What happened to the centrists?

[DerekMichaels00]

What happened to the centrists? It seems like on Capital Hill and on TV, they no longer exist, but is this just a case of the Washington and media elite being out of touch with the electorate?

Take me for example: I believe government has a potentially positive role in the economic lives of America, and I hold mostly socially liberal views (like abortion being legal, gay marriage), believe the government should act to protect the environment. However, I cannot, for the life of me, stand the social justice warriors or the people who oppose all criticism of Islam, who think gender/sex are different things and/or “just constructs,” etc. The people who think government should act to get rid of a sports team name like the Redskins (which IMO, would be the government validating the bullshit view that what happened with the aboriginals was a “genocide”.) Hell, government shouldn’t be involved with professional sports. I also cannot stand the idea that government seems to be taking up the mantle that there is some sexual assault crisis on college campuses, and that girls who get ultra drunk shouldn’t be responsible for their idiocy, yet that a nail polish that detects roofies is “sexist.” Also, while being gay isn’t a bad thing, I don’t think its some kind of good thing.

CJ reform is needed, and yes, some of the laws do hit black communities hard, such as crack/cocaine. But there has to be some level of responsibility on part of the blacks and their “leaders” like Sharpton and Jackson. Its wrong that they preach the idea that its OK to not respect the institution of the police. Yes, racist individual cops are wrong, but not the police institution as a concept.

It’s sad. It seems like if a movie like American Pie (a classic film) were released today, it would be labeled as sexist and shelved. Or that while Family Guy and South Park may still be popular, that their longevity is why they’re still allowed on the air (by the Hollywood gatekeepers). At least 20 or even 10 years ago, only the religious right was so vocal about their complaints about “offensiveness” in culture. Now its the far-left. What has happened to this country? Have W. and Obama, with their shameless pandering to the ideological parts of their constituencies, ruined America?

I see Sanders’ rise as a product of Obama’s far-left pandering. In 2008, he pandered to the SJW and Daily Kos crowd in the primary, and I’ll never forgive him for that, despite my agreement with him on a decent amount of legislation. I don’t like the divisive atmosphere he’s created, and that Sanders’ followers seem to like. I like the Clintons, especially for things like the Sister Souljah moment. Or that the Clintons stayed away from the OJ case. I believe Hillary, at heart, is a centrist; she’s only lurching left because of Sanders and the atmosphere Barack Hussein Obama has created, and she’d never commented on Trayvon Martin without Obama doing so.

Not that the GOP is any better. Their leading candidates want to get rid of people who do the jobs Americans won’t. I’m not a conservative because I think the idea that a fetus or embryo is alive is nuts, and while homosexuality isn’t something to be celebrated, its not the fault of the person who is, thus why I don’t see eye to eye with the demonization of them. Their economic policies are also a big problem for me, which is why I’d have a tough time voting for them.

Where are the centrists in American politics, who don’t see every issue thru the ideological lens of people online and in the media? Are the extant, are they a silent majority? We need them back, if they’re not.

[RTFirefly]

Sounds like you’re saying that there isn’t a party perfectly calibrated to DerekMichaels00’s specifications. Welcome to the real world.

Not to mention, anyone who refers to “Obama’s far-left pandering” or goes out of his way to invoke the “Hussein” middle name is starting off with a rather bizarre view of the parties as they are, and the reference to “the blacks and their “leaders” like Sharpton and Jackson” makes me wonder what decade the OP is posting from.

And that’s just for starters.

[iiandyiiii]

They’re in the Democratic party, for the most part. Mainstream Democratic positions are pretty centrist (abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”; background checks should apply to all gun sales but few other restrictions on guns; a higher minimum wage; joining the rest of the developed world re: health care; immigration reform with a solid border and a path to citizenship for those peaceful undocumented immigrants already here; accept that climate change is real and should be addressed; less military adventurism; and many more). Obama is pretty centrist, as are Hillary and most other big name Democrats (Sanders and a few others excepted).

[BobLibDem]

The centrists are all Democrats. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the right wing lunatic fringe.

To deny that what the US did to the Native Americans was genocide isn’t based on reality. It will forever be a stain on history. Then to use an ethnic slur as the name of a sports team based near the capital shows profound insensitivity to the very real genocide that was American history.

Yes, rapes do occur on college campuses. And guys that take advantage of drunk girls are rapists.

Hollywood continues to put out a variety of movies and television for many different tastes. I don’t see where that has changed much. South Park sucks as much today as it did on its first airing.

