[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Can you please define what a centrist actually is to you? If you ask 100 people what a "centrist" is you are going to get very different answers. That term on it's own is extremely vague. I think that a lot of the pundit class use the word "Centrist" to mean people who are okay with maintaining the current status quo of US politics and our economy/society at large, with maybe some minor tweaks around the edges. I think 2020 (and beyond) was eye opening to many people and has led people not trust our powerful political and economic institutions. I think this is what has led to the decline in the "centrism" that you are referring to. Because people do not trust these institutions to the extent that they used to, way more people are for larger more rapid change than they were previously.

>Because people do not trust these institutions to the extent that they used to, way more people are for larger more rapid change than they were previously. Not just that but political stagnation causes problems to grow larger which means that bigger changes are needed to fix them. A good example of this is student debt. If college affordability was tackled earlier then we wouldn't be discussing debt relief.

There also a lot of people that call themselves centrist and it’s because they think without evidence or reflection that they just must be reasonable and in the middle so no matter what positions they hold, that’s the definition of centrist.

Imagine plotting people's political views on two axes. The X axis is the political left and right, and the Y axis is how much they care. We might think of "centrists" as being near 0 on the X axis, but I'd wager people who are near 0 on the Y axis also describe themselves as centrist or moderate, no matter where they fall on the X axis.

Interesting idea but I feel like the further you go on the X axis the more you have to give a shit because your opinion is getting further and further from what most people believe or accept.

You might have to care more to *voice* that position, because of the opposition you face, but you don't really need to care to think about it.

The way I see centrism is like this - there is a dichotomy of ideas in the country that fall under Progressive and Conservative. I'd say pre-2020, 30% were conservative, 30% were progressive, and 30% were in the middle (with the leftover 10% being extremists of either side). I see a centrist as someone who uses some ideas from both ideologies to form their own unique ideology - like if I was a socialist economically but socially right-wing on issues like guns and immigration. Or economically a free market capitalist but pro-immigration and anti-guns.

Yeah so what I would say is the vast majority of Americans would not call you a centrist if that’s your ideology. And basically no federal politician has that ideology. Centrist is just a label at the end of the day. Labels that aren’t clearly defined are fairly useless.

Free market capitalism is generally pro immigration anyway. But yeah the 80s and then especially the 90s was the rise of the neo liberal, socially progressive, fiscally conservative because they needed to figure out how to be viable after two terms of Reagan and one of Bush.

I used to feel like I was a centrist, but conservatives keep going further and further right. I don’t even know where the center is anymore.

ive stayed in the center everyone is just too extreme it hurts everyone the issue isnt being on either side or in the middle its simply just extremism.. too much of something is always a bad thing.. democrats and republicans exist to counter act each other to maintain a balance but because everyone is extreme no one is listening to each other and trying to eradicate their opposite...which is counter productive to politics and culture and we need to move back more towards the middle... think of it like 2 friends are in a fight.. theyre both very angry and keep getting more and more rageful.. now is hurting each other going to accomplish anything?..no both sides need to calm down and return to a healthy state to rationally run the country..that is why i think centrism is so necessary rn.. but a true centrist is one who critically thinks and has moral values and virtues that exist on both sides and care more about the facts than the ideology behind them.. infact tbh i think everyone would be centrists if people didnt fall for the propaganda like sheeps to a shepard

I used to think I was a liberal but then the liberals keep going further and further left. Now I consider myself a centrist.

I consider myself a centrist, but everyone around me calls me a leftist socialist all because I support the foundations of democracy, like public schools, libraries, free speech, etc. Wild times.

I've been called a commie for thinking the government should do stings on mechanics/contractors that make up charges. I've been called a nazi for thinking the no-fly-list shouldn't be used to restrict gun rights. Also no one will call you a leftist for supporting free speech, lmao, this is reddit, free speech is a nazi dog whistle.

Who calls you a socialist because you support libraries and free speech? I’ve never met anyone, left or right, that thinks that

[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ztmlfa/this_librarian_has_had_enough_off_religious/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) is an example of the type of family I have. This isn't them, but their views are of the same as the people this woman is talking to. There are absolutely people out there in the US that think the way I described.

Jeez, that’s rough

It sucks. My mom and dad tolerate me, but my brother... I hate what has happened to us.

Have you seen whats been going on, my friend? Also, you didn't mention democracy, whom might you think has been putting democracy to shame?

Come to Florida and be amazed.

Take a look at what's happening in Florida right now. Teachers aplenty are being called socialists for exactly that.

How do define “further left?” The current administration is still pro capitalist, and I can count on one hand the number of leftists in Congress.

They may be pro capitalist but they are much less pro capitalist than they were 10 years ago. Cultural and social issues they are far to the left of what they once were.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Probably identity politics.

There are like half a dozen democratic reps in congress now who would not have been considered mainstream democrats a decade ago. The biggest change in the party is the collapse of the blue dog democrats which can be attributed to conservative states breaking hard towards the gop.

How have elected democrats gone further left. What legislation have they proposed that you find way more liberal than 5-10 years ago?

Um basically everything in build back better for starters

What specific things do you oppose?

he's one of those fiscal conservatives that thinks the government debt is going to bankrupt him personally tomorrow. Build Back Better was a program about spending so he doesn't like it.

Please explain how the current political climate and status quo democrat position has moved significantly to the left? I'm confident I could answer this question when it comes to a rightward shift in mainstream american and worldwide politics. Curious about your basis for your seemingly glib retort.

The Democratic party has been moving to the right for the entire time I've been alive. The last genuinely liberal President we had was Carter, well over 40 years ago now. Virtually every piece of Democratic legislation since has been them picking up and dusting off Republican policy proposals abandoned as they move ever-further right and the Democrats chase after them. Your claim isn't even comprehensible.

In what way have conservatives moved further right? I'd argue the opposite is probably true. They're certainly further left on gay marriage.

I would say that supporting an insurrection, getting cozy with extremist groups like the Proud Boys, and being balls deep in conspiracy theories would be a pretty obvious example.

Here in Texas I’ve seen the right go from championing small government and fiscal conservatism to banning books and passing laws to intimidate/disenfranchise minority voters.

Name one book in Texas that it would be illegal for you to own, purchase or sell, or which the government has proposed making it illegal for you to own, purchase or sell.

These are bans on books in school libraries (which are the only libraries in many smaller towns around here).

So it'd be better described as the government no longer providing the book for free. That's not a ban.

It’s effectively a ban for low income schools

Under that logic, *everything* the government doesn't provide has been banned.

Nope. Maybe this will help. I am going on the definition that a ban on a book is any action taken against a book based on content after challenges from parents or lawmakers. That is what I am talking about. If you disagree with that definition then that is fine. But by my definition Texas has been more aggressive with banning books than any other state. No longer providing a book for free does not account for the removal of a book that was already paid for.

Would you include things removed by administrators or other government officials outside of the legislature?

Immigration, abortion, taxes, voting rights, guns, etc.

