Politics Is centrism the most sensible position to take politically?

[HurleyHepsHird]

Some can't just write simply.

Fancy words for a load of wank.

Centrism is bullshit, it's just dumb comfy private school shitheads letting reactionaries define their politics.

Simple enough for you, smooth brain.

 

[Deadpool]

Centrism is bullshit, it's just dumb comfy private school shitheads letting reactionaries define their politics.

Simple enough for you, smooth brain.

I only attended public schools BTW.

Congratulations. Now you've managed to just write a load of wank.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I only attended public schools BTW.

Congratulations. Now you've managed to just write a load of wank.

Big babies feelings are hurt.

Sorry bud, it's the facts. Centrism lacks any kind of coherent moral or political philosophy, it's just middle class dweebs, with no real interest or knowledge in the political, fawning after the status quo because it has allowed them a comfy life and protects their class interests.

The status quo is just some ever rightwards shifting iteration of neoliberal economic and political policy. Where the goalposts are constantly being set and redefined by the owners of capital. For example a flat tax on income, or the abolition of state schools in the US would have correctly seemed absurd only 15 years ago, now both are becoming mainstream policy, with Trumps income tax cuts flattening the top end brackets and Louisiana becoming a model for the administrations education policy.

And the centrist response, get mad at Trump because he is saying the quiet parts loud and spruik people like Pete Buttchug or Biden, who at their core hold tangentially different social politics, at least superficially, but demonstrably similar economic politics, save in one area, trade protectionism. They are also probably more hawkish, but less reckless.

As for centrist voters, a bunch of mewling bootlickers and business school dummies.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

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.

None of this is true, you are extremely stupid.

 

[Deadpool]

... 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.

Can I ask how Howard's deregulation of student unions led to the removal of the "right wing pragmatic or the idealistic centre left" groups? Not necessarily disagreeing with you, would just like you to flesh it out a bit more.

Personally I don't have a problem with the Socialist Alternative or whoever having a voice on campus, I'd be a hypocrite if I did, it's essentially that the far left dogmatic approach of removing any voices they don't like and auto-labelling it hate speech, coupled with oftentimes physically violent protests (see the Bettina Arndt lecture series last year) and wilful silence from university administrators has led to many conservative, right and centre left types simply saying to themselves that it isn't worth it.

We are also talking about centrism here, not neoconservatism. You've probably revealed your hand there, but you are also welcome to your views.

Going away a little from the uni debate, and not saying that the right doesn't also practice censorship, what I would say is that a lot of that has migrated online (reddit, 4chan, Youtube etc.) as they've effectively been boxed out of mainstream media. That's why Youtube has started to crack down on the so-called "alt-right". I have no problem with wingnuts like the Stormfront types, the hardcore MRA types being cracked down on hard, but a) it give free rein to the equally hateful radfems, Antifa, black supremacist/ISIS types and b) it means that the right wingnuts become more and more social isolated and twisted.

Let's just say I'm a big proponent of the horseshoe theory.

 

[Deadpool]

None of this is true, you are extremely stupid.

Someone's triggered.

 

[Deadpool]

Big babies feelings are hurt.

Sorry bud, it's the facts. Centrism lacks any kind of coherent moral or political philosophy, it's just middle class dweebs, with no real interest or knowledge in the political, fawning after the status quo because it has allowed them a comfy life and protects their class interests.

The status quo is just some ever rightwards shifting iteration of neoliberal economic and political policy. Where the goalposts are constantly being set and redefined by the owners of capital. For example a flat tax on income, or the abolition of state schools in the US would have correctly seemed absurd only 15 years ago, now both are becoming mainstream policy, with Trumps income tax cuts flattening the top end brackets and Louisiana becoming a model for the administrations education policy.

And the centrist response, get mad at Trump because he is saying the quiet parts loud and spruik people like Pete Buttchug or Biden, who at their core hold tangentially different social politics, at least superficially, but demonstrably similar economic politics, save in one area, trade protectionism. They are also probably more hawkish, but less reckless.

As for centrist voters, a bunch of mewling bootlickers and business school dummies.

Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true.

Opinion: A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

From the Malfice approved Oxford dictionary.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

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.

This is such bullshit, unless the entire university is comprised of a gender studies tutorial.

