In 2019, in his book, How To Be An Antiracist, Ibram X Kendi shared one of the stupidest ideas ever committed to the page:
The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
In this framing, racial discrimination is like a seesaw; first, you get to be at the top, then, inevitably, I get to be at the top, and we compete, back and forth, to be the last one with our legs dangling.
To be fair to Kendi, a disappointing number of people seem happy to buy into this “middle ground” approach. We shouldn’t treat all forms of racism with equal disdain, we shouldn’t strive for equality, we should divide ourselves into teams based on skin colour, or just as bad, remain neutral and shrug our shoulders as the racists fight for supremacy.
In my article, The Moral Myopia Of The Middle Ground, I argued that there are (thankfully, only a few) issues where the middle ground isn’t an option, where refusing to take a side is indistinguishable from taking the wrong side.
But as Max demonstrates, it’s important to understand what the sides are.
Max:
I strongly disagree, and there are three problems...
1) Everyone wants to be fighting Nazis even when they are not. When transgender girls are kept off of sports teams, it may be upsetting and it may be injustice. It isn't genocide.
If babies are being put into gas chambers... then sure, extreme measures up to terrorism is perhaps justifiable. If we are arguing over the names of army bases, not so much.
2) You are setting up a strawman. No one takes the middle position on every issue.
I am a centrist because I don't tow the party line. I tend to be left of center on the majority of issues, but I am happy to admit when the political right has a valid point.
I believe in free speech to the extreme ( and probably more than you do). That doesn't stop me from being a centrist. I have no problem taking a strong position. I just refuse to let political side choose for me what positions I feel strongly about.
3) Not every immoral act is justified even when it is in service of a moral cause. I oppose Israel's actions in Gaza, and I even question Israel's right to exist as a political, ethnically based state. I think Israels actions in Gaza are barbaric, unjustified and are arguably ethnic cleansing.
That doesn't mean I support Hamas' terrorist attack targeting civilians or their rocket attacks on civilian areas.
Steve QJ:
When transgender girls are kept off of sports teams, it may be upsetting and it may be injustice. It isn't genocide.1. Yes correct, I didn't say it was. This is an extremely bizarre objection.
2. Yes, some people do. But regardless, that wasn't the case I was making. I gave five specific examples of very important issues that people have taken the middle ground on. Even if they claimed to dislike the thing in question. Sometimes, there is a right thing to do. And the fact that centrists rarely acknowledge that need until "babies are being put in gas chambers" is exactly the issue.
You react too late, or not at all, and only have moral clarity in hindsight.
3. Again, I didn't even begin to claim that every immoral act is justified by a moral cause. I have never ever defended Hamas' actions, I don't think they're justified, and have devoted several articles to criticising them. Hamas are just as vile as the Israeli leadership in my opinion.
The point is that there is no way to justify Israel's actions against Palestinians by talking about October 7th. Not their actions now, and certainly not their actions before October 7th even happened. The attempt to do so is part of the centrist trap.
Max:
Martin Luther King, who you used as an example, is actually an example of centrism. He was resisting calls for a more militant version of resistance from more extreme parts of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King pushed back on the "Black Power" movement by name and was criticized for it by other Black leaders.
When Dr. King talked about non-violence, he wasn't speaking to the White police or to racists. His message on non-violence was for his own side.
Steve QJ:
Martin Luther King, who you used as an example, is actually an example of centrism.No, this is a total failure to understand what the "sides" were in the civil rights movement. To be fair, sadly, you're not alone.
The sides weren't black peple and white people. This is still a racist framing when you think about it, because it still separates black people and white people into "sides." This is why the modern "antiracist" movement was also racist. Because it made this same mistake, just in the opposite direction.
The sides were racists and people who genuinely opposed racism. And MLK was extremely clear about which side he was on, and how intolerant he was of the other side or the people who tried to sit in the middle. In fact, your claim is especially bizarre given that I quote him talking about his disdain for centrism on this issue.
And, yes, he advocated non-violence in general which, of course, is not centrism. Many political leaders have been extremely one-sided while calling for non-violence. But while he would very obviously have preferred the police and the KKK to also be non-violent, they were unlikely to listen to a black man's advice either way. That's obvious, no?
Max:
You are setting up a false binary that doesn't exist... and never existed.
A person who opposes affirmative action programs in companies and colleges is considered racist. A person who calls for the accountability and punishment of racist cops is considered not racist.
And... yes, a person can do both of these things, which makes them both racist and non-racist at the same time.
You are setting up a "no true scotsman" argument when you use the phrase "genuinely opposed racism". There was a disagreement in the time of Martin Luther King about what it meant to oppose racism. And there is disagreement now.
And there always is lots of room in the center.
Steve QJ:
A person who opposes affirmative action programs in companies and colleges is considered racist.Man, come on now.
A person who opposes affirmative action is only meaningfully considered racist if their reasons for opposing it a) ignore the fact that many groups benefit from affirmative action, not just people of colour (white women are among the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) and b) only object to selection methods that aren't purely meritocratic when they involve people of colour.
The fact that some idiots throw the word “racist” around mindlessly doesn’t mean that their accusations are valid. You can find some idiot out there who thinks going to the gym is racist. This isn’t a no true Scotsman fallacy, it’s a recognition that words have meanings.
Legacy admissions, nepotism, wealth inequality, and, of course, racism. all of these have been functioning as forms of affirmative action for pretty much the entire history of the United States. Almost exclusively for white men. It's not a coincidence that every single president but one has been a white man. And that the exception arguably had to be more intelligent, articulate and capable than any other. It's not a coincidence that an adulterous, ignorant, corrupt insurrectionist was able to reach the same heights with less melanin.
It's not a coincidence that an anti-vaxxer is currently Secretary of Health. It's not a coincidence that an incompetent, alcoholic, former Fox News anchor is Secretary of Defence. If someone fails to recognise or care about any of this, but is still super mad about AA in the context of a few extra black people getting jobs, then yes, they are probably racist.
And no, "genuinely opposed to racism" is very easy. It's a person who consistently opposes the categorisation or judgement of human beings based on their skin colour or ethnicity, whether those people are white or black or green. That's it. A concept immortalised in King's famous "Dream" speech. It's why I have consistently criticised racism against black people and white people. And why I've been so deeply disappointed to see the people in my audience who only agree with me when I'm criticising the latter.
It's all too often forgotten that King was largely seen as an extremist in his time. Enormously unpopular amongst white people who would probably have considered themselves “in the center.” Again, it's only in hindsight that people like these can see that he was right. And then, because his correctness is now mostly mainstream thanks to his hard work, they fool themselves into thinking that they'd have always agreed with him.
Max:
Well, let me try to break this to you gently. I think you might be a centrist. Let me put it this way.
If my White face wrote what you did about Martin Luther King's message... the mainstream progressive left would jump all over me. The idea of a "colorblind" society is generally portrayed as a racist idea by the anti-racists (and actually I think they have a valid point, but that isn't really relevant here).
You are pushing back on the extreme parts of your political side. You are even suggesting that Black people can be racist, a heresy among some parts of the political left.
That is what centrists do. We are critical of the extreme of both sides. As a center-left Americans, I am far more upset at the current Trump cult than anyone else. And yet, the progressive left is annoying me too... and it is the political left who needs to earn my vote for the Democrats.
Steve QJ:
Well, let me try to break this to you gently. I think you might be a centrist. Let me put it this way.No, once again, you are failing to understand what the sides are here. And your convictions are too weak for you to be willing to face the pushback that is inevitable if you take a stand on pretty much anything.
Again, the sides on racial issues are racist vs not racist. Not simply KKK vs MLK (again, I quote MLK pointing this out in the article). Not black people vs white people. Certainly not "progressive left" vs everybody else. There are a great many racists on the progressive left too. And they gained a lot of influence for a while. That's why I spoke out against them. I will push back against everybody, left, right and otherwise, who is racist. Because, once again, the sides are racist vs not racist.
And seriously? Do you think the progressive left didn't "jump all over me" for my opposition to racism because I'm black? Are you kidding me? I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a "coon" and an "Uncle Tom" and a "white supremacist" and a "race traitor" and on and on. Who cares?! Why do so many grown adults still treat name-calling as if it's kryptonite?
Do you think I didn't get death threats and racist abuse for writing about trans issues in defence of women? Do you think I don't get called a bigot and an antisemite for speaking out against Israel's genocide?