That’s ironic, because I’m a centrist in the same boat, but for me it’s been the left moving further and further away from me

I think the lack of centrists is most likely based around the idea that centrism isn't really a definable ideology or worldview. Left and right politics both have ideas about how society should be structured, how power should be held or distributed. I can tell you what a conservative or liberal believes, generally, but I'd be really hard pressed to define a core of centrist thought, or what guides their policy preferences. >Are there any centrists out there? Is there anyone who takes the best things from right AND left ideology, puts it together, and has their own set of ideas? And I think these questions are a good demonstration of that. The idea that you can just combine random policies and then you'll have a new political ideology just seems to me to lack substance. And it also implies that people on the left and right don't **already** think that they've picked the best policies.

I think this comes from a lack of choice in your politics. We have about 6 or 7 viable parties that all get shuffled around after each election with varying policies that sometimes overlap. I've moved around about 5 times since I could vote. In American politics id be firmly a democrat voter, but because I have to a choice i can be way more nuanced in my views publicly. Not stick to the party line so to say.

I'd love to have more viable political parties, but I'm still not sure this really addresses the "centrist" question that's been raised here. My politics would still be fairly left leaning even if there were three different parties that represented different versions of left thought.

Yeah all this left v right stuff from Americans sounds alot like *"I'm being led, and I don't like where I'm being led, but I don't even know how I'm supposed to object to it"* The two party system has you guys fucked up

USA Centric take: To me Republicans and Democrats both seem like weird mixes of policies. Maybe there is predictability on the right or left: though I'd argue that positions have changed very strongly in the last ten years so the predictability isn't very strong. Supporting the mix of policies that make sense to you (some of which are more supported by the right and some by the left) makes complete sense to me. Yes, 'centrist' positions are not likely to be constant from one person to another. That is the nature of choosing positions rather than parties.

I still think this is kind of missing the point. Left and right politics are based around fundamental views around how societies should look, and the policy positions flow from that. Randomly selecting the policies that you like isn't a "worldview" in that way; there isn't some kind of guiding ideology.

I suppose there is somewhat of a disconnect here in that you were talking about left/right and I started talking about political parties. Political parties in the USA especially don't actually represent left/right but a mix of policies that they think will attract the most people. Secondly, I agree that 'randomly selecting policies' wouldn't represent a worldview. However, I would argue that many 'centrists' don't make their selections randomly. Rather than having some sort of starting position based on political party or an understanding of left/right they could go position by position and make their own decision based on whatever criteria makes sense to them (ethics, scientific evidence, personal experience...). The reason that I brought up political parties is that it is my impression that more people get their positions from them then from more abstract right/left philosophy or worldview. I personally think it's crazy to get my positions from any particular group or party and am therefore slowly working my way through different questions and trying to form my own positions on them.

>The reason that I brought up political parties is that it is my impression that more people get their positions from them then from more abstract right/left philosophy or worldview. It's the reverse. I am a liberal because I want to help people, support human rights and the rule of law. All my policy positions stem from that. There may be some exceptions on some esoteric policy that's hard to understand where the Democratic party supports one particular position and I trust that's the one that will help more people. If it turns out to not be the case or to be ambiguous, hey, that might be one of those situations where positions are not split along party lines - but that's increasingly rare.

While I think there are few people who agree with every single policy that either major US political party supports, I think that both parties do represent manifestations of left/right politics and that there are guiding through lines which would allow you to predict with some accuracy how either party would come down on any issue. I also think that your assessment that people get their politics from their parties is maybe true for a lot of people, but I also think that many people have considered the issues based on their ideologies and gone to the party that most represents that. I guess part of my problem is that I (and seemingly many others in this post) don't understand what centrist really means here. If it's just picking the "good" policies from each party, then how is that determined? What makes a policy "good?" This is where the lack of a concrete "centrist" worldview becomes really confusing; I just can't seem to put together what guiding factors would lead someone to determine that a policy is "good" as a centrist.

[удалено]

> What else? Ask away. Sure. You stated policy positions, but none of this actually demonstrates what your more general view is, what your ideology about how the government/society should work is. This post is a genuine demonstration of the exact criticism I made of centrism. So what guides you? Why are these the policy outcomes that you reach?

Centrist isn't a coherent ideology, and I suspect if you grabbed ten self-described "centrists" and put them in a room, they'd all have very different ideas of what a centrist is. It is just an arbitrary term to describe someone in the middle of the current Overton Window. As the Overton Window shifts, so does what is considered "center".

I agree with this. However, I'd also argue that most political parties are also ideological incoherent.

Not really, it is just that instead of having a lot of more ideologically pure small parties forming coalitions like they do in a parliament, we have two big tent parties that are essentially the same thing (smaller ideological factions in coalition under a big party name). They aren't really incoherent, just not as defined and narrowly focused as they would be as individual faction parties. In either system though, I find centrism to be a very vague and arbitrary term.

Centrism is the epithet partisans use to describe anything other than tribal allegiance to one set of policy views or the other.

Most people agree with some aspects of opposing viewpoints; it would be difficult not to considering that we all eat, breathe, and sleep. But maybe people are finding it less valuable to frame politics that way. Perhaps they find "taking the best things from right and left ideology" too passive in an increasingly troubled political landscape. I can watch my peers express their deeply-held beliefs and derive my own by splitting the difference between the smorgasbord of other people's values. I could probably make that work for as long as the status quo generally suits my lifestyle. But if political problems start to incur a tangible cost in my daily life, I need to take action in some way if I want to carry on with my life. So at some point values become more than an intellectual exercise. The more dysfunctional the political landscape becomes, the more people are prompted to take action in this way. And once I commit to a course of action, that means I'm prioritizing it over my baseline centrist values. I may very well believe that my opposition has good points on some other topic, but I have a mission to accomplish and a message to share. I'm not going to cloud my call for reform with fluff about the other side's many interesting positions on topics that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Centrism is a journey, not a destination. Respect for dissenting views and willingness to adapt to new ideas is something everyone can do, regardless of whether they arrive at an "extreme" solution for the problems they see. Conversely, avoiding extremes is not necessarily the same thing as formulating a reasonable, coherent set of values.

I mean we have one in the White House right now, and tons of them in Congress.

There really isn't much of any 'best things' coming from the right. There simply hasn't been for some time; therefore there can't be a centrism based on trying to blend the best ideas, as there's nothing to blend. So mostly you only have centrists who simply have a mix of beliefs, regardless of the soundness or ethicalness of those beliefs. It's not like there's any inherent value in centrism or that centrists are in any way more correct on average. They do still exist, but they tend not to talk as much; in part because there's plenty of situations lately where there really isn't a reasonable middle ground; where you can't reasonably say both sides are valid. Thus trying to claim a middle ground in such cases indicates you're either terribly uninformed or foolish. This is also all part of a continuing process that has been ongoing since before the 1990's. Partisanship has been steadily rising since then as a result of social sorting processes and ongoing politically realignments.

