Centrism is Dead (And It Never Really Existed)

It’s a common refrain these days to hear people lament a decline of the so-called “center” in American politics. We’re supposed to look on in horror as “moderate” Republicans and Democrats become an engaged species of liberty-fighting patriots steamrolled by frothing, insane hordes of populist barbarians on their left and right flanks. They’re the voice of reason, lovers of apple pie and staunch defenders of our constitution and all that’s good and right in the US of A. We’re encouraged to run back into the blood soaked arms of establishment politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton — the only ones standing between us and the Donald Trumps and Bernie Sanders of the world. The center cannot hold, so we’re told.

It’s a nice story, the only problem is it’s complete and total nonsensical garbage. This mythical “center” is nothing more than a failed status quo attempting to rebrand itself in the wake of being outed as the corrupt charlatans they are. Russia, Trump and  Bernie Sanders didn’t destroy healthcare, bailout criminal bankers and invade Iraq based on fake news. No, moderate Republicans and Democrats did that. The so-called celebrated center did that.

Nevertheless, it’s crucial not to accept their phony terms. What these professional con artists are now marketing as centrism is in reality just entrenched donor-based politics. If you want to call endless imperial wars and the transformation of the U.S. into a rigged neo-feudal hunger games economy centrism, be my guest. I’d call it the result of decades of political apathy during which rapacious donors purchased the political process while nobody was looking. Well we’re looking now, and we’re not too happy about what we see.

The honorable response for such remarkable failures is for the status quo to apologize profusely and walk off into the sunset of irrelevance with their tails between their legs. Not these creeps. Instead, they decided to rebrand themselves as the heroic center, protectors of the Republic they looted from the plague of populism and Russia. These are truly awful people, which makes sense when you consider the grotesque culture created in their image.

Populism isn’t a response to mythical centrism, it’s a response to robber baron looting. An American pastime aided, abetted and institutionalized by “moderate” Republicans and Democrats for decades. There’s nothing moderate about taking money from billionaires and doing whatever they want. That’s not centrism, that’s the status quo.

We’re currently in the early stages of a radical political transformation in this country. The status quo has failed completely and everyone knows it except for them. They aren’t “the center” they’re just donor lackeys who sold out the country. We don’t have a recognizable center in politics right now because everyone’s in flux. The only thing that’s clear is populism is ascendant on both the right and the left. As such, can a genuine center develop (within the context of populism), and will we be wise enough to recognize and embrace it?

If I’m right, the status quo will lose even more relevance going forward, a process that will accelerate after the economy tanks again. If things are miserable for young Americans now, how do you think they’re going to respond when things get worse and nobody’s done anything to deal with our predatory and rigged economy? I think you know. We’re still in the very early days of a very profound populist era in American history.

Given that, I think it’s a good time to revisit a Venn diagram I shared a few times several years ago when you could start to see the beginnings of our current era with the emergence of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.

When it comes to populism there’s a logical center, but I’m not optimistic we can get enthusiastic rabble rousers and activists from all sides to focus on points of agreement and work towards what a real center might want. Politics has become too gladiatorial, vicious and personal for that, at least for the foreseeable future. Plus, people who lead political movements tend to be power-hungry, ego maniac types. It seems there’s too much centralized power up for grabs in D.C. for a rational populist center to become ascendant. I really, really hope I’m wrong about this and will do my best to ensure I’m wrong.

As Anthony Bourdain noted in an interview prior to his death:

Look, the minute everybody in the room agrees with you, you’re in a bad place, so I’m a big believer in change just for its own sake, just to show that you can change, to move forward incrementally, but ain’t nobody gonna make everything better. Whoever has the intestinal fortitude or the megalomaniac instincts, uh, sufficient to lead any kind of a revolution will inevitably disappoint horribly.

The best revolutionaries of course are martyrs who died before they could turn into disgusting, self-serving, corrupt pieces of shit. As they all do.

Although it’s absolutely necessary, getting rid of the status quo doesn’t automatically mean things will get better. That part is up to us.

