#231: Centrism Is a Methodology, Not Primarily an Ideology

I would typically describe myself as a centrist, even though some of my positions may align with the Left. How is this possible? What does it mean to be a centrist? What are core positions of centrism? How is centrism defensible in the light of strong convictions that may not align with others in some areas?

Certainly, centrism has been getting a bad reputation from all kinds of critics. To progressives and more committed leftist, a centrist position is thought to not be committed enough to the fight for emancipation and against the establishment. To conservatives, centrists are betraying traditional values by being secret leftists. To libertarians, centrists are closet authoritarians by holding on to the legitimacy, in principle, of government and public administration. To ideological extremists of all sides, centrists are simply traitors to any cause.

We have seen the results of this in politics. In the United States, there used to be conservative Democrats and progressive Republicans who would agree on many things and be able to create workable compromises. Not anymore, it seems – or, what I would rather suspect, not anymore in public because the atmosphere is too polarized due to a variety of factors including social media and the way campaign funding heightens the impact of partisan interests. In European countries, traditional centrist-ish parties like Social Democrats (center-left) and Christian Democrats (center-right) are pushed by more ideologically committed parties from either the Left or the Right. If they move further to the center, they are perceived as sellouts; if they move further into their respective more ideological camps, they are perceived as too radical.

In the end, the extremists win – and if they win for too long, they can cement their beliefs and make future corrective changes more and more difficult. Ironically, this only works for the right-wing parties (to be more concrete, either free market absolutists and radical libertarians, or reactionary conservatives). The results have been Brexit (driven by isolationist, libertarian and xenophobic lunacy), Orban’s Hungary (driven by xenophobia, revanchism, greed and corruption), the rise of the “Alternative for Germany”, “Law and Justice” in Poland (though with a recent setback), the ever-evolving Le Pen movement in France, various other nationalist movements such as in Italy, and most of all Trumpism.

The Left, in contrast, does what the Left does best: infighting and purity tests. As soon as any sort-of Left Wing government is formed, they get eviscerated by those who believe they are not left-wing enough. The critique is probably not wrong, but it misses the point that in order to govern, you have to represent – whether you like it or not – the whole country. In order to govern sustainably, you need to eventually secure reelection. This means that whatever you believe to be necessary and true needs to be communicated to wide swaths not just of your “own” camp, but also to those of the opposition. You may be convinced, deeply and rightfully so, that a certain cause of action is just – but if you cannot convince your opponents or those who are on the fence about an issue, all you will do is demonstrate your purity of heart and get nothing done.

Here is where centrism sets in. Centrism is the belief that you can create a workable compromise that can move a country ahead in the needed direction by taking those with you who may have originally been opposed to the change you are promoting. You compromise the purity of your convictions by creating a common cause with positions you might not find completely acceptable or agreeable, but by meeting somewhere in the middle you can create “common sense” solutions. Common sense, by the way, does not automatically exist – it has to be shaped and created and is the very definition of a compromise.

Now, there will be some occasions where such compromise will sound shallow or will be impossible. But remember: Centrism cannot be an ideological position – or rather, its ideology is the belief in democracy itself. It is merely the belief that you need to figure out a way to work together. It is a methodology. Not always is the “center position” ideologically or ethically sound – there is no middle ground, for instance, on the question of racism, slavery, bigotry, etc. But by utilizing a centrist methodology, you may be able to forge ahead a path that creates sustainable change in the right direction.

Centrism as a methodology does carry some inherent values, and I would suggest the following:

1. The need for ongoing dialog.
2. The need for ongoing criticism of positionality (without ad hominem attacks – we need to focus criticism on positions not against people).
3. The need for civility, so that dialog and criticism can continue.
4. The need for the protection of democracy, democratic processes, separation of powers and checks and balances.
5. The need for a public sphere that supports free but serious debate (with some rules that allow for prioritizing truth over lies).
6. The belief that human rights matter.
7. The belief that every individual matters, for this is the basis for democracy and dialog.
8. The belief in the power of compromise.
9. The belief in the art of the possible.
10. The need for humility in the face of reality, and an acknowledgment that nobody is perfect, that we are all searching for the truth, and that we all may have our positionalities and biases but will have to come together in the end.

In conclusion, we all have our beliefs and convictions. Some of them will change over time as neither reality nor our perception of it are static. The centrist approach realizes that and pushes for nothing else than the need to get something done, as long as it moves us into a better direction.

As is frequently said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. If we only dig in to our ideological camps, nothing will get done; or worse, the extremists will win and undermine our democracy and prevent future change for the better to be possible at all.