What are the tenets of "centrism?"

[ClassWarrior]

Since there's a rather vocal population of self-identifying "centrists" on this forum, I thought they might be able to help answer a question that's been bugging me. What are the overriding values and goals of "centrism?"

NGU.

[Vincardog]

1. FOR nothing. There is not one belief that they stand by.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I know that you can't call anybody out

but what kind of postings would you define as "centrist"? :shrug:

[Vincardog]

3. I believe that answering that truthfully would be flagged as "calling out'

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Sorry

don't want anybody to get in trouble.

[JoePhilly]

4. Maybe to represent EVERYONE???

Let's remember Bush. Do you think that he wanted to represent ALL Americans, including those who disagreed with him, or only those who agreed with him?

The reality is that (GASP) the American people are not in total agreement on ANYTHING!!!

The President ... the Senate ... and the House ... should RESPECT that reality!!!!

If a President, or the Senate, or the House .... BOLTS itself to any single ideology, they will FAIL in representing ALL of America. Which is what Bush did. If you disagreed, you hated America.

The question here is really not "Centrism" ... but about honest representation.

You want an ideological outcome ... one that I probably agree with ... and yet ... I would not want my government to ignore those I disagree with, given that, they could also ignore me, as Bush did.

[ClassWarrior]

12. "Unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."

At least according to Peter Marshall, U.S. Senate Chaplain, 1947. (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~willu/Quotes.html)

NGU.

[JoePhilly]

15. And so ... the group who is in power should IGNORE those who disagree with them.

The crazy right wing of the GOP "stands for something" ... so clearly, they should DISCARD YOU and any disagreement you have with them .... right?

And if they gain complete power and decide that YOU, and what you believe is evil, then they should stand by that, and put you in prison because that would show how PRINCIPLED they are.

You do realize that ... no?

[ClassWarrior]

28. But the "centrists" I see don't want the President to do what the people say.

They want the people to do what the President says. I mean, a huge majority of the American people support Medicare-for-All. But the Prez took it off the table before anyone even pulled out their chairs.

And the so-called "centrists" defended that.

:shrug:

By the way, I thought fear and threats were only tools of the Radical RW. Hmmm...

NGU.

[mr715]

24. Who should Congress represent?

Do they have a moral obligation to vote how their constituents want them to vote, or should they be expected to have capacity for moral decision-making?

I like my Republicans centrist and my Democrats liberal

[boston bean]

57. It is a mixture. But if they are going to go against what their constituents want

there had better be a real morale reason for doing so.

However, many times, we see immoral reasons being used to make decisions that go against their constituents issues.

No they don't come right out and tell you what the immoral reason is, but the end result of their decision is unmistakenly immoral.

[Union Scribe]

32. What?

You want a Democratic president to "represent" the half the country whose agenda is disaster?

And how should he do that, exactly? Should he simply pander to them and pretend to care about their monstrous ideas? Oh, no, wait that wouldn't be "honest representation." So maybe he should figure out what percentage of people are insane RWers and that portion of his actions should match those in policy...

[ClassWarrior]

45. ROFL... +1

NGU.

[treestar]

50. You do realize the right feels that way about you, right?

[ClassWarrior]

51. I'm sure Hitler felt that way about the Allies, too.

Your point?

NGU.

[CakeGrrl]

5. Google it. Wiki it. -nt

[ellisonz]

36. "I'm not the (expletive) googlewiki"

x(

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

14. Well, then "centrism" has failed miserably.

Usually all it does is make me shake my head and wonder.

Sometimes its proponents make me snicker.

NGU.

[bemildred]

7. Opposing change, mainly. nt

[Lord Magus]

62. Which would make it largely the same as conservatism.

[Hutzpa]

8. I saw a DU'er once called themselves left of center

have no idea what that means...:shrug:

[treestar]

9. Since everyone insists on defining the center differently

Impossible to answer.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with the center - in fact its where society generally agrees on things - which we need in order to have a Republic. Maybe a dictator can force a majority against a thing to comply with it anyway - but even they have troubles with that.