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit the Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

29 thoughts on “Centrism is Dead (And It Never Really Existed)”

  1. Good read, Mike.

    Are you by chance familiar at all with the writings of Henry George? I’ve always thought Georgism presented an interesting framework for the combining of right wing market economics and left wing environmental protection, along with a return to a classical three factor model of production as opposed to the modern neo-classical two factor model which obfuscates the difference between capital and economic land. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    Reply
  2. A terrific presentation, Michael! Thanks… will share. Thanks for the Bourdain piece (still haven’t ‘forgiven’ him for bugging out!)

    Pretty much guaranteed nothing will get better if nothing changes … that’s why I voted R first time for Trump …. I think only 30’s-like suffering will get the too-busy-don’t-care to the polls. I only hope it will not be so slow as to be invisible and easily ‘managed/directed/’interpreted’ by the plutos.

    Reply
  3. Centralism is a trap that’s easy to fall into. Let’s not forget that it’s been the “centralists” that have consistently refused to allow any party other than the Democrats and Republicans on the stage at the Presidential televised debates and they have a near perfect record at that.

    Reply
    • My argument is that what you describe isn’t centralism, but plutocrat politics. They just hijack the term centrism to seem reasonable and relatable to average people, which they decidedly are not.

  4. Excellent as usual Michael. But a quibble.

    1) the graphic you show is a bit inaccurate. While the “right” are correct that gov has too much power (and is rather “incompetent”), this is due to the fact that Corporations and billionaires OWN it and RUN it. If the people owned it and ran it, gov would be a totally different animal. It’s not an even gov vs. biz thing. That’s playing into the Liberal/Conservative divide.

    2) You are right that there is no center, but to be more specific: Liberals have been moving steadily rightward since Reagan, and even more so under Clinton and Obama. Bernie Sanders proved his party had long ago abandoned the New Deal. His proposal for investment in America was met with the same derision that is the bread and butter of conservatives.

    3) Conservatism is off its rocker, particularly the alt right. They seem to be succeeding in convincing people that communists (who in engage in private profit?) are somehow running the show. That makes the capitalists who control the corporations and the gov revolving door idiots who can beat powerless “bolshevicks”. They confuse the tendency of power to concentrate with communist collectivism. Witness:

    https://therulingclassobserver.com/2018/07/25/help-commies-are-running-my-predatory-capitalist-country/

    Reply
    • The “right” are making an argument I am 100% sympathetic to, which is that government has become too centralized and powerful at the federal level in D.C., which is not what the Constitution intended.

      Centralized power is easier to capture than decentralized governance, so the more centralized the easier to capture by oligarchs and corporations. Representative democracy itself feeds into this problem, which is why I think direct democracy will play a much larger role in the future. All you have to do in the current system is buy out a few hundred representatives, if that.

    • i would make a fouth thing to consider.

      4) While the left are right that corporations/business have to much power (and is rather ‘incompetent’ , even though we are all indoctrinated to believe otherwise. ) This is due to the hierarchical structure of the workplace . if ownership , risk/reward and decision making was placed with all those within a business , ie employee and employer , they would be a different animal too .

      For example a business owned and operated by all at the company would not have a need to lobby the government to redistribue wealth produced by the company owners, as the internal management would already do this .

  5. Every major problem we have today can be directly laid at the feet of corporations and unaccountable power. In a decentralized state, even if it’s a “democracy”, will be nothing more than a feudal state of fiefdoms without addressing who wields the power.

    Reply
    • Unaccountable power, yes, we agree there. Corporations are just one aspect of this, but there are many others, such as unaccountable government power, of which intelligence agencies are a prime example.

      There’s no reason to believe a world filled with relatively autonomous city-states, for example, would turn into feudalism across the board. Of course, you’d have some great outcomes and some terrible outcomes, akin to how some nation-states today are far better than others. Ultimately though, I think local decision making and local governance is the only truly ethical form of governance. Also, it will be far harder for corporations to capture 1,000 relatively autonomous governments compared to 1 mega state with centralized power and decision making.

      This will be a key debate going forward.

  6. The ancient Greek city states were run by oligarchies, as were the Italian “republics”.

    Before the Constitution was adopted, the American states were run on a more city state basis, but that made them more vulnerable and accountable to their own populations. After Shay’s rebellion, state oligarchs sought to centralize ruling class power. This speaks to your point, but it also demonstrates that if the powers-that-shouldn’t-be see a ground swell of support for decentralization the Kochs and Soroses of the world might go along with it, with the understanding (among the ruling class at least) that such measures may be revoked at any time, just as the Articles of Confederation were, and the New Deal today.

