The post brought to you by Emmanuel Macron
tbf we all should have known the moment he said he was going to rule like a Graeco-Roman god.
“As an independent gay black man…”
It’s because they identify 100% with the party but don’t want the negative flack it rightfully deserves, so they pretend to be centrist.
This has actually been studied
Anti-Authoritarians and Moderates view it as best to be seen as Anti-Authoritarians, Authoritarians view it best to be seen as Moderates.
They literally view opportunistic claiming of the center not just as a political tool but as a social survival tactic to not be ostracized for their bullshit.
Exactly this. Many of them are concerned about how it might affect their work too and their families if they found out they’re were horrible racist people.
It’s part of the reason why the KKK wore clokes
It used to be libertarians that did this shit. Too afraid to commit to the bit, but still want to appear as if they’re the good guys.
I’ve had these geniuses defend racists by demanding, ‘well when did he say he was a racist?!’ As if the only possible way a label could apply is if a person says so. No wonder they think this fools anyone. All it takes to convince them is the right person saying “nuh uh.”
Oh this is the classic : “I’m socially progressive, but fiscally conservative” LOL
The thing is real fiscal conservatism relies on evidence. They just want to sell off the government so they can make a profit replacing it. A real fiscal conservative would have already passed universal education, universal healthcare, universal background checks, taken military procurement to task, and repealed half of the laws restricting unions.
The Republicans talk about laws that spend less and create more revenue, but they fight tooth and nail against ones that actually would do that.
no no, republicans don’t want the govt to make revenue. tax cuts, ridiculously complicated tax code, gutting the IRS… all to let rich people keep as much money as possible.
Or as they say, “make government small… Enough to drown in a bath tub”
So, a Democrat?
Well the bar is six feet under when you compare Democrats to Republicans. Democrats appears leftwing simply because Republicans went further to the right on the spectrum unfortunately. If you place Democrats in Canada or Western Europe, they would be considered a right wing government, or centrist if we stretch it.
So much this. The only thing that remedied US Democrats in this sense was their LGBT stances being more progressed than in many Western European countries. Otherwise they are in the right/far right/neoliberal spectrum by European standards.
At this point anybody can just download all the financial freedom they want, nobody is stopping us. So our votes only even matter for social issues anymore.
Actual centrists recognize how extreme the right has gotten, and vote accordingly. Bothsiders are the brainless, egotistical tools of the far right, going along with normalizing fascism because they don’t want to think too hard.
After the VP debate, I was stuck under two babies and couldn’t get up before CBS did it’s spin room coverage and fake analytics. During their focus group of 6 undecideds, I nearly fucking lost it when one said “I like that Vance said he’s pro-family”.
This shit repeated on my stream I was watching several times and I inevitably woke up my 8mo having to get to the computer before every last drop of my sanity was gone.
“pro family” and “family values” might be the most vomit inducing dogwhistle in politics.
If your response to a call to ethnic clensing is ‘‘well… let’s meet them half way’’ you aren’t a moderate centrist.
#BothSiders often end up repeating Republican talking points
Often? I’ve never seen it NOT that way, and I’m a huge fan of nuance. With them, I just can’t see any justification for that argument.
Of course the both sides argument comes from the right because America has no left
Not with any sort of majority aspirations, that’s for sure.
Found one!
and I woulda gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for you meddling kids
Interestingly enough I always did research on both candidates right up to Romney. And I always voted blue. There are people out there who don’t like either party and aren’t on the right.
That doesn’t mean you’re neither left nor right
You’re correct, I’m on the left.
Apolitical: far right/fascist Liberal: right Moderate: right “Democrat”(USA): right leaning moderate.
I’m left leaning but don’t like to define myself as left because that can lead to bias
People are prone to bias regardless of their political identification. Identifying as left-leaning provides no more protection against bias than any other political identification.
“defining” doesn’t lead to bias. you are left-leaning regardless of what you decide to call yourself. The important thing is recognizing and acknowledging your predisposition, which it seems you have.