And further, we can be to the left of center and accept the fact that the center exists and that we aren't going to get a socialist state enacted tomorrow.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

10. Never mind.

[styersc]

13. Opposite of Centrism is Serial Dictatorship.

Our founders set up a system by which the populous could rule itself by consensus. We cannot have a system where one side gets its say on everything and then the people, eager for change, run to the other side to try it out that way the next time around. Representative democracy was set up so that we could come to consensus on issues that did not satisfy everyone, but was largely satisfactory.

Centrism has no foundation because it is not where you start, but where, ideally, you end up.

[ClassWarrior]

16. Do you believe that values and consensus are the same thing?

If not, then your point is irrelevant.

Russ Feingold, arguably one of the most progressive Senators of the past decade, is tremendously adept at consensus.

BTW... Hyperbole much? "Serial Dictatorship??" :rofl:

NGU.

[styersc]

18. ...

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I think the biggest tenant is that you can't govern if you don't win

And so you poll on the most salient issues and take a position that you think will reflect that of the majority of voters in your constituency.

And yes somebody will inevitably chime in and note that the majority of Americans support health care for all Americans and all sorts of other liberal positions. However, start calling it "socialized medicine", "Obamacare", or whatever other name Frank Luntz comes up with and suddenly the results are totally lopsided. And additionally you assume that 9.9 times out of 10 the organized right has more money than the organized left, therefore the American people will see it as "Obamacare" or "socialized medicine" and not "health care for all".

So you accept that for the time being, the right wing has more or less a stranglehold on the debate over most of the biggest policy issues in this country. In the meantime, you work on smaller less salient issues and call it a win.

That's centrism in a nutshell (not saying I agree with it).

[ClassWarrior]

19. The funny thing is, "centrism" doesn't win elections. A self-professed "centrist"...

...on another thread helped me realize that Gore and Kerry lost running on whatever "centrism" is, and Obama won running on strong progressive values.

NGU.

[JoePhilly]

22. The idea that Obama won on ANY single issue is silly.

Gore lost because he was framed as weak.

Kerry lost because he was framed as bad for nationality security.

And Obama won in larger part because he argued for an effective government. And that is what the GOP has opposed for decades.

This is not about centrism ... because as other note, that term is meaningless. The real goal is to get people who disagree to come together and find solutions to actual problems.

And sure ... I agree that the GOP is filled with folks who don't want to do that. Many of them would ignore you and I.

We should not become them in that regard.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Where did I say ANYTHING about a "single issue?"

I said strong progressive values.

Read and learn. From the election:

"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...

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

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. There's too many variables to actually test that hypothesis one way or another

A lot of people would argue (and I think there's a great deal of truth to this) that Obama won because Bush's approval ratings tarnished the Republican brand and the economic collapse after 8 years of their rule was the nail in the coffin.

That said, the effectiveness of the Obama campaign's message can be measured more at the micro-level by looking at the primaries and it's hard to argue that it wasn't an incredibly effective. Furthermore, many of the primary voters it had an effect on were independents in the open primary states.

The bottom line is that we don't know for certain what wins and what doesn't. Here's what I think we do know, though...

1) You can't win in the long run by simply following polls and triangulating. I think Harry Truman is extremely over-quoted on this site and that many of the people who quote him in reference to Obama would've been complaining about him and threatening to vote for Wallace in 1948. But to ignore his argument that given the choice between a fake Republican and a real Republican, people will pick the real one, is to ignore human nature. You can't win by just being the less-whatever version of your opponent.

2) There are times when winning elections requires sacrificing what you believe in because public opinion is overwhelmingly against you and impossible to sway (at least in the short term).

3) Knowing how to strike the perfect balance between 1 and 2 is extremely difficult. If there were some exact formula, everybody would use it.

[ClassWarrior]

30. You make a lot of sense.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

:fistbump:

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Thank you for listening, my thoughts usually fall on deaf ears

Unfortunately on DU, people divide into camps and things pretty quickly become black and white. Any shades of gray usually just get overlooked.

IMO, it's not so much that people have huge ideological differences, as much as people don't trust each other. The left doesn't trust the center or anybody who supports the center, because they see 30 years of centrist domination of the party resulting in this inequitable society that we have today. The center doesn't trust the left because they see them as a threat to split the vote and result in Republican rule.

