Centrist positions are inherently unstable (think top of the hill) because they require active efforts to maintain the balance between factions prone to polarizations (left->far-left, right->far-right). It requires consistently good statesmanship or strong external challenge for opposing factions to act in united manner.
While setting proactive centrist initiatives might be hard, centrist sentiment with passive inaction is very very easy. All you need to do is tut-tut occasional "excesses."
In other words, the centrism of taking risks is very different from the centrism of avoiding them.
It depends on how the populace feels. It could also technically be a valley with the extremes on either side. Honestly though I think the centrists can never find positions people can get rabid about because by definition it calls for moderation.
That analogy does not make sense. You are assuming political spectrum is a left to right gradient which you just move along, when in reality it is a constantly shifting multi dimensional spectrum that shifts on different issues. However if we apply today’s centerist to the end of the 1990’s they would be more a Bush conservative.
Being a centrist is a cowardly position, inevitably on the wrong side of history, serving the ruling class while backstabbing your fellow workers and citizens. You'd rather pretend to be asleep and let it all happen to us than open your eyes and fight with humanity.
The bystander effect in a nutshell. You too are eventually accountable and culpable and when the wheels of fascism turn far enough you'll find yourself as part of an outgroup.
atmosx|1 day ago
d_silin|1 day ago
Terr_|1 day ago
In other words, the centrism of taking risks is very different from the centrism of avoiding them.
dyauspitr|1 day ago
ffsm8|1 day ago
dalemhurley|1 day ago
fwip|1 day ago
lioeters|1 day ago
jacquesm|1 day ago
ares623|1 day ago
tootie|1 day ago
dyauspitr|1 day ago
russdill|1 day ago
krapp|1 day ago
krapp|1 day ago