Politics Is centrism the most sensible position to take politically?

[Malifice]

Distinctions without difference. An individuated society is globalist. It sees concepts such as nations and borders as impediments to individualism.

Communists saw nations and borders as impediments to Communism. As did Nazism.

Liberalism isnt Globalism.

Neoliberals certainly take a a globalised approach to liberalism, trying to spread it internationally via free trade agreements, trade liberalisation elsewhere, regime change and so forth. But they dont speak for all liberals.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

If "the centre" is midway between Labor and the Coalition, then no it isn't sensible. Labor are something resembling the centre and the Coalition are far right.

 

[Frank Bunn]

If "the centre" is midway between Labor and the Coalition, then no it isn't sensible. Labor are something resembling the centre and the Coalition are far right.

They have very similar positions on most major issues. The media likes to make out there's a big difference when it comes to election time.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

They have very similar positions on most major issues. The media likes to make out there's a big difference when it comes to election time.

Governing is more than formal party policies. Most decisions are made by the executive and never get near parliament. Labor picking reasonably competent people for bureaucratic and judicial positions is a big deal when the Coalition picks right wing hacks who aren't in it to help Australia at all.

When you combine this with years upon years of objectively worse policies, it does matter. Saying 'they're kind of, sort of the same' downplays how divergent (and intentional) the outcomes are.

Labor aren't the Greens but they're definitely superior to the Liberals. Labor aren't trying, and deliberately trying, to pull up the drawbridge on people below a certain income and asset level.

 

[Deadpool]

I think it is important to understand the power of universities over the past forty odd years here. Regardless of your point of view, anyone that has attended a university over the last few years (I am a current Masters student) surely can at least admit that universities push a distinctly hard left wing view (how hard they push is for another thread, of course)

Which IMO, regardless of the overall university policies (which may not be as hardcore, due to government funding, due to general public mores), leads to a lot of impressionable students who are essentially getting their first taste of the "real world" being agressively indoctrinated by the first genderqueer anarchist/Marxist Socialist Alternative that intercepts them at the university library and by a cult that pushes the view that other views at universities are hateful/racist etc. It's essentially a cult. It happened to me 13 years ago- - they came up to me and asked me some general questions about equality (which of course I and any reasonable person believes in) and it lead to being called up on the home phone (yes, it was that long ago) constantly to ask why I wasn't supporting the movement by going to the latest meeting. When something needs to be rammed down someone's throat (as we are seeing now with the rise of far left censorship), there's a real problem.

The same students that far left professors taught get sponsored to become far left professors themselves- anyone else is excluded. Universities are slowly but surely shifting the paradigm to the far left.

 

[Deadpool]

If "the centre" is midway between Labor and the Coalition, then no it isn't sensible. Labor are something resembling the centre and the Coalition are far right.

Which polling booth with you be handing leaflets out at?

 

[Deadpool]

How hilarious that you're dragging a thread about centrism into a left wing v right wing s**t fight.

Nope. Not at all.

There is a difference between left and far left.

Most left wing people are as confused about these morons as most reasonable people.

Besides, I don't identify, nor would I want to identify as right wing. Many of my views are left wing, especially those that have morphed the least with age. My problem is with the far left would would tar anyone who disagrees with them as far- or alt-right.

I hope that my use of emphasis will clue you in to my attitude. Sorry if you were triggered.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Governing is more than formal party policies. Most decisions are made by the executive and never get near parliament. Labor picking reasonably competent people for bureaucratic and judicial positions is a big deal when the Coalition picks right wing hacks who aren't in it to help Australia at all.

Most Labor policies are decided by conference which is dictated by the unions. As are most Labor preselections. Union membership is currently about 14% of all employees and 9% of the voting population.

Despite this profoundly unrepresentative method of policy determination the ALP still has broadly similar policies to the Libs on foreign policy, health, immigration, climate, defence, education, NBN, data encryption, indigenous affairs, the ABC, free speech. Labor tends to be higher taxing and higher spending, and Shorten is proposing some increased rights for casual workers which may or may not happen. But it's nonsense to suggest that Labor is centrist and the Coalition is 'far right'.

How can a party claim to be centrist when it includes the following commitment in its platform?:

"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."

 

[its free real estate]

Communists saw nations and borders as impediments to Communism. As did Nazism.

Liberalism isnt Globalism.

Neoliberals certainly take a a globalised approach to liberalism, trying to spread it internationally via free trade agreements, trade liberalisation elsewhere, regime change and so forth. But they dont speak for all liberals.

Globalism is defined as the global agenda for neoliberalism, aka liberalism. To say their could be global communism or global Nazism has nothing to do with what globalism means.

 

[Malifice]

Globalism is defined as the global agenda for neoliberalism, aka liberalism.

1) No, Globalism isnt defined as 'the global agenda for neoliberalism'.

Globalism is defined as 'The operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.'

Thats from the OED.

The Soviet Union was Globalist in that it actively sought to impose, support and implement global communism (for example).