Obama’s “far left pandering”. How amusing. Obama is not a liberal. Neither is either Clinton. We haven’t had a true liberal president since LBJ. It seems unrealistic for the first black president not to comment on the cold blooded murder of Treyvon Martin. As we’ve seen time and time again in the past few years, cops are very trigger-happy when in the presence of black men. If you don’t think that’s a problem, you’re part of the problem.

It is well and good that the OP recognizes a fraction of the shortcomings of the asylum known as the Republican Party. I hope he concludes that the only rational choice is to vote for Democrats.

[GoodOmens]

The thing about centrists is, they’re quiet. Nobody is marching in the streets chanting “Let’s be reasonable and consider both sides of the issue after researching all the facts!”

The thing about quiet people is, you don’t notice them. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@GoodOmens

The thing about quiet people is, you don’t notice them. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

More specifically, the media doesn’t notice them. Saying, “Let’s make a reasonable compromise on this issue,” is not going to get anyone riled up and therefore is not worth reporting on at length, hence the popularity of extremism and the rise of people like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

When, as some note, the Democratic party has become “centrist”, it is noteworthy to look at what that means in comparison to historical interpretation of centricism, e.g. the policies and actions of Bill Clinton were arguably more conservative than Richared Nixon (in practice, at least) and while Fox News is constantly decrying Obama’s “liberal agenda” it can be ranked as such only by comparison to his immediate predecessor. Note that extremeism isn’t always wrong; it was the “extreme” views that brought same sex marriage and global climate change to the forefront, radically altering societal views across the spectrum. But when all you have is extreme views, all you get is conflict without progress. Congress shutting down (or threatening to shut down) large swaths of government agencies in a refuasl to come to agreement on the federal budget is but one example of obstructivism in pursuit of an extreme agenda rather than a willingness to come to a compromise that at least everyone is equally dissatisfied with.

Politics has always been more about image than substance, but the way the media reports and “spins” issues to get more views (and thus, more advertising revenues) ensures that the extremes are highlighted and the “centrist” position is ignored. John Stewart touched on this on his evicerating appearance on Crossfire (largely attributed to ending that show) but frankly, the trend is too prevelant and too well accepted by a popuation that wants to be entertained rather than educated for any real reversal.

Stranger

[bump]

@GoodOmens

The thing about centrists is, they’re quiet. Nobody is marching in the streets chanting “Let’s be reasonable and consider both sides of the issue after researching all the facts!”

The thing about quiet people is, you don’t notice them. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

I think the combination of general silence and political uninvolvement on the part of most centrists is why they’re only really visible in large scale elections. They’re not the extremists (on both sides) who make politics a hobby, and who vote in every party primary. Which is unfortunate, because the political hobbyists are the ones who are basically voting in the primaries and deciding who everyone else gets to vote for come November.

I also think the Republican party in particular has done a rather amazing job of instilling fear and a certain nostalgia for what never was in their constituency, and then playing on that fear to get more and more extreme candidates elected. It’s very much an Us vs Them, You’re with us or you’re against us, kind of thing, driven by, for lack of a better term, nostalgic fear. The fear is that the Democratic party and “liberals” are Them, and they’re taking Our money and hijacking Our government for the benefit of Them, who happens to be gays, minorities and non-Christians.

What ends up happening is that there are a lot of otherwise centrist people out there who for whatever reason (groupthink, ignorance, religion, etc…) fall for the fear and nostalgia, and vote for these super-conservative idiots like Ted Cruz, even though he’s somewhere about 8 notches to the right of where they really are. But from their view, it’s better to vote for him so he’ll fight for US, than to give in and vote for a Democrat, who only has Their interests in mind.

Problem is, most of the centrists probably really class as “Them” , not “Us” in this concept, but they don’t realize it.

[wolfpup]

The OP appears to be under some significant misconceptions, some of which have already been pointed out, so I won’t repeat them.

If one wants a centrist one need look no further than the present occupant of the White House. The OP may not like his middle name, but Obama is no liberal. He may have espoused some liberal ideas in the past, but his governance is strictly centrist to conservative. His foreign policy in the Middle East has been aggressive, the PPACA is a gift to the private health insurance industry completely devoid of any public-sector competition, and the Trans Pacific Partnership is a gift to business that was widely supported by Republicans.

Hillary is no liberal, either. What has happened in American politics in recent decades is that Democrats have lurched to the right and Republicans have moved pretty much entirely into the lunatic asylum. Just look at the current Republican front-runners in the presidential race, or most of the rest of them, for that matter. Nothing like social security or Medicare could ever get passed today. Bernie Sanders is “far left” only in the context of the circus crazy-house that American politics has become. There’s not a single principle that Sanders advocates that isn’t already mainstream in every advanced democracy in the civilized world.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

To deny that what the US did to the Native Americans was genocide isn’t based on reality.