95% of my values HEAVILY align with the left, but they also
a) are vaguely lazy and I don’t identify with that
b) go way too far on issues I’ve done zero research on
c) never pass legislation due to never having enough political power
So I can’t support them.
c) never pass legislation due to never having enough political power
So I can’t support them.
Well these things sure seem like they could be related…
It’s the media, not the people. If you read the same article from sources across the political spectrum, you’ll find the further right you go, the more information is omitted and the more opinionated the journalist becomes. So, someone who reads primarily right wing and centrist media will naturally have a right wing opinion when reading centrist articles.
While this is true, people still bear responsibility for the media they choose to consume. People wake up every day and decide to get their information from liars and grifters, because they prefer the way lies feel. It isn’t as if they don’t have options. Now, media literacy is definitely a problem. But the only solution is education, and that’s a silver bullet too slow to save us from all the extant ill-educated mooks.
I agree. Many people make the mistake of getting their news exclusively served through algorithms. They see a very skewed painting of the world based on what they’ve shown interest in previously.
Yeah, I’m not buying the “your opinions are just biases” argument. I don’t deny the influence of past experiences, I just believe humans are more nuanced than that.
Opinions are absolutely subjective, but the content they’re based on is also skewed.
If all of the news you consumed was curated through an engagement algorithm, it would change the way you see the world. Your opinions would be based on that perception.
Now you’re just describing human perception. That’s not really remarkable. And, still, there’s a lot more to it, such as the sum total of experiences a person has.
I still think this concept is being oversimplified quite a bit.
Jinkies!
This perfectly describes how the Far Left sees everyone else.
literally just watched a video where a guy starts off calling himself a “moderate” then proceeds to call himself a “maga patriot” The problem is the far right is never honest about who they are and what they want because they know it sucks.
Agreed. Doesn’t negate my point though. Extremists usually view those closer to the center as on the other side of it.
I don’t think most leftists see themselves as centrists. In fact, I can’t even think of an example to fit that case.
Not sure who you’re taking about, America has a right wing party and a far right wing party.
“From MY point of view the Jedi are evil!”
It’s all about perspective, and some perspectives are more reasonable than others. Saudi Arabia likely views the US as having a left wing and a far left wing party.
I think it’s reasonable to call Democrats centrists with a slight lean to the left, compared to parties globally.
Saudi Arabia likely views the US as having a left wing and a far left wing party.
[X] doubt
They wouldn’t have given Jared Kushner 2 billion dollars or financed Musk’s takeover of Twitter if they weren’t ideologically aligned.
I think this is a really neat insight into your psychology, that you can’t fathom the idea of allying with someone who doesn’t agree with you on every single point.
Everything is relative.
Thanks for proving my point.
The only point being proven here is your complete lack of political education. I’m not American and it’s crazy that you can look at the policies of your democratic party and call that left wing. You still have to go pretty far left from that to even hit something resembling centrist politics.
Yeah. The issue with that is that there zero evidence to confirm that they’re correct in seeing things that way. Whereas there is ample proof virtually EVERYWHERE to illustrate how leftists incessantly bark about bOtH siDeS!
This is absolute hogwash. Actual centrists bring up some Republican talking points (at least, the valid ones) when talking to a Democrat, because democrats don’t seem to understand them.
Surprise surprise, Republicans think centrists bring up Democratic talking points.
Centrists get the same bullshit demonization from both parties, because both parties are insanely convinced that getting rid of the dissenter makes the issue go away.
It would have been nice if he issue was just something simple, like a religion. But no, demonization is too convenient - an easy argument for pawns to make. Step on someone else, make yourself feel better. Classic.
what are the “valid republican talking points” that you’re referring to?
You will never get an answer from them because the small nuggets of truth that exist in Republican talking points are then used to make batshit claims and then turned into a point of profit for some grifter somewhere.
its truthiness at work. This is why even the dumb economists are looking at the Trump Tax Cut Plan and sigh. Its just corporate power metasticizing over all 3 branches of government. When Vance talks about democrats stripping the country for parts thats literally his game plan. He knows its unpopular so he says its not him doing it despite that was his previous job as a venture capitalist
This is absolute hogwash. Actual centrists bring up some Republican talking points (at least, the valid ones) when talking to a Democrat, because democrats don’t seem to understand them.
