The Moderate Politics Thread

[KentVillan]

19 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/realpolitik

If the real centre shifts over time - i.e a centrist when I was born would classify as a left winger these days - then I don't understand how, ideologically, one can describe onesself as a centrist/moderate.

I totally get the practical, negotiation side of the label, it's easy to comprehend.

But, ideologically and policy-wise, what constitues a centrist? Which policies are centrist?

If we accept the middle of two points argument how far to the extremes do we go to set the metric? And if that is the metric then wouldn't everything that's not 'extreme' be counted as the centre. Where are the lines drawn?

And I hope my posting history would make it unnecessary to state, but for opacity I'll do it, but I'm not a fan of the left/right labels as they adhere to modern politics. The narrowing of the debate surely means the choice between the 3 main parties over here - if using the middle ground of the current overton window - would all constitute centrist parties, no? even though on any old skool scale they are all right of centre (If we accept the lurch to the right of mainstream politics in my lifetime)

In the US the same term is used but for a more right wing version of politics than we have over here - the different overton window.

It's easy to imagine those on the left of the Tories and those on the right of the Labour party as 'centrists' in their own party as opposed to extremists. But I don't get how it can have an ideology.

Not sure what your point is with the dictionary definition.

Re centrism shifting over time. So does left and right. The world evolves, the context changes. You seem to think this is unique to centrism, when it’s just a natural feature of all ideology.

Marx didn’t have any opinions on AI or renewable energy.

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

If the real centre shifts over time - i.e a centrist when I was born would classify as a left winger these days - then I don't understand how, ideologically, one can describe onesself as a centrist/moderate.

The centre doesn't really change over time, when consensus is around the centre ground may move around but on the linear left right scale  you will always have fascism on the right and marxism on the left. The centre point does move but where the focus is around the centre just gets pulled in slight directions away from the centre.

 

23 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

But, ideologically and policy-wise, what constitues a centrist? Which policies are centrist?

ideologies are for the extremes, why does there have to be an ideology?

This is why the linear scale of describing politics is utter bobbins

[StefanAVFC]

Centrism is obviously a position but it's a bit of logical fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Take healthcare for example.

Left would want free for all access with no private sector.

Right would want only a private.

A compromise position would be a combo of both. Free to access for all, but also private if people choose to have it.

Is that a true centerist position?

What if the position changes to you resign from free to access if you have private? Or free to access is means tested based on income and everyone else has to pay?

 

[bickster]

24 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Centrism is obviously a position but it's a bit of logical fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Left and right don't exist either

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

This is why the linear scale of describing politics is utter bobbins

agreed on that

[KentVillan]

Centrism is I guess the belief that lots of incremental changes in the right direction can add up to big changes. Radical politics is the view that you don't get anything done without more decisive reforms.

Merits to both positions I think. Centrists are much more likely to actually win elections and hold on to power. Radicals are more likely to transform society when they do get into power.

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

Not sure what your point is with the dictionary definition.

Re centrism shifting over time. So does left and right. The world evolves, the context changes. You seem to think this is unique to centrism, when it’s just a natural feature of all ideology.

Marx didn’t have any opinions on AI or renewable energy.

Just quoting it to highlight the point I was making about practical politics.

Do left and right shift? policy wise? On the scale of how we measure things? The age old divides between right and left surely remain - big govt/small govt. Nationalisation/Privatisation. and so on. Sure, the Overton window shifts and historically left wing parties adopt right wing policies and vice versa.

If I'm measuring a piece of wood for instance, the length will change from piece to piece, the depth, the height, the density of different wood - there are many variables - but the metric doesn't change. mm's are mm's, cm's are cm's, inches are inches, feet are feet. Being practical I will cut it to the length I require on any given job. But the metric remains constant.