Well, there’s genocide and there’s genocide. The extermination/marginalization/removal of Native Americans by Euros/Euro-descendants happened piecemeal and sporadically over the course of centuries, and microorganisms the Euros did not know they carried did a lot of the work. On the evil scale, it does not bear comparison with a directed, intentional, industrial program of extermination like the Jewish Holocaust, which is what most people think when they hear “genocide.”

[Procrustus]

In 2008, he pandered to the SJW and Daily Kos crowd in the primary, and I’ll never forgive him for that, despite my agreement with him on a decent amount of legislation. I don’t like the divisive atmosphere he’s created, and that Sanders’ followers seem to like.

I paid real close attention during the election of 2008. I have no idea what the OP is talking about here. Candidate Obama was certainly anti-Iraq war, but that’s neither pandering nor divisive. I can’t think of anything else that would even arguably fit this discription.

[Voyager]

Sounds to me that the OP is a centrist in the same way Barry Goldwater was. In other words, the right have moved so far right that old traditional conservatives look like centrists to him. Reagan would probably count as this kind of centrist today.

I used to be a slightly to the right Republican. Now I’m a Democrat because first, the Republicans became fruitcakes and second, because most of the dogma was provably incorrect.
Sanders is much less extreme than Santorum and Huckabee to name two, not to mention Ben Carson who has more of a mental disorder than a consistent political position. Hillary is smack dab in the center, though she may look to be moving slightly left for the primaries, but nowhere near as much as Bush and Florio moved to the right.

And the contention that movies today must be politically correct is laughable as soon as someone looks at the listings. Hollywood is in it to make money. Box office rules. If critics say a film is sexist (and lots are) it ain’t going to keep the studios from making a sequel if the sexist film makes $200 million.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@BrainGlutton

Well, there’s genocide and there’s genocide. The extermination/marginalization/removal of Native Americans by Euros/Euro-descendants happened piecemeal and sporadically over the course of centuries, and microorganisms the Euros did not know they carried did a lot of the work. On the evil scale, it does not bear comparison with a directed, intentional, industrial program of extermination like the Jewish Holocaust, which is what most people think when they hear “genocide.”

If you want to make a pedantic distinction between “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” then go ahead, but it is pretty clear that if Andrew Jackson had had the means to eradicate every Native American on the continent he would have done so without breaking stride.

@Voyager

Reagan would probably count as this kind of centrist today.

Reagan would be considered very much centrist with only a few concessions to the hyperconservative groups that have taken control of the RNC, and Nixon a ‘fruitcake liberal’, what with his wage freeze and removing the US from the gold standard. The irony is that Reagan’s earlier political prolifivities toward “New Deal” economic liberalism would be considered unspeakably “socialist” today. Fuck, Bob Dole is a tail-wagging liberal by modern standards, and good old Newt 'Contract With America" Gingrich wouldn’t have enough hard line conservatism to stand in the top five candidates today.

@Voyager

…not to mention Ben Carson who has more of a mental disorder than a consistent political position. Hillary is smack dab in the center, though she may look to be moving slightly left for the primaries

Carson is a nutcase by any rational standard, and just the fact that he’s in the running speaks to just how far the political landscape of the US has shifted from the aggregate of industrialized nations (Russia notwithstanding). Hillary is all about getting Hillary elected as President, because she spent a good twenty-odd years getting Bill elected and keeping him in office despite his political and professional blundering, and for fuck’s sake she deserves her due. The sad thing is, she might even be an effective chief executive if she were not so politically polarizing and incapable of flexibility about working to any goal that isn’t hers. As it is, the current political paralysis is nothing compared to what we would see in her in office. I don’t know if we can cope with another four or more years of sequestration and non-effective foreign policy.

Stranger

[Captain_Amazing]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

If you want to make a pedantic distinction between “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” then go ahead, but it is pretty clear that if Andrew Jackson had had the means to eradicate every Native American on the continent he would have done so without breaking stride.

There’s not evidence supporting that. The only tribes Jackson ever fought were the Creeks, or at least that portion of the Creeks who had sided with the British and attacking settlers, and the Seminole, who were harboring runaway slaves. And in both of those cases, it wasn’t racial animus. Even the Indian Removal Act wasn’t genocidal in intent, although in practice, the Trail of Tears (carried out by the Van Buren administration, remember) killed a bunch of people.

