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.
"Here's a description from Wikipedia (consistent with 3 dictionary definitions I also checked):"
I think you're going to struggle to define almost anybody by the dictionary or Wikipedia definition of their label. I think it's far more helpful to define people by what they do than by what they say or how a dictionary defines them.
And while you're right that some of the terminological disagreement might have been avoided with the term "independent," my real issue is with Max's arguments and his instincts when it comes to complex situations. Critique and/or disagree with my view of centrism all you like, that's fine. But Max's arguments align almost perfectly with the criticism I'm making of centrism as an ideology:
- A failure to recognise a problem until it's too late or at least until an enormous amount of suffering has been caused.
- A strong desire to create the impression of "balance" which often ends up equalling support from the side they claim to oppose (Max's Trump comments were a glittering example of this)
- A susceptibility to poorly-examined "bothsidesism" and faulty moral equivalences.
- A reflexive identification with the status quo, or, at least, a hesitancy to make significant changes to it, even if that hesitancy causes great suffering to one side, because they, intentionally or not, demand unreasonable standards of perfection from any plan, and guarantees that the other side will suffer zero ill effects from this plan.
This last issue is exactly what MLK was criticising in his letter from a Birmingham jail.
And the ability to critique both sides, for example, is not something I identify as centrism at all. It is something I identify as "not being in a cult. Conservatives have been criticising conservative leaders and policies from time immemorial. Same for liberals. That doesn't make them centrists. Because the point I'm making here goes far beyond just left/right politics.
The civil rights movement, for example, which Max uses as the backbone of his claim that I'm a centrist, wasn't about left/right politics. It was about whether you think the demands of black people for equality should supersede segregationists' right to discriminate against them. I don't see a middle position here which isn't tantamount to support for segregationists. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it.
Your list of elements associated with your concept of "centrist ideology" seems to me to be more a catalog of possible pitfalls which some subset can fall into, rather than being broadly characteristic of all centrists, moderates, or independents.
That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?
I've noted that one human cognitive pitfall I find very common is in convenient attribution of intention and motive to a group one wishes to discount.
Another cognitive pitfall is selecting a problematic subset of a group one wishes to discount, and treating them as representing the whole, as typical.
This turns what could be a helpful caution and call for consciousness ("watch out for these pitfalls, which one can fall into") into disparagement ("this is what people like you do, generally speaking") followed by discounting.
But perhaps we can clarify this. Name half a dozen politicians or journalists or public ideologues whom you consider to be typical "centrists" and who fit your characterizations above. If in the above you are characterizing "centrism" accurately, this should be very easy because most centrists would fit well; if on the other hand, you are accidentally falling into the "treat the worst small subset as typical" pitfall mentioned above, you may find it difficult to name specific exemplars of something you think is "generally" true.
Then we'll have some concrete examples of what you mean by your abstractions, and we can discuss how well the suggested examples actually fit into your characterizations.
----
As for your last paragraph - the first question that comes to mind is whether you are speaking of "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome". I will defend the former (within reason), but not the latter. Does that represent a middle position?
"That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?"
Well, this is an argument we could continue forever without us ever settling it. Neither of us will ever know the proportions.
But this is a list of attributes that I have consistently seen amongst people who characterise themselves as centrists. In the article this conversation inspired, I listed several specific cases where this kind of thinking led to injustices dragging on for longer than they ever should have because people thought the enlightened position was to sit in the middle.
Politicians tend not to be centrist in an ideological sense, because the job kind of requires stating a position. But many of them are morally bankrupt enough that they'll switch their position depending on which way the wind is blowing, which one could argue ends in the same or a similar result.
But as far as media goes, I'll note as one good example the BBC, whose attempts to take a centrist position on several issues lately, Israel/Palestine springing quickest to mind, actually led to them having to be openly dishonest and partisan to maintain the illusion. Wonderful example of that in this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5yFJ1CjZYE).
This is also one of the reasons why the "fairness doctrine" failed.
And come on man, how long have you been reading my work? Do you seriously think I'm advocating equality of outcome? Have I ever written anything that wasn't critical of this line of thinking? I'm borderline insulted. The only caveat here is that equalising opportunity is a lot more complex than several so-called "equality of opportunity" or "meritocracy" advocates are willing to admit.
PSBR> "That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?"
SQJ> "Well, this is an argument we could continue forever without us ever settling it. Neither of us will ever know the proportions."
I wanted to briefly clarify this point, which I seem to have failed to get across.
I was NOT arguing about which proportions are true in a particular case (tho I can understand why you could have taken it that way).