This tabloid POV forgets about the law, health science, commerce, engineering, sciences departments which compromises the vast, vast, vast majority of students, enrolments, funding and research. Not to mention that bleeding of vocational training into universities.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Someone's triggered.

Not at all, just pointing out obvious lies where I see them.

 

[FireKrakouer]

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.

How about throughout other western nations, or worldwide? I'm sorry to inform you that the 50% of the population who lean right have not vanished. And your attitude of "my opinions are the correct ones, everyone else is wrong" is quite arrogant.

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.

I don't think we all do. Despite starting this thread, I am not claiming to be a centrist. I'm certainly generally right leaning.

On my own side, I have seen people who never really cared about these specific issues in the past suddenly develop anti-abortion positions, or climate change denialism. People seek out echo chambers that reinforce their beliefs, and this leads them to developing some new beliefs along the way.

Big babies feelings are hurt.

Sorry bud, it's the facts. Centrism lacks any kind of coherent moral or political philosophy, it's just middle class dweebs, with no real interest or knowledge in the political, fawning after the status quo because it has allowed them a comfy life and protects their class interests.

The status quo is just some ever rightwards shifting iteration of neoliberal economic and political policy. Where the goalposts are constantly being set and redefined by the owners of capital. For example a flat tax on income, or the abolition of state schools in the US would have correctly seemed absurd only 15 years ago, now both are becoming mainstream policy, with Trumps income tax cuts flattening the top end brackets and Louisiana becoming a model for the administrations education policy.

And the centrist response, get mad at Trump because he is saying the quiet parts loud and spruik people like Pete Buttchug or Biden, who at their core hold tangentially different social politics, at least superficially, but demonstrably similar economic politics, save in one area, trade protectionism. They are also probably more hawkish, but less reckless.

As for centrist voters, a bunch of mewling bootlickers and business school dummies.

Another of the arrogant 10%ers who believe "it's my way or the highway". I hope you learn to open both eyes.

 

[FireKrakouer]

This study in the US sums up what this thread has suggested to be true in Australia: conservatives are open to the conversation. Progressives place their hands over their ears and scream "it's my way or the highway" in a stubborn and arrogant fashion.

(Linking to an article discussing the results, as the direct link to Pew Research seems to be down):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ound-trump-supporters/?utm_term=.e46a95922651

In this thread we have seen multiple leftist posters refuse to even entertain the idea of centrism, with zero from the right suggesting the same. We have seen mass efforts of censorship against rightist speakers performed, but close to zero against leftists.

A good contest of open-mindedness. If your ideas are sound, would you not wish for them to be open to debate and scrutiny?

 

[sdfc]

The centre is where the sensible people reside.

 

[its free real estate]

Centrism is bullshit, it's just dumb comfy private school shitheads letting reactionaries define their politics.

Simple enough for you, smooth brain.

Didn’t you go to private school?

 

[its free real estate]

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.

Dunno how people can equally claim, as you often do, the right wing are both for the uneducated masses and unpopular. These statements contradict.

 

[spinynorman]

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

Pretty sure it was the centrism of Clinton and Obama and every Democratic candidate since McGovern that led us to the ascendancy of Trump and the far right.

 

[Gethelred]

Can I ask how Howard's deregulation of student unions led to the removal of the "right wing pragmatic or the idealistic centre left" groups? Not necessarily disagreeing with you, would just like you to flesh it out a bit more.

Prior to the deregulation of the student unions, uni politics - and, granted, I'm coming at this with second and third hand information here, so I could very well be wrong - had far more participants, and had if not real power at least had the potential to form connections with individuals that would go into real politics. People entered from across the spectrum, and because of this they - the student unions, and their affiliated political party historically, the Labor party - had a greater range of inputs, and were therefore more centrist as a consequence.

Now, uni politics is completely separate from the student union, and the participants have less relevance to the students overall. Students are there to get their degrees, they are not there to participate in politics at all; you don't see the candidates or hear of them outside of the elections, and while you do occasionally see the Socialist Alternative campaigning for something or other they don't form a significant part of the actual political structure within the uni. They're a group/club, and like a group/club they attract or don't their own members.