Technological advancements are technological advancements I'm not sure of the relevance

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, VILLAMARV said:

If I'm measuring a piece of wood for instance, the length will change from piece to piece, the depth, the height, the density of different wood - there are many variables - but the metric doesn't change. mm's are mm's, cm's are cm's, inches are inches, feet are feet. Being practical I will cut it to the length I require on any given job. But the metric remains constant.

The worst analogy so far put forward in this thread

[VILLAMARV]

Just now, KentVillan said:

The worst analogy so far put forward in this thread

It's not an attempt at an anallogy for centrism kent.

It's an example of how changes in form relate to a constant metric.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Just quoting it to highlight the point I was making about practical politics.

Do left and right shift? policy wise? On the scale of how we measure things? The age old divides between right and left surely remain - big govt/small govt. Nationalisation/Privatisation. and so on. Sure, the Overton window shifts and historically left wing parties adopt right wing policies and vice versa.

If I'm measuring a piece of wood for instance, the length will change from piece to piece, the depth, the height, the density of different wood - there are many variables - but the metric doesn't change. mm's are mm's, cm's are cm's, inches are inches, feet are feet. Being practical I will cut it to the length I require on any given job. But the metric remains constant.

Technological advancements are technological advancements I'm not sure of the relevance

You are bringing a ruler to measure a cloud?

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

ideologies are for the extremes, why does there have to be an ideology?

There doesn't. I'm not one of the people in this thread claiming that it exists. I'm merely trying to understand the views of those who claim there is one.

[bickster]

Just now, VILLAMARV said:

I'm merely trying to understand the views of those who claim there is one.

Have there been any of those?

[VILLAMARV]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Have there been any of those?

I thought there was.

23 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Not clear you’ve read it at all tbh if that’s your takeaway. It mostly means finding the workable middle ground between left and right, not cherrypicking different ideas from each side … although maybe a bit of the latter too.

Sometimes left and right are in consensus on something anyway - gay marriage for example.

Mostly isn't finite - I take this to mean there's the practical realism bit....and something else - so what is the something else?

Edited June 20, 2023 by VILLAMARV
??

[KentVillan]

There are multiple dimensions, left and right is just a shorthand … mostly relating to position on class/elites/redistribution of wealth.

Obviously you can make it much more granular. But ideology clearly exists…

[VILLAMARV]

Glad we cleared that up then

 

[OutByEaster?]

I think background is important - we live in a society based on a simple principle; growth/profit, and all of the social or policy decisions we make are framed under that principle - like God and the King before them.

In the multi-linear ball of different viewpoints and issues, you can be at the centre of a number of things, but still exist on a line that lives within a pretty extreme system.

Climate is our perfect example - it's clear that our current path will result in the end of human life on our planet, but we frame our solutions within their impact on growth/profit.

The eco people that block roads are taking an action that is both extreme and disruptive, but you could make a case for their views being quite centrist, between everybody dying and everybody not dying, is everybody not dying an extreme opinion?

The far end of that is the nutters who just want more and more coal and think climate change is a myth, I think even they'd suggest that's an extreme viewpoint, I might be wrong, within the free market bubble, if you believe the science is wrong, then believing the economics are more important might seem a moderate act in the face of the extreme of those that believe otherwise.

But the more interesting opposing group, what's become a described centrist position I think in political terms, are those who are looking to gradually replace fossil fuels whilst maintaining growth/profit through eeking out the last value in fossil fuels and securing the right way to gain benefit from renewables over a course of time.

That might sounds sensible, because that's often how it's presented to us - but they are essentially saying that they are prepared to gamble with future of human life on the planet as long as the prevailing doctrine of growth/profit is protected first - and that's considered a centrist, moderate viewpoint.

I think sometimes we live in an extreme world and within it, even those opinions which might appear to be the middle ground are still often pretty extreme once you remove them from the frame of the extreme doctrine that dominates our society.

[VILLAMARV]

much more eloquantly than me, but that's what I was wondering a few posts ago. How far to the extremes do we go to set the metric?

