This view only works in a world where the right and left have a common view of reality and a common agreement on what the outcome should be, they just disagree on how to get there.
Which is why being centre-left or centre-right makes logical sense, since the positions and policies within those halves are consistent with their perception of reality and desired outcomes. And being unbiased about which position to pick within those ideologies is perfectly reasonable.
But being a centrist between the left and right doesn’t make sense, as the view of reality and goals is entirely distinct. There’s no middle ground between “cutting social services for the poor because you believe poor people deserve to be poor, and that hierarchical societies are inherently right”, and that “we should increase social spending to help those that are less fortunate because an equal society is inherently just”.
Deficit spending is fucking us as a nation. We cannot add new programs that we cannot afford. I neither believe that total equality is a good thing, nor that absolute hierarchy is a good thing. But having a well-structured hierarchy that facilitates movement around the hierarchy is valuable both from a structural standpoint and from a social standpoint.
Poor-specific social programs should be cut, and replaced with a UBI that is pulled from a universal (including stocks, bonds, etc) sales tax.
A federal health insurance that negotiates with medical suppliers to reduce costs, and that requires hospitals to charge the actual costs.
Being ideologically in between the left and right doesn’t mean that the left and right will provide reasonable options to vote for - just that you’ll vote for them if you can.
As you’ve seen with the massive inflation due to bank bailouts and covid spending (money just printed), we literally must stop the deficit spending, or else the economy will grind to a halt - like with covid, but way worse.
But centrism isn’t about finding the geometric mean of the two sides it’s about analyzing each problem separately, making compromises and initiating slow change.
This view only works in a world where the right and left have a common view of reality and a common agreement on what the outcome should be, they just disagree on how to get there.
Which is why being centre-left or centre-right makes logical sense, since the positions and policies within those halves are consistent with their perception of reality and desired outcomes. And being unbiased about which position to pick within those ideologies is perfectly reasonable.
But being a centrist between the left and right doesn’t make sense, as the view of reality and goals is entirely distinct. There’s no middle ground between “cutting social services for the poor because you believe poor people deserve to be poor, and that hierarchical societies are inherently right”, and that “we should increase social spending to help those that are less fortunate because an equal society is inherently just”.
There is. It goes like this:
Deficit spending is fucking us as a nation. We cannot add new programs that we cannot afford. I neither believe that total equality is a good thing, nor that absolute hierarchy is a good thing. But having a well-structured hierarchy that facilitates movement around the hierarchy is valuable both from a structural standpoint and from a social standpoint.
Poor-specific social programs should be cut, and replaced with a UBI that is pulled from a universal (including stocks, bonds, etc) sales tax.
A federal health insurance that negotiates with medical suppliers to reduce costs, and that requires hospitals to charge the actual costs.
Being ideologically in between the left and right doesn’t mean that the left and right will provide reasonable options to vote for - just that you’ll vote for them if you can.
As you’ve seen with the massive inflation due to bank bailouts and covid spending (money just printed), we literally must stop the deficit spending, or else the economy will grind to a halt - like with covid, but way worse.
But centrism isn’t about finding the geometric mean of the two sides it’s about analyzing each problem separately, making compromises and initiating slow change.