Coli centrists, what's so great about centrism: come in here and sell us on your political leaning

[No1]

Centrists are stopping the country from being overrun by lunatic traditionalist right wingers, if there was a persuasive and influential alternative on the left (via progressivism) or the right ( via a silicon valley like libertarianism) I would be embrace the undermining of centrism.

But, the issue progressives in this thread seemingly prefer to avoid is that they are not good at being persuasive to the average American voter. And that leads people like myself to rather deal with the centrists than progressives who too often care more about being "right" than being persuasive.

However, even if the fickle counterargument is made that centrism has failed to inspire and thus the lack of inspratio has lead to GOP gains, progressives still have to contend with the fact that they consistently get beaten by the centrists. Thus, if you consistently racking up L's to the vanilla ass politicians that embody the centrist left, maybe it would be beneficial to acknowledge and figure out why the progressive message doesn't seem to scale.

Sadly I expect the same set of excuses and rationalizations from progressives on this site about why they struggle to overcome such a mediocore set of messaging-- corporate media, Americans being dumb, and the lack of money--and get aggy when you make it clear it doesn't make sense to bet on them when time, resources, energy are limited and it's an accepted premise that the political game is comes with considerable constraints.

And so I'd rather deal with the group that operated within those constraints byway of tradeoffs versus progessivds who think moral grandstanding serving as the foundation of their strategy is likely to move the needle despite consistent evidence that doesn't work.

The idea that progressives are racking up Ls requires taking a very shortsighted view of American politics. The major electoral losses of Democrats in the House of Representatives under Clinton, Obama and presumably Biden have nothing to do with a progressive agenda. The only way in which the progressive agenda can be judged is based on the traction it has been since 2016, which is basically when it became cool to be a progressive again. Since that point, they have their highest level of representation in Congress in decades and pushed the Democratic Party to embrace a BBB plan. Sanders was in charge of writing their economic agenda. They’re also winning local races all over the country. This current MAGA Republican moment is decades in the making. There’s no reason to expect the progressive movement to takeover in one night. The Third Way Dems spent decades on the outskirts before they got Clinton over the finish line. Your argument for centrists is basically that they control all the levers so you would rather deal with them than the people trying to get it from them and move the country forward. In other words, you’d rather deal with the same people who have had power for your entire life and have done little to nothing for people that look like us. This seems like an emotional reaction and anger at progressives for not winning than in believing in the efficacy of centrism. Every major Democratic victory that they current hold and use to consolidate power was conceived during the party’s progressive era: unions, social security, Medicare and Medicare, civil rights, EPA powers. There isn’t a single thing that Democrats are currently holding on to besides Obamacare that wasn’t a progressive idea or invention.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@Rhakim for the 2000 election did both Bush and Gore run as centrists? Also in 2004 did Bush run as a centrist?

Bush ran to the right in 2000, but tried to distinguish himself from the far-right. At the time his "Compassionate Conservativism" was packaged in a way to indicate that he was more of a true believer conservative than his own father was but not an unsympathetic wacko like Pat Robertson. No one who lived through the 2000 election would have been the least bit confused into thinking that Bush was a centrist. That being said, after 9/11 he tacked hard to the right in a lot of ways.

2004 Bush didn't have to run on being a right-winger or a centrist, as the incumbent he didn't really have to define himself on that spectrum and just ran on 9/11, Iraq War (believe it or not), and being a Republican.

2000 Gore was confusing as fukk. In 1988 he had run as a full-on southern conservative Dem (or "moderate") who proceeded to get completely washed in all the Southern primaries by left-wing Jesse Jackson. In 1992 he was seen as a Clinton brother, doubling down on southern white centrism in an election strategy that would have lost the general if G.H.W. hadn't been so unpopular with his own party and Ross Perot hadn't saved the day by grabbing a substantial portion of the conservative vote. But over the course of the Clinton administration, the general feeling was Clinton going even further to the center-right while Gore was moving to the left, at least on the environment which was his "signature" issue. But when the general election came around he was scared as fukk to run on that, so instead of playing to his strengths he barely mentioned the environment at all, didn't run to the left at all, and nominated Joe fukking Liebermann (a full-on Republican-in-waiting) as his VP. The feeling was that he wasn't defining himself with any real confidence at all, and liberals in particular were disappointed in his failure to really emphasize the gulf of differences between himself and Bush. With a booming economy the Dems should have had a win that year but poor campaign strategy (not dissimilar to 2016) fukked it up.