I tend to believe that centrist Democrats (for the most part) are well-intentioned people, who as I stated, believe that you can't govern if you don't win. I believe that generally people who run for office in order to enrich the top 1% or otherwise advance the right wing agenda, get into politics as Republicans. Obviously there are exceptions and some people, regardless of party, simply go into politics because of ego and because they want to be called Congressman, Governor, Senator, etc. These people will often sell themselves out for a lucrative lobbying gig, no doubt. But I think that the vast majority of people who run for office as Democrats do so with generally good intentions.

I also tend to believe that people who challenge the party from the left do believe that the two party system is broken and are not simply trying to split the vote and sabotage the Democratic Party.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Ralph Nader's critique about there not being much of a difference between Gore and Bush has a lot of merit in regards to issues of class and income distribution. If you're a single mother on welfare or a factory worker whose job gets shipped overseas, you're very marginally less fucked under the Democrats than under the Republicans.

On the other hand, I highly doubt that President Gore would've invaded Iraq. I also doubt that he would've sat on his ass while New Orleans drowned, and that's very personal for me. I also imagine that he would've used 9/11 to mobilize the country to become energy independent.

So yea after 8 years of President Gore, it's entirely foreseeable that people would still be occupying Wall Street. But in other aspects, the world might look a whole hell of a lot different.

All of that is why I seldomly pick a definitive side in all of this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Tell that to Bill Clinton

[Lord Magus]

63. Well, Gore didn't actually lose, but you're right about Kerry.

[ClassWarrior]

64. Actually Kerry didn't lose either.

:shrug:

NGU.

[karynnj]

66. Kerry was to the left of Obama during their mutual time in the senate

Not to mention, Kerry is to the left on foreign policy to the Obama administration. Obama sided with the more centrist Clinton over Kerry.

[Union Scribe]

33. The problem is you get stuck there.

You do that to get elected. Then you have to do it to get re-elected. Then you have to do it to set up the next candidate who has to do it...

If all the "leadership" we're going to see from centrists is aligning themselves for power they'll never really use--for politics sake or even if they buy the idea that the RW won't "let" them, the party and country are irretrievably and hopelessly fucked.

[blkmusclmachine]

20. Keep chasing after the Right. No matter how far off the reservation they go. Always follow.

That's "centrism" to a tee (or is that "tea"?).

[Autumn]

21. republican light. n/t

[mr715]

23. Just a try

The best strategy for maximizing the happiness of the majority is to adhere to positions that are least different from the average of the political poles.



Consensus. Consensus. Consensus.

[bvar22]

26. The Tenets of "Centrism" ??? ... Thats EASY!

Whatever the TV says is "In the Middle"
is good enough for ME!!!

Centrism!! ... because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!
:party:



"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."--Jim Hightower

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. That's really rich coming from a Hillary supporter. Remember the "DLC"?

:rofl:

[bvar22]

48. Hillary Supporter?

As usual, you have made another HUGE mistake.
You seem to do that A LOT around here.
I challenge YOU to find a single post of mine supporting Hillary for President.

Obama and Hillary were my last two choices.
I chose Obama over HIllary because Obama promised to:

*Make EFCA the "Law of the Land"
EFCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU



*Renegotiate NAFTA
NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1



*Ridiculed Hillary for supporting a Mandate to BUY health Insurance.
Public Option & Mandates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk


I also believed that Obama, as a "Constitutional Scholar" would be less likely to expand the War on Terror,
or reinforce and expand the Constitutional Infringements of the Patriot Act and the Unitary Executive.
Looks like I lost on all counts,
but there wasn't much of a real choice by then.

So , Go Ahead.
Find a single post of mine on DU,
or anywhere on the Internet where I showed a preference for Hillary over Obama.
AFIC, they are Peas in a "Centrist" Pod.

I will wait for your apology for the baseless attack.
Thanks!
:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Apology my ass!

:rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

54. Thank you for that demonstration of "centrist" cooperation and consensus.

So much for that argument.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. DUers claim centrism when what they really mean is they are

socially conservative. It means they oppose equal rights for all, or are apathetic and willing to carry water for those who oppose with their passivity. A centrist claims to support all things, and yet lends effort only to right leaning policy or the status quo. "I favor single payer, but I'm not 18 months old, I am a realist." They say things like that, about all issues. They stand up for nothing, save to measure the distance to their left and to their right to mete out the place they shall sit.

