Determinedly centrist! ... by Bob Nelson
According to the dictionary , a "centrist" is
a person who holds moderate political views
OK. Fine.
But how does one define "moderate"?
In fact, the "centrist" in the cartoon doesn't "hold" any views at all. He's taking two opposed ideas and unthinkingly splitting the difference.
He is not actually deciding anything himself. He has abandoned "thinking" in favor of a method that allows him to never be on one side or on the other.
So... this self-styled "centrist" holds no views at all...
OK... so let's go at the subject a little differently, by imagining that 
But then what happens when the right goes way, way farther right?
This is where the centrist either " holds a belief", and decides that what was true yesterday is still true today... and so he maintains his position. Or...
The geometry is... strange...
§ The "New Center" is to the right of the "Right".
§ From the point of view of the "New Right", the old, decided-by-actual-thinking "Center" is just about indistinguishable from the "Left", which may explain why RINO is such a horrible insult among them.
§ Our "50/50 centrist", seeing how extreme the right has become, must of course now declare that the left (which hasn't budged an iota) has also become "extreme".
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Does anyone know what "centrist policies" may be?
Yes plea bargains are an example of centrist policy.
Oh.
OK.
Thanks, Dean.
I'm a mugwump. Barely lean right. But could never be a conservative. I voted for JFK. Probably would have voted for Jim Webb because I was disgusted by Trump. But when he dropped out and Hillary stole the nomination by dirty tricks, I held my nose, closed my eyes, tapped my heels together three times, and voted for Trump. From a Wikipedia article about him...
As a member of the Democratic Party , Webb announced on November 19, 2014, that he was forming an exploratory committee to evaluate a run for President of the United States in 2016 . On July 2, 2015, he announced that he would be joining the race for the Democratic nomination for president , but stepped down from running in the primaries on October 20, 2015, stating that he was "not comfortable" and "unhappy" with many of the party's political positions.
You don’t account for the democrat party moving much further left than any slight GOP move to the right. That’s why so many centrists seem liberal and liberals are progressive extremists.
1) I do not know any "democrat party".
2) If you are using an erroneous label for the Democratic Party, then your statement is simply false. The Democratic Party is (unwisely, IMHO) immobile. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has shredded dozens of democratic norms over the last decade.
"Progressive extremist" is nonsense linguistically, and of course a unicorn politically. Your using the term is a good example of the "bombast inflation" that has marked the Republican Party since the absorption of the Tea Party movement.
The "contribution" to this article from our right-wing members are fascinating. You (collectively) don't actually argue anything. You just toss out stuff you've made up.
"Centrist" is a misnomer. Applied and used by and to those who don't buy into either major Parties ideology 100%. This includes members of those Parties that have commonly been labeled as moderates as well as independents. I have used the term to describe myself. The context that "centrist" comes close to accuracy is that we find ourselves trapped between two controlling Parties who refuse to act with intelligence.
Abortion. Roe v Wade. A perfect example.
I find abortions distasteful something I wish didn't happen, but hey, a woman has the right to make her own decisions and I am not going to denigrate nor condemn her if she chooses to go that route. In America we have the Freedom of Choice. Something the leadership of both Parties disrespect. One way or the other or you face total condemnation. (Abortion is not the topic and I will not discuss it here. I use it merely as an example of partisan stupidity.) Question. Does being personally anti-abortion and personally a strong believer in Freedom of Choice make me a fool?
Rule of Law. Should our laws be enforced equally across the board? Why have them if they aren't. They aren't. Both Parties have a preference for selective enforcement once again putting people who really believe in equality squarely in the middle. Those people being called centrists. People who don't want laws made up on the spot for political convenience and then kept in reserve to be used against other laws made up for the purpose of political convenience thus creating a pool of laws that contradict each other.
Issues aren't the issue. How issues are being used to garner power for the political Parties rather than being dealt with sanely for the benefit of all is the real issue.
If somebody calls you a "Centrist" take it as a compliment, a badge of honor. You are part of the most feared political force in this country. Feared by the leadership of both Parties and their narrow minded partisans.
Call us all of the names you want but the fact is we "Centrists" are kicking the ass of both Parties. The further in their chosen directions (left/right) their leadership goes the less relevant they become and the sooner our country becomes a model of intelligent progressiveness.
Progressive. Another word that has been twisted and miss-used by our Political Parties.
