“Centrist” and “middle-of-the-roader” doesn’t actually mean anything. Claiming to be not-this and not-that isn’t virtuous in and of itself. What do you actually believe?
Cite? Whom does it bother?
It certainly doesn’t bother me; to the contrary it provides useful information about the person using the term.
The OP is problematic in some ways but where are you getting racism from it?
He seems like a definitely liberal person who thinks he’s a militant centrist because he buys Fox News portrayal of Democrats and liberals.
It’s an unusual viewpoint, but many unusual viewpoints are wrong.
It’s only “centrist” in that way that self-described centrists congratulate themselves for being only halfway extreme.
From his posts in other threads.
Ain’t that the god’s honest truth.
Sorry, did you mean to say that out loud?
Not from the OP but from other posts.
Well said. When both sides are saying “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”, that doesn’t leave any room for any sort of common ground for legislative sausage to be made, nor does it leave any room for people who aren’t on board with either side’s platform.
It’s basically asking everyone to choose sides, and there are a lot of us out here who don’t really want to be painted with either broad brush. I mean, I tend to identify with the Democratic party on some issues and ideas, and with the Republicans on others. Historically I’ve been a reluctant Republican voter until the past 10 years or so, at which point it became apparent that the Tea Party and the forces that drove it were pushing the party to be hateful, reactionary and ignorant, and emphasizing ideas like lower taxes past the point where it’s useful. Lower taxes are nice, but not when it means reducing something that is actually needed.
But I can’t say that I’ve ever really liked the Democratic party’s emphasis on what amount to identity politics w.r.t. ethnicity, sexuality and socio-economic status. As an upper middle class middle-aged white man, I’m painted as the enemy in a lot of the Democratic rhetoric, and very little of what their politicians speak about has much relevance to me- the overarching message that I get is that I should vote for them out of some sense of shame or to give myself warm fuzzies for helping out the poor/gay/ethnic people. There’s very little said that comes out and says “Bump- this is going to be good for YOU”.
So I don’t identify with either party, and yet am constantly bombarded with people who say that it means I’m wishy-washy, or lukewarm or something. That’s not the case- it means that I’m not aligned with either extreme.
Shit like this is why the phrase “OK, boomer” was invented.
Demographically speaking, I’m exactly like you. I mean, I don’t feel “shamed” into helping the climate/poor/gay/minority/women’s rights issues. I am in full support of those platforms and I don’t feel demonized in the least for the demographic I’m in. But maybe I’ve not been paying enough attention to the Democratic Party platform. Would you be kind enough to point me to where it says you and I are the enemy?
There is no such thing as “the Democratic party’s emphasis on what amount to identity politics.” “Identity politics” is just “I don’t want to support equality so I want to describe it in a way that makes it sound bad.”
Absolute nonsense. A huge number of Democrats are middle class middle-aged white men. How exactly are they “painted as the enemy”?
So, you’re saying that justice and equality means nothing to you if someone can’t tell you how it directly benefits you? You need someone to persuade you that it’s good for you if people unlike you aren’t being discriminated against, or oppressed, or killed by cops?
No, it means you’re not willing to commit to fundamental decency and you want a way to weasel out of it to make yourself feel better about yourself.
Yep.
Can you point out actual elected Democrats or party platforms that paint us as the enemy in their rhetoric?
This fixation on the party platform as if any statement or absence there means anything is silly. It’s a nonsense defense. To illustrate the point, imagine if Republicans were defending against accusations of fascism or racism with “can you show me where in the party platform it says we are fascist / hate black people?”
It’s kind of hard to defend against actual racist and sexist statements and actions by elected Republicans by saying “show me where in the party platform is says we are racist and/or sexist”
On the other hand, if one believes that random morons on Twitter are “Representative of the Democratic Party”, then sure, party platform would come into play.
This. Almost every thing the OP lists are fairly standard, mainstream-left-of-center positions.
I would agree with you if the poster had said that the Democrats have their share of leftists and anti-white-male crusaders among their supporters, but the poster said that it’s the Party’s emphasis, and another poster has said it has been taken over.
So, care to revise your reply?
Google Tucker Carlson. I’ll just start there.
HD, you may not be a racist. But the party you support sure as shit is. You may want to think about that.
The purity police are still mainly just a loud minority on social media. They’re similar to those loud ones on college campuses who drown out everyone who isn’t in lockstep with them. And that’s nothing new, it’s been going on since the 1960s at least.
But yeah, the ‘Go big or go home’ types on Twitter get annoying. It’s not as if St Elizabeth the Divine will just waive her magic wand and get all of her platform through Congress.
Am I crazy, but didn’t we just have this topic a few months ago? Some new user popped up, claimed they were centrist, and then posted a bunch of views that were clearly liberal?
It’s not merely the platforms and elected officials. It’s the whole enchilada- the ones who don’t get elected, and also the state/local officials who are often much more extreme than the national-level party candidates.
More importantly, it’s the people who go out saying this stuff who aren’t running for office, but who identify as Democrats and who the party doesn’t repudiate who convey this message.
Another way to look at it is that every time someone who identifies as liberal/Democratic says “OK Boomer”, they’re conveying the message that they dislike the elderly, and if the party doesn’t check that, they’re tacitly endorsing that message and allowing those people to be pushed further from the party. Same thing for every discussion of white privilege that goes off the rails into finger-pointing, and anything along those lines.
Basically the party’s doing a poor job of keeping the SJW/“Woke” crowd in check, or at the very least, saying “While we admire your zeal, the Democratic party doesn’t believe in certain aspects of your ideology and prefers a more inclusive approach”.
Look at it this way… if you’re a middle class middle aged white man, what’s in the Democratic platform and rhetoric for YOU? Yes, you may want justice, and equality and all that stuff, but what’s in it specifically for you? That stuff is mostly academic for you, sitting on the top of the heap, so to speak. Cops don’t harass you, you are part of an economically powerful block, nobody discriminates against you, etc… Are the Democrats going to lower my taxes? Subsidize my kids’ college? Probably not- I probably make too much for them to want to help me with any of those things.
That’s the point I’m trying to make- in the public perception, there’s not much that’s directly beneficial. Meanwhile the Republicans at least claim that they want to lower taxes, which is idiotic, but at least a direct “benefit”.
Universal health care; cheaper prescription drugs; better environment; higher minimum wage for your kids when they get jobs; better labor rights and protections; free or lower-cost college for your kids (depending on which candidate); more robust social safety net if things go wrong for you; and a lot more. There are tons of things in the Democratic party platform that are meant to help pretty much everyone aside from the very rich (and even some things, like environmental policies, that are meant to benefit everyone, including the very rich).