The reason I brought up neoconservatism was not to 'reveal my hand' as it were, but to explain that, within a modern context, right wingers who approach things from a neoconservative angle view uni politics and indeed campaigning for issues as wasteful, stupid; the sign of having too much time on your hands that could probably be spent improving yourself or your standing. They view politics for ideals as innately untrustworthy, and uni politics as deckchairs on the titanic. Why would you participate in a political process that is a sham?

All in all, I stayed away from student politics and the SA - after I was accosted by a campaigner for gay marriage, something that I was for, and was called a homophobe because I was hungry and they interrupted me on the way to get something to eat - largely due to a lack of time and their lack of relevance.

Personally I don't have a problem with the Socialist Alternative or whoever having a voice on campus, I'd be a hypocrite if I did, it's essentially that the far left dogmatic approach of removing any voices they don't like and auto-labelling it hate speech, coupled with oftentimes physically violent protests (see the Bettina Arndt lecture series last year) and wilful silence from university administrators has led to many conservative, right and centre left types simply saying to themselves that it isn't worth it.

We are also talking about centrism here, not neoconservatism. You've probably revealed your hand there, but you are also welcome to your views.

I don't think the hypothetical 'centrist' exists, just as the hypothetical 'right winger' or 'left winger' does. Are you an individualist? Collectivist? Do you believe in a business's right to property over an individuals? Do you view personal freedom over the right of an unborn infant's right to life? Do you...

Categorisation within a political spectrum is a fraught exercise.

Going away a little from the uni debate, and not saying that the right doesn't also practice censorship, what I would say is that a lot of that has migrated online (reddit, 4chan, Youtube etc.) as they've effectively been boxed out of mainstream media. That's why Youtube has started to crack down on the so-called "alt-right". I have no problem with wingnuts like the Stormfront types, the hardcore MRA types being cracked down on hard, but a) it give free rein to the equally hateful radfems, Antifa, black supremacist/ISIS types and b) it means that the right wingnuts become more and more social isolated and twisted.

Let's just say I'm a big proponent of the horseshoe theory.

I'd never heard of the horseshoe theory, so I did a little reading. It seems to me to be a bit oversimplified; it works, I suppose, when you're looking at broad generalities. But, if you've read the rest of my post, you'd be well aware what I think of generalities.

If the brush with which you're sweeping these disparate groups on the right and left of politics is just that they are dangerous, though, I don't disagree. But then, I'm a firm advocate of freedom of speech, regardless of who it is speaking or how repellent I find it or them.

 

[Deadpool]

None of this is true, you are extremely stupid.

Not at all, just pointing out obvious lies where I see them.

So I'm both stupid and a liar. Well, given that lying necessarily involves some deception of, and therefore understanding of the truth, which in turn necessitates some degree of intellectual understanding, I'm going to ask you to make up your mind.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Didn’t you go to private school?

Nope, I went to a selective public school.

 

[its free real estate]

Nope, I went to a selective public school.

Lol

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Lol

I'm not sure what's "lol" about that? Selective schools are just those that run certain programs that allow kids from outside their districts to apply and attend.

I attended a public school in primary school and a public school in high school.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Nope, I went to a selective public school.

Soy-only canteen?

 

[Deadpool]

Prior to the deregulation of the student unions, uni politics - and, granted, I'm coming at this with second and third hand information here, so I could very well be wrong - had far more participants, and had if not real power at least had the potential to form connections with individuals that would go into real politics. People entered from across the spectrum, and because of this they - the student unions, and their affiliated political party historically, the Labor party - had a greater range of inputs, and were therefore more centrist as a consequence.

No offence, but I can tell you are quite young. I happened to have done my undergraduate degrees in the latter half of the 2000s and returned a couple of years- enough to have had a perspective that isn't "second- or third-hand". While I agree that there were more participants at the time, you haven't really proved any causal link between deregulation and the removal of "participants" from "across the spectrum."

There are lots of things I blame Howard for (housing affordability, unsustainable immigration, offshore processing, destruction of our natural resources for tax cuts for the wealthy etc.) but this isn't one of them. It was simply a paradigm shift from the 1960s and 1970s from a movement that brooks no critical thought.

In fact, deregulation generally produces the opposite results, a freer marketplace,. I guess, if we use correlation instead, it just goes to show that socialism, like it has done in Africa, Venezuela, Cambodia, Cuba, the USSR and a number of other areas of the world, inevitably leads to dictatorial censorship.

