Perhaps due to the terminology being used in political discourse, with "left-wing" politics, and "right-wing" politics (which as far as I know originates from English parliament, where the government representatives would sit on one side of the room, on the left of the speaker, while the opposition would sit on the opposite side, on the right of the speaker, or was it the other way around...), which is often visually depicted as a line from left to right, the term "centrist" has been concocted for those who do not adhere to either of the two extremes.
Perhaps because of this one-dimensional picture, with the "centrists" being on the center of the line, equally apart from the two extremes, it's often thought that "centrists" are either people who are undecided, or who are for compromises, for "listening to both sides", for appeasement between the two extremes. People who don't really have strong stances and opinions on things, and may be a bit undecided and wishy-washy about many core political issues.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
I think that the image is incorrect. I don't think it should be a horizontal line, with the left-wing extremists on the left end, the right-wing extremists in the right end, and the "centrists" in the middle. "Centrists" can be quite "extremist" in their stances and opinions as well.
I would propose that instead of a line, the political spectrum would be a triangle, with extreme leftists and rightists on two corners, and "centrists" in the third corner. It is perfectly possible to have "extremist" radical uncompromising fundamental "centrist" views and opinions.
For example, an extremist centrist holds people's fundamental constitutional rights, such as right to free speech, as inalienable, unconditional, and absolute. No compromises. It is not so much a question of "we should listen to both sides to see if we can find a compromise" (like so many people seem to think "centrism" is), but a question of "I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is a very fundamentalist uncompromising position.
Likewise, both of the other two extremes are very collectivist in their ideology, while centrism is very individualist. The other two extremes like to classify and divide people based on external characteristics (such as race, ethnicity or sex) and treat them differently based on which such group they belong to. Centrists, on the other hand, abhor this kind of ideology and treat every person as a unique individual, and judge every person for his or her own personal merits, achievements, skills, knowledge, actions, character, opinions and ideology, without letting things like sex or race affect this judgment. Again, this is a very fundamentalist uncompromising core principle.
Both of the other two extremes are extremely authoritarian and totalitarian, wanting those in power to control every single aspect of society, only differing in the particulars and specifics of how they want their totalitarianism to be imposed onto the population. Centrists, on the other hand, are very libertarian, and keep the ideals of freedom and democracy, and the will of the people, in very high regard. People should be ruled by the people, by people elected from among the people, while ensuring the rights and maximizing the freedoms of the people. Once again this is not a compromise, but a very fundamentalist position and core principle.
It's completely wrong to think that a "centrist" is someone who can't really decide, can't make up his mind on core issues, or someone who just wants to "compromise" and "listen to both sides and find a middle ground". While in some situations that may be called for, there are certain core principles that are absolutely not up to compromise.
Perhaps because of this one-dimensional picture, with the "centrists" being on the center of the line, equally apart from the two extremes, it's often thought that "centrists" are either people who are undecided, or who are for compromises, for "listening to both sides", for appeasement between the two extremes. People who don't really have strong stances and opinions on things, and may be a bit undecided and wishy-washy about many core political issues.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
I think that the image is incorrect. I don't think it should be a horizontal line, with the left-wing extremists on the left end, the right-wing extremists in the right end, and the "centrists" in the middle. "Centrists" can be quite "extremist" in their stances and opinions as well.
I would propose that instead of a line, the political spectrum would be a triangle, with extreme leftists and rightists on two corners, and "centrists" in the third corner. It is perfectly possible to have "extremist" radical uncompromising fundamental "centrist" views and opinions.
For example, an extremist centrist holds people's fundamental constitutional rights, such as right to free speech, as inalienable, unconditional, and absolute. No compromises. It is not so much a question of "we should listen to both sides to see if we can find a compromise" (like so many people seem to think "centrism" is), but a question of "I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is a very fundamentalist uncompromising position.
Likewise, both of the other two extremes are very collectivist in their ideology, while centrism is very individualist. The other two extremes like to classify and divide people based on external characteristics (such as race, ethnicity or sex) and treat them differently based on which such group they belong to. Centrists, on the other hand, abhor this kind of ideology and treat every person as a unique individual, and judge every person for his or her own personal merits, achievements, skills, knowledge, actions, character, opinions and ideology, without letting things like sex or race affect this judgment. Again, this is a very fundamentalist uncompromising core principle.
Both of the other two extremes are extremely authoritarian and totalitarian, wanting those in power to control every single aspect of society, only differing in the particulars and specifics of how they want their totalitarianism to be imposed onto the population. Centrists, on the other hand, are very libertarian, and keep the ideals of freedom and democracy, and the will of the people, in very high regard. People should be ruled by the people, by people elected from among the people, while ensuring the rights and maximizing the freedoms of the people. Once again this is not a compromise, but a very fundamentalist position and core principle.
It's completely wrong to think that a "centrist" is someone who can't really decide, can't make up his mind on core issues, or someone who just wants to "compromise" and "listen to both sides and find a middle ground". While in some situations that may be called for, there are certain core principles that are absolutely not up to compromise.
I thought it came from the early days of the French Revolution - radicals on the Left, conservatives on the Right...
ReplyDelete