[Union Scribe]

34. "claims to support all things, and yet lends effort only to right leaning policy or the status quo"

Excellent post.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Centrists would note their differences, though...

Lets say my name was John the Blue Dog. I'm a freshman Congressman in a district in West Virginia that's mostly small towns and farms. I'm opposed to gay marriage, and abortion, and want to crack down on illegal immigration like 3/4ths of my district.

On those issues, my position is the same as my opponent Tom Teabagger. However, unlike Tom, I oppose free trade deals, I only want tax cuts for Middle Class people not the wealthy, I support regulating Wall Street, and I want to raise the minimum wage.

Oh and yes I oppose pretty much any attempts to regulate the coal industry. See, half my constituents that still have a job work in a coal mine or at least work in a town that is dependent on coal mining.

If I were John the Blue Dog, I'd probably tell you not that I'm being passive, apathetic, or even compromising to win. I'd tell you that I'm doing the best I possibly can to represent my constituents.

[Union Scribe]

31. Currently, its defining quality

seems to be centered around the idea that Obama is invariably correct and anyone who says otherwise must be met with hostility. Well, usually weak-ass sarcasm, but that's their version of hostility.

[ClassWarrior]

35. Really? Unreccing a simple question? I was told that "centrism" is all about cooperation...

...and concilliation. So much for that argument.

NGU.

[woo me with science]

37. Condoning targeted killing of American citizens is not a centrist position.

Condoning indefinite detention without trial is not a centrist position.

Condoning warrantless surveillance of American citizens is not a centrist position.

Condoning extraordinary rendition and torture by proxy is not a centrist position.

Condoning the use of Social Security and Medicare as bargaining chips against the wishes of 70 to 80 percent of Americans is not a centrist position.

Condoning silence in response to violent assaults on Americans peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights is not a centrist position.

Condoning our government's lining up Americans to grope and inspect their crotches before allowing them to fly on a plane or use a highway is not a centrist position.

Condoning the aggressive defense of criminal banks from criminal prosecution is not a centrist position.



The abominations that are being condoned and actively defended by many self-described "centrists" are not centrist positions at all. They are extreme corporatist and neocon positions that shift only depending on what is most profitable for the corporate Powers That Be.

Do not be fooled. Genuine centrists may support a range of policies in the political middle, but they will also tend to *oppose* policies that fall very leftward OR very rightward on the political spectrum. The giveaway that you are dealing with a corporatist/neocon rather than a centrist is that they will never oppose ANY action by the corporate oligarchy they seek to defend...as we have seen, up to and including the targeted killing of American citizens. Policies that result in shredding of the Constitution are not now and never will be "centrist" policies.

The Democratic Party has been infiltrated, and the infiltrators are not centrists, but defenders of their corporate Masters. It is an important distinction.

[saras]

39. Centrists believe that stupid views are as good as rational ones as long as enough people hold them

Basically centrist means you don't get involved with defining the positions of either party, but try to hold a position between them. In a multi-party proportional representation system, this might actually be a good functional approach.

The problem with it in America is that a very small number of extremist fanatics are pulling the Republican party far to the right of any substantial number of Americans, and "centrism" is used to justify moving the Democratic party as far to the right as the extremists move the Republican party, and to do so by excluding and rejecting from the party anyone who is too far to the left of the right-wingers being compromised with.

Other than that, the overriding "values" are the idea that values aren't that important, and that they are not part of self-reinforcing systems, and that therefore you can swap them around pretty much at random to make a viable political position.

There really isn't any "center", for example, between the idea that women have the right to control their own bodies and the idea that males in positions of authority have the right to control women's bodies. There's no reasonable compromise position, or position that has aspects of both systems.

[ClassWarrior]

41. "There really isn't any 'center,' for example, between the idea that women have the right..."

"...to control their own bodies and the idea that males in positions of authority have the right to control women's bodies. There's no reasonable compromise position, or position that has aspects of both systems."

Bingo!!

Here's another take on that:

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...

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...

I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?...