Now, uni politics is completely separate from the student union, and the participants have less relevance to the students overall. Students are there to get their degrees, they are not there to participate in politics at all; you don't see the candidates or hear of them outside of the elections, and while you do occasionally see the Socialist Alternative campaigning for something or other they don't form a significant part of the actual political structure within the uni. They're a group/club, and like a group/club they attract or don't their own members.

Even if I gave a s**t about student unions and formal student politics (which I don't) that isn't what this is about, it's about broader university thought. Even if I did, to say that uni politics is completely separate from the student union is like saying the weeks that lead up to an election are completely separate from the election itself. And besides, you have contradicted yourself- you say that students did participate prior to Howard's deregulation and that was the cause of the current state on uni campuses then state that students in general don't give a s**t about student politics anyway.

Personally though, I agree, I couldn't give a s**t about the student unions mainly because it's all now feelings over facts and rhetoric over policy and the only real effect of Howard's deregulation was that they can't line their own pockets with student money anymore. Now they just lobby the university administration to ban any lectures or thought they don't like.

The reason I brought up neoconservatism was not to 'reveal my hand' as it were, but to explain that, within a modern context, right wingers who approach things from a neoconservative angle view uni politics and indeed campaigning for issues as wasteful, stupid; the sign of having too much time on your hands that could probably be spent improving yourself or your standing. They view politics for ideals as innately untrustworthy, and uni politics as deckchairs on the titanic. Why would you participate in a political process that is a sham?

You've conflated neoconservatism with centrism, at least by inference. Centrists may have some conservative views (For example I have some, but generally lean left, especially on economic issues). You've also taken the typical left wing of making assumption about the thought processes of conservative, another thing that distinguishes centrists from the Left

All in all, I stayed away from student politics and the SA - after I was accosted by a campaigner for gay marriage, something that I was for, and was called a homophobe because I was hungry and they interrupted me on the way to get something to eat - largely due to a lack of time and their lack of relevance.

Isn't it appropriate that the Socialist Aleternative and the Sturmabteilung have the same initials?

I don't think the hypothetical 'centrist' exists, just as the hypothetical 'right winger' or 'left winger' does. Are you an individualist? Collectivist? Do you believe in a business's right to property over an individuals? Do you view personal freedom over the right of an unborn infant's right to life? Do you...

Categorisation within a political spectrum is a fraught exercise.

It tends to be the left that sign up for a package of ideologies- call it the search for ideological purity that Obama recently referred to. For many on the left, if you oppose gay marriage, you are a frothing homophobic bigot. If you disapprove of abortion, you are a slavering mysognist. Yes, I am exaggerating, and it occurs (to a lesser, and generally more economic angle on the right) but to say there isn't distinct categorisation on the right and left is to ignore tons of research out there which says exactly that (yes, can post)

II'd never heard of the horseshoe theory, so I did a little reading. It seems to me to be a bit oversimplified; it works, I suppose, when you're looking at broad generalities. But, if you've read the rest of my post, you'd be well aware what I think of generalities.

If the brush with which you're sweeping these disparate groups on the right and left of politics is just that they are dangerous, though, I don't disagree. But then, I'm a firm advocate of freedom of speech, regardless of who it is speaking or how repellent I find it or them.

I thought you would disagree with it. But its true. Both the far left and the far right have a number of things in common. The search of ideological purity (social on the left, economic on the right) tenancies to see violence as a means to an end (Antifa/BLM on the left, neo-Nazis etc. on the right) and, as you yourself have pointed out, a tendency to promote censorship over freedom of speech.

I think you have completely missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Deadpool]

Pretty sure it was the centrism of Clinton and Obama and every Democratic candidate since McGovern that led us to the ascendancy of Trump and the far right.

Rubbish. Neither Bill or Barack were centrists- indeed the Dems ended up so far left it got Hillary- a misandrist, (funny how BF's spellcheck won't include that word.....) arrogant and elitist identitarian.

Its the far left that led to the far right. Tit for tat in the hatred and bigotry stakes.

Now we have Warren, Biden, Sanders et. al up against Trump (at least there are some semi-decent candidates like Yang). Ultimately, its going to be four more years of shite regardless.

