think of people like RFK, Jr who was once a Dem by at this point is clearly on the far right.
I live in a MAGA county that has run for Trump since 2016. These people see any other diversity in their political identity even if someone of them may have some different views on some issues. The thing is the people I have no interested in the traditional political views that you are interested. They love Trump, and pretty much hate anyone else including even many Republicans.
If you are genuinely a moderate Republican there is no place around for you in the Republican Party anymore. I would like a genuinely moderate Republican Party out there, but the Republicans I know and the people nationally really hate moderate Republicans. The sort of politics you seem to think about such as health care or even things like social security just don’t matter to the MAGAs around me and the MAGAS work.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/08/31-of-republicans-say-vaccines-are-more-dangerous-than-diseases-they-prevent/
Any chance the Republicans will return to “normal” once Trump is gone (soon, I hope)?
I am similar to you and I suspect many are. I identify myself as basically a conservative (and am further off in that direction than you are) but some of my beliefs are all over the map. And you note a thought I have had and find hard to articulate: even if my belief on a topic is between the two parties it's not "centrist".
Yes, the greater question would be why do we feel pressured to fit ourselves into one category or the other. It's not really binary. Further, when you identify yourself as one or the other people make assumptions about what you believe or who you are that aren't accurate.
one important angle where i would have expected a more in-depth look: why labels at all? you have mentioned - no matter how briefly - a sporting analogy ... i should like to remind you of a great essay by the unforgettable george orwell (oh, how much we need him now!): https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit ...
Great post. I relate a lot.
I used to go to the r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM subreddit all the time and didn't really understand their interpretation of centrism as though it were literally taking the most middle-of-the-road position on everything. I didn't really believe that was something anyone really did. I always saw it more as how you describe your own values, which could span typical political labels depending on the issue.
Umm... This is awkward, given my moniker.
Great article. I have written about centrism at length in previous articles. I think the Left/Right political spectrum model is a low definition heuristic that works from a distance but becomes less and less accurate as we zoom in on it.
I (like you) take traditionally RW views on certain issues and LW on others. I average out near the centre line on either side, depending on the test I take.
The key part of centrism for me is a belief in means tested policies. If something is proven to work and achieve satisfactory outcomes, I want it implemented, regardless of whether it is a LW or RW policy.
With voting, I vote towards the centre. If the party in power is leaning too far towards the extreme of it's side, I'll vote for a candidate in the opposite direction who is not an extremist. If I was happy with the ruling party, (they are near the centre line, whether left of right) I'd vote for them to keep up that status quo.
Excellent read...
https://thecommoncentrist.substack.com/p/destiny-is-wrong-about-centrists
https://thecommoncentrist.substack.com/p/no-not-everyone-is-hitler
A few friends of mine and I have come to see ourselves as "politically homeless," and we know that we didn't invent the term and that we're far from being alone. Like you, we can't fit into any category. I've also found it a rarity to honestly say and be taken seriously that I don't know enough about that highly controversial issue to have one opinion or another, and that's okay. It's the "that's okay" part that usually gets people riled up.
Looking forward to reading more of your writing!
That was great. I’d add that what was left wing 10 years ago is considered right now and vice versa. Then there’s the fact that many subjects aren’t inherently left out right but get adopted according to the context of the binary. That was particularly the case during the pandemic. It’s so tiresome and incurious.
The left has developed some strange ideas, like a man can become a woman and play in women’s sports.
Indeed! And that’s the top of the iceberg
I consider myself a Liberal in that the government has no place to tell its citizens what to believe, who they can marry or even cohabitate with or where they may live, how to spend their money and time. Just after college I joined a church that was very conservative and strict but the longer I stayed the more I became disenchanted with their doctrine and left it for a much more liberal and was happier. The idea of a right wing government based on Christian values is fine if a person chooses it but not a national policy. Do you think that Senator Vance ever read “The Handmaidens Tale”? The focus in that context is just to narrow in a world view for a leading nation.
I guess if you choose sides on an issue without any information based totally on your biases, then you could assign a label to that if you consistently support one political party or the other. Other than that, the whole idea of the left and the right were created by the political parties to differentiate themselves from each other and to divide us. They want you to vote for a party, not an individual. Take any issue no matter how controversial, and when you look at that single issue from all perspectives, most people are aligned and can reach consensus on most of the parts of an issue. For example, just about everyone agrees that an abortion is necessary if the woman's life is in danger. If you went through each aspect such as rape, most people would reach a consensus on many parts of the issue. That's why political parties pick the extreme edges of the issue to argue about instead of reaching a common sense consensus. Therefore, the whole idea of a left and a right is not intrinsic in the population. It is automatically created by indoctrination. While both major political parties use this tactic to get your vote, they serve those who fund their campaigns and their party, the very wealthy power elite. It's not about the 1%, it's about those who have power. They own the special interests and reap the rewards of their investment in political parties and politicians. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it. A realistic solution to all of this mess is described in the book End Politics Now.
This is a good comment. If we sit around the table and talk about a policy agenda, we will all manage to achieve a workable policy. The divide in our country is hugely stoked both by politicians and the media.