I was suggesting that as a matter of internal integrity, it's useful for writers TO ASK THEMSELVES that question before characterizing a group. Are their assertions true of most of that group, or of just a fringe of the group which they are falling into treating as the mainstream of the group.
In the US, the typical Democrat is not antifa nor a Communist, and the typical Republican is not a militia member nor a Fascist. But passionate writers on both sides have a tendency to treat the extremes of the other side as "typical", which distorts rather than informing.
It's a reflection I engage in, internally, and I suggest that the quality of dialogue in general would be improved if that reflection were widely practiced.
It's not an argument to be settled, it's a reflection to be practiced.
I speak of "cognitive pitfalls to which we humans are subject" in order to note that we all have these tendencies, while suggesting that it's worth being more conscious to avoid the pitfalls - rather than selectively highlighting the fallicies of only the other side, for "gotcha" purposes, while pretending "our side" doesn't fall into the same cognitive pitfalls. And I believe that trying to avoid distortions in our thinking (or expressing) is something we do for our own intellectual and moral integrity, rather than a "gift" to others which may freely be dispensed with if we convince ourselves that others don't deserve it.
"I was suggesting that as a matter of internal integrity, it's useful for writers TO ASK THEMSELVES that question before characterizing a group"
I ask myself this question when I'm talking about pretty much any group of people.
Again, my position here is based on hundreds of conversations I've had personally with people who would describe themselves as some flavour of centrist (centre-left, centre-right etc.). Or even just people who talk about being centrists on a particular issue. As well as countless others I've heard or read over the years.
But yes, it's impossible to get a solid percentage for how many self-identified centrists fall into this bucket. That's why I was as specific as I could be about exactly the kind of cognitive and moral errors I'm complaining about. And I have to say, it's vindicating to see how every person in the comments, both here and on Medium, who is arguing with me about the virtues of centrism has fallen into those errors.
I just happened to stumble across this video a couple of days ago, and I couldn't help chuckling as I thought about our conversation, because this guy literally opens with "I sit very much in the centrist position" before accidentally revealing himself to be extremely far from that in reality (https://youtu.be/6t_1ZHRR6vY?si=PX1po_8s2xsX8kXO&t=14).
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. "
OK, so I asked for examples of what you would call "centrists" who fit your description. You noted that politicians tend not to be centrists, but gave a single example of the BBC:
SQJ> "But as far as media goes, I'll note as one good example the BBC, whose attempts to take a centrist position on several issues lately, Israel/Palestine springing quickest to mind, actually led to them having to be openly dishonest and partisan to maintain the illusion. Wonderful example of that in this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5yFJ1CjZYE)."
That was a ten minute segment which was extremely evocative in expressing a Palestinian supportive position. The interviewer only spoke two sentences to report (but NOT support or proclaim) the IDF's position, taking roughly 2% of the airtime. The interviewer also mentioned BBC reporting of other strong criticisms of Israel, albeit not within this 10 minute segment, which was devoted to getting the doctor's viewpoint publicized.
In your example, there was zero "false equivalence" involved, zero "bothsidesism", zero advocacy for Israel, zero pushback or skepticism expressed towards the interviewee. You percieved the BBC as being "openly dishonest and partisan", but I do not find your clip to support that. Actually, by very briefly stating the IDF's position, the BBC in effect gave the doctor the opening, freedom, and the airtime to more extensively argue against the IDF statement.
Please reread the first quote above, describing your concept of centricism.
If the BBC interview is a "wonderful example" of how odious centricism is, in fact the best example you have to offer of an ideology you think prevalent and having major negative effect, I honestly don't think you have made a strong case for the dangers of centricism. It seems as if you might be tilting at windmills, treating (your personal concept of) "centricism" as a bogeyman with far more power than the real world evidences.
You associate "centricism" with "A strong desire to create the impression of "balance" which often ends up equalling support from the side they claim to oppose"
If you think the BBC, by even briefly mentioning the IDF's assertion in the midst of a 10 minute presentation from a pro-Palestinian doctor, is effectively supporting Israel against the Palestinians, then there's not much more to say about this topic. It would appear that you think the only acceptable media, not suffering from the dreaded (SQJ version of) "centricism", is to present only anti-Israel viewpoints, period. Any mention whatsoever of what Israel has to say, even briefly without supporting it, is tantamount to "false equivalence" and being on the Israeli side of genocide.
