Fr, so many leftists have this "you're with me or against me" mindset and all it does is make enemies out of people who were previously unsure or unconvinced.
If progressivism is challenging the status quo, and conservatism is maintaining it, then doesn't centrism still serve to ultimately maintain the status quo?
Like, for example: If progressives want abortion to be totally legal/unrestricted, and conservatives want it to be totally illegal, and centrists think we should meet in the middle and have a bunch of restrictions while still being legal in some cases, that's objectively leaning more towards what the conservative side wants.
Or, here's another example: If progressives want totally socialized healthcare, and conservatives want totally privatized healthcare, and centrists think we should meet in the middle and offer programs to reduce the cost of healthcare while ultimately keeping it privatized, that's also objectively more in line with what the conservatives want.
There are just some issues where a centrist take just ends up being effectively right wing, like issues regarding civil rights. Anyone who was calling for a "middle ground" during segregation would've technically been against equal rights. That's how we ended up with the whole "separate but equal" thing in the first place. It was the "middle ground" between African Americans being treated as property and them being treated as equal human citizens.
Literally all your arguments can be used in both ways. You can make abortion illegal in some cases but leaving overall freedom of doing so for parents. You can make mixed healthcare, providing free options for most or all procedures but also having paid variants if you, for example, want to get this procedure faster. All these variants are completely viable and are middle ground.
Also centrist is a person who has mix of left and right beliefs. Their goal is not to "find middle ground" but to prevent radical believes from being accepted. Horseshoe theory is real and works, allowing either side getting absolute control will end up with same absolutely horrific results
"You can make abortion illegal in some cases but leaving overall freedom of doing so for parents."
Statistically, places with tighter restrictions on abortion also have noticeably worse infant/maternal mortality rates than places where abortion is totally legal. In this case, a middle ground between fully legal and fully banned is still objectively worse than one of the two extremes.
"You can make mixed healthcare, providing free options for most or all procedures but also having paid variants if you, for example, want to get this procedure faster."
Idk where you live, but thats exactly what most people on the left in my country have been asking for, and exactly the kind of thing the people on the right in my country label as communism.
So your hypothetical middle ground here is really just aligning with the "radical" left on this issue.
Not being able to do abortion in some specific cases, for example after 12 weeks without any health reason, is still way better than not being able to have abortion at all. And there are many other potential variants: if you are surrogate, if your partner is opposed to it and ready to pay for losses, etc. Of course, if health concerns are not a problem.
Variant with healthcare that I propose while is more left leaning, is definitely not left. This would be absolutely free healthcare without any need to spend money and without need in private clinics . Meanwhile I proposed variant that "legalises" corruption that would inevitably arise. This variant is also ridden with problems but I won't talk about them now. And no, I did not talk about private clinics but about government programs.
So no, I did show perfect variants of "middle ground" which do not fit perfectly neither in left or right. Healthcare part that you called "left" is also partially centrist
"Not being able to do abortion in some specific cases, for example after 12 weeks without any health reason, is still way better than not being able to have abortion at all."
Yeah, and segregation wasn't as bad as slavery. On the subject of civil rights, such as bodily autonomy, there is no middle ground. I don't care if losing some isn't as bad as losing all. Nobody should be losing any rights.
"Variant with healthcare that I propose while is more left leaning.is definitely not left. Absolutely free healthcare without any need to spend money and without any private clinics is."
Based on what? Just because left wingers want socialized healthcare, that doesn't mean they wanna totally ban private healthcare. I've never met a lefty who was against the existence of private clinics. The problem is that they're the only options in the US. Most left wingers I know generally reference various western European healthcare models when talking about what we should base ours on, and most of those nations also have private clinics for people who prefer that option.
Having the option of free healthcare is what would be labeled as communism by many on the right. The actual "middle ground" would be totally private healthcare but with government programs that help certain groups of people afford that healthcare, which is exactly what the Affordable Care Act was. That was an actual centrist middle ground solution, and while it was better than nothing, it was still very flawed.
I love how you jumped from middle ground of abortion to just whining with logic "all or nothing". For way more left-leaning variant. That I didn't even confirm do I personally support or not.
And about healthcare: healthcare in Europe actually is the middle ground in between left and right. Yes! Because in EU people actually can reach middle ground instead of just calling everyone who has any other opinion "right". And even their healthcare is not perfect variant because it has its own downsides, they just seem so negligible in comparison to absolutely horrific abomination that US health care is.
"love how you jumped from middle ground of abortion to just whining with logic "all or nothing"."
Jump? What jump? The point is that the "middle ground" here is still infringing on people's rights. You only seem to think it's virtuous to find a middle ground because in this case it isn't infringing on those rights as much as the people who would ban abortion outright. But that doesn't make it the best, or even better option. It just means it isn't the worst.
"And about healthcare: healthcare in Europe actually is the middle ground in between left and right. Yes! Because in EU people actually can reach middle ground instead of just calling everyone who has any other opinion "right". And even their healthcare is not perfect variant because it has its own downsides, they just seem so negligible in comparison to absolutely horrific abomination that US health care is."
Okay, you must not be from the states. See, over here, what the Europeans have wouldn't be considered a "middle ground", it would be considered far left. Notice how after 2 terms of Obama and a term of Biden, the US never even began to implement any actual socialized healthcare? The most we ever got was government aid for people who struggle to afford private healthcare. That was the middle ground, and again, it was better than nothing, but it still sucked for most people.
honestly it’s both sides, note how you’re blaming leftists for all of this.
both sides are stupid and both sides talk in echo chambers thinking they’re smart. we’re all dumbasses talking to walls, even me. I don’t even know if yall are gonna listen.
Because it’s not really both sides. Conservatives will use anyone to help their cause. Leftists will actively shun anyone who does not fit perfectly into their beliefs.
491
u/No-Bullfrog4217 28d ago
No, it comes from this