2) Neoliberalism isnt the same thing as liberalism any more than libertarianism is. Only a fool would suggest it is. It's its own unique version of liberalism that has embraced globalism (in this case by promoting embrace of the free market globally, and pushing for increased deregulation, removing tariffs and other barriers to trade etc), and moves away from Keynesian economics and embraces deregulation. Its goal is the spread of liberalism to other nations via (mainly) the market. It tends towards ditching positive liberty (embraced by social and democratic liberals) in favor of a more negative liberty approach (embraced by libertarians).

I'm a liberal, and I'm no neoliberal. I thoroughly disagree with much of neoliberal policies and practices. Like I said above, as a liberal, I believe that the market should be regulated, in so far as is reasonably needed to stop harm from occurring. I support Trade Unions. I support 'socialized' health, the welfare State and education as a public good. I support limited protectionism to avoid 'Detroit Michigan' from happening in Australia. Like I said before, I support Keynes over Hayek (while still retaining may principles of the latter).

These are all things that Neoliberals would thoroughly repudiate.

Social/ Democratic liberals (Hawkes) and Neoliberals (Howards) dont exactly see eye to eye on a lot of things. Your inability to understand this, doesnt make it less real.

 

[its free real estate]

1) No, Globalism isnt defined as 'the global agenda for neoliberalism'.

Globalism is defined as 'The operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.'

Thats from the OED.

The Soviet Union was Globalist in that it actively sought to impose, support and implement global communism (for example).

2) Neoliberalism isnt the same thing as liberalism any more than libertarianism is. Only a fool would suggest it is. It's its own unique version of liberalism that has embraced globalism (in this case by promoting embrace of the free market globally, and pushing for increased deregulation, removing tariffs and other barriers to trade etc), and moves away from Keynesian economics and embraces deregulation. Its goal is the spread of liberalism to other nations via (mainly) the market. It tends towards ditching positive liberty (embraced by social and democratic liberals) in favor of a more negative liberty approach (embraced by libertarians).

I'm a liberal, and I'm no neoliberal. I thoroughly disagree with much of neoliberal policies and practices. Like I said above, as a liberal, I believe that the market should be regulated, in so far as is reasonably needed to stop harm from occurring. I support Trade Unions. I support 'socialized' health, the welfare State and education as a public good. I support limited protectionism to avoid 'Detroit Michigan' from happening in Australia. Like I said before, I support Keynes over Hayek (while still retaining may principles of the latter).

These are all things that Neoliberals would thoroughly repudiate.

Social/ Democratic liberals (Hawkes) and Neoliberals (Howards) dont exactly see eye to eye on a lot of things. Your inability to understand this, doesnt make it less real.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and so often resort to context-free, base grade definitions (wikipedia, dictionaries) it’s really hard to take you seriously.

The best ever was when you said there was no such thing as left wing terrorism, because by definition (according to wikipedia, naturally) left wingers couldn’t do terrorism.

 

[skilts]

This 'centrist' idea has its beginnings in the work of Aristotle. He proposed that we should adopt a middle position about all things in the way we conduct ourselves. He called it 'the mean'. It is an interesting idea, but it was, and is, fatally flawed as a concept to live by. Where, exactly, might the centre be? What is the centre or mean for some is completely radical for others. Where is the line drawn which delineates 'the centre' from the extremes of the spectrum?

It is of interest that Aristotle was named after a Greek shipping magnate who endowed Jackie Kennedy with more money than she could ever spend. He was definitely not mean to her. Who would have been?

I was named by my twelve year-older sister. Having endured two male siblings before my arrival, she was hoping for a girl, whose life she could make a misery. So, instead of the Bernadette she wanted, I became the Bernard, whose life she would haunt even more violently than in the name-giving she performed so indelicately. We still keep in touch - I occasionally, optimistically, check the death notices in the newspapers for any mention of her. As a form of muted protest I now call myself Bernie. Some others are not quite so kind in the names they call me.

If one adopts a middle-of-the-road position, one gets hit by traffic moving in both directions.

 

[Malifice]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and so often resort to context-free, base grade definitions (wikipedia, dictionaries) it’s really hard to take you seriously.

The Oxford English Dictionary is not to be relied on to provide definitions now?

Where do you get your definitions from?

Oh wait; you havent provided one.

 

[its free real estate]

The Oxford English Dictionary is not to be relied on to provide definitions now?

Where do you get your definitions from?

Oh wait; you havent provided one.

It’s a base grade definition. Something for simpletons to digest before they begin understanding something.

 

[Gough]

The problem with centreism is that those who see themselves as representing it are almost always totally lacking in self awareness and mostly a long way from the political centre ground. When Tony Abbott talks of himself representing the sensible centre it's point and laugh time.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Conservative and right wing is raving loony nut job * the environment and the poor for people born after 1980. So people don't immediately stop listening they use better labels. "Libertarian", "classical liberal", "for free markets [while supporting Brexit]", even "moderate". Red flags. When called out they claim left and right don't exist anymore which is fortunate for them since their beliefs fall on the wrong, unpopular, right side.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Centrism is largely an aesthetic choice and mostly just means, "whatever the neoliberal status quo dictates".