    During the Eng Rev, after defeat of the Royalists, the new ruling class Parliament still had to deal with radicals infesting its ranks and those of the army. Thus, the task of exterminating radicals and disciplining the landless, who squatted on land that was once considered commons, had to be delegated to the JPs (local Justices of the Peace), who usually were local gentry or had connections with them. They ended up reinstalling the king at the Restoration.

    Without dealing with power differentials, decentralization of gov is just a form in which the oligarchy lives. Its emphasis on local or national depends on what is more expedient for the ruling class.

    Besides, without dealing with outsized powers how can anyone expect to achieve a meaningful decentralization? How do you get there. If the U.S. gov were decentarlized but unaccountable power was still intact — how can anyone trust that?

    Thanks for the debate.

    Reply
    • It’s a very important debate and I don’t for a moment think getting to where I think we need to get will be easy. I am hopeful we can get there, or on the path to getting there, within my lifetime.

      I think a combination of increased consciousness, less apathy from the public and direct democracy within the context of a constitution that enshrines civil liberties would be my model for local governance. This will not happen overnight, but is my vision.

      For more, I woulds search “decentralization” and “consciousness” on the site. I’ve discussed this topic on several occasions.

  7. Hmmm…. for the historians… has there ever been a well run, relatively equal political ‘unit’ (city state, city, commune, country, nation, region… etc) ? anywhere? ever? If so, we may not have to totally reinvent the wheel. (ala, the ‘libertarian’ or ‘laisse faire market’ entity that has never existed.)

    Perhaps a monastery/abbey, or an exceptional indigenous tribe, etc. I’m remembering the Dunbar population optimizing at 150. Maybe it is the ‘big is bad’ at work …..

    Reply
    • I do think there’s an optimal size (population and geography) for governance and beyond that it just gets too big, bureaucratic and disconnected from the community. Beyond a certain size everything becomes less voluntary. I’m sure various political and economic systems could work at smaller scales provided people are engaging in the structure on a truly voluntary basis.

    • The Roman Empire did quite well for quite a long time…

      Probably because they put three things into every land they conquered:

      1. Roads

      2. Exported Romans (retired Roman soldiers, no less)

      3. Appropriate garrisons

      Roman citizenship had tangible rights and privileges, something of pride and value, to be sought and respected.

      They also knew the value of good entertainment.

      And they hung miscreants up on crosses and left them there.

      I don’t about the whole “relatively equal” thing, but I’m sure the complaint box filled up as often as it always does.

      But once someone starts talking about ‘equality’ that’s my signal to leave the room cuz shit’s bout to get dummmm.

  8. I don’t see the “centrist” argument appealing to many people at this juncture. People are angry, even if they aren’t sure who is causing their misfortune or why. It’s important to note that this development has occurred during a so-called economic recovery. Should things get dicey on that front, the anger/bewilderment would ramp up fast. Appealing to a sense of tradition is too weak in this environment.

    If the elites are clever, they’ll direct their energy toward co-opting the new populist movements. They have had some success with Trump, especially with the bankers and the MIC. Trump can occasionally bellyache about the Fed, but he won’t do anything there. Scrutinizing the Fed hits a little too close to the truth, which endangers the whole system.

    The Tea Party movement was corralled quickly as I remember, with Sarah Palin elbowing her way to the front of the line as spokesperson. Trump took people by surprise, but if TPTB learn from him they can be better prepared in the future. Too bad for everyone that Trump is a dud when it comes to challenging the bankster status quo.

    Reply
  9. Two thoughts came to the fore, for your consideration, after reading this discussion:

    First, after the current system implodes, which it will, a new ideology will be needed to reconstitute society. And since at the current level of human development self-interest is still the primary motivator, it needs to be throttled with just laws and a major realignment of social ideals. Celebrity, fame, fortune, conspicuous consumption, etc. need to be socially spurned in favor of more noble aspirations that benefit society as a whole.

    Secondly, I call your attention to the old Russian joke which states that “Capitalism is mans exploitation of man, whereas with Communism it’s just the reverse.” Our current form of capitalism is still seen throughout the world as the champion of these two competing isms. In order for it to be unseated it will be necessary to have it completely delegitimized by its catastrophic failure. I am unable to see any other was of reforming this runaway, destructive locomotive until it goes over the cliff.

    Reply
  10. We’ve got a pretty good system going in the US… the poorest US citizen is richer than like 50% of the population of the planet.

    We get to export debt to every country in the world and in exchange, they enslave their people to build stupid crap for us or to cut down their trees or suck out their oil to go on big ships, headed, ultimately, for the US.

    Sure, that doesn’t leave many low-paying jobs for the folks in the US on the left-side of the IQ bell curve… and that’s something we DO need to worry about, cuz like, Stalin, I believe, said: “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

    So we should just stop letting in any more low-intelligence people so that our low-intelligence people can do the crappy jobs. Makes sense to me.

    Personally, I think we should do everything we can to keep it going.

    Any of you folks ever play Sid Meier’s Civilization?

    If your neighbor had oil and you didn’t, did you ever lose sleep over invading their asses? NOPE.

    How about switching to Despotic government, temporarily, to prosecute a war? EVERY TIME

    Think about the world in Civilization terms and it all makes sense.

    Cuz I assure you… the nebulous TPTB? Yeah, that’s how they think of it.

    Reply
  11. In a recent post you quoted Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
    While you make cogent arguments that will be accepted by likeminded thinkers, what’s the probability that one post, or even a hundred posts, will change the existing reality? It depends on whether a new model is offered that makes the old one obsolete.

    What does today’s existing “reality” look like? The answer is pretty simple: It’s the uncritically-accepted “left, center, right.” political model that’s been around for decades. When you reduce this framework to the most basic elements, it boils down to a very simple spatial construct …… a single horizontal line bounded by the “far right” on one side and the “far left” on the other. Every American places their “position” – or point – somewhere on this one-dimensional line, whether overtly or intuitively.

    In the middle of that line are the so-called centrists that you’ve correctly called out, but those folks are unlikely to feel threatened until a new model makes it obvious that their positions are cynical falsehoods. And unfortunately, these self-styled moderates present only one of many conflations that are generated by our rarely-questioned use of the wrong model.

    So what would a better model look like? It most likely wouldn’t remove the liberal and conservative leanings that each of us chooses in our heart or conscience, but it would clarify their limits. It would also draw distinctions that are impossible to see within the existing model. For example, a very pragmatic question about power must be added to the subjective assessments we make about our Left or Right values. It’s another simple question: How should power be held in America?

    Some of your commenters have already sketched the outlines of two contrasting answers to this question. Some Americans believe that power should be centralized in strong top-down institutions (For example, Obama, both Bushes, the Clintons, every Fed Chair, the national committees for both parties, most corporate “leaders”, social media CEOs, mainstream media, etc.) In contrast, other Americans believe that individual citizens should be empowered to make basic decisions about their own lives These include yourself, most of your commenters, Franklin, Jefferson, the tea party, and the occupy movement, among others.

    This adds a second dimension to the political model: Fallacies, like those of the so-called centrists, can’t be seen for what they are until a simple two-dimensional model is constructed. So, what would such a model look like? The fifty-year-old Nolan Chart is too imprecise and complicated to be used by large numbers of people. That’s why it never got any real traction. A better model would likely be a circle, on which every American places their position, based on their combined answers to a Values Question (Left vs Right) and a Power Question (Centralist vs Citizen-empowered). Centralists would sit at the top of the Circle, while Citizists would reside at the bottom.

    We can compare two of today’s “conservatives” on such a model: Ron Paul and John McCain are both considered to “lean right”, but Paul resides near the bottom of the circle, on the lower right quadrant, while McCain is near the top, at the upper right quadrant. We can also compare two liberals: a lifelong democrat like James Howard Kunstler would be far down the circle on the lower left quadrant (not especially far from Ron Paul, in fact) while someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren chooses a position high up on the upper left quadrant, not too distant from Bush and McCain.

