Once again, the mythological creature called "the centrist" rears its ugly head...

[ClassWarrior]

...to promote someone's divisive agenda. So one more time:

No Center, No Centrists.

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

1. Mr. Lakoff Is Absolutely Right, Sir

[ClassWarrior]

2. .

[Spazito]

3. Spot on analysis!

Recommended.

[wyldwolf]

4. So Lakoff's definition of "biconceptuals" is how I've always defined "centrist."

So would it make anyone feel better if I called myself "biconceptual" (which sounds kind of sexy) instead of "centrist?"

[ClassWarrior]

7. Hopefully it'd make YOU feel better, since...

...you'd no longer be using inaccurate, self-serving language.

:shrug:

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

9. so what if I more accurately described it?

My "progressive" domestic policy leanings are stronger than my more "conservative" economic leanings. So does that make me a progressive biconceptual?

But wait - I understand the need to compromise for the sake of progress. Does that make me a pragmatic progressive biconceptual?

Further - I know how to dress nice and I do enjoy a good chick flick from time to time. Am I a pragmatic progressive metro-sexual biconceptual?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

14. no, actually it means "biconceptual" can be just a meaningless as any other label

But then you already knew that

[ClassWarrior]

17. So if you can't refute a concept, reduce it to a single word and call that word a "label?"

Sly.

But sadly transparent.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

19. I've not tried to refute it. I stated emphatically it's the same way I define "centrist"

:shrug: and the way many people define "centrist," except (no surprise) people further left who always operate with their own definition of the word.

Like I've said before when the Lakoff piece was posted here - He starts with an inaccurate definition of "centrist" before he accurately defines "centrist" with a new label "biconceptual." I'm not looking to refute him. If he, and you, would rather refer to me, and FDR, and Harry Truman, and JFK, and LBJ, and Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, and Barack Obama as "biconceptual" rather than "centrist" in your own little corner of the internet, that's fine by me.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Wrong. You define it as a "label." He defines it as "an inaccurate, self-serving metaphor."

But keep tying yourself in knots trying to confuse things.

:rofl:

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

21. "label" vs. "an inaccurate, self-serving metaphor." Whatever

A progressive telling centrists they're not what they say they are before riding to the rescue with a new label (sorry, a new word) that means the exact same thing the centrists have been saying.

:rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

25. It's a shame that you refuse to understand. This can be a very powerful concept for us.

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

5. The term "centrist" is a label that people hide behind that wish to attack the left.

Ask them how they stand on issues and they refuse to answer. That's because they, more often than not, agree with the republicans.

For example, what would be a "centrist's" stand on HCR? The left want decent health care for Americans. The reich-wing want profits for CorpAmerica. How does a "centrist" stand?

How does a "centrist" stand on torture, domestic spying, or war? Ask them and they will refuse to answer. But they will consistently attack the left.

[polichick]

6. Thanks for posting - k&r

[glitch]

8. Must read. Thanks for posting! K & R nt

[ClassWarrior]

13. .

[HughMoran]

11. I agree with this analysis

We are a fundamentally progressive country - if we would allow people to be conservative on some issues, yet progressive generally, we might be a less polarized country and be able to accomplish more.

[ClassWarrior]

12. It never fails to amaze me that no one can refute this article.

I've posted it a number of times since it was first published and, yes, it attracts plenty of unrecs and ad hominem attacks from people who prefer to think of themselves as mediocre clones who stand for nothing.

But no one is ever able to provide even a reasonably cogent counter-argument.

Go Lakoff.

NGU.

[glitch]

16. Cut them some slack, they aren't trained in cogent arguments.

Lakoff knows Reason isn't the main operator in control here. If it can't be shouted down and/or name-called away, Ignorance is the only option left.

The Fear Reaction has been initiated, cogent discussion won't be possible until
The Fears Are Abated.

[ClassWarrior]

18. LOL...

NGU.

