Does Middle of the Road really exist?

i think it is part a cop out and part people trying to be "politically cool."

Being a Centrist, IMO, is just a political fad.

" is it a cop out?"


Being middle of the road has nothing to do with being neutral, or unsure of your stance on all subjects political or ethical (coping out). It has to do with being able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of various ideological view points. To understand each sides argument to the point where you can make it persuasively, yet not necessarily adhere to either. It has to do with seeing elements of truth in both ends of the political spectrum without becoming subservient to towing either of their lines. To be a liberal, yet understand the resonance and usefulness that a realists understanding of international relations has in explaining state action. It requires being able to synthesize those elements of truth into your own political viewpoint. It may, and usually does, end up tilting slightly to the left or right, but it is almost always less polarized than unabashed adherence to any one worldview.

Touqueville makes a good point in Democracy in America which goes along the lines of: When one first becomes aware of a fact, or adheres to an ideology which has particular resonance, one usually believes in it unmitigatingly because little is known about its intellectual rivals. Many times people fail to move beyond this point. But if, at some point, they are made aware of arguments which contradict their beliefs, it often greatly destabilizes their perceptions of the world. While they may infact, upon close reflection, come back to believe again in their original viewpoint, it will not be with the same unnuanced conviction that there is no reasonable alternative.

"... the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
JFK

Brookings -- From your response, I would guess that you see the middle-of-the-roader as a highly educated person or as someone with inordinate good sense or both.

Let's say someone posts a personal ad and describes themselves as middle-of-road politically. Should a respondant answer this because the person is of high intelligence?

jp -- I have wondered whether centrism is a fad, like wearing a certain style or color, and, if we can expect a centrist to be as deep as the average People Magazine devotee.

ebrown -- I have heard that JFK quote before. What is its context and did he mean politically centrist when he said neutral?

I can't speak to what JFK meant by the quote. I hope it is OK to say what my intention is in posting it.

As a society we are facing big questions where the two sides have opposing views that are based on very different views of the world.

Take the Iraq war. 2500 American troops have died as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis. Part of the country is saying this was an unnecessary war and that these deaths are tragic. Anti-war Americans have one laudable and urgent goal, the minimize the number of deaths by ending the war as soon as possible.

Pro-war Americans believe that the war is necessary as a way to fight what they see as an "Islamic Facist" threat to the world. They believe the number one goal is to be victorious in spite of the fact this means more deaths on both sides (although they would argue that the number of deaths will be smaller in the long run if we continue a military campaign until its end).

Now either the war is necessary and should be continued-- doing whatever it takes to achieve victory, or it is immoral and should be ended as soon as possible.

I am against the war (and have been since before it started). I strongly oppose the conservatives who support military action above all else as a way to solve problems.

I think the conservative lust to escalate any conflict into apocalyptic proportions is the most dangerous and sinister part of American politics.

There are people who hold the opposite strong opinion. They think that I am responsible for giving "aid and comfort" to those who they see as part of a global threat of evil. I expect them to oppose me.

Now what I don't get is how someone with a brain or a heart could possibly be neutral. There are peoples lives at stake... and maybe more?

I am willing to fight with the conservative side of politics, and conservatives really make my blood boil because I think they are against what the US or any civilized country should be about. But, what bugs me even more is apathy...

In a Democracy government is accountable to the citizens which gives the citizens a moral responsibility for the actions of its government. Americans are responsible for the Iraq war, and the use of torture and any of the controversial things our government is doing.

Sitting back with comfortable apathy is just wrong.

Maybe I am wrong to equate "centrism" with "apathy"-- but either dropping bombs in the Middle East is wrong, or it is not wrong. If such as thing as a "centrist" were possible, what would she say in response to the things being done in her name?

"Let's say someone posts a personal ad and describes themselves as middle-of-road politically. Should a respondant answer this because the person is of high intelligence?"

It's quite difficult to judge the intelligence of a person based off of a vague one word description of their political orientation. I've met people who are wildly ill informed, and when it comes down to it uninterested politically, who call themselves "liberals" or "conservatives". Liberals and conservatives often tow their ideological party line without giving it serious contemplation, they support various policies without challenging their assumptions in anyway. This does NOT mean you are more "intelligent" or interested than those who try to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different sides logics. Nor does it mean that on every consideration a centrist will find a middle ground, in many instances even the most centrist person will find himself agreeing with one side over the other.

There is a difference between persons with centrist political view points, and those who are plain apathetic. Centrist does not mean apathetic, just like liberal or conservative does not mean intelligent and critical.

Well said, ebrown!

Brookings -- I suspect that there are many people who profess liberalism or conservatism because their parents did . . . and that there are just as many folks who lean to the opposite side out of rebellion.

And, yes, middle of the road should not mean apathetic, but, I think that all too often, it does.

Ebrown- you are equating centrism with neutrality and apathy. They are not the same, as I have tried to point out.