No thanks. I'm not going to follow media that is so completely dedicated to being on the right side of history (in their view) as to suppress any mention of complexity or of there being any other side. But you are free to follow only media which avoids any whiff of "balance" in a morally unbalanced issue, any whiff of "centricism".
As I have said, I call myself independent - meaning that I view each issue on its own merits, without need to conform to the party line of any group. And I prefer media which at least tells me what all sides have to say for themselves, and allows me to judge the credibility of that, rather than deciding for me which sides I should be allowed to hear. I prefer neutral media, not ideologically captured media. Currently, my favorite single source is The Economist (but I do not confine myself to a single source of course).
"That was a ten minute segment which was extremely evocative in expressing a Palestinian supportive position"
No! This is the problem. It is not a Palestinian supportive position at all! It is a statement of the facts of what Israel is doing. It is a recognition of the fact that while Israel (shockingly enough) denies these reports of its own crimes, every single humanitarian organisation, including Israeli organisations, every other piece of evidence, including countless doctors and videos and even IDF soldier testimonies, contradicts those denials.
In the interview, the doctor offers not only the evidence of her own eyes and the eyes of the other doctors, she points out that countless other credible and independent sources agree with her testimony. And she's right. This is the simplest thing in the world for anybody to verify.
So yes, the false equivalence is the idea that these two positions: the evidence-free claims of the IDF (who have every motivation to lie), and the enormously well-documented counterclaims of people like this doctor (who have absolutely no reason to lie), deserve equal consideration or equal credulity.
Only someone who has planted themselves so firmly in the middle that they can make this most ludicrous equivalence (or who hasn't taken the time to examine the overwhelming evidence of Israel's crimes from a variety of sources) would describe this as a "Palestinian supportive position." It is a REALITY supportive position. Or if that's too biased for you, it is at least an EVIDENCE supportive position.
It's as if we were talking about a murder trial, and the defendant pleads "not guilty," and then the prosecution proceeds to produce an avalanche of forensic and eye-witness and video evidence, and the judge describes that as a "pro-prosecution position" and so weighs the two positions equally.
I honestly can't understand what the thought process even is here.
Equality of opportunity. I said I would defend that, within reason. That qualification is because I don't think absolute equality of opportunity is achievable or desirable.
It's obvious to me that being raised in some families will provide a more functional approach to later success than being raised in others (even given equal access to resources, networks, etc), so among other things, the only way to achieve absolute equality of opportunity would be for the State or other proxy to take all children at birth and raise them without parental connection, following a meticulous program of identical upbringing and enculturation. I don't think it makes sense to go that far.
So for me "equality of opportunity" is a direction within a spectrum, and I support many measures intended to move in that direction, without expecting to create absolute equality. I would want all kids to have access to high quality public education, for example. I like free public libraries. I want computers available to kids of all economic backgrounds. I want them to have equal chances of admission to universities.
I was raised as one of three children of a divorced mother working minimum wage jobs without child support or social welfare (except $50/mo for two years in a particular situation, for which I am grateful). I competed in the State Science Fair using magic markers and cheap poster board, alongside very slick entries from kids with access to university labs and money. I understand inequality of opportunity, and I have always supported moving more towards equality of opportunity.
I will qualify my support for equality of opportunity by saying that in general I'm much more interested in boosting the opportunities of the disadvantaged, than taking away opportunities from those who are already doing well. Provide help for those struggling to keep up, rather than imposing artificial obstacles for those who tend to surge ahead (of any race or sex of course). No Harrison Bergeron, please. (Referencing the Kurt Vonnegut short story, which everyone should read).
People being diverse, some will do better with the same opportunities (even within the same family). The only way to achieve equality of outcomes it through substantial intentional inequality of opportunity intended to engineer a given outcome, a rather procrustean approach at best.
I want to make clear that I'm speaking philosophically here, NOT accusing you of having a contrary opinion or of being an advocate of "equality of outcome". The statement which caused you to feel borderline insulted was:
SQJ> "The civil rights movement, for example, which Max uses as the backbone of his claim that I'm a centrist, wasn't about left/right politics. It was about whether you think the demands of black people for equality should supersede segregationists' right to discriminate against them."
There are people who under the rubric of supporting civil rights are more oriented towards equality of opportunity (group 1) and others who are more oriented towards equality of outcome (group 2). I was expressing that I am more supportive of the former concept. However, I never even remotely accused you of being in group 2, in my words or in my mind, so I don't see what you have to be borderline insulted about. I'll put it down to perhaps having too quickly scanned my comment, since I'm sure you have lots of comments to go through and cannot take too much time on one.