Surprise surprise, Republicans think centrists bring up Democratic talking points.
lmao even as you attempt to deny that centrists only spout republican talking points and take cheap shots at democrats you couldn’t help but imply that democrats are too dumb to understand the other side’s position while holding a neutral tone toward republicans in the very next sentence. Centrists can’t even hide their disingenuous nonsense when they’re trying to pass themselves off as the real victims. So just knock it off and climb down off your cross. Nobody’s buying it.
Surprise surprise, the Democrat thinks I was being neutral to the Republicans.
Buried in extremism.
I disagree with your main point. But the idiot reply you got does kind of support it. He literally did exactly what you said people do, and he didn’t even realize it, and he got loads of upvotes.
My counter to your main point is: lemmy is not reality. Lemmy is full of morons. Also, the entire right wing is full of morons. There is, however, a decent fraction of Democrats who are not morons, and they can tell centrists from right wingers pretending to be centrists. Most centrists are either pretenders, or they’re just woefully ignorant people. Sure you have the occasional true centrist who has actually throught about politics more than once in a blue moon (and it sounds like you’re one of those) but most are not like that.
My experience with both parties (and centrists) is that there are some (more rare) people who have solid reasons for their positions, and that so very much of the rest is chaff and regurgitation.
And yes, Lemmy is not reality. But there is a decent fraction of Republicans who aren’t morons, but Republicans are, by and large (with some notable exceptions), terrible at taking something they grasp intuitively, reasoning it out, and communicating that in a way that Democrats will understand.
I can get how people view this as being moronic. But the underlying intuitions are solid, and not prioritizing analytical thought over intuition allows them to hold to those intuitions well. Unfortunately, their entire party was hacked by mongers of Straussian philosophy. Strauss did a lot of “read between the lines and see the dark shit I’m actually saying”, and honestly, both parties suck at handling that, but the Republicans are way more susceptible, because they depend on viable leadership. The Republican leadership is basically a Straussian cult at this point. So despite the underlying intuitions that drive the Republican party being pretty solid, they are not really capable of dealing with a hacked leadership. Disinfo from their leadership fucks them.
In any case, while Democrats have their own issues that I believe to be just as fundamental, I can’t fault you for thinking Republicans are morons (though I strongly disagree).
I mean…you’re kinda arguing that stupidity is just a different form of intelligence here imo. It gets a little epistemological, but I can’t agree that “intuition” is a valid way for a sapient being to live their life.
Fair enough. Expect those folks to put up a fight.
Hey! I’m way left of Democrats, so I really don’t understand Republican talking points… Could you give an example of ones you would say are valid? It would do me some good to know they aren’t just out to cause suffering.
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
-
that borders do actually matter to the sovereignty of a country and that control over who and what crosses that border is a necessity,
-
countries need some kind of balanced budget to prevent hyperinflation and inevitable austerity,
-
the constitution should be protected and enforced equally for all amendments unless and until they are further amended or repealed, and
-
the Federal government should exist to provide for the defense of the country, protection of interstate and international commerce, and protection of the common good.
I happen to personally think that the best implementation for these points would be:
-
an overhaul of immigration policy is needed to increase legal immigration and decrease the time spent in that process to months or at least under 1-2 years with a pathway that allows current illegal immigrants to get in the back of that (actually useful and reasonably short) line,
-
countries cannot balance a budget like a household balances a checkbook because it doesn’t work like that and anyone who says otherwise is either economic-illiterate or a con artist,
-
First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments especially all need to be equally enforced and double especially on the police and the State (looking at you Civil Asset Forfiture, and your partner in crime Cash Bail), and
-
all of these functions would be best served with Universal Healthcare, Universal Education to an undergrad (Associates) level, Universal Basic Income replacing the existing welfare framework with no hoops or requirements or means testing, some form of Georgist land tax integration to help ensure the wealthy at least start to pay their fair share, and a heavy dose of monopoly busting and anti-trust enforcement to prevent billionaires from becoming a thing in the first place and prevent regulatory capture by capital at the very least.