Jackson’s attitude about the Indians was paternalistic and patronizing. He thought they were primitive, he thought they were inferior, and he thought that they, on average, needed the protection of the government. The whole idea of the Indian Removal Act was based on that, not a desire for racial genocide. His attitude was “If the Indians stay where they are, they’re going to get wiped out. Lets move them west, beyond where white people will ever go, and let them live in peace.”

[wolfpup]

There was a time when aboriginals were the only people living here, and all the land was theirs. Now virtually none of it is, and they have basically nothing. What do you suppose happened?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@wolfpup

There was a time when aboriginals were the only people living here, and all the land was theirs. Now virtually none of it is, and they have basically nothing. What do you suppose happened?

The same thing that had been happening for millennia before in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus ever set foot. What do you suppose the Sioux did to the Pawnee? Or the Inuit to the Dorset people?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Carson is a nutcase by any rational standard, and just the fact that he’s in the running speaks to just how far the political landscape of the US has shifted from the aggregate of industrialized nations (Russia notwithstanding).

Yes I’m sure Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders among others are the paragons of centrism and moderation.

Hillary is all about getting Hillary elected as President, because she spent a good twenty-odd years getting Bill elected and keeping him in office despite his political and professional blundering, and for fuck’s sake she deserves her due. The sad thing is, she might even be an effective chief executive if she were not so politically polarizing

To Republicans.

and incapable of flexibility about working to any goal that isn’t hers

Good. The Democrats should show far less flexibility next time around.

As it is, the current political paralysis is nothing compared to what we would see in her in office. I don’t know if we can cope with another four or more years of sequestration and non-effective foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton definitely seems more decisive on foreign policy than Barack Obama.

Ignoring the OP’s hilarity, the answer is that the variant of elite centrists (ie liberal on cultural issue and centrist to centre-right on economics) is virtually entirely represented by the Democratic Party these days while popular centrists (centre-left on economic issues and pragmatic on cultural issues) are virtually unrepresented excepting perhaps certain Democratic congressmen although Trump to a certain extent is relying on this sort of voter.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@DerekMichaels00

What happened to the centrists? It seems like on Capital Hill and on TV, they no longer exist, but is this just a case of the Washington and media elite being out of touch with the electorate?

On the contrary the Washingtonrati worships the “right” kind of centrist (ie the elite/suburbanite type) and fellatiates any politician of that sort with greater gusto than Linda Lovelace.

Take me for example: I believe government has a potentially positive role in the economic lives of America, and I hold mostly socially liberal views (like abortion being legal, gay marriage), believe the government should act to protect the environment. However, I cannot, for the life of me, stand the social justice warriors or the people who oppose all criticism of Islam, who think gender/sex are different things and/or “just constructs,” etc. The people who think government should act to get rid of a sports team name like the Redskins (which IMO, would be the government validating the bullshit view that what happened with the aboriginals was a “genocide”.) Hell, government shouldn’t be involved with professional sports.

There is literally 0 chance than any of those people will have any influence on actual national Democratic politics.

I also cannot stand the idea that government seems to be taking up the mantle that there is some sexual assault crisis on college campuses, and that girls who get ultra drunk shouldn’t be responsible for their idiocy, yet that a nail polish that detects roofies is “sexist.” Also, while being gay isn’t a bad thing, I don’t think its some kind of good thing.

K, my dear brogressive.

CJ reform is needed, and yes, some of the laws do hit black communities hard, such as crack/cocaine. But there has to be some level of responsibility on part of the blacks and their “leaders” like Sharpton and Jackson. Its wrong that they preach the idea that its OK to not respect the institution of the police. Yes, racist individual cops are wrong, but not the police institution as a concept.

Which is the stance of virtually every Democrat.

It’s sad. It seems like if a movie like American Pie (a classic film) were released today, it would be labeled as sexist and shelved. Or that while Family Guy and South Park may still be popular, that their longevity is why they’re still allowed on the air (by the Hollywood gatekeepers). At least 20 or even 10 years ago, only the religious right was so vocal about their complaints about “offensiveness” in culture. Now its the far-left.

Political correctness of the left and right are not new things.

What has happened to this country? Have W. and Obama, with their shameless pandering to the ideological parts of their constituencies, ruined America?

I see Sanders’ rise as a product of Obama’s far-left pandering. In 2008, he pandered to the SJW and Daily Kos crowd in the primary, and I’ll never forgive him for that, despite my agreement with him on a decent amount of legislation.

Ayylmao, rofl, topkek. Obama’s been a vanilla social liberal centrist from start to finish.
He’s undoubtedly lost more votes than he’s won by not being another “Give 'em Hell” Harry or like FDR “welcoming the hatred” of the plutocratic class.