[Number23]

23. Wow. Just read this post from you and realized this article is from 2007!

It's a good, informative read. That's likely the reason that no one can argue against it. ;)

[IndianaGreen]

15. Mussolini was a centrist when compared to Hitler

The term itself is meaningless for our country has moved so far right that a President Eisenhower would be considered a flaming liberal today.

[flpoljunkie]

22. A must read!

[depakid]

24. So called "centrism" in the US is simply cover for political corruption

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. I completely disagree with the last point posted.

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false...

First of all, if it marginalizes progressives, it equally marginalizes conservatives, although both sides seem to demonize the centrists, so it all balances out in the end.

Secondly, progressives and conservatives are polar opposites in ideology, which means there must be a spectrum of some variety, even if it only consists of two points with no fractions thereof in between. There would be no meaning attached to either word if that were not true. Therefore, by definition, progressives and conservatives must be extremists, unless you allow for the idea that there are those further left and right of them, respectively, which indicates that a larger spectrum must exist. If said spectrum exists, there must be a middle ground. Even if the spectrum is not linear, you would have to argue that there's essentially a swirling vortex in between the two ideological sets.

Frankly, the whole thing is an utterly useless argument unless you really enjoy debating semantics. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, perception always equals reality in politics, and the perception is that there is a center. Case closed.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Of course it equally marginalizes conservatives, and they understand that, which is why...

...they're so good at framing the debate. And the refusal to understand this concept is why our side is so poor at it.

And while there may be a "spectrum" as you describe it, it's digital, not analog.

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I don't agree at all that it's a digital spectrum.

I'm sorry, but that's far too simplistic a view to hold of what amounts to an omnibus of radically complex ideas. Choosing an "either/or" framework might well work for Republicans in framing the debate, but that doesn't make it true.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Spend some time reading Lakoff. His observations are hardly simplistic.

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. I didn't give a blanket assessment of Lakoff.

This one in particular, however, is simplistic.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Oh, I see... The rest of his work isn't simplistic. Just the parts you don't like.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. So I have to agree with all of what someone writes or none of it?

Brilliant.

[ClassWarrior]

33. No, I'm just making an observation about how convenient it is in this particular case.

Well, isn't that conveeeeeeenient?...

:rofl:

NGU.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Or are you just pissed that someone finally refuted your article sufficiently?

Do you have a rebuttal beyond saying that Lakoff is not "simplistic" (even though I didn't call HIM simplistic - just this argument).

[ClassWarrior]

36. Pissed? ROFL... First of all, I already rebutted your first point. As for your second...

...you're right that progressive and conservative ideologies are polar opposites. They're ones and zeroes. And while some people line up precisely with one ideology or the other, some people buy into the opposite ideology on any number of issues. That's what creates the impression of a "spectrum."

But an individual's opinion isn't 58% or 62% or even 99% one way or the other across the board on every issue. You can't support torture "just a little bit." And anyone thinks you can is fooling his or her self.

You're the one whose position is simplistic.

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. Really? Let's consider this vis a vis health care, shall we?

Is there not a spectrum between supporting no federal public option or subsidies, supporting a system of national non-profits, supporting a federally backed, individually paid-for public option, and a single payer, universal health care system? Aren't each of those items "more progressive" than the ones that are listed before them?

Who's really being simplistic here?

[ClassWarrior]

38. You say you agree with everything ELSE Lakoff says, yet you don't know that Lakoff is talking...

...about broad values, not specific issues and policies??! And that he believes the left focuses its message to much on the micro while we could be winning by taking a macro view?

:rofl:

Burned.

("Vis a vis?" Really?? ROLFMAO...)

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. I said no such thing at all that I agree with anything else he's said.

I said simply that I don't agree with this. I'm not sure why I need to do a literature review of everything he's ever written to disagree with one item.

But you really are exposing yourself by refusing to respond in any way to my point about health care and the spectrum. Nice dodge, and you might want to keep the "burn" for yourself, friend.