Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The center refuses to rely on facts or conviction, and instead focuses on how we feel during the process of arising to a conclusion rather than logic and what that conclusion really is. Centrism is the easy way out. While I think the far-right and the far-left can come to agreements and wish they'd compromise more, I don't think centrists do this country any bit of good.
Centrism is based on the premise that everything is a shade of grey and, believe it or not, is not ideologically pure enough. Here's a centrist approach: marriages for straight people and civil unions for gays. That's so middle-path and conciliatory. Thank god we stood by our convictions and fought for what we believe in.
How about this centrist approach: "Well we really don't want to fight England , maybe we can just ask again politely. Heh, I mean we can't go to war."
Or we can fight a war against the biggest superpower in the world with a 5% chance of success to win our independence, which was pretty extreme for the time.
Centrists have never won. Centrism is boring. Centrism makes no good ideas, just combines bad ideas of both parties.
Should right and left compromise? Yes, but I can do without centrism.
Political extremism is what also leads to civil wars and oppression. Think about that one, VTHokie. When you have two hot blooded idiots running the insane asylum, sooner or later a fight is going to break out. The centrist tries to mediate between the fighters. Comparison fail on your part
At first I thought the OP was joking.
Hardliners don't rely on facts. They rely on party talking points. When do you ever see hardliners ever hold their own party equally accountable for the same exact sins? It is always my party wrong or right.
Centrists decide every presidental election. Replay the 1980 Reagan campaign tapes-he ran as a centrist. In 1984, Morning in America was not a hard line, right wing advertising campaign.
Obama ran to Hillary's RIGHT, as she favored single payer.
The center refuses to rely on facts or conviction, and instead focuses on how we feel during the process of arising to a conclusion rather than logic and what that conclusion really is. Centrism is the easy way out. While I think the far-right and the far-left can come to agreements and wish they'd compromise more, I don't think centrists do this country any bit of good.
Centrism is based on the premise that everything is a shade of grey and, believe it or not, is not ideologically pure enough. Here's a centrist approach: marriages for straight people and civil unions for gays. That's so middle-path and conciliatory. Thank god we stood by our convictions and fought for what we believe in.
How about this centrist approach: "Well we really don't want to fight England , maybe we can just ask again politely. Heh, I mean we can't go to war."
Or we can fight a war against the biggest superpower in the world with a 5% chance of success to win our independence, which was pretty extreme for the time.
Centrists have never won. Centrism is boring. Centrism makes no good ideas, just combines bad ideas of both parties.
Should right and left compromise? Yes, but I can do without centrism.
The center is composed usually of the people who are intelligent enough to recognize nuances and tradeoffs in various situations. They recognize that too little of one thing may be bad, but too much of it may be bad as well.
The extremes are generally filled with simpletons or sociopaths who just see everything in one overly simplistic way, oblivious to the other issues at play. They're either not intelligent enough to understand the complexities or they just don't care about what's best for society.
There are times of existential crisis when there is a need for drastic, principle-driven action. But otherwise in life in general, the realistic way forward is not found in the extremes; it's found in the middle.
This nation was founded in an act of violence during a period of existential crisis, but THE ENTIRE POINT of the Constitution is a separation of powers to force compromise - i.e., to meet in the middle, not at the extremes.
Example: regulating the economy very heavily is a bad thing that ruins market efficiency and economic output; having no regulation at all is a bad thing that produces negative external costs and can treat market participants unfairly. The realistic point of effectiveness is a balancing act somewhere in the middle.
We can't tax people too heavily, but we can't just not tax anyone and have no functioning national infrastructure... another example.
We dismantle our military and be at the mercy of other nations, but we can't be too aggressive with our military tactics and investments at the expense of other investments... another example.
We can't spend too much on social welfare program and rob people of the incentive to work, but we also can't spend nothing on them either and let people die in the streets when there's a recession and the jobs aren't there... another example.
And finally, I'd point out that the whole problem is that the far extremes never compromise. They don't understand the concept, because they view the entire world through the lens of their one or two agenda points and don't see the tradeoffs in anything. So if you want compromise, you need to get moderates involved.
No hardliners don't recognize facts. Look no further than this forum. hardliners prefer to allow others to tell them how to think. If hardliners cared about facts they would hold their own accountable.
The center refuses to rely on facts or conviction, and instead focuses on how we feel during the process of arising to a conclusion rather than logic and what that conclusion really is. Centrism is the easy way out. While I think the far-right and the far-left can come to agreements and wish they'd compromise more, I don't think centrists do this country any bit of good.
Centrism is based on the premise that everything is a shade of grey and, believe it or not, is not ideologically pure enough. Here's a centrist approach: marriages for straight people and civil unions for gays. That's so middle-path and conciliatory. Thank god we stood by our convictions and fought for what we believe in.
How about this centrist approach: "Well we really don't want to fight England , maybe we can just ask again politely. Heh, I mean we can't go to war."
Or we can fight a war against the biggest superpower in the world with a 5% chance of success to win our independence, which was pretty extreme for the time.
Centrists have never won. Centrism is boring. Centrism makes no good ideas, just combines bad ideas of both parties.
Should right and left compromise? Yes, but I can do without centrism.
Just to clarify. Are you advocating that everyone ignore looking at all sides of issues and making decisions based on many factors? Would it be more appealing to you if we all read the same things, take them as gospel, and direct our lives in that direction? Ignore all information that does not support that view and stick to one, singular, clear and crisp ideology?
THAT would be boring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, maybe we can just ask again politely. Heh, I mean we can't go to war."