You can read the rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Polls show that the majority does hold a compromise position, though

Most people are pro-choice but favor limits on late term abortions. Sure that's due to the right wing controlling the debate and leading people to believe that women actually wake up one day when they're 7 months pregnant and just decide they want to have an abortion. Or furthermore that in the extremely rare case that would happen, that they would be able to find a doctor who would perform such a risky surgical procedure without a medical reason for doing so.

But no, we're lead to believe that women everywhere are just going around having "partial birth abortions".

[RandomKoolzip]

53. Best post of the thread. Thank you.

Seriously - why do we need to respect the frankly dumb and nonsensical ideas and viewpoints that so many Americans hold? Just because so many hold them?

[Citizen Worker]

43. Neoliberalism

[Magoo48]

44. The Left, Center, Right idea is old, tired, and limiting.

Just show me what you stand for. I hope OWS helps us shit-can the old designations.

[ClassWarrior]

46. I agree. So does President Obama.

Well, at least when he was running for President last time. From an article written during the campaign:

"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...

Read the rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[boston bean]

58. It's an easy way out. never really have to take a stand.

No good leader was ever centrist. They had beliefs, and they fought for them. Sometimes, they had to be pushed because the fear of not being elected made them take the "safe" road of centrism. But the beliefs do have to be there to begin with.

I hope Obama has the beliefs, because he is going to be pushed into making government work for the 99%.

He won't be able to fake it with nice speeches and lip service. Same goes for every other democrat too.

[ClassWarrior]

71. .

[RandomKoolzip]

52. My experience with "centrists" on DU is they tend to come from a

more privileged socio-economic background than the majority of DUers and therefore are pretty selectively blind to how bad things are out there for us poor or broke people trying to make a living. Which is why they advocate going slow on issues that to me, at least, need IMMEDIATE corrective action. They're above the rabble, so either they aren't attuned to the needs of the poor out of unintentional or benign ignorance - or they dismiss those issues entirely.

In other words, the tenets of centrism, if one were to go by the actions of some of the centrists I've run into on DU, appear to be:

1. Protection of the current economic system
2. The erection and maintenance of strawmen (i.e. "You just want a liberal dictatorship!" or "We can't just implant a socialist state overnight!" or "You never loved him!")
3. Don't rock the boat.

As others on this thread have pointed out, promoting "centrism" as a way to please all people all the time is just mere obsequiousness. There is NO middle ground, no compromise between, for instance, "climate change is real," and the 1% of scientists PAID to say that it isn't. Yet, we are supposed to swallow the unswallowable premise that we need to meet those who believe in the latter halfway. How do you "compromise" with people who don't believe in reality?

[ClassWarrior]

55. A "centrist" leader speaks...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2432490&mesg_id=2432490

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

56. No kudos for ol' Harold?

NGU.

[CreekDog]

60. If it's bad, don't do as much of it and if it's good, don't do as much of it

kinda amoral actually. :D

[liskddksil]

61. $$$ nt

[tledford]

65. Lassitude. eom

[scentopine]

67. Centrist –noun

1. (esp. in Obama Admin) a member of a political party who empathizes with the need for corporations to make profits without the encumbrance of principals, morals, ethics, civil law or criminal law;

2. a politician who holds a smug composition of academic purity; takes path of least political resistance; deferential to wealth and power; conservative; moderate; realist.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Pretty good stuff. AKA amoral, corporate conservatives

able to draw a contrast by riding coattails of decades past accomplishments by others and by the opposition being reactionary radical regressives (who they still constantly seek to meet somewhere in the middle, usually closer to their newly staked out extreme).

[provis99]

68. Power for the sake of power. Malice towards all, justice towards none.

[rapturedbyrobots]

69. a clever diversion

the term 'centrism' evokes images of a two-dimensional (D to R) or (liberal to conservative) political spectrum, divided neatly down the middle. and you can claim to be 'objective' and 'non-ideological' by occupying the 'center' of the spectrum. that's all bullshit: 1) there is no such thing as a non-ideological position. 2) the 'spectrum' is not 2-dimensional or neatly divisible but multifaceted and often folds up on itself.

in reality, 'centrism' is a way of sneaking pro-business policy into the democratic platform by quietly accepting conservative framing.