(I do NOT write only to disagree with you, and it would be unwise to treat everything I express disagreement with as thereby automatically being attributed to you; I am more engaged in the sorting of ideas than of personalities).
So yes, equality of opportunity, like generosity or intelligence, is complex and never absolute - but it's still a direction I believe worthwhile to move (within reason). And I don't assume that you would disagree.
"Equality of opportunity. I said I would defend that, within reason. That qualification is because I don't think absolute equality of opportunity is achievable or desirable."
Right, and this is my issue. Because "within reason" is always weighed against the status quo, not in terms of what is "reasonable" for the people who are being disenfranchised or oppressed. This is what I meant by centrists having a reflexive identification with the status quo.
Let's go back in time to slavery. Do you think you'd have found many people who thought "within reason" when it came to emancipation was a society where black people simply had equal rights to white people? Where a black person could be a teacher or a doctor or a president as easily as a white person?
Of course not! That would be too far from the status quo. And they didn't have strong enough values to drive them to the right position.
Those people, probably widely considered reasonable for their time, might have suggested a society where black people were given certain freedoms, but were kept separate from white people. Let them have their own water fountains and motels and entrances to public buildings. They might even admit that this wasn't ideal from an "all men are created equal" standpoint. But you have to act within reason, right?
Asking for more than this simply isn't achievable. Heck, I'm not even sure it's desirable!
Again, my problem with centrists, generally speaking, a problem MLK highlights in his letter from a Birmingham jail, is that these are the people who have had their foot on the brake of every single movement towards equality in history, while simultaneously presenting themselves as the reasonable, enlightened middle ground. The people who magnanimously see both sides and refuse to place one over the other.
As I've said to you several times before, the ability to look at both sides is undeniably important. Understanding the arguments of both sides is invaluable when it comes to finding solutions. But sometimes, the issue is simply too important and/or imbalanced to pretend that the two sides are equivalent.
And centrists, in my experience, resolutely do this either until it's far too late and history has already decided who was wrong (in which case they act as if it's obvious that they would have supported the right side even though their arguments suggest otherwise), or they don't react until "babies are being placed in ovens," by which time, it's also already pretty damn late.
I am trying to accurately understand your concerns.
I believe that you are conceiving of "centrists" as people who consider all side of an issue to be evenly balanced and thus avoid taking any positions, correct? You have great disdain for such creatures, attributing their real internal motivations as the moral cowardice of being unable to face criticism for holding any positions How close am I?
I can understand why you would have moral disdain for moral cowards who refuse to take a position on any issue out of fear.
I can understand why you could have intellectual disdain for simpletons who expect that the arguments on all sides of issues are equally balanced and thus cannot take any position.
Where we differ is that you don't limit your disdain to just the people matching those characterization, but include all "centrists", which appears to me to be over-generalization and projection.
That's not unlike over-generalizing from "I despise people of <some group> who throw acid in the faces of other people", into "I despise people of <some group>". Negatively characterize a subset, then apply the resulting rancor to the full set.
You idiosyncratically redefine "centrists" as that subset you despise, ignoring that your definition is not the one used by most of society to communicate with each other in English. That's your right but I think it reduces your traction.
The bigger question however is: WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING AS THE ALTERNATIVE to "centrism"?
What do you even call people who are not centrists? Is "extremist" the only alternative, or do you offer any other name?
Take people like myself. I would say that there are multiple sides to virtually every issue, but they are rarely equally balanced. If the imbalance is sufficient, I take a position - subject to revision as I learn more. On some issues, I don't know enough to take a confident position, so I don't until I learn more. I sometimes get heat from the positions I do take; I know that comes with the territory. And I want my media diet to include a honest description of the position of all sides so I can evaluate their strengths for myself, rather than deciding for me which is correct and showing me only material that supports that side.
I don't think that qualifies as a centrist by your redefinition of the term, and I don't fit anybody's definition of an extremist. Do I not exist in your breakdown of society, or do you have a word for the characterization I gave of myself?
What about yourself - what flavor of non-centrist are you?
[I asked several specific questions to which your answers would be helpful in understanding, each ending in a question mark:
- did I get your position more or less right at the beginning
- what alternative do you propose to centrism?
- what do you call people who are not centrists? Other than extremism?
- what would you call people fitting my self-characterization?
- what term do you use for yourself as a non-centrist?
If you can only quote one section of this email in a response, please quote the list of questions and respond to them, in order to stay on point]
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.
