A longtime friend posted an eloquent explanation of why he’s voting how he’s voting for NYC mayor a few days ago (spoiler: Mamdani, with a fair amount of reservations/hopes). The line that struck me was the description of himself: “I’m one of those centrist liberals that everyone seems to hate these days.”
His assessment reminded me of one of my evergreen soapbox topics: “Centrist” is a failure of our political language. Why? Because while all centrists (or centrist liberals) may appear to stand in more or less the same spot, each of these people typically fall into one of two vastly different categories of “centrists.” Election Day seems like a good day to explain, so …
Centrist #1
As with many of us, Centrist #1 has a range of decently considered and genuinely held policy positions. This mix happens to put them to the right of Bernie but also significantly to the left of, say George Bush. This mix — and possibly the deterioration of what was the Republican party over the course of this century — have made these people pretty reliable Democratic voters even though they may not have been raised as (or, especially, raised by) liberals.
Independent thinking has led Centrist #1 to political behavior based on observation and contemplation as part of the reality-based community. I want to think the Democratic party doesn’t hate these voters even if they may, from person to person, have serious qualms about a $20 minimum wage or some particular social/culture issue.
Centrist #1 wouldn’t even be considered centrists in many other democratic societies. But here they are.
That stance can make for some discomfort, perhaps now more than ever. However, a sane person who consistently agrees with 65% of your party’s platform these days, a person who wouldn’t categorically rule out voting for a Republican but understands that in any given election we vote not for a personality but to move the needle a little further in the right direction (or to avoid a lurch in the wrong direction), is a valuable asset indeed and should be treated as such.
Centrist #2
Centrist #2 tends to have a more prominent political profile. Centrist #2 believes that if there are two prevailing positions, the truly wisest position is obviously more or less halfway between them.
Centrist #2 is often more smug and/or loud about where they find themselves in the political landscape. Maybe this is a defense mechanism. Maybe they tend to be anti-party by nature.
While Centrist #1 happens to fall between the current domestic political groupings, Centrist #2 basically has a fetish for avoiding agreeing with too many people about too many things, no matter the quality of the argument in either direction.
While Centrist #2 considers himself smarter or more practical than his countrymen to the right or left, it’s just basic logic that the Triangulationist Centrist will wind up most influenced by the most extreme end of the most extreme party. Way to go, genius.
Critically, this often leads to being a sucker for false equivalency, and here’s the problem with that: The people with superior policy positions or the actual moral high ground are never the ones pushing false equivalency, are they? Centrist #2’s delusion that finding the middle is the way to somehow stay above it all is a wrongheaded variation on the apathy or sense of helplessness that Elie Wiesel had in mind when he said, “Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Centrist #1 and Centrist #2 might be easily confused for one another at first glance, but in truth, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of intellectual effort put into their views. Let us discern and respect (or call out) accordingly.
The last word goes to First Draft colleague Jamie O., who has written more than a couple of posts about the elusive/dangerous/mythical land known as the “center” and those who try to claim it.