I took a dive down the rabbit hole last night in an attempt to find answers to my own questions. It would seem various centrist entities have positions that have been labelled and so instead of thinking of centrism as a whole, the factions (that's not the right word perhaps but I hope you follow me) might be able to offer insight into the ideologies behind the movement/people.

For example the 'third way' is a term I learnt yesterday which applies to the Blair years (and Clinton IIRC) whereupon he drew from a traditionally right wing ideology when it came to the economy and a more traditionally left wing social justice platform.

Like Kent says, there's an ideology there and it draws from wherever it likes.

Like OBE said early on - and I would agree with - in this example it's a form of corporatism.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the more interesting opposing group, what's become a described centrist position I think in political terms, are those who are looking to gradually replace fossil fuels whilst maintaining growth/profit through eeking out the last value in fossil fuels and securing the right way to gain benefit from renewables over a course of time.

I dispute that analysis. You’re right, absolutely people are looking to do that. But they’re not centrists. They’re a mix of pragmatists from all sides and ends of the spectrum, frankly. They’re not the right wing nutters, but are mostly not the centrists, though some of those are included.

I go back to the German Greens and the consequences of Ukraine and gas for energy. They’ve been pragmatic in accepting that maybe their bete noir of Nuclear and maybe even coal might be necessary in the short term. The UK greens don’t say “don’t fly, don’t drive ICE cars” they say “do it less”. Absolutely decarbonise faster, but the argument is about how fast is possible as much as it is about how slowly can we get away with to keep the shareholders happy.

Or more succinctly “it’s complicated”. Humankind won’t do it fast enough, because of things you say, but it’s not  because centrists are trying to keep the profits rolling in for Shell or BP.

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I dispute that analysis. You’re right, absolutely people are looking to do that. But they’re not centrists. They’re a mix of pragmatists from all sides and ends of the spectrum, frankly.

Oh gawd, pragmatists was the nearest I'd got to putting an actual position on centrism other than whatever someone wants it to mean at the time in order to dislike another viewpoint - if you can't rely on centrists to take a pragmatic stand based on sensible compromise, who can you rely on? And what do we call the sensible pragmatists now!!

Quote

Or more succinctly “it’s complicated”. Humankind won’t do it fast enough, because of things you say, but it’s not  because centrists are trying to keep the profits rolling in for Shell or BP.

It is complicated and of course centrists aren't trying to keep the profits rolling in for Shell or BP (that would be a standpoint) but Shell and BP are definitely trying to keep the profits rolling in by creating a viewpoint and ensuring it's considered the centrist one - they spend tens of millions of pounds doing that on advertising, lobbying, legal work and any other means they can to control the conversation and make sure that the sensibly pragmatic voice is reading from their script - the mythical centrism can not exist, but can be created.

 

 

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Oh gawd, pragmatists was the nearest I'd got to putting an actual position on centrism other than whatever someone wants it to mean at the time in order to dislike another viewpoint - if you can't rely on centrists to take a pragmatic stand based on sensible compromise, who can you rely on?

Yeah, I definitely think that if, as people have tended to say, there’s a less ideological approach, or stance, from centrists (I agree with that, to a fair extent) then it tends to be replaced with “well what will actually work and make things better/less bad” pragmatism. And I think that’s probably a pro for them. But I think I was trying to say that there are non centrist takes/views/stances which can be or are pragmatic too, but are maybe ahead of their time, or of conventional thinking. There’s a big lag between the genius idea from an extreme and that idea becoming an accepted “well obviously”.  Like for example solar panels on people’s houses, or wind farms. 20 years ago people who did that were considered bonkers lentil munching weirdos. Now it’s absolutely run of the mill. The (then) “weirdos” were ahead of their time. They were pragmatic. It’s just a tiny example and I’ve maybe not quite nailed what my point is, other than that maybe centrism is pragmatic quite a lot of the time, but it’s not exclusive to them and also that by its nature, if the pragmatist correctly diagnoses the problem there’s a good chance the solution might be a good one.