Against centrism

By Heraclitus

Although this post has a fairly broad title, my real focus here is on -- what else? -- the world of bloggerinos. And, as is my wont, I'm a little ranty here. So, beginning of the week got you stressed? Relax with a little blasting of these damned self-congratulatory centrists.

So, although the people I’m discussing no doubt manifest these traits in meat space as well, I’m thinking particularly of a certain kind of internets personage, who bemoans the “extremism” of a blog post that will “alienate the center” or “the majority” (and who can forget those always excellent admonitions about driving away “people who should be your allies”?). What probably annoys me most about these self-styled “moderates” or “centrists” is the way they manage to combine such a sanctimonious, school-marmish tone of pinched moral superiority with such excruciatingly banal opinions (although some of them are more rude and abusive). How have they managed to convince themselves that simply adopting whatever the majority position is, or letting the two extremes dictate their opinions to them, is some kind of intellectual and moral virtue? There couldn’t be a lazier or more cowardly way of arriving at a set of (most likely completely incoherent) convictions, yet these people are forever engaged in the most grating and stultifying ritual of self-congratulatory finger-wagging imaginable.

Before veering this drunken rant off in the general direction of criticizing this notion of centrism, I should stop and note the context in which this objection is almost always deployed. By definition, of course, the centrist or moderate is criticizing “extreme” positions, but there are all sorts of contrarian musings and “innovative” suggestions that will escape the dread scourge of your friendly neighborhood moderate. I don’t really have any data on this, reliable or otherwise, but the vast majority of times I’ve seen this objection or criticism crop up, it’s used to dismiss or silence the concerns of marginalized groups (feminists, folks of color, teh gays, etc.). These people’s concerns are fine as a garnish to the “serious” issues of tax cuts, middle class entitlements, and which country we’re going to blow up next, but they get chucked overboard at the first sign of trouble (I’ve mixed so many metaphors here that I no longer know what I’m saying). Bloggers, and real life people, too, I suppose (but what would I know about them?), are instantly chided when they treat these concerns as essential elements of a just politics, rather than as ontologically inferior afterthoughts to be shrugged off if they make the wrong people uncomfortable.

But are the centrists just talking turkey? Insufferably and suffocatingly banal and smug as they might be, are they just telling commie bastards like myself a few home truths? I think not. Political or electoral centers are constantly being reshaped or rewoven, which makes this argument almost as specious as it is tiresome. Look at gay marriage. Just ten years ago, in the heady days leading up to Clinton’s impeachment, no one outside of a few activists had even heard of the idea. Now opposition to gay marriage is a liability for the Republican Party, and it’s already a reality in several states (ah, activist judges, where would we be without you?). Or look at our neighbors to the north. No one does consensus politics like the Canadians (well, okay, except for that Quebec thing), but the political center was completely redefined by Preston Manning in the 1990’s. There are, of course, countless other examples (what kind of weirdo recycles? Or won’t let you smoke in his house?). So the exhortation to slavishly submit to the majority or “center’s” position is not just boring and irritating, it’s based on the false assumption that this center actually exists.

Still, don’t these douchebags have some kind of point? Shouldn’t blogs facilitate debate and discussion between opposing viewpoints, rather than just being echo chambers that serve only to deepen and intensify the rifts in our sadly fractured body politic? This question assumes, first, that everyone enters the series of tubes with their opinions already completed set in stone. In fact, many people learn and are influenced by blogs; why shouldn’t they be influenced by blogs that make principled arguments rather than playing pretend power broker? Moreover, the divide in comments at a blog like Pandagon, between relatively “centrist” Democrats and people to the left of them (often well to the left), is much greater than that between a slightly left-of-center Babbitt and a slightly-right-of-center Babbitt. Again, why should the “center” be given some special consideration?

(There is one caveat I’d like to make here, and I will elegantly place it inside of one long parenthesis in the hopes of nestling more than half of this post in the warm, maternal embrace of these nuzzling little punctuation marks. {Mmmm…snuggly.} I’m certainly not suggesting that it’s not worth considering what sorts of positions are considered centrist or mainstream and seeing how they’ve come to be regarded as such. Likewise, I’m not suggesting that the political center is so unstable or transient that there’s no point in trying to talk about it. I’m just saying that arguing against a position because it seems “radical” at present is dishonest as well as cowardly. Of course, people will still make short term tactical decisions to avoid this or that topic or to frame debate in this or that way. Of course I think that’s valuable and worthwhile, and I have nothing against pragmatic approaches to political debates—e.g., forcing the Republican candidate(s) in 2008 to repudiate, publicly and vehemently, the wing of the party that wants to limit access to contraception, rather than arguing about abortion. The GOP has drifted so far to the right, and often has simply become so unhinged, that it will be much easier and more effective to force them to either defend their wackier ideas or scandalize their base. So I see the wisdom of focusing a campaign on the opposition’s radical positions rather than on advancing one’s own. But in general or abstract discussions, I don’t think the centrist objection holds much water.)