"Here's a description from Wikipedia (consistent with 3 dictionary definitions I also checked):"
I think you're going to struggle to define almost anybody by the dictionary or Wikipedia definition of their label. I think it's far more helpful to define people by what they do than by what they say or how a dictionary defines them.
And while you're right that some of the terminological disagreement might have been avoided with the term "independent," my real issue is with Max's arguments and his instincts when it comes to complex situations. Critique and/or disagree with my view of centrism all you like, that's fine. But Max's arguments align almost perfectly with the criticism I'm making of centrism as an ideology:
- A failure to recognise a problem until it's too late or at least until an enormous amount of suffering has been caused.
- A strong desire to create the impression of "balance" which often ends up equalling support from the side they claim to oppose (Max's Trump comments were a glittering example of this)
- A susceptibility to poorly-examined "bothsidesism" and faulty moral equivalences.
- A reflexive identification with the status quo, or, at least, a hesitancy to make significant changes to it, even if that hesitancy causes great suffering to one side, because they, intentionally or not, demand unreasonable standards of perfection from any plan, and guarantees that the other side will suffer zero ill effects from this plan.
This last issue is exactly what MLK was criticising in his letter from a Birmingham jail.
And the ability to critique both sides, for example, is not something I identify as centrism at all. It is something I identify as "not being in a cult. Conservatives have been criticising conservative leaders and policies from time immemorial. Same for liberals. That doesn't make them centrists. Because the point I'm making here goes far beyond just left/right politics.
The civil rights movement, for example, which Max uses as the backbone of his claim that I'm a centrist, wasn't about left/right politics. It was about whether you think the demands of black people for equality should supersede segregationists' right to discriminate against them. I don't see a middle position here which isn't tantamount to support for segregationists. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it.
Your list of elements associated with your concept of "centrist ideology" seems to me to be more a catalog of possible pitfalls which some subset can fall into, rather than being broadly characteristic of all centrists, moderates, or independents.
That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?
I've noted that one human cognitive pitfall I find very common is in convenient attribution of intention and motive to a group one wishes to discount.
Another cognitive pitfall is selecting a problematic subset of a group one wishes to discount, and treating them as representing the whole, as typical.
This turns what could be a helpful caution and call for consciousness ("watch out for these pitfalls, which one can fall into") into disparagement ("this is what people like you do, generally speaking") followed by discounting.
But perhaps we can clarify this. Name half a dozen politicians or journalists or public ideologues whom you consider to be typical "centrists" and who fit your characterizations above. If in the above you are characterizing "centrism" accurately, this should be very easy because most centrists would fit well; if on the other hand, you are accidentally falling into the "treat the worst small subset as typical" pitfall mentioned above, you may find it difficult to name specific exemplars of something you think is "generally" true.
Then we'll have some concrete examples of what you mean by your abstractions, and we can discuss how well the suggested examples actually fit into your characterizations.
----
As for your last paragraph - the first question that comes to mind is whether you are speaking of "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome". I will defend the former (within reason), but not the latter. Does that represent a middle position?
"That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?"
Well, this is an argument we could continue forever without us ever settling it. Neither of us will ever know the proportions.
But this is a list of attributes that I have consistently seen amongst people who characterise themselves as centrists. In the article this conversation inspired, I listed several specific cases where this kind of thinking led to injustices dragging on for longer than they ever should have because people thought the enlightened position was to sit in the middle.
Politicians tend not to be centrist in an ideological sense, because the job kind of requires stating a position. But many of them are morally bankrupt enough that they'll switch their position depending on which way the wind is blowing, which one could argue ends in the same or a similar result.
But as far as media goes, I'll note as one good example the BBC, whose attempts to take a centrist position on several issues lately, Israel/Palestine springing quickest to mind, actually led to them having to be openly dishonest and partisan to maintain the illusion. Wonderful example of that in this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5yFJ1CjZYE).
This is also one of the reasons why the "fairness doctrine" failed.
And come on man, how long have you been reading my work? Do you seriously think I'm advocating equality of outcome? Have I ever written anything that wasn't critical of this line of thinking? I'm borderline insulted. The only caveat here is that equalising opportunity is a lot more complex than several so-called "equality of opportunity" or "meritocracy" advocates are willing to admit.
PSBR> "That is, are you talking about the worst 10% or about 90%, of those not strongly affiliated with the left or right?"
SQJ> "Well, this is an argument we could continue forever without us ever settling it. Neither of us will ever know the proportions."
I wanted to briefly clarify this point, which I seem to have failed to get across.
