As I mentioned at the beginning of this blog, I tend to consider myself a centrist in politics and in a lot of other things. It's not a perfect label as few labels are, but I was never able to pinpoint my views, really I'm all over the map. Other words commonly used are moderate (more a temperament than a philosophy), pragmatic (which I am but not on everything), compromise (a dirty word among political junkies- sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not), radical middle or radical centrist (I used to like this term but "radical middle" blogs and literature don't seem to agree on what and where the radical middle is. "Conservative" and "liberal" are the most overused words in the media right now and it seems like they mean something along the lines of "us" and "them". Of course the media doesn't tell us what to think -wink-; they just feed us the "facts" (propaganda), and then let the viewer decide which side of humanity is pure virtue and which side is pure vice. Just like the other two terms I mentioned, "centrist" is a relative term. A right winger in the San Francisco bay region might be considered centrist in Mississippi or Alabama. The political spectrum is also not a linear one, there are also libertarians, paleo-conservatives (think Pat Buchanan, the Constitution Party, Mel Gibson), Anarchists (I could Google the word until I'm blue in the face and I still can't figure out what an Anarchist is beyond the literal definition), and there are ultra radical philosophies where far left and far right seem to coexist (ends meet). Late night talk radio is a good place to hear all types of viewpoints except for centrist (I guess we're too boring). There have been many small attempts to create centrist parties but it's hard to create a platform without blind compromise. Also a paradox on being anti-ideology, anti-label, pro critical thinking, and pro common sense is that if you try to organize it, it becomes an ideology of its own. (Common sense is also a cliche, overused term.) I run into a similar issue in Religion (although I am a Catholic) and other paradigms, I do believe that there is truth, common sense, goodness, critical thinking, and some absolutes too, but the way the human ego works, when people try to organise truth, it becomes a lie. Truth is not something that can be owned, patented, or bottled up and sold like spring water, it is elusive. If God is truth than certainly nobody can own God. Also, while I said I believe in goodness one reason I tend to be a little suspicious of "do-gooders" on the left, right, and everywhere else is because of the many tricks of the human ego (and from a Catholic viewpoint, the Evil One).
Another problem with centrism is that many politicians who label themselves as centrists are more chameleons or opportunists. Others are just indifferent, anyone can be a centrist on the issues they don't care about. I have no desire to smoke cannabis for example, yet I could generally care less what others do when I'm not around, therefore it would be easy for me to take a "moderate" position on the "legalize pot" issue.
Abortion is also an extremely problematic issue for a centrist party. Many people are willing to compromise on complex economic issues that they cannot understand anyway. Social issues are far different. I can't even blame either side for being rigid on this issue. I'm pro-life myself and believe life begins at conception, however I try my best to be fair and empathetic to both sides. For many this issue alone defines who is right, left, us, or them. I don't have any solutions myself that will please everyone, but I do know what won't help, that is the shouting and sloganeering on both sides. I keep remembering the old Dale Carnegie book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and the advice in there. You can't keep comparing people to Hitler and calling them "baby-killers" or "sexist woman-haters" and have them say "Gee, maybe I should start seeing things their way for a change..." I don't personally know of one person who has changed their point of view on anything because someone called them names or someone started an argument over Thanksgiving dinner with them and the other person won the argument. One cannot serve a greater cause and serve the ego at the same time. When people's egos enter a cause it may still accomplish superficial success in the short term, but it will corrupt things in the long term. Whether one is pro-choice and favors the bodily rights of the woman, or if one is pro-life and favors the infant's right to life, I can understand why neither side would want to compromise. Remember the Bible- Solomon's Baby- no one would want to cut the baby in half. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon#.22Splitting_the_baby.22 For a centrist party to be successful, I think they would have to remain open and neutral on this issue (or even pro-life but show a lot of empathy for all sides). I don't think abortion should even be framed as a "culture war" issue. I feel the debate needs to boil down to just a few things: When does life/personhood begin? Where there is personhood, where do the woman's rights to her body end and the infant's rights to life begin? How do we define these rights and enforce them? I feel thinking along these lines will bring more critical thinking to this otherwise emotional issue. Also one should not try to package abortion and gay rights issues together, they are very separate issues, gays aren't even the ones having abortions, and this only frames it all as a "culture war" or "us vs. them" issue rather than issue of the right to life. I'm not pro-life just because my church says so but for human rights reasons. I actually didn't write this post to debate abortion either, but because I feel it is the most divisive issue of our generation and if we can find some civility and common ground on this issue then the rest will come a lot easier.
As far as the real "culture war" issues I think the best way to win the culture wars is to stay out of them in the first place. Let every individual have their own culture insofar as it doesn't interfere with other people's right to have their own culture.
I am concerned that if we do come up with a centrist party it can be easily hijacked by people with more extreme views. (Also many blogs and websites claiming to be centrist or "radical middle" are actually libertarian or paleo-conservative) (Plus, the term "third way" is also confused with centrism but usually seems to refer to paleo-conservatives, agrarians, distributist or old-right populist types of groups.) A common propaganda technique by extremists is to frame themselves as centrists. Actually according to most polls there are almost as many self-identified moderates in the USA as there are conservatives and liberals. According to exit polls from Election 2008 the highest concentration of moderates tends to be in the inland Northeast in the suburban and even rural areas (Yankee pragmatism?). Where I live in Pennsylvania in some ways is like a "centrist Vatican". Even a lot of ideologues I know of have an "ideological beauty mark". There are many "pro-life Democrats", "gay Republicans", right wingers who don't believe in God, political liberals who are theologically conservative and straight-laced in their personal lifestyle. In suburban America and in the growing sun-belt there are many people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal or libertarian, to many this is the definition of centrism but I disagree. There are also many blue-collar rooted Democrats in the Northeast and rust belt region who are left wing but lean slightly to the right on cultural issues. The area I live is like that. (Notice I say blue-collar rooted since many of the industrial revolution paradigms that political analysts tend to use are outdated- i.e. blue collar, white collar, working class, blue bloods...) Don't forget too the right/left paradigm as most Americans know it is mainly an Anglo/Western one. In other cultures the terms we use can have very different meanings.
I hate to have so many links to Wikipedia. I know it looks lazy on a blog, I know it isn't perfect, it's not immune to bias, and the articles are not stable and subject to change, but there are so much good info there I just can't help it sometimes:
Here are some current attempts at Centrist parties:
Modern Whig http://www.modernwhig.org/
American Centrist: http://www.americancentristparty.net/
Here are some other articles to help explain what I'm getting at:
False Dichotomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Demagoguery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
Centrism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
Radical Center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
Modern Whig Party on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party
Political Correctness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Cynicism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(contemporary)
Do-Gooder: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-gooder
Pragmatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
It seems to me that if there is one big thing that all ideologies, non-ideologies, philosophies, religions, organized moral systems, social movements, and political parties have in common is this: One can make and clarify rules as eloquently as they want and identify with who one wants to, but if their heart isn't truly in it or when the ego sneaks in even a little, then people will always find semantic or legalistic loopholes as well as double standards to suit their own interests. It's part of human nature. The ego can rationalize just about anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment