@chrisstiles - pragmatic, yes, but that doesn't imply a lack of principle.
Possibly at an individual level, but "centrism" as a whole doesn't have much of a guiding set of principles beyond pragmatism because of its rejection of 'ideology' (which then ends up sneaking in through the back door).
@chrisstiles - pragmatic, yes, but that doesn't imply a lack of principle.
Possibly at an individual level, but "centrism" as a whole doesn't have much of a guiding set of principles beyond pragmatism because of its rejection of 'ideology' (which then ends up sneaking in through the back door).
And that often turns out to be right wing ideologies masquerading as left, with centrism offering a reputational shield to racists, transphobes misogynists etc. by framing embracing stuff like this as 'pragmatism' (Where's the old projectile vomit smilie when you need it?)
Not just Labour of course, there are SNP centrists too who do the same thing.
The other element that centrists rarely acknowledge is the effect of the overton window. The embrace as uncontentious positions such as extreme neoliberal economics which were previously very much of the right. Even more frequently they abjure as communist positions,. such as the overriding value of the public sphere over the private, which they previously espoused.
Absolutely - what boggles my mind is that they've let the Overton window shift to the point where our main opposition party is basically Cameron/May level conservativism packaged as 'Labour' while the Conservative party is a far right populist disaster area. We have to make sure they can never win but the alternative is the immiseration of those the Labour leadership cast as the 'undeserving poor', scapegoating vulnerable groups and selling out to the private sector and Brexiters.
It's a grim future, made worse by how hard first past the post makes it to punish right-wingers like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves and Kendall without risking a Badenoch victory.
The left is far more effective at attacking the left than the right ever is.
That's certainly my perception.
More generally, I can recognise and acknowledge some of the criticisms directed at what we might call a 'centrist' position but with more defined ideological positions there is a tendency to end up with ideologues.
The same thing happens with theological positions that are very clearly defined. So Orthodoxy can easily topple over into hyperdoxy for instance.
I can remember a time when anyone attending our local Labour branch was interrogated as to what end of the Labour spectrum they were before they'd even sat down.
Rather like some independent conservative evangelical churches where people seemed more concerned whether you were a-, pre- or post-millenialist than about your actual well-being or anything else about you.
I think the pragmatic position is often adopted as a reaction to more 'extreme' or apparently inflexible positions to right or left, but liberalism itself can be remarkably illiberal.
I've certainly come across liberals expressing views that couldn't really be considered liberal in any meaningful sense.
That's partly a generational thing, of course and it's true also that many traditional Labour voters are very socially conservative.
But yes, ideology is unavoidable and we have to be cognisant of that.
Why does it have to be an external thing, @chrisstiles? I'm not saying you are right or wrong but it does seem to me to be easier to blame external forces than to address what may be internal fault-lines.
Of course, external forces are going to exploit such fault-lines but perhaps they can't be blamed for creating them in the first place.
The left is far more effective at attacking the left than the right ever is.
This is just a side effect of the right being able to buy off dissenters.
Now, that's an interesting observation. Especially as the left's permanent state of low level civil war seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon across the Western world.
Of course, external forces are going to exploit such fault-lines but perhaps they can't be blamed for creating them in the first place.
It has nothing to do with external fault lines but simply a matter of interests. The right may disagree amongst themselves, but are unlikely to find their interests truly threatened by another faction, so are ultimately able to make an accommodation even if they complain about how dreadfully vulgar those people are (see May on Johnson, or Stewart on Johnson, Truss etc). If needed, they can always be bought off.
For obvious reasons the left doesn't have the same ability to buy people off and has to resort to policing itself - because the phenomena of someone starting off on the 'soft left' and ending up lobbying for billionaires is a real one.
As in everything this is subject to normal human foibles and frailties.
The left is far more effective at attacking the left than the right ever is.
This is just a side effect of the right being able to buy off dissenters.
Now, that's an interesting observation. Especially as the left's permanent state of low level civil war seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon across the Western world.
You never heard the acronym RINO? There are similar phenomena in places with right insurgent movements that genuinely threaten/have divergent interests to the mainstream right and/or have correspondingly fewer resources to play with.
I'm not sure that's strictly the case, @Hugal. I've met some very passionate right-wingers. I've even met some very passionate liberals.
@Hugal said "tend". Individual examples do not counter a tendency. Men tend to be taller than women, but some women are taller than some, or even most, men.
Ok. But how do we measure that? You can measure height. How do we measure how passionately people believe in something? All sorts of factors come into play with that, temperament, background etc etc.
I don't think you can generalise about the level or intensity of political beliefs in that clear-cut or binary a way. Some people are agitators and activists, others may believe something passionately but don't necessarily 'act' on it in any demonstrative way.
Sure, but I'm still not convinced that it is the case that left-wingers 'tend' to be more passionate about their beliefs than right-wingers - or anyone else who isn't on the left as Hugal would define it.
Has anyone done a statistical survey to measure levels of 'passionate intensity' to pinch Yeats's phrase?
'The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'
From 'The Second Coming' by W B Yeats.
I hasten to add that I don't regard people on the left as 'the worst' ...
Sure, but I'm still not convinced that it is the case that left-wingers 'tend' to be more passionate about their beliefs than right-wingers - or anyone else who isn't on the left as Hugal would define it.
Has anyone done a statistical survey to measure levels of 'passionate intensity' to pinch Yeats's phrase?
'The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'
From 'The Second Coming' by W B Yeats.
I hasten to add that I don't regard people on the left as 'the worst' ...
No but if you look across social media and other places it seems that more left leaners are willing to debate that right leaners. That could be we are big mouthed but this noticeably so
Sure, but I'm still not convinced that it is the case that left-wingers 'tend' to be more passionate about their beliefs than right-wingers - or anyone else who isn't on the left as Hugal would define it.
Has anyone done a statistical survey to measure levels of 'passionate intensity' to pinch Yeats's phrase?
'The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'
From 'The Second Coming' by W B Yeats.
I hasten to add that I don't regard people on the left as 'the worst' ...
No but if you look across social media and other places it seems that more left leaners are willing to debate that right leaners. That could be we are big mouthed but this noticeably so
I think that really depends on where you look - as someone not particularly lefty I can say that the debates on the Ship vs X vs say the Army Rumour Service are a bit different…
Sure, but I'm still not convinced that it is the case that left-wingers 'tend' to be more passionate about their beliefs than right-wingers - or anyone else who isn't on the left as Hugal would define it.
Has anyone done a statistical survey to measure levels of 'passionate intensity' to pinch Yeats's phrase?
'The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'
From 'The Second Coming' by W B Yeats.
I hasten to add that I don't regard people on the left as 'the worst' ...
No but if you look across social media and other places it seems that more left leaners are willing to debate that right leaners. That could be we are big mouthed but this noticeably so
Yeah no, the internet is filled with 'debate me' bros of all political persuasions, and the ones known for it tend to be right wingers (who generally adopt the Gish Gallop apologetic style).
Comments
Possibly at an individual level, but "centrism" as a whole doesn't have much of a guiding set of principles beyond pragmatism because of its rejection of 'ideology' (which then ends up sneaking in through the back door).
And that often turns out to be right wing ideologies masquerading as left, with centrism offering a reputational shield to racists, transphobes misogynists etc. by framing embracing stuff like this as 'pragmatism' (Where's the old projectile vomit smilie when you need it?)
Not just Labour of course, there are SNP centrists too who do the same thing.
It's a grim future, made worse by how hard first past the post makes it to punish right-wingers like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves and Kendall without risking a Badenoch victory.
That's certainly my perception.
More generally, I can recognise and acknowledge some of the criticisms directed at what we might call a 'centrist' position but with more defined ideological positions there is a tendency to end up with ideologues.
The same thing happens with theological positions that are very clearly defined. So Orthodoxy can easily topple over into hyperdoxy for instance.
I can remember a time when anyone attending our local Labour branch was interrogated as to what end of the Labour spectrum they were before they'd even sat down.
Rather like some independent conservative evangelical churches where people seemed more concerned whether you were a-, pre- or post-millenialist than about your actual well-being or anything else about you.
I think the pragmatic position is often adopted as a reaction to more 'extreme' or apparently inflexible positions to right or left, but liberalism itself can be remarkably illiberal.
I've certainly come across liberals expressing views that couldn't really be considered liberal in any meaningful sense.
That's partly a generational thing, of course and it's true also that many traditional Labour voters are very socially conservative.
But yes, ideology is unavoidable and we have to be cognisant of that.
This is just a side effect of the right being able to buy off dissenters.
Of course, external forces are going to exploit such fault-lines but perhaps they can't be blamed for creating them in the first place.
Or have I misunderstood?
Now, that's an interesting observation. Especially as the left's permanent state of low level civil war seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon across the Western world.
It has nothing to do with external fault lines but simply a matter of interests. The right may disagree amongst themselves, but are unlikely to find their interests truly threatened by another faction, so are ultimately able to make an accommodation even if they complain about how dreadfully vulgar those people are (see May on Johnson, or Stewart on Johnson, Truss etc). If needed, they can always be bought off.
For obvious reasons the left doesn't have the same ability to buy people off and has to resort to policing itself - because the phenomena of someone starting off on the 'soft left' and ending up lobbying for billionaires is a real one.
As in everything this is subject to normal human foibles and frailties.
You never heard the acronym RINO? There are similar phenomena in places with right insurgent movements that genuinely threaten/have divergent interests to the mainstream right and/or have correspondingly fewer resources to play with.
@Hugal said "tend". Individual examples do not counter a tendency. Men tend to be taller than women, but some women are taller than some, or even most, men.
I don't think you can generalise about the level or intensity of political beliefs in that clear-cut or binary a way. Some people are agitators and activists, others may believe something passionately but don't necessarily 'act' on it in any demonstrative way.
Has anyone done a statistical survey to measure levels of 'passionate intensity' to pinch Yeats's phrase?
'The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'
From 'The Second Coming' by W B Yeats.
I hasten to add that I don't regard people on the left as 'the worst' ...
No but if you look across social media and other places it seems that more left leaners are willing to debate that right leaners. That could be we are big mouthed but this noticeably so
I think that really depends on where you look - as someone not particularly lefty I can say that the debates on the Ship vs X vs say the Army Rumour Service are a bit different…
Yeah no, the internet is filled with 'debate me' bros of all political persuasions, and the ones known for it tend to be right wingers (who generally adopt the Gish Gallop apologetic style).