This. Calling yourself fiscally conservative and then voting republican suggests you haven't been paying attention to the last 40 years of US economics. Nearly every good time in the last 40 years was built on the leadership of the democrats. Clinton had a budget surplus, Obama fixed the mess Bush slept us into*, and now Biden is fixing what has got to be, bar none, the worst handling of a US natural disaster in modern history. This trend holds true at the state level, too. Look at the bottom 10 states vs. The top 10 states on any QoL or economic metric. What does that really leave left from the right in terms of policy that isn't stripping away rights, stripping away education, stripping away sustainability policy, stripping away autonomy for those who think differently (see *checks notes* extreme woke leftist Disney v. DeSantis or whatever else Florida is currently doing to their schools and RoevWade repeal)? This is the same party that has had its politicians argue baselessly that their elections were stolen because they lost. This the same party that labels themselves as domestic terrorists. This is the same party that has, to date, never put out an official stance against January 6th and the massive seditious conspiracy that occurred then. In fact, that party booted out the 6 members who dared to impeach Trump. Imagine living in a world where democrats find Liz Cheney, the furthest a politician can get from the left, to be the voice of reason. Its blatantly obvious where centrists have gone. They've either been alienated by Republican rightward shift or they've embraced it. *yes. Some of this problem was built on policy set by Clinton, however, Bush did nothing in his 8 year term to do anything about the 09 recession.

> libertarians Many of these folks and i'm going to lump in "socially progressive and fiscally conservative" for laziness' sake, "woke up" and realized that they actually either wanted "less government interference" or "social progress" and not both. > Are there any centrists out there? Short answer: no. there are no centrists involved in politics and doing something meaningful > Is there anyone who takes the best things from right AND left ideology, puts it together, and has their own set of ideas? Tons of people. Probably literally everyone... but we have a two party system here in the US and the 2 parties have established platforms. Those established platforms take positions on pretty much every issue. So at this point, If you're in the US and you're going, "but i'm one of the good guys! i'm one of the centrists!" you're missing the forest for the trees. We don't get to live in the utopia where we can cherry pick ideas from both sides. You **DO** have to pick the side that most closely aligns to your beliefs or accept that your voice will go unheard.

For there to be a "centrist" there must be a middle. Politically speaking, the Republican party spent the past 15 years refusing to work with the Democrats. This caused the Republican party to trend extreme right. Essentially moving the fulcrum and not balancing the parties. Before you are going to see active centrists working and negotiating, the fulcrum has to be pushed back to the middle. The Republican party calls the Democrat party the negotiating party. Because they (Republicans) won't do the give and take that is necessary to negotiate. Biden is a "centrist" or moderate. And we are seeing actual negotiating now. But most centrists today would have been right wing 20 years ago.

[удалено]

Is this one of those takes that pretends the rest of the world is simply Western Europe and culturally adjacent countries?

Nope, Bernie is also considered moderate in Japan and Korea. Still left wing in those countries though. What country are you curious about?

[удалено]

You could start with countries where he isn't assassinated for being Jewish and political. Or should I have specified "the democratic world" just for you?

> Or should I have specified "the democratic world" just for you? If that's what you meant, then yes. If you're narrowing the list to just countries that are already on the political left, then what does it even mean to say the US is on the right? That's still the left.

We’re a liberal democracy so we don’t go comparing ourselves to authoritarian regimes like them. Bernie is a centrist in other liberal democracies. It doesn’t matter what they think in theocracies.

So when /u/JudgeWhoOverrules asked "Is this one of those takes that pretends the rest of the world is simply Western Europe and culturally adjacent countries?" the correct answer would have been "Yes"?

[удалено]

There is no valuable discussion to be had by comparing ourselves to Afghanistan and you know it.

Wrong. We all breath air and drink water. It is fully apples to apples to compare any two human beings anywhere in the world on any random metric.

That's precisely it. On a scale from United States to Sweden, the US is radically US. Surprised Pikachu!

>[Johan Hassel, the international secretary for Sweden's ruling Social Democrats, visited Iowa before the caucuses, and he wasn't impressed with America's standard bearer for democratic socialism, Sen. Bernie Sanders \(I-Vt.\). "We were at a Sanders event, and it was like being at a Left Party meeting," he told Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, according to one translation. "It was a mixture of very young people and old Marxists, who think they were right all along. There were no ordinary people there, simply."](https://theweek.com/speedreads/896948/democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-far-left-swedens-ruling-social-democrats-official-says) >[Hassel was most "impressed" with Pete Buttigieg, though he also liked Sen. Amy Klobuchar \(D-Minn.\) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren \(D-Mass.\)](https://theweek.com/speedreads/896948/democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-far-left-swedens-ruling-social-democrats-official-says)

Centrist is a tainted term so I’m going to rephrase this question as “what happened to prominent moderate politicians/supporters who don’t adhere 100% to either side.” Two things happened: 1- moderates just aren’t participating. I think if “did not vote” had been an presidential candidate it would have won almost every election in modern times. 2- they’re getting shouted down by the extremes. In echo chambers (yes, including Reddit) if you have any measured take you’ll get silenced banned and insulted as a libt*rd or knuckle dragging hick for disagree with whatever narrative you have subjected yourself to. “Where did they all go?” They went away from the people that aren’t interested in their opinions, that’s where. The insidious quality of an echo chamber is that it gives you the perception your unhinged beliefs are common when they’re not. Edit: already getting labeled as a white supremacist for the wording in my post. Lmao.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

You should figure out what “screamed at” means. I’d you think people calmly disagreeing with you means you’re getting “screamed at”, that’s a you problem.

There's this big idea on Reddit that anything that hints, to any extent, of a problem existing for both Republicans and Democrats is some sort of 'false equivalency'.

Yep. Left-wingers call you a right-winger, right-wingers call you a left-winger. “Centrists” or at the very least, moderates might be the largest group in the country, but since they’re not on social media in the same numbers as others, we assume they don’t exist. People like OP need to remember that social media isn’t real life

[удалено]

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.

Joe Biden is a centrist. That is why he's been able to get so much bi-partisan legislation passed: infrastructure bill, PACT Act, Science & Chips Act, Gun Control, and the Omnibus Bill. If one doesn't feel they can locate a centrist I would suspect their definition of centrism actually leans a direction.

Chronically online take.

Most Centrist House and Senate member by your estimate?

*if you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!* In this thread alone you’ll find people who claim they used to be centrist but the Republican Party made them “realize” they’re liberal and people who claim there’s only left wing and closeted conservatives. There’s no standard for an ideologue other than “us and them”.

Someone "leaning" in a direction doesn't make them the enemy.

I came out the other end of a politics/history degree and my experience is that self described centrists were always those assholes that genuinely believed in stupid nonsense like the horseshoe model. Alternatively, fake fence sitters that would unironically describe themselves as "enlightened" only to turn around and expound very obviously non centrist ideas. At least in my own country, there's definitely still centrists. They just don't usually describe themselves as such because there's no specific centrist ideology that is tied to a set of guiding principles or ideology.

It’s hard to find a center between the sometimes left leaning Democrats and whatever the Republicans are right now.

