Centrism, as in what? The center of the Statesian political parties? Then yes, considering both parties are right-wing. The center of two arbitrary points? Depends on the points. “Centrism” is inherently an irrational way to describe political views, being in the center of two points adds no value. If someone says we should kill everyone with glasses, and someone else says we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t kill half of the people with glasses. What centrism does in practice is give people cover to obfuscate their actual views, it isn’t a position by itself.
I think the centrist approach would be to kill people with monocles
Or maybe only maim people with glasses
give people cover to obfuscate their actual views
which are usually right-wing, since those are the ones ashamed about their own views.
Yep.
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
MLK’s perspective on centrists is perennial. They’re Judas goats.
In western capitalist dictatorships, “centrism” means an acceptance and non-opposition to the status quo of capitalist rule, liberalism, and landlordism.
Any opposition to poverty, homelessness, hunger, or rule by capitalists, is deemed “radical”, and outside of respectable discourse, even though these should be just a baseline of human decency.
Some resources:
“Meet me in the middle” says the unfair man. You take a step forward, he takes a step back
“Meet me in the middle” says the unfair man.
Centrists in Canada are just Liberals and while I disagree with some of their policies, they’re not bad, just status quo. Centrists in the US are undoubtedly bad though because what the hell?
The status quo is bad if you view us of the periphery as equal humans whose suffering matters the same as you.
Sorry, what are you referring to exactly? If it’s the treatment of indigenous peoples in Canada or historical collaboration with the US’ imperialistic wars then I’d agree with you but I know the average Liberal voter isn’t thinking about either of those things. While it’s bad that it’s not on their mind, I wouldn’t call them bad people for it as I would do with enthusiastic supporters of Pierre Poilievre’s CPC
I am talking about how the status quo of the entirety of the imperial core is built on and sustained by the pillaging and superxploitation of the periphery through imperialism and neocolonialism.
I’m very much critical of those topics, but they’re a bit beyond the scope of my initial comment. Just to make it clear, I’m not a centrist nor a Liberal voter. My original point is that the average Canadian LPC voter is not voting out of malice for others but out of a desire for stability (especially now in a time where things are very unstable). For example, a Liberal would generally want existing social support systems like our socialised healthcare to continue being funded at the levels that meet people’s needs but are generally anxious at the idea of funding new similar programs like pharmacare.
Most of these voters also have zero real insight or historical context on geopolitical topics such as neocolinialism and I can say confidently that they’re not thinking about it when voting.
I think it’s all ignorant, misguided and lacks vision but I don’t consider it something that’s worthy of being labeled “bad”.
I’m registered as independent but I am by no means a “centrist”. In current vernacular, I’m a "tankie’. I’m to the left of Bernie Sanders, who in my opinion, is just controlled opposition for the democrats who are the other right-wing party running this shit-hole country.
