Jump to content

Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

. So the term "centrist" really doesn't tell me much about what position a person actually advocates.


 

On some issues, or areas of policy, sure.  But in others, say economics, it tells me quite a bit. 

Or when discussing a political spectrum that includes say, other wealthy democracies, it's pretty easy to a spectrum of policy choices and label them "left, right, center".

And more broadly, a centrist is someone who strongly supports the status quo, and when willing to make some changes wants to do it slowly, with broad consensus, and without changing any power structures or wealth distribution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Strangely, I hear "centrist" most often from (white male) right wingers to describe themselves. They don't believe in parties, just in good sense policies. Then it'll come out in further discussion that they've never voted for a Democrat, they think women make too much fuss about abortion access, and that minorities should quiet down and recognize how good they have it.

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

Do you support both enshrining those rights as well as aggressive action to support those rights? (i.e., putting abortion clinic on federal land in states that are restricting abortion)

Or just fundraising/teeth gnashing over deaths due to lack of care or abuse of minorities (including those lacking documentation)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

I think within two years we'll have you in linen pants, rocking a hippie beard and voting for Jill Stein. ;)

Edited by TrackerNeil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Week said:

Do you support both enshrining those rights as well as aggressive action to support those rights? (i.e., putting abortion clinic on federal land in states that are restricting abortion)

Or just fundraising/teeth gnashing over deaths due to lack of care or abuse of minorities (including those lacking documentation)?

Yes… I’m ready to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law.  Lacking documentation?  What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes… I’m ready to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law.  Lacking documentation?  What?

*Undocumented immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 “Centrism isn’t change — not even incremental change. It is *control*" as somebody somewhere said (not me -- not smart enough to say that).

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is radicalism the antithesis? Or, at least the only anthesis?  Radicalism is that because that is the stance of centerism about any change at all.  Centerism means status quo, for me, and for mine.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If not radicalism… what?

Morality? Equality? Honesty? Ethics? Education? All of these are considered radical too, so we'll just stick with the status quo which has an ever accelerating contraction of opportunity for absolutely everyone who isn't white and obscenely wealthy men, while everyone else has more oppression, repression, murder, starvation, etc.

But seriously, folks, can you point to anything in the last 100 years (since the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement, which were anything but centerist, and labeled extreme radicalism and communism by those who were centrist),  where whatever you all think centerism is has actually progressed civil liberties and opportunities, and lessened oppression for anyone who was a white wealth man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Morality? Equality? Honesty? Ethics? Education? All of these are considered radical too, so we'll just stick with the status quo which has an ever accelerating contraction of opportunity for absolutely everyone who isn't white and obscenely wealthy men, while everyone else has more oppression, repression, murder, starvation, etc.

But seriously, folks, can you point to anything in the last 100 years (since the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement, which were anything but centerist, and labeled extreme radicalism and communism by those who were centrist),  where whatever you all think centerism is has actually progressed civil liberties and opportunities, and lessened oppression for anyone who was a white wealth man?

The new deal wasn’t radicalism.  If anything it was a center left move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The new deal wasn’t radicalism.

Tell that to the corporations of the time.  Tell that to the corps who were determined not to help out Britain against the nazis, before extremism on that side forced the US essentially to the extremism of declaring war on Japan and entering the war in Europe, when Roosevelt was determined to loan military materiel to the nations attacked by Germany and Mussolini.  They screamed frackin' blood murder.  And, they've been screaming ever since, rolling it all back at every possible turn, at every possible increment.

Have you read the histories of time?  Have you even read a single biography of Eleanor Roosevelt and the abuse she received just by herself, regardless of her husband?  In fact, many to this day blame it all on her.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Tell that to the corporations of the time.  Tell that to the corps who were determined not to help out Britain against the nazis, before extremism on that side forced the US essentially to the extremism of declaring war on Japan and entering the war in Europe, when Roosevelt was determined to loan military materiel to the nations attacked by Germany and Mussolini.  They screamed frackin' blood murder.  And, they've been screaming ever since, rolling it all back at every possible turn, at every possible increment.

Have you read the histories of time?  Have you even read a single biography of Eleanor Roosevelt and the abuse she received just by herself, regardless of her husband?  In fact, many to this day blame it all on her.

I’m aware of how FDR was attacked.  I’m also aware he won election to the Oval Office 4 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he wasn't a centrist -- he dared to DO, and even though he didn't get what all was wanted and needed, as Eleanor advocated for all the time  -- what he got was was called communism. NOT CENTRISM.

Bu the way, what do you call Truman's decision to nuke Japan: centrism or extremism.

What it always looks like to someone from the outside, when it comes to actual extremism, centrists call, "We had no choice."

Others also see, "No choice."

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Bu the way, what do you call Truman's decision to nuke Japan: centrism or extremism.

Pragmatism.  He wanted to end the war.  He frightened the Japanese into surrender when they were unwilling to do so.  Perhaps that is a better term than “centrism” because it isn’t looking for the mean, median, or mode… simply what works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that bashing centrism is an uniqueness of an US political system, not necessarily an universal value. Perhaps it is natural consequence of deeply tribal and polarized society to view those who declare themselves as centrists with mix of distrust and presumed dishonestly on centrists' part; but in countries with more pluralistic politics centrism is definitely a viable and legitimate political option.

I'll give an example: here we have a party aptly called "Centre". And in all of societal issues (LGBT rights, abortion etc.) they are staunchly liberal, like the left is. But in most of other matters, they differ significantly.

For example, left likes higher taxes and larger administration, centrists like tax cuts and smaller administration. Centrists prefer open immigration policy, left is much more ambivalent on that (since it could hurt already worn out domestic working class). Left campaigns strongly on climate change, centrists don't so much. Left is adamant in keeping certain property (highways, beaches, coastline...) public, centrists are more open to granting concessions to private companies to manage them. Left in oftentimes affiliated with various activist groups, centrists are not. In general, centrists' main aim is to promote meritocracy, while left is concentrating on protecting and elevating the downtrodden.

So left, apparently, they are not. But they're equally distanced from the right as well - they have none of right's nationalism (in fact, they have quite cosmopolitan mindset), or affiliation with religion, or penchant for populism etc.

Centrist parties in other European countries maybe don't follow this exact set of policies, but remain their own direction separated from both left and right (not that left and right and monolithic, either. Each is represented by 2-3 major political parties). You don't hear much from them because...well, mainly because they're not very popular and usually can't achieve more than single-digit percentage at national level (and often less then that). Best they can hope for is being a minor partner in ruling coalition. But that doesn't mean that their politics are not legitimate, that they are rightists (or leftists) in disguise or that they don't represent political views of some small part of population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps what is conveniently labeled by some 'lefty radicalism' is actually courage and honesty in the face of what the poets have always known, holding the species's collective memory in their souls, the lessons to which their contemporaries determinedly are deaf and blind?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

  --- first stanza of William Butler Yeats's justifiably famous "Second Coming"

In the meantime when comes to Truman's decision, which was deliberately to target civilians, the Japanese have other terms than 'pragmatic'.

Scot, I love you, but you are floundering here; your mind is better than this.

You may be fine with your neighbors' door being smashed in and their crystal left in shard, since your own crockery, you believe, shall remain securely intact on your centrist shelves. It never works like that, finally.  Sides are forced to be chosen, for no one is safe, but centrists think they can be with ears closed and eyes shut, and saying, 'let's all get along.'

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...