Centrism is the people-pleaser of the political stances. In their attempts to appease both sides of the left-right divide as a balanced ‘third option,’ centrists oftentimes leave the supporters of both camps dissatisfied and irritated at them for not picking the (in their view) obviously better political party and ideology. While I can completely understand centrists’ desires to escape the rigid ideological constraints of party politics — and avoid their frequently strict and polarised viewpoints or narratives — it has no identity of its own besides being a middle-man, making it empty, morally and otherwise.
Centrism is structurally flawed, because its arguments inevitably fall for a middle-ground fallacy. This fallacy involves one’s assumption that a ‘middle’ argument or approach uniting two extremes is implicitly the best one, because its illusion of neutrality makes it appear as if it must be the truest, or the most accurate. Centrists often use this reasoning to take a sort of ‘high-ground’ amid countless complex and loaded debates, making their stance appear far more intelligent than it truly is.
Take a centrist commentary on the genocide in Palestine: while involving some condemnation of the violence committed against Palestinians, it would also emphasise that Israel had a right to defend itself after Hamas’ attacks on October 7th. Though, on the surface, one might think this a reasonable, objective approach to the issue, compromising opposing narratives on the conflict, it fails to consider decades of historical context, in which Palestinians have been the victims of an ongoing occupation and structural power imbalances. The centrist’s intention to override the exaggerated divides of party politics with a fairer moderation is severely limited by this flawed avoidance of more profound structural implications and factors.
So, evidently, centrism is a poor ideology of neutrality. It cannot sincerely act in a moderate way, because it has no basis for its moderation besides picking an unconsidered, in-between argument specific to every polarised, left versus right political debate. However, I believe its intent to be neutral can be re-conceptualised in a way that would genuinely give it a basis for having a reasonable and practical approach to political discussion. It must prioritise something separate entirely from the divided political spectrum: the fundamental needs of the majority of society.
What is possibly more neutral than wanting everyone to have their basic needs fulfilled? Social needs are not extreme, though sometimes they are treated or framed to be. Having a public system that provides the public with good healthcare, education, and opportunities is the bare-minimum of standards. It does not need to demand that one overthrows a system, but can be realised through actionable reform.
At the moment, centrism is understood through the oddly-balanced logics of party-conservatism and liberalism. But we can only truly engage in ‘neutral’ politics once we recognise that this standard of neutrality should centre a common social good.
Photo by Marcin Nowak on Unsplash.
Related
Re-conceptualising centrism: How to avoid the middle-ground fallacy
Centrism is the people-pleaser of the political stances. In their attempts to appease both sides of the left-right divide as a balanced ‘third option,’ centrists oftentimes leave the supporters of both camps dissatisfied and irritated at them for not picking the (in their view) obviously better political party and ideology. While I can completely understand centrists’ desires to escape the rigid ideological constraints of party politics — and avoid their frequently strict and polarised viewpoints or narratives — it has no identity of its own besides being a middle-man, making it empty, morally and otherwise.
Centrism is structurally flawed, because its arguments inevitably fall for a middle-ground fallacy. This fallacy involves one’s assumption that a ‘middle’ argument or approach uniting two extremes is implicitly the best one, because its illusion of neutrality makes it appear as if it must be the truest, or the most accurate. Centrists often use this reasoning to take a sort of ‘high-ground’ amid countless complex and loaded debates, making their stance appear far more intelligent than it truly is.
Take a centrist commentary on the genocide in Palestine: while involving some condemnation of the violence committed against Palestinians, it would also emphasise that Israel had a right to defend itself after Hamas’ attacks on October 7th. Though, on the surface, one might think this a reasonable, objective approach to the issue, compromising opposing narratives on the conflict, it fails to consider decades of historical context, in which Palestinians have been the victims of an ongoing occupation and structural power imbalances. The centrist’s intention to override the exaggerated divides of party politics with a fairer moderation is severely limited by this flawed avoidance of more profound structural implications and factors.
So, evidently, centrism is a poor ideology of neutrality. It cannot sincerely act in a moderate way, because it has no basis for its moderation besides picking an unconsidered, in-between argument specific to every polarised, left versus right political debate. However, I believe its intent to be neutral can be re-conceptualised in a way that would genuinely give it a basis for having a reasonable and practical approach to political discussion. It must prioritise something separate entirely from the divided political spectrum: the fundamental needs of the majority of society.
What is possibly more neutral than wanting everyone to have their basic needs fulfilled? Social needs are not extreme, though sometimes they are treated or framed to be. Having a public system that provides the public with good healthcare, education, and opportunities is the bare-minimum of standards. It does not need to demand that one overthrows a system, but can be realised through actionable reform.
Cutting costs and cutting off questions: Why is The University of Edinburgh not more transparent about its financial situation?
At the moment, centrism is understood through the oddly-balanced logics of party-conservatism and liberalism. But we can only truly engage in ‘neutral’ politics once we recognise that this standard of neutrality should centre a common social good.
Photo by Marcin Nowak on Unsplash.
Share this:
Like this:
Related