Capital, so typically the extreme right tend to define the bounds of discourse and the neoliberal order/centrists align themselves based on those parameters.

 

[Deadpool]

Centrism is largely an aesthetic choice and mostly just means, "whatever the neoliberal status quo dictates".

Capital, so typically the extreme right tend to define the bounds of discourse and the neoliberal order/centrists align themselves based on those parameters.

Some can't just write simply.

Fancy words for a load of wank.

 

[Deadpool]

Conservative and right wing is raving loony nut job **** the environment and the poor for people born after 1980. So people don't immediately stop listening they use better labels. "Libertarian", "classical liberal", "for free markets [while supporting Brexit]", even "moderate". Red flags. When called out they claim left and right don't exist anymore which is fortunate for them since their beliefs fall on the wrong, unpopular, right side.

Righto bud.

It's that kind of far left arrogance that effectively lumped us with Trump.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

 

[Seeds]

What the hell is centrism?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Conservative and right wing is raving loony nut job **** the environment and the poor for people born after 1980. So people don't immediately stop listening they use better labels. "Libertarian", "classical liberal", "for free markets [while supporting Brexit]", even "moderate". Red flags. When called out they claim left and right don't exist anymore which is fortunate for them since their beliefs fall on the wrong, unpopular, right side.

Hence you are one of those on the extreme 10% end of the spectrum, with whom practically no one agrees.

And how is the right unpopular? Both historically and currently, right wing parties do ok. We will likely see a switch to Labor in Australia soon, but that doesn't mean that the right is wrong or unpopular, just that the LNP are a shambles.

The problem with centreism is that those who see themselves as representing it are almost always totally lacking in self awareness and mostly a long way from the political centre ground. When Tony Abbott talks of himself representing the sensible centre it's point and laugh time.

I agree with you both that people incorrectly identify as centrists. We have seen examples of this from the left too, with Ratts and Malifice identifying as centrists (with all due respect to Mal, but the no-flags/open-borders stuff is pretty far from the centre).

The question is, do you see genuine centrism (defined in my case as a moderate with no affiliation to either side, who picks and chooses positions from both sides based on facts and evidence) as a sensible position?

We see the worst cases of partisanship here when it comes to simple footy issues. See an MRP thread where a player gets suspended and supporters of that player's team will often leap to the player's defense, even if it was a clearly suspension worthy offense. Supporters of teams who are bitter rivals with the team of the suspended player will be complaining that the penalty should be doubled. I am suggesting that a sensible "neutral" would have a clearer take on the issues, football or political.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

The Liberal Party hasn't been able to campaign honestly for decades. It's why the Senate doesn't bat an eyelid at rejecting their legislation and suffers no electoral backlash.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The question is, do you see genuine centrism (defined in my case as a moderate with no affiliation to either side, who picks and chooses positions from both sides based on facts and evidence) as a sensible position?

But don't we all do this?

You're a right winger who supports gay marriage. Im a left winger, who has no tolerance for Islamist intolerance. To co-opt a phrase, I think there's a lot of virtue signalling going on when people point out how the traditional spectrum can't account for their opinions.

 

[Gethelred]

I think it is important to understand the power of universities over the past forty odd years here. Regardless of your point of view, anyone that has attended a university over the last few years (I am a current Masters student) surely can at least admit that universities push a distinctly hard left wing view (how hard they push is for another thread, of course)

Which IMO, regardless of the overall university policies (which may not be as hardcore, due to government funding, due to general public mores), leads to a lot of impressionable students who are essentially getting their first taste of the "real world" being agressively indoctrinated by the first genderqueer anarchist/Marxist Socialist Alternative that intercepts them at the university library and by a cult that pushes the view that other views at universities are hateful/racist etc. It's essentially a cult. It happened to me 13 years ago- - they came up to me and asked me some general questions about equality (which of course I and any reasonable person believes in) and it lead to being called up on the home phone (yes, it was that long ago) constantly to ask why I wasn't supporting the movement by going to the latest meeting. When something needs to be rammed down someone's throat (as we are seeing now with the rise of far left censorship), there's a real problem.

The same students that far left professors taught get sponsored to become far left professors themselves- anyone else is excluded. Universities are slowly but surely shifting the paradigm to the far left.

... which is not my experience of university, having graduated all of 3 months ago.

I suppose it depends on what you'd view as 'far left'. I'd argue that, if what you object to is the Socialist Alternative's active campaigning for a variety of issues, what you're actually complaining about is the lack of real influence uni politics has anymore due to Howards abolishment of compulsory student unions. By doing this - by removing the right wing pragmatic or the idealistic centre left from the student unions - they have turned the bodies which would've been on the fringe into the only bodies willing to campaign on issues that matter to them. If you add to that the fact that neoconservatism is essentially both the default political ideology of the emerging young right and that it's an apolitical ideology - wanting to scrap as much of government it can to work out what the necessary bits are - and what you get are right wingers not entering into and being above ideological degrees or battles and left wingers being the only visible group seeming to.

As for the censorship you speak about, both sides of politics seek to censor that which they don't agree with, because their aim is not to be right but to win the argument.