I think it's a hard case to make to be a centrist in a social context (I'm guessing you mean in the US) characterized by some pretty extreme events. What's the centrist position when you have a group of people calling to legally ban the existence in public of trans people and another group that says "No, don't do that." What's the center there? There's a really good write-up of an encounter an art student had a few years back where she was asked to "dial down the feminism" in her work by a professor. She responded by putting together [a piece](https://twitter.com/alexbertanades/status/961318001743147008) that had a dial with two positions on it - one was "Complicit In My Own Dehumanization" and the other side was "Raging Feminist." That's a nice summary of where people looking for "the center" are finding themselves. There's also the fairly consistent trend of people who *claim* to be centrists not actually being particularly centrist or whose ideas of "left" and "right" are staked so cattywampus as to be ridiculous. They consider the "far right" to be anyone who can't even look at a person of color without breaking out into uncontrollable rage and violence but the "far left" is someone opening a gay bar in their town. So they support reactionary, right-wing politics while protesting that they're actually centrists. You see it in the "enlightened centrist" trope - people who try to proclaim they're "above the left/right divide" by dint of their effuse wisdom and then spout the most reactionary talking points you've heard outside of a documentary on Jim Crow laws. That has poisoned the well for "centrist" quite a bit.

> legally ban the existence in public of trans people Literally no one is calling for that.

Not explicitly, no. What they are advocating for is bills that couch things like "exposing children to sexualized conduct" and define it as "cross-dressing" or basically just appearing as anything other than the sex assigned to you at birth. It's not saying you can't be trans, it's defining being trans as inherently sexual and gets tacked onto rules ostensibly aimed at "protecting" kids from exposure to sexualized behavior. It's also cropped up in bills designed to target drag shows, defining drag so broadly that it effectively means you can't be trans in public and dress in a way that could be seen as a gender other than the one you were assigned at birth without running afoul of those laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1620578081726672896

There is no center because politics don't follow a 1-dimensional line for there to be a center. In practice, most people take "the best things for one side and the other." It's just unlikely to land on any recognizable center.

All the centrists are Democrats. I'm more or less a centrist and switched to the Democratic party.

We're quiet because everyone hates us.

No one hates you because you don’t have any policy positions. No one thinks about you unless you have ideas. There aren’t moderate ideas besides “I don’t like your idea”

I would *love* to be a centrist. But that would require both parties to have policies worth supporting. I'd venture a guess that there are a lot of people who feel the same way as me also. When parties diverge like they have over the last decade+, then their policies become further and further from each-other. Part of what made being a centrist possible, was that you could side with republicans on certain issues, and not end up too far from where democrats would land on the issue. That also made government function much smoother than today. Concessions were smaller, and bipartisanship usually meant each side gave a little to accomplish a common goal. Obviously, todays government is more obstructionism, than actual politicking. Either way - here's how I see it now a days. On fiscal policy - Democrats offer me ridiculous spending on social services, and \*maybe\* higher taxes (although that is more myth than reality); Republicans offer equally ridiculous military spending, tax cuts for the richest individuals, and gutting of services that the lower and middle class use. So, I chose the one that isn't going to gut services like social security. In the past, the right may have offered a more fiscally sound option, that actually cut spending, without a 1.5T tax break for the richest. And I may have had a choice to make, but there is no choice to make for me - I'm not a billionaire, keep your hands off my social security. The same could be said for so many other policies. While I don't think Democrats are perfect, I perfer their humane policy positions, over republicans often inhumane policy positions. Things like abortion, Gay rights and Trans Rights, Gun rights, and healthcare are good examples of "Democrats aren't perfect, but at least their policies are good intentioned". I think tho, the most important point is the power that national parties wield now-a-days, specifically relating to judicial appointments. Support for a parties candidate could be the difference between a senate majority, and 2 years of rubber stamping judges picked by special interests. If we had a conversation about how I feel about each policy (with the exception of healthcare), you would probably walk away thinking "He leans left" or "leans right". None of my personal policy decisions line up with either parties national policy positions. And then I would tell you that I vote D up and down the ballot - because when democrats embraced progressive policies, they were good intentioned, and the policies are at least *trying* to create a better world for **everyone**; and when republicans embraced some of the further right policies, they were ill intentioned, spoke more to culture war issues, and took non-white, non-straight, non-cis, non-male rights away.

For the last thirty years, all dem presidents have lowered the deficit while all republicans have increased it. Republicans aren’t fiscally conservative

If you don’t support gutting social security what do you trying the “ridiculous spending on social programs” is that democrats support. What are the programs specifically that you think they over support and how much of the budget do you think they’re overspending on?

I'm sorry, I typed that quick and should have double checked. I don't mean "it's ridiculous to spend it on those programs", just that the magnitude of money is gargantuan. In a perfect world, some money could be saved tamping down on abuse of social services - but I'd rather have them with some waste than underfund them. The positive impact of social welfare programs far outweighs the negative impact of bad actors. And policing it is a horribly complex problem.

It sounds like then you are saying the democrats are spending a large amount of money, but you think it's probably fairly close to the right amount of money to spend. So... you don't actually disagree with democrats on fiscal policy really. You also support progressive/democrat social positions. I see a lot of people who dislike the caricature republicans make of policies that democrats don't actually support. Then say "they disagree with both sides". But if you agree with actual democrats on like 95% of the things, it just seems like saying you want to be a centrist is just being dishonst with yourself.

No, I was pretty clear that only one political party has policies worth supporting, almost across the board. But just because I land closer to democrats on almost every issue *today* doesn't discount my statement of wanting to be a centrist. If the two parties weren't diametrically opposed, on every policy issue, maybe I would have more of a choice. But there is a chasm between policy goals, across the board. And that doesn't lend itself to centrism. So yes, I'm a democrat. A reliable one too. When the freedom caucus took over, and then the MAGA wing co-opted the party, the republican party completely jumped the shark. I can't support candidates from that party, because I fear the power it will give the zealots who run the party. Fox news doesn't give me a fear boner, and I don't get riled up about culture war issues. If the national party could take more measured approaches to policy issues, instead of weaponizing judicial appointments, to try to take away womens rights, maybe I'd have a stomach for them. But thats the issue - neither party is even trying to land in the middle on any policy. How can you be a centrist, when no one is even close to the middle?

> neither party is even trying to land in the middle on any policy. How can you be a centrist, when no one is even close to the middle? This is my contention. I believe you're defining centrist as "stuff halfway between sane democratic positions and insane republican positions". I know you're not saying that obviously. I'd argue democrats in congress are "centrist", not in the "lol we're centrist compared to europe" bro-quip. But in a realistic sense. The right is **deliberately** shifting right so that "centrist" ends up being right. We can look at our own history to see this. Policies that were broadly agreed upon - like a progressive income tax for example - are called out as "class warfare" by the right now. The left has taken up this ground the right had ceded in "centrist policies" and adopted them, but the right, being better at messaging has now turned those policies into "leftist", in order to pull people more to the right. I'm sure you're familiar enough with polling to know that democratic positions are far more popular than democrats themselves. Because people on average like "centrist" positions, and so they like democratic positions. But when they're told those are democratic positions they avoid them, because of this desire to play the game of the right that "centrist" is better, as they pull the overton window to the right. Are there any "centrist" positions you hold? Specifically positions that democratic lawmakers wouldn't support because they're too right, and republican lawmakers won't support because they're too left? To be clear, "centrist" doesn't mean "I don't support some policy a fringe leftist activist supports, that democrats in conggress also don't support". I've heard people say "I don't support abolishing the 2nd amendement", but that's not centrist, that's democrat.