"Centrist" is a misnomer. Applied and used by and to those who don't buy into either major Parties ideology 100%. This includes members of those Parties that have commonly been labeled as moderates as well as independents. I have used the term to describe myself. The context that "centrist" comes close to accuracy is that we find ourselves trapped between two controlling Parties who refuse to act with intelligence.
Abortion. Roe v Wade. A perfect example.
I find abortions distasteful something I wish didn't happen, but hey, a woman has the right to make her own decisions and I am not going to denigrate nor condemn her if she chooses to go that route. In America we have the Freedom of Choice. Something the leadership of both Parties disrespect. One way or the other or you face total condemnation. (Abortion is not the topic and I will not discuss it here. I use it merely as an example of partisan stupidity.) Question. Does being personally anti-abortion and personally a strong believer in Freedom of Choice make me a fool?
Rule of Law. Should our laws be enforced equally across the board? Why have them if they aren't. They aren't. Both Parties have a preference for selective enforcement once again putting people who really believe in equality squarely in the middle. Those people being called centrists. People who don't want laws made up on the spot for political convenience and then kept in reserve to be used against other laws made up for the purpose of political convenience thus creating a pool of laws that contradict each other.
Issues aren't the issue. How issues are being used to garner power for the political Parties rather than being dealt with sanely for the benefit of all is the real issue.
If somebody calls you a "Centrist" take it as a compliment, a badge of honor. You are part of the most feared political force in this country. Feared by the leadership of both Parties and their narrow minded partisans.
Call us all of the names you want but the fact is we "Centrists" are kicking the ass of both Parties. The further in their chosen directions (left/right) their leadership goes the less relevant they become and the sooner our country becomes a model of intelligent progressiveness.
Progressive. Another word that has been twisted and miss-used by our Political Parties.
Bob, I don't disagree with the premise that a "split the baby" mentality is an extremely poor approach.
With the rest of the assertions, I respectfully disagree. Any notion that the left has stayed in place, while the right continues to trend that way is farcical.
Fine. Tell me about new leftish policy proposals that are wacky. I know of none.
LOL...
I switched the party and here's the results:
............................................................................................
DID YOU GET LOST?
It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.
..................................
Evidently the internet considers the NY Post as a crazy republican outlet.
So funny
From 2014?? And this article is a hatchet job for the individuals. It doesn't concern policy.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not rejecting the idea en bloc, but quite honestly, I haven't heard of anything "radical".
To this untrained observer it appears that the remnants of the once great Democrat party, what's left of it, is proceeding at full speed to go as far left as possible.
What are the Dems proposing that is way left? I'm aware of nothing.
Let me enlighten you. The "dems" want to abolish Ice. The "dems" are advocating Socialism.
Let's begin there.
I didn't see that on the party platform.
OK. First, neither is a policy of the Democratic Party. Both are proposed by some members of the party.
Second, neither is particularly radical.
ICE is a particular police organization that is currently something of a lightning rod. If it was eliminated, a similar force would have to be created, because there will always be a need.
The socialism proposed by some Democrats is entirely non-revolutionary. Entirely via legal means. It's not going to happen soon, if ever. So what is the problem?
So you agree that there are no radical proposals floating around?
At the moment, tbe Dems are basically powerless at the federal level. They've taken a lot of hits and they're groggy.
But why would they want to make propositions? Tbat would allow the GOP to shift the conversation to the Dem's platform, rather than the absence of any Republican propositions.
At the moment, for the Dems, silence is golden.
"and Wolverines make good house pets"
And open borders, and abortion on demand.
Why?
The right has viciously attacked Pelosi without cease for over a decade. If you look past the ardor, you'll find that these attacks have very little substance. Pelosi is the object of attacks because she is the opposition leader, and an effective one. The Republican method has been "Just keep slinging mud, regardless... and some will believe..."
Again... why?
"Medicare for all" is a good idea. It's a step to the left, but a moderate one, and everyone loves Medicare. Restoring the EPA should be a vote-getter. Raising the minimum wage.
Do you have anything substantive to say?
When one has no argument, strawmen are a very common dodge.
I know of no one calling for either open borders nor abortion on demand.
Let's see their platform
Easy to find.
From time to time, Vic, I try to open a conversation with someone... unlikely.
You're up!
