What is pols view on Centrism in general?

...

An eagle with only one wing can't fly

>moderation for it's own sake...
Horseshit. It's why Bill Clinton will never be considered a great or especially good President, even among Democrats.
>moderation from critical and thoughtful weighing of the issues...
Just fine if that's where you genuinely stand.

Centrist doesn't exist outside of a relativistic framework.

Centrist today is public spending representing 40% of gdp. If you recommended this just 75 years ago people would think you are a loon and a marxist.

Soul-less scum who are always played by the non-ideological oligarchy of elites. Literally the worker drones of a failing civilization,

non-ideology suited only for people who think their country goes in the right direction

There is nothing wrong with personally believing that both sides have have better viewpoints on certain issues.

If you mean "hurr durr both are bad. Right and left are le'terally the same thing" then you are retarded.

being incapable of seeing merits in opposing ideologies is SJW-tier retardation.

>muh horseshoe theory
>cant u see ur exactly da saem XDDD
centrists are just ultra smug liberals

Name one issue where the left is in the right. Just one.

Most people are at or near the center. Whether they realise or not.

I have no strong opinion about it

NASA, NSF spending

the centrist of today is not the centrist of tommorrow or the centrist of yesterday, centrism is cuck

Abortion

All you smug NatSocs are centrists compared to Evola.

Cowardice.

It's where the carefully crafted Overton window wants you to position yourself.

pussy ass bitches who cant form an opinion

>Killing babies who have already been conceived is a woman's right
Look, the outcome is nice (less nigger babies) so I don't oppose it, but they're still ideologically wrong.

This is somewhat accurate.

Also, I've spent enough time in liberal hiveminds (reddit) and conservative hiveminds (Sup Forums) to know that pure ideologues are some of the most retarded and disconnected from reality people on earth.

Centrism is all around you. All first world countries are centrist in nature. That's because pure ideologies like communism and nazism failed miserably when they were tried. Also, the people who follow these ideologies are almost always angry teenagers with no grasp of how the world works.

I've never seen an old(above 30 years old), "radical" person. They are all centrist, some less, some more. That's because they have life experiences.

Politicians of bygone eras dealt in issues where there was room on the overton window to come to some kind of consensus that was broadly agreeable to everyone involved.

They picked all the low-hanging fruit.

Our political problems nowadays are so structural, intrinsic, and zero-sum in nature that transactional give-and-take solutions are no longer sufficient solutions that anybody is willing to burn the midnight oil in order to pursue. Nor would polarized bases on either side that are ideologically uniform and consistent allow politicians to operate in the squishy middle anymore even they WANTED to.

The Center cannot hold.

...

>there are only two sides to every issue
Wrong. This is why calling yourself a centrist is retarded.

God willed the clump of cells would never become a self aware person, so there's nothing wrong with it

What the fuck are you even saying

not all of us are political science majors faggot

>That's because they have life experiences.

Could it also be because they have a weak long-term understanding of governmental policies and instead use the status quo into which they were born as the barometer for their opinions as opposed to principle? I think it's this.

It's a pretty short list
Protecting the environment
>if they weren't just paying lip service to the idea
The need to adapt to a changing climate
>if they weren't just paying lip service to the idea
Legalizing drugs
>if they weren't just paying lip service to the idea
Mincome
>if they weren't just paying lip service to the idea

what if i'm a centrist because I agree with ideas from both sides and it averages out?

Centrism is for those who simply won't commit to having any strong ideals whatsoever.

Fact is, there really aren't any actual centrists, it's just a catchall term for those who are too fucking scared to admit which side of the aisle they're really on.

Centrism is accepting that both "sides" of the spectrum (right wing and left wing, although still believing in this dichotomy is bluepilled as fuck) hold some correct opinions. For example, I like socialized healthcare but I dislike business taxes and sales taxes and think that they shouldn't exist.

What does that make me ? I'm not a socialist because I don't like taxes and I'm not a libertarian because I like socialized healthcare.

So I'm a centrist.

It's retarded.
There is no "Left" and "Right" in reality, it's a very strong simplification, which is why it can't be used in actual ideological debate.

To take the idea of the left and the right and run with it, build a whole ideology on it... is retarded. It's literally what a child would come up with that wants mommy and daddy to stop fighting.

If you're "centrist" on an individual issue, through your own thinking, that's fine. But being "centrist" for it's own sake is retarded.

>what is an politic?

just because you're so weak-willed that you can't form your own opinion on something doesn't mean everyone is.

there is no correlation between most issues.

You're right, the left-right dichotomy is a red herring. It's about what's right and wrong arguing from a specific moral premise. For example, you're wrong to think the government has any legitimacy in providing healthcare via extortion.

Okay way back in the day you had the major US parties with both left and right wings in each camp (such as Liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" of the Northeast along with Conservative "Yellowdog Democrats AKA Dixiecrats" in the Southeast).

Basic issues that could receive buy-in from everyone such the passage of the food system inspection, regulation of monopolies, the electrification of the US and the National Highway System were broadly touted policy achievements for everyone involved.

Since we got the basics of modern first world civilization put into place, the rest of the Country's intractable issues that remained don't lend themselves to wheel-and-dealing compromises since they aren't universal burdens. Also they aren't many Republicans in Blue States or Democrats in Red ones anymore either so they have little reason to bother appealing to opposite sides.

Read a book you little cuck

The problem with this line of argument is that it supposes that overwhelming consensus on a particular policy across political lines ensures it will be successful and efficient, to say nothing of whether or not it is within the legal bounds of the federal government.

It really bothers me to hear people deride ideologues as ivory-tower dreamers detached from reality as though no ideologies exist that do not take into careful consideration the nature of man and the world around him.

The whole left/right dichotomy is bullshit.

I am conservative on most social issues but actually rather left leaning on economic issues and there are case-by-case exceptions to both of these.

If the model does not accurately describe/predict the world, it is a shit model.

>The problem with this line of argument is that it supposes that overwhelming consensus on a particular policy across political lines ensures it will be successful and efficient
There is or was on things like ensuring your butchered meat didn't have cysts and worms in it following the publication of The Jungle for example.

My argument hinges on BASIC policy problems that solves a harm that impacts everyone in mostly equal reach.

However I also stipulated that we are long since past those kinds of problems that enjoy universal realization that they needed to be solved and not turned into a electioneering football.

Only the complicated maldistributed problems are left.