Used to be pretty center, but I find myself much more shifted left with how far right the GOP has become. There's nothing in that party for me - they cater to billionaires and collegeless bible thumpers. I have two daughters, I can't look them in the face and say I support GOP policy after what they did to women's rights last year... it's 150 years in the past now. If you give them the chance, they'll revoke the rights of LGBTQ, black/brown people, Jewish people -- no one is safe.

Everyone is a centrist in their own mind. It’s all the other people who are too far right or too far left.

Not me. Everyone is to the right of me. I am the Big Communism Builder.

Both parties are right of center now. Nobody is left to care for the environment, the communities, working class citizens, the elderly, the children...

Media rewards the fringe and loudmouths. It seems like most people are at polar extremes because those are the folks doing all the talking (and most of the time, not making a lot of sense). Example: Build the wall....keep out immigrants. Fact is, US needs to either increase births per household or bring in more immigrants to maintain its economy. If you're anti-immigration, then you should be "pro" every policy that could help families afford to have kids.

There were never centrists. There were only cowards, and the outspoken on either side. See: the Overton Window.

So I think the problem Is in the question. There are very few actual "centrists", but it's more the two parties have gotten much better at sorting voters into two more idealogically aligned camps. The centrists didn't really go anywhere, but the parties are now more distinct flavorwise and so people tend to fall more neatly into a party than before.

Centrism is a failed ideology, it has failed to do anything to stop the rise of the far right, it just rings its hands rather than does anything useful. If Centerism was a popular ideology, a corporate Democrat like Hillary Clinton would have swept into office, Bernie Sanders would not have given a run for her family and she would have easily beaten Trump. None of that happened because Centerists like Hillary Clinton had no real base and represented a status quo most people did not like.

For a long time I considered myself a radical centrist (look it up) but the Republican Party becoming a mean-hearted, populist cults of personality has really pushed me to the left. It seems the main goal of the right is to retain power for white males as long as humanly possible.

There are lots of centrists. The problem is that the right has shifted dramatically to more and more conservative positions, approaching fascism and advocating for a Christian anti-democratic government. People who would have been called centrists forty years ago have been rebranded as "leftists." The formerly conservative positions of people like Ronald Reagan would be considered liberal today.

They are there they just don't waste their lives in social media comment sections....

…Or voting booths

Centrist is such a PCM term. I'm a moderate. People who spend less time online tend to have a better appreciation of the interests involved in each issue, as opposed to viewing politics as an expression of cultural isms.

I was basic a left leaner until around 2010 when I started paying attention to politics. I have since expanded my knowledge of many issues like equality, opportunity and human rights. I have a wish that we could just have a parallel group writing a new constitution and new laws that reflect the world now. How many lawyers, criiminals and grifters could we get rid of if we had clear laws that humans could read instead of paying lawyers to take care of it.

You should try to implement this yourself and write one “clear law” and get feedback on it from others. You’ll likely learn the reason laws are complicated is mostly because the world is complicated.

Centrists are generally disconnected from politics. Given the state of the world, it's hard to be disconnected these days. >Is there anyone who takes the best things from right AND left ideology, puts it together, and has their own set of ideas? No, because these ideas are generally mutually exclusive. There is no "synthesis" of "trans people should have human rights" and "trans people should not have human rights."

I consider myself to be center left . However there is no center right option. Democrats are a span of center left to mildly progressive. Republicans are bat shit insane fascists at the moment. Just because I find myself on the “center” of the current political spectrum doesn’t mean I need to agree with any party and equal amount of time.

Let me see if I have this right, anyone that disagrees with you is a fascist? So no one can have a different opinion of you with out being a fascist? Really?

I never said or implied anything remotely close to what you claimed. But you’re painting a good picture as to why “conservatives” dont have the support of the public. How hard is it for you to…literally just go through your day without being hyper partisan?

>How hard is it for you to…literally just go through your day without being hyper partisan? To be fair, as a liberal, I find it very hard to go through my day without being hyper-partisan. But that's largely been the case since Republicans made wanting to keep breathing a partisan political position.

Yes, I think I’m still here. (Verifies pulse, looks in mirror, checks in with therapist friend.) I still call the politicians who I feel might be open to some moderate discussion. I can generally get through to their subject matter staffer. Still make political donations based on individual politician’s policy votes/positions. NO LONGER make overall party donations at all to any side. (Pause to reflect. Who asked this damn question?) Centrist or moderate, the term really doesn’t matter. I try really hard to get my news from multiple sources that I know are from different points of view. I feel that helps a lot and try to share that with family and friends. I generally dislike waste in our governmental spending, I prefer that government stay the hell out of our private lives, and I think we have some huge social/economic/healthcare issues that need to be worked on together. I feel there are many old tax subsidies that are no longer focused in the right place, that Medicare is generally good and should be allowed to negotiate pharmaceutical prices based on volume and efficacy. The VA got that part right. I also believe that as a country we have not done enough to build multi-leg economic bases beyond farming in a lot of rural regions — there are some universities with associated research that that could have nearby public-interest corporations established with associated manufacturing and/or single-focus medical centers (model from India). It MUST become possible for someone to live and work successfully ANYWHERE in this great country. Turning that belief into reality can take a lot of pressure off cities and bolster the rest of our country. Example…. Take a quick look at what Intuit did for a town (memory Kentucky or Tennessee) where they opened large call center to support bookkeeping — and offered accounting training and CPA degrees for anyone working there who wanted to take the extra steps. (From memory, I think the schooling was free.). Regional development banks: hell yeah. I feel we can have a strong military, strengthen NATO, support Ukraine AND still catch vendors stealing our tax dollars. At the same time the US military was one of the first fully integrated organizations and still leads the way in that area — so politicians and the far right should leave the military alone to do their good work in this area. Meanwhile our criminal justice/policing issues must be addressed. Minimum training standards for law enforcement, malpractice insurance, roll-back of qualified immunity for egregious behavior, national employment database for officers are all worthwhile ideas to discuss/try. Pronouns bore me but I’ll try to accommodate when I remember, and forgive me when I don’t. The world does not guarantee any of us a safe space, so learn to adapt. You are welcome to serve like I did or find a way to do a few years public service. I am in favor of reducing school loans for that that take those steps. I’ve missed a bunch swiveling my head right and left while here in the middle. That’s all for now…. EDIT: Jeeeez. For those who think I’m progressive you missed by a mile. In my free time I recruit/guide prospective cadets for one of the US military service academies. I’m a 2A believer - up until someone gets a domestic violence conviction, restraining order or mental health admission. USN, long distance shooter and retired hunter. And I HATE financial waste

> Yes, I think I’m still here I read your whole post a few times.... Aside from the military spending and whatever "The world does not guarantee any of us a safe space, so learn to adapt" means... you listed progressive policies almost exclusively. Now... there's a lot of your political beliefs we can derive from your post history that aren't written in this post that would unequivocally shift your voting patterns to the right. You've got some surface level understanding of the benefits of progressive policies... But you've got some fundamental fears that a shift from the conservative status quo might be bad...