The policy options of Iraq are also not divided strictly along ideological lines. Supporting the continued occupation does NOT mean you are conservative, supporting troop redeployment does NOT mean you are a liberal. It IS possible to come to these different policy options by way of either ideological line.

Similarly, is also possible to support continued troop presence, yet call for serious reforms in the way the conflict is being handled (either ideological line will start with different assumptions and will promote different reforms), and not fall nicely into either the Right or Left polarities.

"Maybe I am wrong to equate "centrism" with "apathy"-- but either dropping bombs in the Middle East is wrong, or it is not wrong."

So its impossible to see situations where "dropping bombs on the Middle East" is justified, and situations where it is not? I dont see how you could believe that.

Brookings, I agree with your first point. Your second point doesn't make much sense in the real world.

First, You are right that broad ideological categories like "liberal" and "conservative" don't always work across issues. You can be pro-war and still want to give homosexuals the right to marry.

However politics is a tough game and generalizations into these broad idological categories (in spite of the fact they don't always carry) is part of the fight.

If you want to have a political voice, you have to accept the political reality. Parts of it are good and parts of it are bad... but it doesn't matter. Right now our political landscape is polarized and the people in power are to the far right of the traditional political spectrum.

I am willing to fight for the issues I care about... I feel they are very important; from the war, to the fact the rich have an increasing advantage over the poor, to the lack of health care to civil rights.

These issues aren't just political theory... several of these affect real people that I know and care about. People are dying because of decisions that people with political power are making.

This is why I feel it is my responsibility to help effect change in our political landscape. This means fighting the political ideas and people who are, in my opinion, damaging my country.

This is why I am not a centrist... I support a broad progressive set of ideas that are widely accepted by millions of like-minded Americans. The only way to get the power needed behind these worthy ideals is to band together to elect candidates who support them.

Secondly, I think you are wrong in your belief that one can be a "centrist" in an idea as critical as the Iraq war.

There are two sides. Some people want us to get out very soon, with a set timetable as soon as a plan for a orderly withdrawral (giving the Iraq government a chance to take over) is possible.

Other people want us to stay "until the job is done" meaning no timetable and a clear set of American objectives.

Your attempt at "centrism" is the latter stay until the job is done with no timetable and a clear set of objectives. Your only minor adjustment is a change in tactics, but the basic side your alleged "centrist" has taken is the second "stay the course" action.

I don't think a true centrist position in an important controversial issue like the Iraq war is possible. There are two world views-- two ideologies and there is no center between them.

I think the term "centrist" in this context is a political mind game. If you take a conservative position and call it "centrist"-- the implication is that the other position is "extremist".

This was my signature a while ago

"If one group of people say that '2 + 2 = 4', and another groups asserts that '2 + 2 = 6'... soon enough someone will stand up, state that '2 + 2 = 5' and denounce the other two groups as extremists"

I don't think it has to do with deepness or intellect as much as it has to do with simply being interested. I guess I used to consider myself middle of the road. One of the reasons I call it a fad is because that is exactly what it was for me. However, the more I learned about issues and the more involved I became, the less middle of the road I found myself.

I still have values that fall along both sides of the political spectrum, but consider myself strickly a conservative. I think one of the problems we have is viewing the political spectrum unrealistically. There is a line and you are either on the left or right. In reality, I think it is more like a scattergram with opinions on both sides simultaneously.

I think this is what Brookings aluded to when he said:


The only thing I disagree with is the point about being less polarized and "understand(ing) each sides argument." I don't think understanding each sides argument is limited to people who are only middle of the road and the abilty to do so certainly doesn't make one middle of the road.

The liberal leaning views I hold tend to be those that I care least about. For example, I have no problem with gay marriage, but certainly would not make that a major deciding factor in an election. I would not vote for a candidate that was for gay marriage but against reducing government interference, reducing taxes or against allowing school choice. I think all three issues are far more important than gay marriage and effect far more people.

Holding some liberal views does not make me less polarized, it only makes me more scattered on the political scattergram.


**************************

ps... Welcome to A2K, Brooking. I've enjoyed reading your posts, thus far.

IMO, most people that claim to be "middle-of-the-road" don't mean that they don't hold views on issues. They simply don't agree with every view as outlined by any particualr political party.

Someone who is pro-choice and anti-gun control, for example, might label themselves as middle-of-the-road.

fishin'- Exactly. I am very liberal socially, and very conservative economically. So I suppose, if you think in terms of statistics, I would come out as "average", which might be construed as "middle of the road".

Actually, I am on my very own road!

It was first written by Dante in the Divine Comedy. Not sure of the context when JFK said it.

"If you want to have a political voice, you have to accept the political reality. Parts of it are good and parts of it are bad... but it doesn't matter. Right now our political landscape is polarized and the people in power are to the far right of the traditional political spectrum. "

I accept the political reality, that is why I dont vote third party. The right is indeed more right than the left is left, but they are still, relatively speaking, towards the center of the political spectrum. (in comparison to the right wing parties you'll find in many parliamentary systems)

However, you must make note that in the House, the Senate, and especially the supreme court, it is the centrist vote which is considered the most important. Centrists make it so political disagreements in this country do not become intractable contests, jamming up the countries legislative and governing processes.

