Possibly stupid question about the magical, mythical center

How can anyone be a centrist?

It seems like people on the left have ideas, and people on the right have ideas. Some of these ideas would make the US a better place, and some are just plain bad ideas, but they're all suggestions for change.

But people on the center do not really seem to have ideas. Yes, they sometimes take ideas from one side or the other and neuter them into some unrecognizable form, but the center seems to exist only to support the status quo.

I would wager that near 100% of Americans think that there is something wrong with our country that needs to be fixed. The left has ideas about what the problem is and solutions for solving the problem, and the right has ideas for what the problem is and solutions for solving the problem.

What does the center have?

The center is the embodiment of the statement "Choosing to not make a choice is itself a choice." The center is entrenching the status quo, and kicking the can down the road.

There's nothing there, so why do we hold this up as some perfect ideal of where a politician should be?

Or... "We've decided that since we can't make everyone happy, we'll make no one happy..."

and it is used as distraction and a means to do things bases really are against.

. . . live in Bell Jars at the Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Odditorium.

for the simple reason that, in my opinion, Leftists and Rightists tend to take their ideas to their respective ideological extremes, at which point they are extremely difficult to implement because of lack of a large enough concensus.

Consider the following example: Liberals support Unions and collective bargaining for labor. Taken to an extreme however, leftists are unwilling to accept any limitations on Union contracts which leads to organizational inefficiencies, difficulty in removing underperforming workers, and padded retirement salaries by virtue of excessive later-year overtime. Conservatives on the other hand support a "right to work" philosphy. Taken to an extreme, rightists are opposed to union organization rights and in favor of employers having free reign to hire, fire and pay a little as they can for workers. As a Centrist, I believe in the right to organize, but I also support merit-based promotions and salaries (as opposed to strict seniority), and the ability of employers to flexibly move staff into different work tasks.

:)

And you can't be a "centrist" who is both for Wall Street, corporate America and also be for working people.

Do you really think you're above this "class stuff" and are somewhere in the middle, weighing both sides, pointing out how unreasonable working people are (oh .... and big money too), let's all just get along .... we need to compromise with our enemies, blah, blah, blah.

You can't get off that easy.

In a labor fight and battle to protect and defend our living standards and rights you're either with us or against us.

It's that simple.

That's the way I look at things.

And that's being objective and looking at political and economic reality.

The object of the political labeling game is for each player to define whatever he or she supports as "centrist." Those who get to hegemonize (and abuse) the tag permanently tend to be on the right, and are or fancy themselves part of the power elite. (Example: David Broder, who recommends Obama running in 2012 by bombing Iran.) Otherwise, it the weak-minded appeal that among divergent views, the average must be right.

Example of "centrism" play:

Extreme Copernicans think the earth revolves around the sun, against the traditionalist view that the sun revolves around the earth, but as a centrist trapped between left and right, I say they take turns but for the most part the earth doesn't move.

.

As for originsl ideas you would obviously with your bias characterize them as watered down versions of left or right, but I am curious how you would distinguish an original centrist idea on the, say, blarg issue from the left idea, which would obviously be more left, and the right idea which would obviously be more right?

And not just the status quo. For example a good idea of a centrist opinion on fiscal issues might be that we need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, not just one or the other. The status quo is neither.

I am certainly a tad left of center, but close enough to it by DU standards to be a reasonable proxy. On what topic would you like an idea for you to inevitably characterize as either magical or neutered, but which I assure you will be merely honest. If I have an ideologically left or right opinion on the issue I will admit it and at least attempt to offer a centrist one.

"The left has ideas about what the problem is and solutions for solving the problem, and the right has ideas for what the problem is and solutions for solving the problem.

What does the center have? "

I've always considered myself to be a moderate/centrist and have posted here at DU numerous times expressing my ideas about what should or could be done.

An example of an idea a moderate, a liberal, and a conservative may have about the Bush tax cuts:

A conservative may feel that the tax cuts ought to be extended for the rich only.

A liberal may feel that the cuts ought to be extended only for those who make less then 250k a year.

A moderate may think that the tax cuts ought to be extended for all or that they ought to be allowed to expire for all.

Each of the above is a valid viewpoint and idea.

working people.

One only favors helping working middle class people, another supports tax cuts for working people but also wants us to subsidize tax breaks for the rich and the third wants to give the rich tax breaks totally on the backs of higher taxes for working people.

It's all about class.

Want to help solve a problem?

Tax the rich who caused this economic crisis, not us!

It would be more correct to state that they do not entirely embrace the platforms of either party. Also might mention that Ideas are not physically things that can be "taken" nor do they belong strictly to people who might have chosen to brand a donkey or elephant on their asses and forgotten how to think for themselves.

It would be interesting to see how you rationalize the continued shrinking of both parties to this "mythical" center?

that Lakoff influenced the OP.

But I'm worried that this rush to the center has kept our country from solving a lot of problems imposed by the status quo.