I'm not in the middle on any of these issues. Yes, as I recommend in the article, l've given a lot of thought to the opposing position. I understand the discrimination that trans people face, I understand--to the best of my ability--the collective trauma of the Holocaust and the worldview it has created in some people, I understand, of course, the impact of racism, I have a degree of compassion for all the people who I think are wrong about these issues. But I'm unequivocally on the side doesn't allow them to justify genocide or colonialism or anti-white racism or the destruction of women's rights.
So no, what centrists do, generally speaking, is try to find a safe middle ground that doesn't ruffle too many feathers because they're afraid someone will "jump all over them." Because to stick your neck out on an issue, you have to care about it and genuinely try to understand it. When we're talking about these important moral issues, the "middle ground" doesn't help us fix anything. It creates false equivalences that make talking about these problems harder. And it leaves the people suffering to spend even longer dealing with the status quo.
p.s. What centrists also do is treat politics as some kind of game where one side needs to "earn their vote," even though they're very astutely "far more upset" with the other side. Man, if you think one option is worse than the other, if you can make that decision for yourself, why does the better side need to earn anything? This is actually a glowing example of what I find infuriating about the centrist mindset.
It's like this moral and intellectual helplessness where you think other people have to persuade you to make the right decision when you claim you can make it on your own. I have so many issues with the Democrats. Not least their political ineptitude. But why can't you weigh it up and make up your own mind where you stand?
Max:
I disagree with your premise. The problem with say it is "racist versus not-racist" is that no one knows where the line is.
Whether someone or something is racist of not is a purely subjective decision. You have your opinion, I have mine. I doubt there is anyone who will agree with you completely.
So what do you do with normal people? Someone may believe sincerely that no one should be judged by the color of their skin. That same person may oppose the protests against police believing that they want a strong police force to keep order. Someone may support Black Lives Matters, but oppose affirmative action.
Human beings don't fit in these nice simple categories. And saying "I oppose racism" is meaningless whether it is Donald Trump saying it (as he does), or AOC.
You are trying to divide human beings into sides... expecting that everyone will hold easily categorizable beliefs and behaviors that will allow them to be placed into one of two boxes.
Human beings don't work that way.
Steve QJ:
no one knows where the line is.Do you judge people based on the colour of their skin or the content of their character? There's the line. It doesn't matter if you're using that framing to decide that white people are fragile or racists or colonialists or that black people are criminals or thugs or "magic."
It is so wild that the "wokies" managed to convince so many people that words like "racism" are totally arbitrary. No, they just overused the word to win arguments, and now you buy into their framing.
It is not racist to want a police force. It is not racist to oppose AA for good, consistent reasons (though it would be smart to recognise the need for some kind of alternative). It is not racist for white people to get dreadlocks. You have accepted incredibly stupid people's reframing of what racism is and then tied yourself in a knot of their making.
Racism is the idea that human beings are divided into (usually somewhere around five) "races," that you can tell which race someone is by looking at the colour of their skin (ignore the enormous genetic and geographic diversity of people with different skin tones), and that some of these races are better or worse than the others or that you can judge one member of that “race” by the behaviour of a different member.
Every single racist idea is born from this rather obvious mistake.
You can be more or less racist, of course. Your judgements can be more or less negative or positive, you can even argue that most people are a little bit racist because received tribalism is very hard to think your way out of, but the flaw is right at the root; the idea that you can say a single thing about a person, positive or negative, by looking at their skin.
It’s easy to be in the middle when you can’t figure out what the sides are. In fact, it feels as if there’s nowhere else to be. And for a disappointing number of people, the sides only become clear when they are personally affected.
The reason Max was so fixated on the progressive left, despite the countless, virulent examples of racism on the political right, was that the progressive left is the only part of the political spectrum that has ever directed racism towards him.
The “white fragility,” “equity over equality” brand of racism is exclusive to the progressive left. So it hasn’t occurred to Max that racism has a slightly longer history than the past five years of “wokeness.”
When he thinks about racism, he doesn’t think about the centuries of racial profiling and intimidation and violence that people of colour have faced, he thinks about cancel culture and diversity training and random nobodies calling him names on Twitter.
But those mean Twitter people only exist because of the aforementioned centuries of racism that Max and millions of people like him have ignored. And unless we figure out how to care about issues when we’re not directly affected by them, it’s hard to see how this cycle doesn’t just repeat forever.
As Martin Luther King put it, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Or to put it another way, the cure for past discrimination isn’t present discrimination, it’s an end to all discrimination.
