In America people who identify themselves as “centrist” usually have no strong opinions on anything. They might also be what we might call a traditional republican suddenly realizing they’re surrounded by fascists.
But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
I’d argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
I think centrist means “I am not a very thoughtful person, and I avoid any and all conflict even if avoiding the conflict hurts those around me more than dealing with the conflict directly would. If people I care about are affected by conflict I will blame the weaker of the two sides and avoid conflict further for short term gains.”
Yes but also no. There are many people who don’t have strong political opinions. Sometimes they’re misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They’re still politically engaged, but don’t have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
Honestly, that sounds like both sides foolishness with extra steps. How can you be politically engaged and still think there’s a middle ground between “kill all minorities” and “don’t do that”?
That’s an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that’s another matter.
That’s the opposite of (genuine) fiscally conservatism, since it implies large fiscal deficits. Not that some fiscal deficits are inherently bad, they are widely misunderstood when used in a limited way.
Any true “centrist” GOP person would have stayed away from Trump 8 years ago.
In America people who identify themselves as “centrist” usually have no strong opinions on anything. They might also be what we might call a traditional republican suddenly realizing they’re surrounded by fascists.
Except the gray alien is Reagan.
No, Reagan was evil, not neutral.
Just like “centrist” Republicans.
But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
I’d argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
I think centrist means “I am not a very thoughtful person, and I avoid any and all conflict even if avoiding the conflict hurts those around me more than dealing with the conflict directly would. If people I care about are affected by conflict I will blame the weaker of the two sides and avoid conflict further for short term gains.”
Yes but also no. There are many people who don’t have strong political opinions. Sometimes they’re misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They’re still politically engaged, but don’t have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
Honestly, that sounds like both sides foolishness with extra steps. How can you be politically engaged and still think there’s a middle ground between “kill all minorities” and “don’t do that”?
That’s an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that’s another matter.
I mean that literally describes “socially liberal fiscally conservative” morons. No tax! Only benefit!
That’s the opposite of (genuine) fiscally conservatism, since it implies large fiscal deficits. Not that some fiscal deficits are inherently bad, they are widely misunderstood when used in a limited way.