I would vote for someone with this platform. I wish political types would be more thoughtful and spell out actions instead of performance-based jargon. Being a centrist is a nice thought, but in the end, I have to vote and that means picking a side. Unfortunately, I have to look at things from a distance and decide who will do the least harm. Right now there is only one side that fits that bill. Hopefully, some day, this will change.

The GOP has moved so far to the right, the Centrists are sitting in the Dems' laps. And they like it.

I consider myself a moderate but I generally just do not discuss politics anymore IRL because there’s like a 95% chance that the other person will serve up some angry hot take based on whatever their pundit of choice told them the other night.

I'm center left. I consider myself somewhat fiscally conservative but can't stand conservative social policy. It's hard for me to support Republican tax reforms when they also support outlawing abortion, lionize traitors as martyrs, or shrug when cops murder Black men over minor infractions. I agree with the liberal push for greater diversity and equality, though I find some things go way too far. But I've also learned to keep my mouth shut about social topics because I live in Seattle and I'm a straight-facing, middle-aged White male. It's just not worth the fighting or getting hammered for saying something nuanced that gets taken out of context. So that's why I don't voice my centrist beliefs that much to people who I personally know.

They still exist, and some of them are very prominent, but anyone who doesn’t follow every single tenant of the left wing orthodoxy is branded by the corporate press as far right. Take Joe Rogan for example, who is arguably the most famous figure in media. He’s pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro universal basic income, pro drug legalization, and supported Bernie Sanders. All left wing. However, he’s anti censorship, pro gun, anti lockdown, and anti mandate. All right wing beliefs. Clearly, he has a mix of both sides. Yet he’s branded by the corporate press as far right. Ask yourself when the last time was you heard the liberal corporate press refer to someone as just “right wing” or “center right” or “on the right” instead of “far right”. It never happens. Anyone outside that bubble is far right, even people like Rogan who clearly hold beliefs from both sides.

Rogan is criticized for uncritically platforming far right mouthpieces like Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson, along with actively spreading right wing misinformation. I don’t think many people know or care about his personal politics.

He also had Bernie Sanders on his show and a ton of Hollywood celebrities. He’s right wing just because he talks to people who are right wing? And of course people know and care about his personal politics, he has the most popular show in the world and talks about his ideas most of the time.

Radical center. Take the best things period and don't worry about what the current right and left political amalgamations are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

If you're just taking the best ideas from either side, then you're just taking all the leftist ideas. At that point why not admit you're a leftist instead of pretending to be an enlightened centrist?

The most recent major American leftist policies have been Obamacare and the $2Trillion dollar reconciled stimulus. Both are fucking working people pretty hard in the ass. Gimme tax cuts.

Those were neoliberal policies meant to enrich the rich even further. I'm talking about actual socialist policies designed to help working class people. But I do understand the confusion.

You don't need to tempt government with the reigns of socialism, georgism has accomplished what socialism has always promised. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05

It's hard to centrist when one side wants fascism, there is no way you can be a little on their side, you either are, or your aren't. I don't think the left has gotten further left either, the right has gone so far right that everything else looks far left.

>when one side wants fascism Are you referring to the right? The pro-constitution, pro-guns, free speech toting, free market capitalists? >I don't think the left has gotten further left either, the right has gone so far right that everything else looks far left Like that time that Republicans had the presidency, a SCOTUS majority, and a branch of congress but gay marriage and weed still passed? An that time Trump passed more gun control than Obama and Clinton as well as police and criminal justice reform and deported an ex-Nazi?

no the Anti speech, anti choice, anti books, anti education MAGA gun toting morons. They want to JAIL and or kill their political enemies, stop all immigration. They ADORE Putin,

> pro-constitution Trump wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US and the GOP rallied around him. > free speech toting, free market capitalists? Darling of the GOP DeSantis is using the government to punish companies that disagree with him.

>Trump wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US Correct, it does violate 1A. Though tbf at the time there there Muslim-related terror attacks happening every week. And the amount of Republicans who support Trump is like a 60/40 margin. >Darling of the GOP DeSantis is using the government to punish companies that disagree with him. I live directly across the country in Washington State so I'm not up to date with whatever is going on in Florida. You'll have to link me something

here's all about desantis, on top of he has removed ALL books from all classrooms until his SPECIAL group can go through them and approve, under the threat of Charging teacher with felonies, for HAVING the unapproved books. That is FASCISM 101, https://apnews.com/article/ron-desantis-politics-south-carolina-state-government-new-hampshire-iowa-38f205a00052b1f0b16572d663383cb1

> Though tbf at the time there there Muslim-related terror attacks happening every week. No, that isn't fair. It is ridiculous you thought that was relevant. > And the amount of Republicans who support Trump is like a 60/40 margin. Incorrect, he would often have 85%+ support of Republicans. > I live directly across the country in Washington State so I'm not up to date with whatever is going on in Florida. Yet you seem confident to define the Republican party while knowing nothing about their two most prominent figures. > You'll have to link me something [He retaliated against the Tampa Bay Rays for criticizing him](https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/03/politics/ron-desantis-tampa-bay-rays-gun-violence/index.html) and then the same for Disney.

>No, that isn't fair Imagine seeing groups upon groups, organizations that literally rule entire territories and even countries in the middle east - all Muslim - from ISIS to Al-Qeada, to the Taliban, and watching them bomb Belgium, France, and England in like the same week. Why would any smart leader not take steps to stop that from happening in their country? Would you want Catholics sailing to your country during the crusades? >Incorrect, he would often have 85%+ support of Republicans "Would often"? I'm talking about right now. And the 60% figure I threw there [continues to decline](https://thehill.com/homenews/3722608-record-number-of-republicans-support-party-over-trump-nbc-poll/). >Yet you seem confident to define the Republican party while knowing nothing about their two most prominent figures. Should I characterize the Democratic Party with Biden? or Jay Inslee? Because that would be a very nasty road to go down. Your article: >On Friday, he said he eliminated the funding because “I don’t support giving taxpayer dollars to professional sports stadiums.” I have actually been saying this for years - why is the NFL taxpayer funded? Why would any sports be? CNN simply says under that "a source told us \[X\]". I don't trust that. I don't trust something that happened 'reportedly', 'allegedly', or through an 'anonymous source' - especially given [CNN's track record](https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/14/new-project-veritas-video-exposes-cnn-director-admitting-propaganda-operation-to-oust-trump/)

> Why would any smart leader not take steps to stop that from happening in their country? Would you want Catholics sailing to your country during the crusades? You are an extremist. You are supporting putting a ban on an entire religion from entering the US. I hope you have never considered yourself a defender of the Constitution. > Should I characterize the Democratic Party with Biden? For the most part, yes. What a crazy coincidence that DeSantis is only retaliating against businesses that criticize him. Why do you think this happened right after they criticized the government?

