What the Heck IS a Centrist?
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in General PoliticsIn a moment when centrism is all the rage, Callimachus declares he’s not a centrist. He explains why:
If you’re a “centrist” all you have to do is say, “you’re both partially right,” and without even necessarily knowing whether that’s true, you’re probably one step up the evolutionary ladder from both of the sides. Because chances are they’re both partly right.
But you still haven’t really broken out of the dualism just because you’ve connected two points and made a line…
The position I’m looking for is one that considers what both sides say, but then goes down to the cellars of their arguments and swings a sledgehammer at the foundation to see if it holds up. Follow the references, check the footnotes, and go gather some research on your own. Put everything to the baloney test: Does it fit the known facts? Is it internally consistent? Ideally, ignore the stated positions and come to a conclusion entirely on your own. Definitely ignore the personalities on either side.
Callimachus acknowledges the high-level of difficulty in his approach but clearly views it as superior to the usual centrist thinking. Without question, independent thought is preferable to simply measuring out the middle on any given position. But is Callimachus right in thinking his mode of thought is not part of centrism?
Yes and no. And maybe. As I have noted, there is no centrist ideology to which the so-called vital center subscribes. The center is vital not because it has policies or even a political methodology but because it has numbers. A significant number of us voters hold fast to our independence, suspicious of party orthodoxy and critical of partisan games. We cannot be easily organized but we can be powerful, serving as the ultimate check against political excess and ineffectiveness.
Fundamentally, centrism is the absence of party loyalty. For some, that means rejecting the positions of both parties and looking for the answer somewhere in between the two dominant views. But for others, being centrist is about finding an entirely new axis. “Centrist� is the label because it represents the willingness to look both left and right for answers. But it’s not quite accurate because it fails to convey the willingness to look up and down as well.
Those with Callimachus’ level of curiosity and independence look up and down and side-to-side and under rocks and on top of cupboards too. Their opinions are not a balancing act but the result of intellectual investigation and discovery. That type of person is not what the big boy pundits mean when they say centrist (they tend to use the word as a euphemism for swing-voter and moderate). But that type can still be a part of centrism.
If centrists are never more than just a moderating force, we’ll still perform an invaluable service. But if at least some centrists can embrace the level of critical thinking Callimachus describes (as some of those who write here and elsewhere already have), then centrism could mature and begin advancing not just balanced positions but whole new ideas devoid of the old assumptions. At that point we might have to call it something other than “centrism,� but the centrist label works for now.
Cross-posted at Maverick Views.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 14th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
“Yes and no. And maybe.”
Brilliant centrist response. :)
November 14th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Machete … it would have been perfect if I’d added a “on the other hand…”
November 14th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
My feelings are being a centrist/independent/moderate is exactly what Cal described in his third paragraph. And do know that it’s much less about being in the MIDDLE, although if we’re talking about a two party system…you’re going to find yourself there quite a bit. But politics can often be about compromise to get things done. And so, there’s that side of centrism too.
But yes, centrists have opinions, we have facts and we don’t tie our decisions to any sort of stale ideology. We recognize that both sides have good ideas and bad, and we treat them as such.
In short, centrism is about being honest with yourself and honest with your audience. That’s how I try and run this blog, and that’s how it’ll continue until I quit.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I like what “The Centrist Voice” came up with in its response to this: A “swing voter” is one who swings punches at both parties.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I saw that. Good line.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:47 am
I thing the center tends to be more pragmatic, and maybe that is the definition. Governmental run health care for example. The left says “we must have it� without regards to costs or how we pay for it. The right says “no way�, but getting business out of heath care frees up resources and having a health care system might allow some people with families become entrepreneurial, no longer fearing giving up the health safety in starting a business. For the pragmatic center the issue is formed in the way of questions, “Can this be partly privatized?“ Could this be done but have certain levels of restrictions, like no costly procedures with demonstrated poor outcomes?“ We don’t reject out of hand [ or accept for that matter], we think about it. And if anything drives the left and right batty it’s our wanting to mull it over rather than have the slam dunk ideological response.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:43 am
A satisfying post and commentary.
I have begun to expand my thinking from the concept of bi-partisan to the idea of Trans-ideological. I agree that it is not as simple as either/or.
Sometimes I look at issues as Democratic aims with Conservative means.
e.g. Expanded health care through free markets.
Heads up, the melifulous written stylings of Tutakai is back:
http://tutakai.typepad.com/tutakai/
November 15th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
ASC; As always, good post when you refer to the classics. Maybe we can call it Neutralism: getting rid of the bias n bull, without the predetermined conclusions drawn before the argument even begins. What I like to see is when one politician bucks his party’s stance and agrees with some of the opponents points. Now that’s when I ask why–why did he put his neck on the line? What’s so important that politics took a back seat ? Like Leiberman, or McCain sometimes do.
Also, referring to the numbers you mentioned, I heard a rebublican talkin bout doin things differently. He was saying Carl Rove would use the percentages; figuring that only bout half of the total electorate actually votes in any given election. That means maybe only 20% of the total possible vote gives you the majority. So, motivate the base and you get your 20%. That didn’t work this time around because we- the center -came out in larger #’s and for the purpose of CHANGE. We, the forgotten middle, were heard !
November 16th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
I am soooo encouraged as I keep finding more & more people expressing what has been my mode of operation since I started voting decades ago.. FINALLY!!!
Never could understand people relating to a party affiliation as though they were rooting for a football team.. Talk about suckers asking to be manipulated!
You give me hope for the future. In years past, when I expressed similar political thinking, all I got back were odd stares and silence. People just did not approve.
It was somehow “unpatriotic” in their minds for me not to be able to “take a side.”
Keep defining this approach, people are finally opening up to it. There is HOPE.
Only by independent thinking, analysis, fact-checking and focus on balanced outcomes with the “best” overall effect are we going to run this country as well as it deserves to be run. NOT by letting special interests fight over the spoils of power.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
There are very few REAL “Centrists’.
Prove it by taking the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Centrist or Neutralism are synonyms for people who have an innate inability to show some gonads and take a stand either way.
Websters calls it ‘wishy washy’. I call it ’spineless’.
By teheway, I’m Libertarian.