I have been thinking about "centrism" some and why there seems to be some tension surrounding the subject. This is my amateur observation and I welcome further input and differing viewpoints. Please excuse me if this has been discussed before and I just missed it.

To me, the political spectrum consists of a range of ideologies, for the most part fixed or at least internally consistent. Somewhere toward the left you would have socialism, and moving to the right we find gradually diminishing variations of populist democracy. Somewhere toward the right you would find Libertarianism and, moving leftward, traditional conservatives and variations of smaller central government advocates. Of course there are myriad variations and shades and mixes of ideas, but they all have fixed positions on issues that don't change much over time. Many issues (although certainly not all) can be placed somewhere on that spectrum because we can identify and define whether something is closer to one ideology or another.

My thinking leads me to believe that centrism may not really belong on this spectrum at all. Centrism, as I understand it, involves trying to ascertain where "the middle" is, and crafting a message to respond to that middle, and identifying "the middle" means identifying where on the fixed spectrum that most so-called "swing voters" currently reside. The thing is, by definition, swing voters haven't bought into a particular ideology, so as a group they may be all over the place on that spectrum depending on the issue. Trying to find the center therefore is sometimes more like finding an average since few may actually occupy that center on any particular issue. I don't think you can really say that "centrists believe in X". I would suggest that it has little meaning except in the context of an election or polling. In other words, it is only able to be defined relative to something else. If the left is here and the right is here then the center is here.

That's not to say that centrism isn't a legitimate point of view, it's just that perhaps it's more constructive to think of it as a tactic or a strategy rather than an ideology. So when we have discussions about winning elections, centrists and ideologues aren't necessarily at odds. Someone who considers them self pretty much a socialist may recognize that utilizing a centrist strategy when it comes to universal health care may be more successful than advocating government takeover of the health care industry at this moment in time. By the same token, a centrist would hopefully recognize that ideologues aren't necessarily "wrong", it's just that for them, elections are only one mechanism for achieving the policies and furthering the philosophy. The philosophy will still exist next year and next decade, and there will be more elections then (hopefully!) and there are other means to further the philosophy besides elections anyway, as Lech Walesa might argue.

I think this might illuminate a little common ground leading to a more productive debate. I think it is when we try to discuss centrism as a political ideology or insist on ideology without regard to election strategy that we have difficulty resolving the discussion. They are two different things. I feel like I can be a liberal, and be true to my ideals, and accept that sometimes, in some races, the candidate I am most aligned with is not going to fulfill every aspect of my liberal philosophy. My support of this candidate does not mean I have abandoned my philosophy, but merely indicates that this is the best that can be done at this time. At the same time, I also believe that we have to be able to do more than one thing at a time. There must be some candidate somewhere who stands up for the ideal- for the principle- regardless of the odds. Perhaps the discussion should be more about when and where to apply a strategy or stick to an ideology rather than whether one or the other is empirically right or wrong. The goals of each are actually subtly different. Centrism is designed to win elections, ideology advocates specific policies. Ideologues would be well served to sometimes accept small steps toward their position, and centrists could benefit from recognizing that winning without substance might make it harder to win next time.

We all ultimately have the same goal- a better world.

Thanks to the proprietors for providing the forum to discuss stuff like this.