    So where does this leave the so-called centrists? If you think about the folks that self-label in this way, almost every one of them favors the centralization of power within all-encompassing institutions. Sometimes those institutions are on the right (Wall Street Banks, powerful corporations, the military-industrial complex, etc.) and sometimes they’re on the left (powerful bureaucracies like the EPA or Department of Education, social media companies, etc.) To see these folks for what they really are, we need to move to a model in which no position can actually sit at the center.

    Reply
    • I find it amusing that educated people still consider Wall Street Banks, powerful corporations and the MIC as “on the right” and powerful bureaucracies to be “on the left”.

      They share the same interests and merely exist to justify and propagate the existence of the other, as evidenced by the revolving door between every regulated entity and its so-called regulators.

      You want to identify where these creatures stand on the political grid? How about the great idea (Carlin’s maybe?) of requiring politicians to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors, I’m sorry, political contributors on their clothes when in public, like NASCAR, to ensure everyone knows exactly which Daddy is buttering that bread. Logos to be sized based on contribution amount so we’re all damn sure by whom today’s message is brought to you by. The logo of the People of Anytown, USA will be on the inside of their underwear, partially obscured by a skidmark.

      Wow, such vitriol tonight… I better go to bed, methinks.

    • Perhaps I didn’t make a distinction clear ……The examples you noted should be regarded as “at the top.” The MIC, legacy corporations etc. are slightly to the right of the upper pole, while some federal bureaucracies, the social media conglomerates etc. are slightly to the left of it. But their positions are in very close proximity.

      What you’re describing are alliances. If two entities sit near one another on the political circle, they’ll be opposed on a few issues, but will find ample common ground on others. It’s in the self interest of each to reach out to those in nearby positions to form some sort of alliance. This applies to any set of positions, regardless of location on the circle.

      This brings up two points. First …. are the upper alliances illicit? It seems that most Americans agree with you that the rules of the game have been unfairly skewed toward the upper quadrant alliances that you describe.
      Second …… why are those in the lower quadrants unable to form alliances that function as an effective counterweight to these upper quadrant alliances? Mike’s example of Occupy versus the Tea Party is a prime example. Why were they unable to join forces when many of their goals were the same?

      Some of the comments posted above seem to assert that it’s more difficult for citizen-based movements to coordinate with one another, and perhaps that’s correct, but a close look at history would be required. The point I attempted to make is that the left-center-right model is a distortion of reality that causes conflations and fallacies to infect our assessment of the political system. One example: positions in the lower quadrants often regard one another as adversaries when they actually have a great deal in common.

    • I find it amusing that the Left… supposed protector of the downtrodden and impoverished… the voice of minorities and all those oppressed by the corporate kleptocracy… has now become the champion for the rights of illegal immigrants.

      Their grande strategie to redeem the economically disadvantaged of this country is to crank the old plan up to 11 and bring in even MORE applicants for every low-skilled job in America, each one willing to work for less than the next.

      And the people getting screwed continue to vote for Democrats in every election… without fail.

      Talk about the need to be disenfranchised… how many times do you have to watch someone hit their thumb with a hammer before you can’t help but take it away from them, simply for their own protection?

      The Midwest started waking up in 2016… so maybe there is a chance.

  12. You need to disenfranchise people who don’t vote. Make them have to re-register each election. They only value what they don’t have and that is why restricting the franchise created more involvement in political awareness…….and held the system to account.

    US needs to start afresh on voter registration databases and make people prove right to vote. That would shake up system

    Reply
  13. The ruling class will do everything in their power to keep that from happening, and initially the ruling class will succeed at not allowing that to “go very far”.

    Keyword being; “initially”. Because the current ruling class will meet the same fate as King George’s ruling class met back in the 1770’s. That is inevitable.

    In the meantime, all hell is going to break loose. Which is all part of the tear down in order to rebuild process.

    That does not just apply to the US, it applies to the entire world. Especially China. Who is rapidly running out of economic runway.

    Reply
  14. There is no center right of left, TRUMP IS A ZIONIST, MCSHAME IS A ZIONIST, CLINTON IS A ZIONIST. There is nothing but false narratives a zionist media creates to pit Americans against each other.

    Reply

Leave a Reply