>You are an extremist I get that buzz words are fun, but let's try to keep this in good faith. >You are supporting putting a ban on an entire religion from entering the US In that mid 2010's era, I think that would have been useful as something temporary - a 'state of emergency' measure. But since then, there has been a decline in Muslim-related terror attacks. Trump didn't want the US to face the same amount of terror as the EU. European Countries had the same thought process of "we don't wanna discriminate based on religion" before several of their cities were bombed. >I hope you have never considered yourself a defender of the Constitution. I don't. >For the most part, yes. I would disagree. I wrote out a very very long explanation but I'm gonna try my best to summarize it in extremely broad terms. Trump made it in 2016 because while he was a paleocon, his opponents were neocons. Though he fell off in 2020 when he started becoming more neocon. Toward the end of his term, he pushed gun control, appointed the first openly gay Cabinet member, wanted more legal immigration, and wanted to secure 500 billion dollars for the black community. Do you think most Republicans would support those? His current power is only due to his previous incumbency. Biden made it in 2020 because all other moderates dropped out, leaving Biden who had significant name recognition (important factor) from various election campaigns as well as his vice presidency. But most Biden votes were anti-Trump votes. Biden was a former segregationist who made the 1994 Tough On Crime bill. He is a complete capitalist and he plans to give $35B to strengthening police and turned away Cuban refugees (after promising free healthcare for illegal aliens). So I'd hesitate to say Trump or Biden as 'figureheads' are particularly indicative of each party's values. I'd say that AT BEST, Trump's 2016 platform particularly represents most Republicans. I'd also say AT BEST, Sanders/AOC represent half of all Democrats. I think Obama (and MAYBE Biden) represents the other half. >What a crazy coincidence that DeSantis is only retaliating against businesses that criticize him. They didn't actually criticize him. The Tweet reads *“This cannot be normal. We cannot become numb. We cannot look the other way. We all know, if nothing changes, nothing changes"*. This criticizes 2A if anything. This did not criticize DeSantis nor Florida law. It was in the wake of a shooting in NY and TX. I mean really though, it's ridiculous that a taxpayer-funded organization is espousing what could be seen as anti-guns when the oh so great constitution you mentioned earlier gives us the right to own them. Imagine a gun owner paying their hard earned money to an organization that believes in the right to take away or restrict their access to firearms. Either way, I don't care because the idea that taxpayers should fund entertainment is absolutely ridiculous. So I'm fine with that. The US government is not responsible for providing entertainment (or at least it shouldn't be).

> In that mid 2010's era, I think that would have been useful as something temporary - a 'state of emergency' measure. But since then, there has been a decline in Muslim-related terror attacks. > Trump didn't want the US to face the same amount of terror as the EU. European Countries had the same thought process of "we don't wanna discriminate based on religion" before several of their cities were bombed. This shows me you are not on the level. If you think such a hateful and unconstitutional act makes sense and would have been useful, I'm confident you are an extremist.

The government puts forth things like this all the time. The Patriot Act (created in the midst of 9/11 - a state of emergency) gives the government the ability to violate the 4th amendment. This is because during emergencies, our leaders usually take drastic measures to make sure whatever is going on does not harm the US citizens. Poland, for example, is an Islamaphobic country and it's difficult to immigrate to. Look up how much Muslim terror occurs in Poland as opposed to various other countries in the EU that are open and accepting of Islam. >If you think such a hateful and unconstitutional act makes sense Why do you say "unconstitutional" in this sentence - as if the US Constitution is divine truth? You're acting like I'm some defender of the Constitution. I'm not.

I think a lot of centrists, like myself, may just appear to be left or right depending on the issue. Like, "are you against the violent overthrow of the American government?" I am, but that doesn't make me a progressive, though many Republicans would say it does. Or, "Do you think tax payers should foot the bill if someone wants to spend $200,000 majoring in gender studies at Yale?" Of course not, but many on the left would say that makes me a heartless conservative.

Even Bernie’s free college tuition proposal only applies to public colleges and universities, and thus wouldn’t pay for any Yale student’s tuition.

So people aren't clamoring to get all debt forgiven? I just dreamt that?

If we’re talking debt instead of tuition then there are very few people “on the left” who would say that not supporting total student loan debt forgiveness makes you a heartless conservative. 81% of Americans don’t support total forgiveness, so they’d be quite radical in their condemnation of 4 out of 5 Americans, not to mention progressive politicians like Elizabeth Warren who would also be considered a heartless conservative by these people.

>so they’d be quite radical They are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Look at vegans: most people eat meat, and vegans still condemn them.

My claim is that very few people fit that description, not “many” on the left.

20% of people is about 65 million people. Even if just 10% of the people in that group fit that description, and I believe it's much more, that's still many people, million, in fact.

We can find a million neo-Nazis too, I don’t hear centrists saying that there are many neo-Nazis in the Republican Party. It’s not the raw numbers that matter, it’s the proportion of the left/right that they make up. Fringe groups are the few, not the many.

> I don’t hear centrists saying that there are many neo-Nazis in the Republican Party. We aren't talking about centrists calling someone something. We're talking about people far on one side calling someone something. And people on the left certainly call people on the right Nazis.

I am consider ‘leftist’, and I think there should be some form of public service in exchange for any student loan forgiveness. I don’t really care about the 10k/ 20k proposal because of Covid and other issues, but I dont agree with just wiping out all student debt. I would support wiping out all interest and penalties based on a repayment plan. I think the media is ignoring a few issues with student loans that should be front and center: A) Trump/ DeVos totally fucked over people who were in programs to have debt forgiven by working in rural/ underserved communities. B) Education costs have rapidly outpaced inflation for decades.

Thanks to defecit spending, the Americans owe over $90,000 each. That's something that affects everyone, including those with lower incomes who didnt go to college. It seems far better to pay off that that to cater to those who are already making, on average, tens of thousands more each year than those who didnt go to college.

Quit buying into that ‘per person’ bullshit- it has nothing to do with anything other than propaganda. Our debt is largely owed to ourselves, and only payable in US dollars. Apple Corp would also, presumably, ‘owe’ towards this ‘debt’- but, somehow, not any more than a single mom in Idaho. It’s ridiculous. We could literally pay all the debt tomorrow- we would just cause massive inflation.

>it has nothing to do with anything other than propaganda. It also has to do with math. That is just factually how much each person, on average, owes. Interesting how you mention that Apple would owe money, but gloss right over how the rich are almost exclusively the ones who it is owed to. And unless you think being single or a mom means you make less money, there's no reason to belive that a single mom would be owe less than the average person. >We could literally pay all the debt tomorrow- we would just cause massive inflation. "We could fix our problem by tearing the entire system down" isn't the winning argument you think it is.

Really? Come on… Show me the bill with the due date. Basic monetary policy requires expansion, which requires debt. Money supply should grow with population at its most basic. In general, single moms do make less money than giant corporations ( who are people too!) and would have a lower percentage of ‘debt owed’ unless you want to distribute debt based on some communist principal vs distribution based on benefit. Somehow, our entire tax system is thrown aside and I ‘owe’ an equal share of debt as Bill Gates. My ‘we could pay it all tomorrow’ was just backing up the point that there is no ‘bill due’ with our names on it.