 

[Deadpool]

Nope, I went to a selective public school.

Did it rough, huh?

 

[Gethelred]

No offence, but I can tell you are quite young. I happened to have done my undergraduate degrees in the latter half of the 2000s and returned a couple of years- enough to have had a perspective that isn't "second- or third-hand". While I agree that there were more participants at the time, you haven't really proved any causal link between deregulation and the removal of "participants" from "across the spectrum."

There are lots of things I blame Howard for (housing affordability, unsustainable immigration, offshore processing, destruction of our natural resources for tax cuts for the wealthy etc.) but this isn't one of them. It was simply a paradigm shift from the 1960s and 1970s from a movement that brooks no critical thought.

In fact, deregulation generally produces the opposite results, a freer marketplace,. I guess, if we use correlation instead, it just goes to show that socialism, like it has done in Africa, Venezuela, Cambodia, Cuba, the USSR and a number of other areas of the world, inevitably leads to dictatorial censorship.

What I said was that the removal of compulsory funding for the student union removed any and all participants with an active interest in politics beyond the mundane or the excessive from uni politics, and this joined a trend which accompanied the upswing in neoconservatism within society away from interest in political matters.

Also, you have a habit of reading things between the lines, and assuming things about me as a consequence which allow you to dismiss what I'm saying. Is that something you do to everyone, or simply those you disagree with?

Even if I gave a s**t about student unions and formal student politics (which I don't) that isn't what this is about, it's about broader university thought. Even if I did, to say that uni politics is completely separate from the student union is like saying the weeks that lead up to an election are completely separate from the election itself. And besides, you have contradicted yourself- you say that students did participate prior to Howard's deregulation and that was the cause of the current state on uni campuses then state that students in general don't give a s**t about student politics anyway.

Read the above. I'm not saying it a fourth time.

You've conflated neoconservatism with centrism, at least by inference. Centrists may have some conservative views (For example I have some, but generally lean left, especially on economic issues). You've also taken the typical left wing of making assumption about the thought processes of conservative, another thing that distinguishes centrists from the Left

No, what I've done is taken a general social/economic theory during its greatest upswing in history - as it was ideologically proven 'right' by Thatcher/Reagan's 'successes' coupled with the failure of the USSR - and applied its doctrines and how they apply to a system deprived of funding and therefore relevance.

I've not conflated neoconservatism with anything whatsoever, and I stand by my statement that centrism, purely down the middle ideological fence sitting, does not exist. Are you not sufficiently individualist to believe yourself different from someone else?

It tends to be the left that sign up for a package of ideologies- call it the search for ideological purity that Obama recently referred to. For many on the left, if you oppose gay marriage, you are a frothing homophobic bigot. If you disapprove of abortion, you are a slavering mysognist. Yes, I am exaggerating, and it occurs (to a lesser, and generally more economic angle on the right) but to say there isn't distinct categorisation on the right and left is to ignore tons of research out there which says exactly that (yes, can post)

Really? I don't see that, as a raging 'leftist'.

I've got a number of opinions on a wide range of things that don't subscribe to what you'd consider left wing thought, or at least not modern left wing thought. There have been multiple times on here where I've been having arguments with people - who approached the thing like I would just subscribe to the same paradigms that they thought membership of the Leftists club came with - and completely either flipped things on them or agreed with them. It isn't difficult to arrive at different conclusions from the same sources.

I think identity politics - for example - is a smokescreen devised of people with both excessive time and a victim complex coupled with a profound misreading of a number of key writers, and is propagated in Australia by a media mogul with the specific intention of dividing the left, keeping them fighting against each other.

I thought you would disagree with it. But its true. Both the far left and the far right have a number of things in common. The search of ideological purity (social on the left, economic on the right) tenancies to see violence as a means to an end (Antifa/BLM on the left, neo-Nazis etc. on the right) and, as you yourself have pointed out, a tendency to promote censorship over freedom of speech.

In case you misread what I wrote, I said agree with caveats; namely, with both sides approaches to violence. However, I rather think that's got more to do with both sides regardless of ideals still being human beings driven to their logical extreme rather than all ideas leading to the same place when pushed so far.

I think you have completely missed the forest for the trees.

How so?