Are any labels worthwhile? It could be argēued that I'm a centrist because I agree & disagree with issues with as little regard to political party partisanship as possible, but I tilt right on more issues, or should I say the actions of the tribes in regard to them. If I said that if I had to accept a label and chose conservative would it actually tell you anything about me, or just lead you to assumptions like the color of my skin might?
What does the identity of centrist tell you about someone? Wouldn't it be more useful to discuss issues? If only Socrates was here to make people agree about the topic. People don't even agree on the definitions for racism, racist, anti-racist resulting in a conversation of the deaf.
This seems like two people arguing past each other, based on differing ideas of what "centrism" consists of. Here's a description from Wikipedia (consistent with 3 dictionary definitions I also checked):
W> Centrism is the range of political ideologies that exist between left-wing politics and right-wing politics on the left–right political spectrum. It is associated with moderate politics, including people who strongly support moderate policies and people who are not strongly aligned with left-wing or right-wing policies.
So what does Max mean by the term when identifying as a centrist? He's pretty clear and it fits with the above description:
Max> "I am a centrist because I don't tow the party line. I tend to be left of center on the majority of issues, but I am happy to admit when the political right has a valid point. I believe in free speech to the extreme. That doesn't stop me from being a centrist. I have no problem taking a strong position. I just refuse to let political side choose for me what positions I feel strongly about."
So what does Steve find objectionable about Max's centrism? Well, Steve tells us what he believes centrism is about:
SQJ> "what centrists do, generally speaking, is try to find a safe middle ground that doesn't ruffle too many feathers because they're afraid someone will "jump all over them." Because to stick your neck out on an issue, you have to care about it and genuinely try to understand it. "
Readers can judge for themselves, but to me Steve's idiosyncratic redefinition of centrism seems at odds with both Wikipedia (and multiple dictionaries which I invite readers to consult), and with the usage of the term that Max is using for himself. As such, I think Steve's arguments accidentally verge on a strawman - critiquing Max based on the out-of-context and very pejorative associations Steve has with the term "centrism", rather than based on what Max actually says.
In particular, the latter description involves a lot of imputation of intention and motive, an argumentation strategy which I find to be frequently problematic because it's highly subjective and too easily projected as something which discredits the other side. Like, we should tell a self described centrist what they REALLY believe and what their motives are, rather than listen to them.
When somebody gets to do that redefine the terms, and impute motives, they can with trivial effort "win" any argument, at least in their own judgement. And that power is seductive, but I think we need to resist because it's also a sterile approach to gaining any real insights.
That is, Steve asserts that in general, centrists do not have strong belief in a moderate position, or strong and principled positions which fail to conform to any party line (as others use the term centrist) - no, they are in general just people without conviction or principles, trying to avoid ruffling any feathers out of fear, who don't actually care about issues, or even genuinely try to understand it.
So if Max identifies as a "centrist", but Steve's idiosyncratic description of "centrist" can be retroactively substituted for what Max actually means by the term, then the discussion goes off the track - Steve feels he has "won", and Max feels like Steve didn't listen.
I no long use the word "centrist" because I've seen people intentionally or unintentionally project weird stuff onto that term, which comes from their own heads, not from mine - so they stop listening and start believing they know my views better than I do because they know what centrists are like. I'm not interested in "my definition is right" games, but in good faith attempts to understand what other people mean (ie: what THEY mean by their words, even if I support different usages), so we can together refine what we actually agree and disagree about and why - because that's where I can learn. I prefer words as tools for better understanding the underpinnings of disagreements (and agreements), rather than as weapons to reduce comprehension. So if "centrist" has too much baggage for a substantial number of people, I avoid getting into an unproductive rut.
I instead call myself an "independent", someone who is free to agree or disagree with any party or political movement, unbound by any party lines (or cancellation), and free to support whatever approach I believe has the best argument on a case by case basis. So far, that term conveys my meaning with less chaff disrupting the actual deliberations.
If Max had called himself an "independent" rather than a "centrist", most of the conversation above could have been avoided; no need to talk past each other based on meaning different things by the same term. Freed of that sidetrack/distraction around terminology, perhaps they could have concentrated more on substance.
Or at least I think so, because I think Steve was at core arguing in good faith, and was not consciously trying to use a rhetorical trick. That is, Steve most likely really does hold the stated negative stereotypes of centrism, and really did think that Max must fit the description Steve has for the term.