Let's look at a short set of posts:
The interesting thing here is your affirmation of what you apparently believe to be true. You cite two policy items as though they were "standard" on the left... but you give no references or links.
Even when I Reply that I know of no one calling for those items, you still do not give any references or links. Instead, you try to shift your burden of proof ("yours" because it is you who are making an affirmation) elsewhere.
... and when the proof is furnished that your initial statement was false, you do not recognize your error; you go silent.
Vic...
I see two possibilities here.
1) You genuinely believed your initial statement. Now you have proof that whoever fed you that false information was not a reliable source. While no one expects a public retraction from you, any intellectually honest observer would expect you to no longer trust whatever source gave you your information.
(Deleted)
Very confusing Bob, I almost penalized Ender, please don't cut and paste multiple posts like this again. {SP}
Did you read your own link?
What do you consider to be "radical" among the policies listed?
Ender....
Those calling for the abolishment of ice:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, seen as a potential 2020 contender, told CNN in late June that she believes ICE should be abolished . The New York Democrat said ICE has “become a deportation force” and said we “should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont
In a series of tweets, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said “it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform.”
ICE and other agencies would need to be restructured, Sanders continued.
“Congress must do what the American people want. Let us create a humane and rational immigration system,” Sanders said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
Speaking at a rally in Boston on June 30, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., slammed Trump’s immigration policies, saying he “seems to think that the only way to have immigration rule is to rip parents from their family ... treat rape victims and refugees like terrorists and to put children in cages,” according to Real Clear Politics .
“The president’s deeply immoral actions have made it obvious we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality and that works,” Warren said.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Oregon
While comparing ICE to broken phone app or computer program, Rep. Earl Blumenauer said of ICE to “shut it down” in a June 24 blog post . He noted that he voted against the creation of the agency in 2002.
TOP DEMOCRATIC SENATOR BUCKS CALLS TO ABOLISH ICE: ‘WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT’
“We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion,” Blumenauer said. “Now is the time for immigration reform that ensures people are treated with compassion and respect. Not only because it is the moral thing to do, but it’s better policy and will cost less.”
“To regain the trust of the American people, it’s time we abolish ICE,” he added.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Washington
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., told Democracy Now she would “love to see ICE go.”
And in an interview with The Hill , Jayapal said she supports calls “to take a rogue agency and completely get rid of it and start over,” adding that “nobody’s saying, ‘Don’t have the functions that are necessary for the enforcement of immigration laws.’”
“We need to set up a commission that looks at the alternatives to ICE and really starts to understand how do we have these functions in a way that is accountable, transparent and humane,” she said.
Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts
On his re-election campaign website , Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., says “it’s time to abolish ICE.”
“We need to start a fresh conversation. If there are elements that work, we can maintain and strengthen those aspects. Otherwise, we need to thoroughly re-evaluate and re-think immigration enforcement,” he said.
Rep. Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., has done more than just call for eradicating ICE; he’s written legislation that would do just that.
WHAT TRUMP’S ‘ZERO-TOLERANCE’ IMMIGRATION POLICY MEANS FOR CHILDREN SEPARATED FROM FAMILIES AT BORDER
“Unfortunately, the president has created this situation where ICE isn’t doing what it was created to do. It’s being used used as his own personal police force, and in those actions it’s actually making us less safe because the critical functions of ICE can no longer happen when the president has them going after people in churches and workplaces,” Pocan told Fox News . “It’s just been made a mess.”
Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, echoed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- a young congressional candidate who stunned the political world when she beat longtime incumbent Rep. Joe Crawley in New York’s Democratic primary -- in calling for the eradication of ICE. He said while every nation needs a “sensible, transparent immigration regulation” agency, ICE is not that for the U.S.
“ICE’s time has come and gone. It is broken,” de Blasio told WNYC in an interview. “ICE has been sent on a very negative, divisive mission, and it cannot function the way it is. So I think that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is right. We should abolish ICE. We should create something better, something different.”
Gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon, New York
Former “Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon , who is challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, has called ICE a “terrorist organization” in calling for it to be dissolved.
“ICE has strayed so far away from its mission. It is supposed to be here to keep Americans safe, but what has turned into, frankly, is a terrorist organization of its own that is terrorizing people who are coming into this country,” Nixon said during an event at a Manhattan church.