I was NOT arguing about which proportions are true in a particular case (tho I can understand why you could have taken it that way).
I was suggesting that as a matter of internal integrity, it's useful for writers TO ASK THEMSELVES that question before characterizing a group. Are their assertions true of most of that group, or of just a fringe of the group which they are falling into treating as the mainstream of the group.
In the US, the typical Democrat is not antifa nor a Communist, and the typical Republican is not a militia member nor a Fascist. But passionate writers on both sides have a tendency to treat the extremes of the other side as "typical", which distorts rather than informing.
It's a reflection I engage in, internally, and I suggest that the quality of dialogue in general would be improved if that reflection were widely practiced.
It's not an argument to be settled, it's a reflection to be practiced.
I speak of "cognitive pitfalls to which we humans are subject" in order to note that we all have these tendencies, while suggesting that it's worth being more conscious to avoid the pitfalls - rather than selectively highlighting the fallicies of only the other side, for "gotcha" purposes, while pretending "our side" doesn't fall into the same cognitive pitfalls. And I believe that trying to avoid distortions in our thinking (or expressing) is something we do for our own intellectual and moral integrity, rather than a "gift" to others which may freely be dispensed with if we convince ourselves that others don't deserve it.
"I was suggesting that as a matter of internal integrity, it's useful for writers TO ASK THEMSELVES that question before characterizing a group"
I ask myself this question when I'm talking about pretty much any group of people.
Again, my position here is based on hundreds of conversations I've had personally with people who would describe themselves as some flavour of centrist (centre-left, centre-right etc.). Or even just people who talk about being centrists on a particular issue. As well as countless others I've heard or read over the years.
But yes, it's impossible to get a solid percentage for how many self-identified centrists fall into this bucket. That's why I was as specific as I could be about exactly the kind of cognitive and moral errors I'm complaining about. And I have to say, it's vindicating to see how every person in the comments, both here and on Medium, who is arguing with me about the virtues of centrism has fallen into those errors.
I just happened to stumble across this video a couple of days ago, and I couldn't help chuckling as I thought about our conversation, because this guy literally opens with "I sit very much in the centrist position" before accidentally revealing himself to be extremely far from that in reality (https://youtu.be/6t_1ZHRR6vY?si=PX1po_8s2xsX8kXO&t=14).
It's a pattern I see almost invariably.
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. "
OK, so I asked for examples of what you would call "centrists" who fit your description. You noted that politicians tend not to be centrists, but gave a single example of the BBC:
SQJ> "But as far as media goes, I'll note as one good example the BBC, whose attempts to take a centrist position on several issues lately, Israel/Palestine springing quickest to mind, actually led to them having to be openly dishonest and partisan to maintain the illusion. Wonderful example of that in this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5yFJ1CjZYE)."
That was a ten minute segment which was extremely evocative in expressing a Palestinian supportive position. The interviewer only spoke two sentences to report (but NOT support or proclaim) the IDF's position, taking roughly 2% of the airtime. The interviewer also mentioned BBC reporting of other strong criticisms of Israel, albeit not within this 10 minute segment, which was devoted to getting the doctor's viewpoint publicized.
In your example, there was zero "false equivalence" involved, zero "bothsidesism", zero advocacy for Israel, zero pushback or skepticism expressed towards the interviewee. You percieved the BBC as being "openly dishonest and partisan", but I do not find your clip to support that. Actually, by very briefly stating the IDF's position, the BBC in effect gave the doctor the opening, freedom, and the airtime to more extensively argue against the IDF statement.
Please reread the first quote above, describing your concept of centricism.
If the BBC interview is a "wonderful example" of how odious centricism is, in fact the best example you have to offer of an ideology you think prevalent and having major negative effect, I honestly don't think you have made a strong case for the dangers of centricism. It seems as if you might be tilting at windmills, treating (your personal concept of) "centricism" as a bogeyman with far more power than the real world evidences.
You associate "centricism" with "A strong desire to create the impression of "balance" which often ends up equalling support from the side they claim to oppose"
If you think the BBC, by even briefly mentioning the IDF's assertion in the midst of a 10 minute presentation from a pro-Palestinian doctor, is effectively supporting Israel against the Palestinians, then there's not much more to say about this topic. It would appear that you think the only acceptable media, not suffering from the dreaded (SQJ version of) "centricism", is to present only anti-Israel viewpoints, period. Any mention whatsoever of what Israel has to say, even briefly without supporting it, is tantamount to "false equivalence" and being on the Israeli side of genocide.
