From experience, I’d say that both sides agree centrists are awful people.
Jeepers, I’ve never heard anyone say that! Both sides are sad that centrists aren’t on their side, but both sides, when wise, court the center. A “move to the center” is very often a winning election strategy.
(Retreat to the extreme wins more often than we’d like, but leads to polarization and hatred.)
A goose can’t fly with only one wing…and two wings are useless if the heart stops. We all need each other. Left and right specifically need each other…as counterbalances and brakes. Our system depends on a strong opposition.
Actually, during the last administration, vegetables became a partisan issue. (The US really is that nuts).
I do think, though, that for many things the devil is in the details. (e.g., What does “reasonable” mean?) And which of two competing principles gets priority? And when is that principle too high of a price? And because of a human tendency to go hyperbolic when discussing issues, it is hard to notice that there’s a generally large overlap of agreement.
Maybe not agreement, but certainly similarity.
It’s the topic of this thread. There are plenty of other threads to discuss issues which the right and left disagree on.
I disagree. I think both the left and the right feel that the center is closer to them. Or even that they are part of the center.
As I said, not in my experience, and perhaps I should have said non-partisans instead of centrists.
It’s an uphill battle to hold or defend the validity (or lack of) an idea on it’s own merits when that idea is predominant among one group and rejected by the other.
If it’s not that, it’s what you point out, that both sides think that centrist or non-partisans should be closer to them, so they tend to proselytize and if one doesn’t budge then there’s drama.
After all, that’s what polarization is all about, isn’t it?
With regards to both sides feeling people in the middle are closer to them I wanted to bring up something but for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the social theory, something about very similar groups hating each other the most precisely because they are so alike but not quite enough.
Does that ring any bells on anyone?
ETA: And of course it came to me three seconds after hitting submit: Narcissism of small differences.
Then let’s just go down the list.
Both sides agree:
- being able to breathe is nice
- the continued existence of the human species is a good thing
- we should not all amputate our arms and legs
…
Free-market capitalist economics are so unchallenged and entrenched, that there isn’t any opposition in America, and there has never been one. Our single absolutist economic doctrine has never been challenged by a credible candidate nor party, save for the token Gus Hall.
From time to time, social issues arrive in which liberal-conservative alignments form, and rarely (like socialized medicine) it is necessary for an issue with economic ramifications to be shouted down. But in any meaningful sense, we are economically absolutist.
You’re making a straw man argument. The “issues” you made up have never been the subject of political disagreement. But the political issues that other people (including me) raised and that you listed have been real political issues on which there has been serious partisan disagreement. And the point is that those disagreements have been resolved and there is now a consensus.
To add another to the list, I think there is agreement (for now) that gender differences exist, although even that is coming under challenge.
Both the left and the right agree liberals are silly and mocking them is a lot of fun.