Political discussion thread

thellama73 wrote: Once upon a time, a large group of people were arguing on how to render a body of water crossable. The extremists on one side wanted to lower the temperature until the water freezes. The extremists on the other side wanted to raise the temperature until the water evaporates. The sensible centrist came along and said: "Guys, guys, you're too extreme! We need to find some common ground. Let's compromise and keep the temperature the same as it is now." To this day, they are still stuck on the other side of the water.

The centre position is not the compromise position, it is the position that seeks to avoid the extreme solutions presented by the left and right. 

Edited by Dean - October 30 2012 at 02:05

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: stonebeard wrote: thellama73 wrote: smartpatrol wrote: i'm not saying we need to be extremely centrist, just more centrist. At least balanced between the left and right But why? If one side is crorect and the other side is incorrect, why should we aim for the center? If you are a leftist, you should want to go all the way to the left. If you believe in what conservatives believe, you should want to go all the way to the right. Unless you believe that the center is actually the correct choice, but I have not heard you voice that opinion in the past. There's a lot of philosophy from all over the world espousing a middle path and consensus. It's not that strange. Do I believe the moderate choice is always the best? No. But I do believe there are equal extremists on both sides, and the right way of doing many things is very rarely clear. So I don't trust fanatics and extremists. I trust more the consensus-making process.  Once upon a time, a large group of people were arguing on how to render a body of water crossable. The extremists on one side wanted to lower the temperature until the water freezes. The extremists on the other side wanted to raise the temperature until the water evaporates. The sensible centrist came along and said: "Guys, guys, you're too extreme! We need to find some common ground. Let's compromise and keep the temperature the same as it is now."To this day, they are still stuck on the other side of the water. It's strange that so many people here have said they would like more than two parties always ruling US politics, yet they also claim there has to be a balance or move to the center, which I think is exactly the recipe to continue to always have the duopoly of parties forever. Good luck getting rid of the D/R absolute rule just aiming for the center.

This guy disgusts me - I'm gonna be really mad if he's elected:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/29/f-you-dishonesty-romney-and-jeep.html

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Once upon a time, a large group of people were arguing on how to render a body of water crossable. The extremists on one side wanted to lower the temperature until the water freezes. The extremists on the other side wanted to raise the temperature until the water evaporates. The sensible centrist came along and said: "Guys, guys, you're too extreme! We need to find some common ground. Let's compromise and keep the temperature the same as it is now." To this day, they are still stuck on the other side of the water. The centre position is not the compromise position, it is the position that seeks to avoid the extreme solutions presented by the left and right.    The centrism solution is to build a boat or a bridge or drive around it, only extremists would decide to destroy the lake..

There's no wood on the other side, so boats and bridges are not possible. Also, the lake goes in a circle around the people so they can't go around it. they can't swim either.

Since my water analogy seems not to have worked well, let's try a more realistic example.

At one point in time, the total abolition of slavery would have been considered an extreme position. A centrist would have suggestion something more reasonable, like maybe a slight reduction in the number of slaves. But the extremist would have been right and the centrist would have been wrong.

My point is a) that what is "extreme" can only be defined relative to something else, presumably the viewpoints of the majority, and b) that just because a position is extreme does not mean it is wrong.

They are.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Since my water analogy seems not to have worked well, let's try a more realistic example. At one point in time, the total abolition of slavery would have been considered an extreme position. A centrist would have suggestion something more reasonable, like maybe a slight reduction in the number of slaves. But the extremist would have been right and the centrist would have been wrong. My point is a) that what is "extreme" can only be defined relative to something else, presumably the viewpoints of the majority, and b) that just because a position is extreme does not mean it is wrong. The only problem I see with the abolishing of slavery argument is one of universal suffrage, which meant that at the time "the majority" were not entitled to vote or have a say anyway, of those eligible to vote the majority had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. You are also guessing at the centrist position here, again assuming, (incorrectly IMO), that it would be one of compromise.   What is extreme is obviously measured relatively, but not relative to the view of the majority but to the view of the opposing extreme position (otherwise the centrist view is a meaningless term) - if the point of relative measurement was the majority view then that in itself would become the opposing extreme position, making the arithmetic centrist position someway between the two again, but that still isn't a true representation of a centrist position.    In most cases two opposing extremes are mutually exclusive to each side, the centrist view is to say there are good and bad points in both extremes and the solution is not a wishy-washy, watered-down compromise but a viable balance of both.

I meant that the extreme is measured against the non-extreme. How is the non-extreme defined? I suppose it is by consensus, so the majority view is considered non-extreme, and anything that diverges in either direction could be considered extreme.

You don't like the slavery example either? Fine. I'm happy to keep coming up with examples until even your determination to miss the point won't help you.

How about the corporal punishment? It used to be common practice to punish children for minor infractions by beating them. Today, this practice is considered extreme, but as little as fifty to a hundred years ago it was mainstream. A vote to abolish corporal punishment would have failed disastrously and anyone supporting such a measure would have been called extreme.

On the other hand, anyone, if someone were to argue that beating was not sufficient, and that death should be the punishment for talking back in school, that would also have been considered extreme, diverging too far from the mainstream.

Labeling a position "extreme" says nothing about its value, only about its popularity. The centrist position could just as well be called the "populist" position, since it stays in line with what is currently mainstream. Centrism encourages the status quo, regardless of the merits of said quo.

Would you mind defining centrist then, since we clearly don't agree on the definition? It seems to me like you're defining centrist as "reasonable" but that is meaningless because what seems reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. It also seems like you're defining centrist as "between two extremes" and defining extreme as "different from the center" which is circular.

I don't understand what you mean when you say extreme or centrist.

thellama73 wrote: You don't like the slavery example either? Fine. I'm happy to keep coming up with examples until even your determination to miss the point won't help you.

Dean, and everyone else, got the point of your example, we just thought the story - as well as the political symbolism it represents - to be weak.   I'm surprised you didn't see that.    There's no "determination to miss the point".

thellama73 wrote: You keep saying that such and such position is extreme, but you can't (or won't) define what extreme means. I consider it quite extreme for the government to forcibly seize up to 50% of a person's income every year. You would (I'm guessing) consider that to be centrist, or even right wing. Unless we have some common frame of reference for what we mean by words like extreme and centrist, meaningful discussion is impossible.