‘ABOLISH ICE’ GOES MAINSTREAM AS GILLIBRAND, DE BLASIO BACK CALLS
Previously, she told “The View” that ICE should be abolished because it has “strayed so far from the interests of the American people and the interests of humanity.” She said it wouldn’t need to be replaced with anything else.
Already in the primary, Nixon has been credited with pushing Cuomo to the left on some issues. Cuomo has said he doesn’t support abolishing ICE.
Congressional candidate Randy Bryce, Wisconsin
A Democrat running for outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan’s congressional seat in Wisconsin, Randy Bryce called for the abolishment of ICE.
Bryce accused ICE of having “grown power hungry, sucking up more and more federal resources and directing them towards the deportation of children and families, who are otherwise completely law-abiding,” on his campaign website .
WOMAN ESCORTED DOWN AFTER SCALING STATUE OF LIBERTY FOLLOWING ANTI-ICE PROTESTS
“Accordingly, Randy believes that ICE should be abolished, and Congress should explore which existing agency could best house immigration and customs enforcement, so that only those who pose a true threat to our country’s security face deportation,” his website said.
Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Abolishing ICE is part of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s platform as she runs for Congress in New York. Ocasio-Cortez, who is only 28, beat the incumbent Rep. Joseph Crowley in New York’s Democratic primary in June.
“As overseen by the Trump administration, ICE operates with virtually no accountability, ripping apart families and holding our friends and neighbors indefinitely in inhumane detention centers scattered across the United States,” Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign website states. “Alex believes that if we are to uphold civic justice, we must abolish ICE and see to it that our undocumented neighbors are treated with the dignity and respect owed to all people, regardless of citizenship status.”
According to the liberal Mother Jones magazine , Ocasio-Cortez was one of the first congressional candidates in 2018 who called for the eradication of ICE.
How can you miss that!!!!!!!
Ender....
Democrats calling for Socialism - from the Washington Post:
Answers
1) Now that I went out and PROVED what could be found just about ANYWHERE, maybe it's time for you to admit you know all about it or maybe your'e in denial?
2) Don't ever call me a liar - I notice none of our biased mods have corrected you. My computer has ben down for a while, yet nobody has flagged that personal attack!
No, my computer has been down, just recently got it back, otherwise I would have asked why the dems aren't arguing for the platform policy but instead for abolishing Ice and advocating socialism?
(Deleted)
No. You proved nothing. The topic was "radical" positions.
Replacing ICE with something more human is hardly a radical idea. Socialism is not a radical idea. "Medicare for all" is not a radical idea.
... except when seen from a point of view way, way, way, way right.
SP,
I need a ruling about the CoC. Is it a violation to say "It is possible that X is a liar"? Nothing is affirmed. That sentence would be true regardless of who is X.
Would it be a violation to say, "Anyone may be a liar"? Then why not "Joe may be a liar"? Nothing is affirmed.
How about "Some members of NT lie sometimes"? "Some particular members lie quite often"?
I'm not trying to hassle you. I really do not understand what is permissible and what is not. It seems pretty random to me.
Interesting article and mind exersize bob.
I don't use the line method for discerning left or right though , I use a clock faced circle.
In my example the 12 position is the worst either side could go , no matter how far they go so that would make the 6 the somewhat center. Divide that circle from the 12 to the 6 and you have your left and right , divide it from the 3 to the 9 into quarters and you have the amount of government control and taxation or any number of issues it can be applied to .
so optimum for me is try to stay as close to the 6 with the ability to swing from the 4 to the 8 on individual issues is for me what feels right.
what doesn't feel right is the total government control over all aspects of individual life which is represented by the 12 position , and can be got there from either side of the clock face .
Your clock is an interesting alternative presentation. It has the great advantage, compared to a simple straight line, that it can't be stretched.
If you set 6 o'clock as "center", then 12 is the farthest a "side" can drift. That's an advantage.
Interesting...
Thank you , I got the Idea from the doomsday clock , I simply applied it to politics and the different left right paragrim using a single hand . I also recognized that at the worst in politics the worst any side could go ends up in exactly the same place , with total control ending up in the elited few at the top of the food chain, doesn't matter which path is taken the results end up the same .
dependant on issue I try to hover at the bottom of the hour , to me that gives a little wiggle room either way , what can I say except it works for me , and it can be applied to just about any issue.
It also demonstrates clearly how similar the far left and far right actually are.
Yes, yes, and black is a very similar color to white, they're practically the same!!