No thanks. I'm not going to follow media that is so completely dedicated to being on the right side of history (in their view) as to suppress any mention of complexity or of there being any other side. But you are free to follow only media which avoids any whiff of "balance" in a morally unbalanced issue, any whiff of "centricism".
As I have said, I call myself independent - meaning that I view each issue on its own merits, without need to conform to the party line of any group. And I prefer media which at least tells me what all sides have to say for themselves, and allows me to judge the credibility of that, rather than deciding for me which sides I should be allowed to hear. I prefer neutral media, not ideologically captured media. Currently, my favorite single source is The Economist (but I do not confine myself to a single source of course).
"That was a ten minute segment which was extremely evocative in expressing a Palestinian supportive position"
No! This is the problem. It is not a Palestinian supportive position at all! It is a statement of the facts of what Israel is doing. It is a recognition of the fact that while Israel (shockingly enough) denies these reports of its own crimes, every single humanitarian organisation, including Israeli organisations, every other piece of evidence, including countless doctors and videos and even IDF soldier testimonies, contradicts those denials.
In the interview, the doctor offers not only the evidence of her own eyes and the eyes of the other doctors, she points out that countless other credible and independent sources agree with her testimony. And she's right. This is the simplest thing in the world for anybody to verify.
So yes, the false equivalence is the idea that these two positions: the evidence-free claims of the IDF (who have every motivation to lie), and the enormously well-documented counterclaims of people like this doctor (who have absolutely no reason to lie), deserve equal consideration or equal credulity.
Only someone who has planted themselves so firmly in the middle that they can make this most ludicrous equivalence (or who hasn't taken the time to examine the overwhelming evidence of Israel's crimes from a variety of sources) would describe this as a "Palestinian supportive position." It is a REALITY supportive position. Or if that's too biased for you, it is at least an EVIDENCE supportive position.
It's as if we were talking about a murder trial, and the defendant pleads "not guilty," and then the prosecution proceeds to produce an avalanche of forensic and eye-witness and video evidence, and the judge describes that as a "pro-prosecution position" and so weighs the two positions equally.
I honestly can't understand what the thought process even is here.
Equality of opportunity. I said I would defend that, within reason. That qualification is because I don't think absolute equality of opportunity is achievable or desirable.
It's obvious to me that being raised in some families will provide a more functional approach to later success than being raised in others (even given equal access to resources, networks, etc), so among other things, the only way to achieve absolute equality of opportunity would be for the State or other proxy to take all children at birth and raise them without parental connection, following a meticulous program of identical upbringing and enculturation. I don't think it makes sense to go that far.
So for me "equality of opportunity" is a direction within a spectrum, and I support many measures intended to move in that direction, without expecting to create absolute equality. I would want all kids to have access to high quality public education, for example. I like free public libraries. I want computers available to kids of all economic backgrounds. I want them to have equal chances of admission to universities.
I was raised as one of three children of a divorced mother working minimum wage jobs without child support or social welfare (except $50/mo for two years in a particular situation, for which I am grateful). I competed in the State Science Fair using magic markers and cheap poster board, alongside very slick entries from kids with access to university labs and money. I understand inequality of opportunity, and I have always supported moving more towards equality of opportunity.
I will qualify my support for equality of opportunity by saying that in general I'm much more interested in boosting the opportunities of the disadvantaged, than taking away opportunities from those who are already doing well. Provide help for those struggling to keep up, rather than imposing artificial obstacles for those who tend to surge ahead (of any race or sex of course). No Harrison Bergeron, please. (Referencing the Kurt Vonnegut short story, which everyone should read).
People being diverse, some will do better with the same opportunities (even within the same family). The only way to achieve equality of outcomes it through substantial intentional inequality of opportunity intended to engineer a given outcome, a rather procrustean approach at best.
I want to make clear that I'm speaking philosophically here, NOT accusing you of having a contrary opinion or of being an advocate of "equality of outcome". The statement which caused you to feel borderline insulted was:
SQJ> "The civil rights movement, for example, which Max uses as the backbone of his claim that I'm a centrist, wasn't about left/right politics. It was about whether you think the demands of black people for equality should supersede segregationists' right to discriminate against them."
There are people who under the rubric of supporting civil rights are more oriented towards equality of opportunity (group 1) and others who are more oriented towards equality of outcome (group 2). I was expressing that I am more supportive of the former concept. However, I never even remotely accused you of being in group 2, in my words or in my mind, so I don't see what you have to be borderline insulted about. I'll put it down to perhaps having too quickly scanned my comment, since I'm sure you have lots of comments to go through and cannot take too much time on one.