 

[Pressure]

And to be clear, I don't need to sell you on my leanings. If the premise of the thread is to hold true, there are things I value that like to get accomplished and I don't have a problem who gets them done and I don't care if things I view as less important get sacrificed in the process.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

That's first half is true, but none of that negates what I said.

I disagree with the notion that Dems are 'going to have to be centrists.' I think going along with that narrative is simply accepting that the system is compromised and being unwilling to fix what is clearly broken. That goes against my principles and I'm not going to do that.

them dems are certainly always going to have centrists in the party...and there are more purple counties/districts than solid blue ones, so yes, i fully expect the dems to have more centrists and lean toward centrism.

 

[No1]

but how do progressives get people to go along with their ideas if they are completely opposed to them.....? governing country isn't just about what progressives want, it is about the entire country....


true, very true....

Non-racist people aren’t opposed to progressive ideas. They are opposed to progressive politicians and something they are unaware of. And for white people - the idea that racial minorities may be getting some unearned benefit. The dumbest thing Sanders ever did was lean into the name democratic socialist.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

Or perhaps we aren't centrists.

If people fail to fit within your neat little boxes, perhaps it's your box that's the issue.

Based on my views I safely qualify at center left on my values. But I also understand the value of pragmatism and compromise to get things accomplished in a democracy.

The Neo-Liberal defense force are going to tell you that they actually are progressive, but they'll turn around and make up some bullshyt just to punch left right after.

You're not going to get a straight up answer from them because they will not discuss in good faith. If you ask them what their problem with progressives and the rest of the left is, they'll create a straw man to point at. They're a walking, talking David Feldman skit, but without any of the irony.

Right on time.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Nobody struggles with any of this. Both you and @dora_da_destroyer and everyone else in here who is viewed as centrist or moderate are failing to answer the question. A belief system has coherent organizing principles. Your answers are literally proving the point that centrism isn’t a coherent belief system. It’s literally a belief system that says I’m going to take some good ideas from progressives and some bad ideas from conservatives and mix them together because I believe that the best answer is middle ground. Self-interest is a conservative position and thinking of the collective is a progressive position. To the extent that someone accepts ideas from both factions it just really means they’re a self-interested person who can be persuaded to do something that benefits everyone but with the express limit of how much discomfort they’re willing to stomach. In other words, they’re actually conservatives. The whole idea of being a progressive is seeing a unified destiny and purpose with others. The progressive movement has failed to be as successful in recent decades because white people cannot be convinced to see a destiny connected to people of color.

this doesn't really make sense given our political spectrum today consists of social and economic issues. it also assumes a centrist takes a middle view of every issue as opposed to being someone who may lean left on one issue (environment) while being right on another (gun rights)...


but i'll let yall pretend like that even a minority of people would check box A or box B completely down a ballot to 100% fall into conservative or progressive buckets, almost no one thinks like that

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

In reality, though, the line of what is "too much" is dictated by the opposition and politicians.

Manchin has his line. As do Republicans, and more liberal Democrats of things they will or won't support.

The argument you made was electability though. The concept of 'too much' when it comes to candidates is definitely dictated within the party and the narrative framed by the media during the primaries. When it comes time for policy after being elected, then yes you have to work within the means you have, but you need to support progressives in elections in order to reach a point where you won't hit these Manchin shaped roadblocks to progressive policy.

So again, supporting centrists and then saying it's because you need to work within the system is hustling backwards.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

them dems are certainly always going to have centrists in the party...and there are more purple counties/districts than solid blue ones, so yes, i fully expect the dems to have more centrists and lean toward centrism.

