January 29th, 2020 | Written by - Maeve Cassidy '22
Where does an ideology that has no set ideologies lie on a scale from docile to dangerous? Centrism is a complex political ideology that is often confused or allied with moderatism, solely because both parties are anti-extremist. According to the official website of the Centrist Party, those who vote centrist practice the ideals of pragmatism, reason, and decision making within the context of the situation. They avoid extremes, choosing not to compromise but instead find better solutions through traditionalism, values, and having no set ideology.2 The Centrist Party describes centrism as “not a belief. It is an open book to an unfolding situation. This does not mean it is moderate, but that it is considerate of changing circumstances that may require reconsideration based on the intelligence available, and reason itself.”2 If one can unscramble the contradictory ideals of centrism, their past policy does sound appealing to the middle class and grassroots voters. However, despite the allure of pragmatism and reason in politics, the actual application of said ideals can be rather dangerous. This is because the party is ambiguous in definitions. It’s largely against compromise, for tradition, and supports an authoritarian government, all things that serve to be quite problematic.
At a basic level, centrism is simply confusing. Pragmatism, a key term in the centrist vocabulary, is shaping society on scientific reason and analysis rather than tradition and morality; by definition this principle cannot be practised simultaneously with traditionalism. Additionally, centrists practise having no set ideology, which leaves many wondering, how do centrists interact with fellow members to pass legislation if they have no common basis and understanding within their very own party? Your guess is as good as mine.
In 2004, New York Times journalist, Diane Cardwell, interviewed the presidential candidate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who ran for the Democratic party but in the interview identified as a centrist.4 Many of his detailed policies cater directly to Democrats, including taxes on the wealthy, a middle class focus, broadening of social welfare, and stimulation of the economy.4 Another article, titled, “Why do centrists vote with their party?” published by the Washington Post, highlights centrists voting on majority party lines.5 Lieberman’s interview, accompanied by the Washington Post’s opinion piece, show that centrists often do not forge their own ideals but rather stick with a majority party, again raising the question, what does this party really stand for? If some solely reside with Democrats and others with Republicans, how can you organize to pass legislation and advance the centrist cause, or even worse, form a party definition? However these are rudimentary complications, not inherently dangerous political ideologies...yet.
In addition to weak communication and ineffective gatherings, centrists are oftentimes against compromise and for tradition. Compromise between any number of parties is crucial to passing reformatory legislation. Without compromise, it would be impractical and time-consuming to hold an assembly until the vote is completely unanimous between all stages in the process, i.e in the committee, the house, and the senate, not to mention the possible vetoes and filibusters. This unrealistic model of no compromise in the legislative process cannot work within a democratic republic. Because Centrist ideals cannot fit into a representational democracy, this is where the dangers of an authoritarian regime and centrism begin.
Authoritarianism is a frightening way to run a country. This practice often results in one dictator and the eventual limitation or removal of civil liberties (a.k.a truly dystopian novel stuff). A study published in the New York Times collected data from moderates and centrists, along with far leftists and rightists throughout Europe and the United States. In the US, Centrists supported Authoritarian regimes at a margin greater than the far right.3 Approximately half of the Centrists surveyed said they supported “strongmen leaders” who “ignores his country’s legislature.”3 Additionally, less than fifty say that “choosing a leader in a free election is ‘an essential feature of democracy’” while only 33% “say democracy is a ‘very good’ political system;” in both data sets Centrists are the lowest polling party by a significant margin.3 Centrists are most likely to support an authoritarian government, least likely to support free elections, and are the most skeptical of democracy.3 On Fortunes’ “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” list, out of all those with political roles (not including Britain’s royal family), only one identifies a centrist.6 And lastly, perhaps the most troubling, only 25% of centrists say that “civil rights are an essential feature of democracy.”3 With these statistics in mind, if centrists want to reform democracy, what will they be reforming it to?
Because of the Centrist Party’s difficulty in defining their ideology, leading to an inability to organize and a tendency to resist compromise, it is easy to see how a single powerful leader of an authoritarian regime is the most effective form of government for centrists. The only political system that fits the Centrist Party’s ambiguous ideologies is Authoritarianism, since it can incorporate scientific reasoning, traditional values, lack of compromise, and avoidance of collaboration due to its reliance on a singular leader. With its lack of protective laws and a leaning toward authoritarian regimes, centrism becomes a dangerous system.
Furthermore, the opaque definitions of the party and likelihood of Centrists voting alongside major party lines, distorts the actual reason for centrism. An unwillingness to compromise deters interaction and promotes an echochamber instead of government. The relationship between centrism and authoritarianism is undeniable, proving Centrism to be an ideology more dangerous than extremism. If you are not willing to question your political ideology you are not doing your part as a citizen.
Comments