"I am willing to fight for the issues I care about..."

As am I.

"This is why I am not a centrist... I support a broad progressive set of ideas that are widely accepted by millions of like-minded Americans. The only way to get the power needed behind these worthy ideals is to band together to elect candidates who support them."

And within the framework of the American political system that candidate will be more or less centrist.

"Secondly, I think you are wrong in your belief that one can be a 'centrist' in an idea as critical as the Iraq war.
There are two sides. Some people want us to get out very soon, with a set timetable as soon as a plan for a orderly withdrawral (giving the Iraq government a chance to take over) is possible.
Other people want us to stay "until the job is done" meaning no timetable and a clear set of American objectives. "

Well in asserting that there are two options for our presence in Iraq "staying" and "leaving" you are correct. That is a rather self evident, if misleading, dichotomy. However, asserting that those are the only two important considerations in this conflict is simply not true.

"Your attempt at "centrism" is the latter stay until the job is done with no timetable and a clear set of objectives. Your only minor adjustment is a change in tactics, but the basic side your alleged "centrist" has taken is the second "stay the course" action."

Being a centrist does NOT mean finding a "middle ground" on ALL choices. You are right that in some instances there is only an either/or option. However, like you said, this isnt theory and in more situations than not, that dichotomy is illusory.

"I don't think a true centrist position in an important controversial issue like the Iraq war is possible. There are two world views-- two ideologies and there is no center between them. "

The world is not black and white, though some very broad issues may seem to necessitate choosing among two broad considerations. The more one focuses on the intricacies of each issue the more pronounced shades become. In the case of Iraq, yes, there may be two broadly defined camps, "stay" and "go". But even among these camps there are STRONG disagreements which defy simple categorization. Some want a withdrawal as soon as the Iraqi government can take over, but this camp will have disagreements over when the Iraqi government is "ready". Some might want to leave regardless. Some want to leave military advisors, some dont.

"I think the term "centrist" in this context is a political mind game. If you take a conservative position and call it "centrist"-- the implication is that the other position is "extremist".

I think defining the impossibility of centrism by focusing strictly on whether there is a middle ground in the VERY broad "stay" or "go" camp regarding the Iraq war, is not the point.

"'If one group of people say that '2 + 2 = 4', and another groups asserts that '2 + 2 = 6'... soon enough someone will stand up, state that '2 + 2 = 5' and denounce the other two groups as extremists'"

Too bad abstract ideas dont have the same concrete nature as mathematics.

Edit: How about "If one group wants to destroy Israeli's, and another groups asserts that it wants to destroy Palestinians...soon enough someone will stand up and state that neither of those options is legitimate and denounce the other two groups as extremists" It works a lot better if you actually use political opinions.

Edit 2: thanks for the welcome!

You are confusing Politics with Philosophy. They are two very different practices. I agree with what you are saying... in the context of a classroom, but in politics things are different.

Look at the last presidential election. America had to choose between five or six different candidates (i.e. Bush, Kerry, Nader and a couple others I don't remember any more), but the choice couldn't be more stark. In the last election slightly more than half of Americans chose to stay the course in Iraq and pursue a strong miltary policy as part of the advertised "war on terror".

I wanted Kerry to win (or rather Bush to lose) because I feel the war on terror is a sham and the war in Iraq is a disaster. I am fully capable of understanding the abstract arguments and nuances... but these didn't have anything to do with the big question--- which is whether Bush should continue as our president (which everyone knew meant continue in Iraq and a more aggressive military response to terror) or not.

Look at the way this battle was fought in the minds of the American electorate. People who supported Bush said things like "Liberals are soft on Terror" and "Cut and Run Democrats". People who opposed him said "Iraq is a Quagmire" and "Unnecessary war". This is the way that electoral campaigns are fought and won.

You may make the argument that they shouldn't be fought this way-- but this is the way things are because this is what works. People who don't play the political game with easy, repeatable ideas that don't require nuance... simply don't win.

This is not the politicians fault. If anything it is the fault of the American voter... but that is another story.

Like it or not, it is very important which party controls Congress after this election. If the Democrats take the House (which most analysts seem to think is a 50-50 proposition), the country will change course in a dramatic way. If the Democrats win both houses of Congress (which is possible but probably unlikely, this will be even more dramatic.

My point is, which party control each House of Congress has the ability to control the debate and affect law.

There is little question what this will mean. Democrats will add pressure to bring the war to an end (yes I will agree there are shades of grey, but I am confident there will be calls for the yes-no question of atimetable), mount a stronger opposition to the Patriot act and pass a comprehensive immigration bill.

It may be a "centrist" idea that you should vote for a candidate and not a party/ideolgy. This is naive.

The way politics works is that the party in control-- backed up by the general ideology of its base of support, has by far the gratest impact on the policies of our government.

If you care about the important issues of the day... I suggest you choose a side. People who try to straddle fences have no voice.