I don’t like the divisive atmosphere he’s created, and that Sanders’ followers seem to like. I like the Clintons, especially for things like the Sister Souljah moment. Or that the Clintons stayed away from the OJ case. I believe Hillary, at heart, is a centrist; she’s only lurching left because of Sanders and the atmosphere Barack Hussein Obama has created, and she’d never commented on Trayvon Martin without Obama doing so.

Rofl.

Not that the GOP is any better. Their leading candidates want to get rid of people who do the jobs Americans won’t. I’m not a conservative because I think the idea that a fetus or embryo is alive is nuts,

Yes fetuses are alive. Amusing you think that in all your whataboutism and moral equivalence pandering you fail a basic scientific fact.

and while homosexuality isn’t something to be celebrated, its not the fault of the person who is, thus why I don’t see eye to eye with the demonization of them. Their economic policies are also a big problem for me, which is why I’d have a tough time voting for them.

Yadda, yadda.

Where are the centrists in American politics, who don’t see every issue thru the ideological lens of people online and in the media? Are the extant, are they a silent majority? We need them back, if they’re not.

As hinted at in my above post, most voters are centrists just not the Huntsman/Bloomberg Economist reading soulless type whom the media loves to fellatiate. The centrist for example includes the voter who loves Medicare and Social Security but thinks the govt should keep its hands out of guns and should deport all the illegals.

[wolfpup]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The same thing that had been happening for millennia before in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus ever set foot. What do you suppose the Sioux did to the Pawnee? Or the Inuit to the Dorset people?

Yet they did survive for millennia. Are you suggesting that as soon as the European settlers showed up, the native peoples for some reason decided to conveniently wipe each other out? Leaving us to do nothing more than clean up the mess and there we were, on a vast new continent with absolutely no one else living on it?

That would be quite a novel approach to revisionist history, but I think the only real point you’re making is that some of the native tribes were warlike. So were we, and still are. But we had way better weapons.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

[QUOTE]

@wolfpup

Yet they did survive for millennia.

Only if you see Indians as some faceless, monolithic single bloc. Individual tribes/nations/peoples were wiped out all the time.

Are you suggesting that as soon as the European settlers showed up, the native peoples for some reason decided to conveniently wipe each other out?

No.

Leaving us to do nothing more than clean up the mess and there we were, on a vast new continent with absolutely no one else living on it?

No, its just that Europeans brought epidemic disease.

That would be quite a novel approach to revisionist history, but I think the only real point you’re making is that some of the native tribes were warlike.

Yes in intention, the Europeans were not particularly morally inferior or superior to the Indians.

So were we, and still are. But we had way better weapons.

Yes and I do not deny that.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@DerekMichaels00

Take me for example: I believe government has a potentially positive role in the economic lives of America, and I hold mostly socially liberal views (like abortion being legal, gay marriage), believe the government should act to protect the environment.

With one exception, the above relates to 95%+ of what the government will be deciding. As for the rest of that crap, do you care what beliefs your auto mechanic has?

However, I cannot, for the life of me, stand the social justice warriors or the people who oppose all criticism of Islam, who think gender/sex are different things and/or “just constructs,” etc.

Again, this stuff is largely perpendicular to national legislation.

The people who think government should act to get rid of a sports team name like the Redskins (which IMO, would be the government validating the bullshit view that what happened with the aboriginals was a “genocide”.) Hell, government shouldn’t be involved with professional sports.

Local governments subsidize local sports by massive amounts. Unfortunately, both Democratic and Republican local governments are in the pockets of such local business (and fan) interests.

I also cannot stand the idea that government seems to be taking up the mantle that there is some sexual assault crisis on college campuses, and that girls who get ultra drunk shouldn’t be responsible for their idiocy, yet that a nail polish that detects roofies is “sexist.” Also, while being gay isn’t a bad thing, I don’t think its some kind of good thing.

Not a lot of policy there either. It seems as though you are a centrist liberal who doesn’t want to be part of the liberal tribe.

CJ reform is needed, and yes, some of the laws do hit black communities hard, such as crack/cocaine. But there has to be some level of responsibility on part of the blacks and their “leaders” like Sharpton and Jackson. Its wrong that they preach the idea that its OK to not respect the institution of the police. Yes, racist individual cops are wrong, but not the police institution as a concept.

How would you codify “Level of responsibilty” into national legislation?
A: I’m guessing you wouldn’t in a meaningful manner, ignoring symbolism.
Meanwhile, Republicans are the leading refuges of crackpots. Crackpot climate science, crackpot biology, crackpot economics. “Let’s build a Great Wall of the Colorado River and have Mexico pay for it.”