(I do NOT write only to disagree with you, and it would be unwise to treat everything I express disagreement with as thereby automatically being attributed to you; I am more engaged in the sorting of ideas than of personalities).
So yes, equality of opportunity, like generosity or intelligence, is complex and never absolute - but it's still a direction I believe worthwhile to move (within reason). And I don't assume that you would disagree.
"Equality of opportunity. I said I would defend that, within reason. That qualification is because I don't think absolute equality of opportunity is achievable or desirable."
Right, and this is my issue. Because "within reason" is always weighed against the status quo, not in terms of what is "reasonable" for the people who are being disenfranchised or oppressed. This is what I meant by centrists having a reflexive identification with the status quo.
Let's go back in time to slavery. Do you think you'd have found many people who thought "within reason" when it came to emancipation was a society where black people simply had equal rights to white people? Where a black person could be a teacher or a doctor or a president as easily as a white person?
Of course not! That would be too far from the status quo. And they didn't have strong enough values to drive them to the right position.
Those people, probably widely considered reasonable for their time, might have suggested a society where black people were given certain freedoms, but were kept separate from white people. Let them have their own water fountains and motels and entrances to public buildings. They might even admit that this wasn't ideal from an "all men are created equal" standpoint. But you have to act within reason, right?
Asking for more than this simply isn't achievable. Heck, I'm not even sure it's desirable!
Again, my problem with centrists, generally speaking, a problem MLK highlights in his letter from a Birmingham jail, is that these are the people who have had their foot on the brake of every single movement towards equality in history, while simultaneously presenting themselves as the reasonable, enlightened middle ground. The people who magnanimously see both sides and refuse to place one over the other.
As I've said to you several times before, the ability to look at both sides is undeniably important. Understanding the arguments of both sides is invaluable when it comes to finding solutions. But sometimes, the issue is simply too important and/or imbalanced to pretend that the two sides are equivalent.
And centrists, in my experience, resolutely do this either until it's far too late and history has already decided who was wrong (in which case they act as if it's obvious that they would have supported the right side even though their arguments suggest otherwise), or they don't react until "babies are being placed in ovens," by which time, it's also already pretty damn late.
I am trying to accurately understand your concerns.
I believe that you are conceiving of "centrists" as people who consider all side of an issue to be evenly balanced and thus avoid taking any positions, correct? You have great disdain for such creatures, attributing their real internal motivations as the moral cowardice of being unable to face criticism for holding any positions How close am I?
I can understand why you would have moral disdain for moral cowards who refuse to take a position on any issue out of fear.
I can understand why you could have intellectual disdain for simpletons who expect that the arguments on all sides of issues are equally balanced and thus cannot take any position.
Where we differ is that you don't limit your disdain to just the people matching those characterization, but include all "centrists", which appears to me to be over-generalization and projection.
That's not unlike over-generalizing from "I despise people of <some group> who throw acid in the faces of other people", into "I despise people of <some group>". Negatively characterize a subset, then apply the resulting rancor to the full set.
You idiosyncratically redefine "centrists" as that subset you despise, ignoring that your definition is not the one used by most of society to communicate with each other in English. That's your right but I think it reduces your traction.
The bigger question however is: WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING AS THE ALTERNATIVE to "centrism"?
What do you even call people who are not centrists? Is "extremist" the only alternative, or do you offer any other name?
Take people like myself. I would say that there are multiple sides to virtually every issue, but they are rarely equally balanced. If the imbalance is sufficient, I take a position - subject to revision as I learn more. On some issues, I don't know enough to take a confident position, so I don't until I learn more. I sometimes get heat from the positions I do take; I know that comes with the territory. And I want my media diet to include a honest description of the position of all sides so I can evaluate their strengths for myself, rather than deciding for me which is correct and showing me only material that supports that side.
I don't think that qualifies as a centrist by your redefinition of the term, and I don't fit anybody's definition of an extremist. Do I not exist in your breakdown of society, or do you have a word for the characterization I gave of myself?
What about yourself - what flavor of non-centrist are you?
[I asked several specific questions to which your answers would be helpful in understanding, each ending in a question mark:
- did I get your position more or less right at the beginning
- what alternative do you propose to centrism?
- what do you call people who are not centrists? Other than extremism?
- what would you call people fitting my self-characterization?
- what term do you use for yourself as a non-centrist?
If you can only quote one section of this email in a response, please quote the list of questions and respond to them, in order to stay on point]