Cite?

And I'll point out the argument implies the false suggestion that centrists are better at winning purple areas than leftists are. I don't think there is empirical evidence for that - we just saw Trump capture many purple regions in 2016 by focusing on turnout of partisans and the inspiration of non-voting independents rather than trying to appeal to centrists. Similarly, Sanders almost certainly would have done better than Clinton in rust belt purple states as his enthusiasm was greater and his message appealed to multiple crowds there, not all of them left-wing. An inspirational leftists that motivates typically non-voting young, progressive, and black/brown voters could easily make more progress in certain purple regions than yet another establishment dem fighting with Republicans for the shrinking group of undecided "centrists" in the middle.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

but how do progressives get people to go along with their ideas if they are completely opposed to them.....? governing country isn't just about what progressives want, it is about the entire country....

Ban on abortions, complete lack of gun control, reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation for corporations, blocking refugees, blocking DREAM Act, ban on gay marriage, and several other conservative positions are all FAR less popular than many progressive positions. Yet the Republicans have not only managed to run on them successfully but consistently win real policy victories in many of those areas.

Progressive ideas like Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, taxing the rich much more, debt relief, reduction of corporate control over health care costs, community policing, stronger gun control, far higher minimum wage, and so on are extremely popular, far more so than anything Republicans run on. But the progressives have to constantly fight their own corporate dems, lobbyists, media, and the framing of everything as "socialist!" and usually end up undermined by their own party.

Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies - Public Citizen

At Public Citizen, we pride ourselves on doing what we think is right, not what others say is “reasonable.” We…

www.citizen.org

Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones

An incredibly boring back-to-basics proposal.

www.vox.com

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Cite?

And I'll point out the argument implies the false suggestion that centrists are better at winning purple areas than leftists are. I don't think there is empirical evidence for that - we just saw Trump capture many purple regions in 2016 by focusing on turnout of partisans and the inspiration of non-voting independents rather than trying to appeal to centrists. Similarly, Sanders almost certainly would have done better than Clinton in rust belt purple states as his enthusiasm was greater and his message appealed to multiple crowds there, not all of them left-wing. An inspirational leftists that motivates typically non-voting young, progressive, and black/brown voters could easily make more progress in certain purple regions than yet another establishment dem fighting with Republicans for the shrinking group of undecided "centrists" in the middle.

Fewer than 600 out of about 3,000 counties, not including Alaska, voted over 80% for either candidate

Four maps that show how America voted in the 2020 election with results by county, number of voters

Though votes continue to trickle in as ballots are tallied, here's a look at how America voted in the 2020 presidential election.

www.usatoday.com

if yall want to dismiss my example of the motivated HS grad who wants to teach, i'm done hearing about this phantom candidate that's going to get young people to vote...wasn't bernie that and young people turned out in lower numbers his second time around?

 

[the cac mamba]

you do know these were all local mandates? the state didn't make the decisions, and pretty much every medium to large city had mandates at some point, red and blue alike, but please feel free to cheerlead the protocol of 2600 person towns

yes, solely by democrats and democrat governors along with the federal vaccine mandate.

im sorry, but post-covid, the idea that it's republicans who want to force you to do things is laughable im not sure how breh even said that with a straight face

 

[the cac mamba]

Progressives don't criticize Democrats? That's what you believe?

im not talking about whining because the party isnt as far left as they want it to be

but carry on, berniewood

 

[Pressure]

Progressives were doing their best before they branded themselves as the party for all leftist positions.

They should have stuck with UHC,taxing the wealthy, and free college --all very popular.

The brand is pretty much dead since the progressive figurehead went all in on defunding the police, abolish ice, and generally coming across as lax on illegal immigration -- all with strong negatives.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

And to be clear, I don't need to sell you on my leanings. If the premise of the thread is to hold true, there are things I value that like to get accomplished and I don't have a problem who gets them done and I don't care if things I view as less important get sacrificed in the process.

This is a fair position for anyone to hold