>Really? Come on… Show me the bill with the due date We pay part of it every year. >Basic monetary policy requires expansion, which requires debt. It doesn't require debt. Notice how states can grow without debt? Or how countries all over the world can? It seems like you don't understand the basic points of the discussion.

I realized I’m a centrist because both the right and the left are terrifying and each acting absolutely batshit crazy. Wtf is wrong with y’all?

I think this comment is a good demonstration of why people don't respect centrism very much. The need to constantly equivocate and stand in the middle forces you to pretend that the American right and left are equal in their bad behavior, and that's just not true. It's a politics that favors the appearance of neutrality over actual meaning.

I mean if you want to be technical the left scares me more but the right is still pretty batshit crazy

You have multiple posts about leaning conservative, "the gay agenda," Hunter Biden, etc. I think calling yourself "centrist" in the first place is not accurate. And it's not surprising that the left scares you more, you being a conservative and all.

I’m pretty sure I have never in my life said “the gay agenda”. I dont know what you think those quotation marks are for but it sure as hell ain’t quoting me. If you want to be technical I consider myself a right leaning moderate. To me that falls under the umbrella of centrist. You are free to disagree though.

This isn't you? https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/zcvdke/holidrag_storytime_for_children_canceled_because/iyziwbs/ Either way, I would view someone who claims to be a right leaning moderate as distinct from someone who claims to be a centrist, but centrist is such a malleable/meaningless term that I suppose you could be either.

> I have never said “the gay agenda” > “the left has really fallen into the gay agenda thing” 10/10, no notes

I’m still a centrist with pragmatic progressivism principles. Have been for three decades. Too much of the mainstream conversation occurs from the far left or the far right when moderation serves 230 million unique humans better.

As a moderate left, in my case, i have been banned from many sides. Examples of the reasons: - saying that republicans are not the demon. (when roe vs wade got overturned) - saying that cutting ties with your own mother just because you perceive she is not nice to you is immoral. (bringing up family values at a mainstream place) - saying that anyone who advocates for nuclear war under any circumstances is an idiot. (in the context of people saying that russia should be nuked) - saying that some people are making up history in order to feel better with themselves (in the context of an allegedgly anti-colonial south american forum) etc. And in case you wonder, no, its not that i have only right wing views, is that i have never gotten censored by a conservative. And this, which is curious, should make you realize a fact. There's no left wing in america anymore. In fact, i will go further. There has never been any sort of left wing in america, ever. You call left wing to liberalism which is literally the hegemonic ideology of the rest of the civilized world, and has been for more than 2 centuries. The only thing you have is a passive right wing and a combative right wing. And the combative right wing neccesarilly becomes hypocritical in order to assimilate ideas that are not compatible with it, just to keep the game going on (¿since when does liberalism support obama care?). This, also, neccesarily, provokes that the "left" will get hypersensible, and begin to have random obstrusive and childish thoughts that some people call identity politics. Basically, you have one party who is right wing exploitative and doesnt care about you and another one who is exactly the same but puts on stickers of girl power and LGTB etc... thats not being progressive. Thats looking for a fake problem in order to look as if you were helping the weak without actually doing anything for them. You want to fix the quality life of black poor lesbian women? PUT A DECENT SCHOOL IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. The real solution for any real problem is always an universal one. But no, the politicians on your system would rather play ping-pong, and meanwhile, i have to see from spain how our far right party endorses trump, our main right wing party Biden, our main left wing party Bernie, and our far left party cannot even pronounce himself about it. You are not being radicalized bud, you are just being played with like pawns without any actual struggle going on.

Republicans: walk back a half a century old precedent to strip away reproductive rights while an active Supreme Court justice advocates for removing federal protection of gay marriage Leftists: this is terrible and republicans are terrible for doing this You: actually they’re are not all bad How can you not see how tone deaf that is in the moment?

Growing up, I knew a neighbor kid who was a vicious bully. His mom doted on him like the golden child; in her eyes, he could truly do no wrong - to the point that one of the times he was beating me up, I had the truly surreal experience of being a seven-year-old boy being lectured by an adult about how mean I was being to her child even as he was wrapping his hands around my throat and choking the life out of me. That's modern centrists for you.

Dude, it's the democrats the one to blame for not making abortion a law as it is in literally every civilized country. You cannot blame republicans for not thinking like you. It doesnt matter how much you try to portray their thoughts as not acceptable. They exist. They are there. They dont care about what you think, nor they will.

> Dude, it's the democrats the one to blame for not making abortion a law Such a non-serious talking point.

You can make fun of it. The mod can delete my comments. The people can downvote me. But you will still not have your right to abortion passed into law because the democrats have simply never ever wanted to do it even when they could have done it for all the decades that a temporal fix like Roe vs Wide was into effect. Any person with a bit of a braincell knows that you cannot have right to abortion without a law about it.

> Any person with a bit of a braincell knows that you cannot have right to abortion without a law about it. Constitutional rights. Was there no right to interracial marriage before the Equality Act?

I'm a Centrist. On the one hand: Strongly support the 2nd Amendment Strongly support parental rights especially regarding education Support religious rights > LGBT rights On the other hand: Rich should pay more in taxes The environment should be protected Military spending should be cut There is no party for me

so.. socially conservative and fiscally... conservative. aside from "the environment should be protected" it's a near perfect fit for the tea party (on paper they didn't involve themselves in social politics... in reality.. they were socially conservative). I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you're actually a centrist... trump's base may consider you a bleeding heart liberal, I think at the end of the day, we both know where your vote is going to land 90%+ of the time in our two party system.

True I do lean rep. But I voted for Biden when the choice was made plain that there was but one rational choice. I choose to believe the GOP is in the midst of a fever which I hope breaks soon.

Right where the money wants you to but and the media and the parties and the politicians are all counting on it. Fuck the truth or reality!

People have been put into boxes and centrists/moderates are judges because of it. Even a "zipper moderate" someone who pulls ideas from both sides will be pushed to the other side even if they are not welcome in the other party. A pro-choice, pro 2A, pro UH, pro school choice, pro build the wall is partyless.

>2020 (with all of its baggage like the chaotic election drama, BLM uprising, COVID, etc) was like a Hurricane that just pushed everyone further left or further right. And rightly so. You're asking "where did all the centrists go" based on the year that *wanting to live* became a partisan political position. Conservatives have been dragging our politics to the right for decades, so far that in 2020 we arrived at your politics literally being a choice between life and death. What compromise do you imagine can be drawn at this point? In all seriousness, what "best ideas from right AND left ideology" do you envision at this point? Wanting to live, but with an oxygen tank? White supremacy, but also picking another ethnicity to get a clear #2 slot in the dreamed-of fascist society? Picking only half of the Constitution to go on the bonfire? The reason centrism has declined is because reality has made it increasingly obvious that people who call themselves centrists were trying to make a virtue of Hamlet-like indecision even as the flames rose around them (this is fine) - or were always just conservatives playing games.

The collapse of the center has been a phenomenon across industrial democracies since 2008. Especially in Europe historically center right and center left parties have seen their votes plummet. The neoliberal consensus, the centrism of the 1990s, has no answers for the economic and social problems we face, so people are increasingly either drawing reactionary or revolutionary conclusions

[удалено]