Also religion has no business in government and fuck off with race/orientation/religious/etc discrimination. It is all class warfare from the elite and Reagan deregulation caused the death of the economy and the middle class.
This is why I consider myself a centrist, because the Right would have a conniption fit at most of those beliefs. The Left would have the same conniption fit that I also think that current border policies, the existence of sanctuary cities/states providing incentive, and worst of all the companies and people hiring and exploiting illegal labor due to insufficient availability, use, and enforcement of tools like e-verify (AKA the current status quo) is a shit show and the “left” shows too much weakness on this topic, I think the “open borders/a person cannot be illegal” crowd are dangerously misguided utopiasts, I support the personal right to keep and bear arms interpretation of 2A, support (not limited but also limited) Sates rights as useful ways to experiment with policy along with the original intention of the Senate and Electoral College, and think a decent amount of Left/Democrat ideology is unrealistic, counterproductive, or worse.
-
Really, it’s not so much the current taking points that make sense - although there are underlying truths and values that are being denied, that show up in current taking points.
And honestly, although things will be okay, I don’t have anything you’ll like to hear about the current situation.
In general, the biggest issue with the Republican Party is that it depends on good leadership. Like a monarchy, that’s great when you have a reasonable leader, and really shitty when you don’t.
Currently, the Republican corpus is having to come to terms with the failure of it’s leadership, and the loss of it’s underlying moral fortitude. A very large part of this is because the party has been effectively hacked, and has become a Straussian cult. The Democratic party is not immune to the spread of the underlying ideology, nor of the cult itself, but is impacted in less obvious (but no less problematic) ways.
While Strauss himself may have had some reasonable ideals, the consequences of the intersection of his methodology of teaching and his ideologies, by nature, create a kind of “you get it or you don’t” state of affairs, where much is implicit. He intentionally did this, because he wanted people to be capable of reading between the lines, and to be able to stand for true and valuable things that you can’t fully justify or comprehend analytically. Although some things must be implicit and be stood for even if they cannot be articulated, the consequences of intentionally creating a scenario where much is left to subtext in an environment (politics) where power is a main focus creates a problematic circumstance that is malignant and difficult to pin down in real-world conflict.
Not only is this complex of interactions difficult to pin down in real-world interactions, it is difficult to pin down internally, once you’ve genuinely been impacted by it. And so it can spread. And it has spread, in the Republican leadership. And they spread the discordant mixture of implicit behaviors to their constituents.
All of this is to say:
Republicans depend on good leadership, and their leadership is fucked right now. But that doesn’t mean the corpus of Republicans in general is actually fucky. They are being fucked too, and their fuckyness will right itself when a mentality comes about that is:
A: communicable implicitly and explicitly B: capable if seeing through the morass of the Straussian cult.
Meanwhile, many of the things that the Republican corpus actually cares about manifest in problematic ways, because their needs are no longer met by their leadership.
So if you’re looking to feel good about Republicans, don’t look at their leadership, or the maga asshats. Look at the very large body of people who has lost representation, and never has been good at having a public voice. Look at the fundamental Republican philosophies, which are, by and large, good. When they act out, tie it back to those philosophies and beliefs, and try to understand how it led to this, now.
One of the primary things the Republican party doesn’t do is look away from the fundamental necessity for power. This isn’t (generally) out of a desire for power, though that may be what manifests. Instead, it’s from a willingness to deal honestly in realities other people find distasteful. This is why they consider the Democratic corpus “weak” at times. But currently, that’s kinda fucking them, because they also can’t see an answer to the Straussian cult situation. They know, on some level, that something fundamentally important is being left out, but can’t find a way to get back to the moral foundation they had - the power has them. Their leadership knows how to point that unease at the wrong things.
The good thing is - getting to know your local Republican, and sorting through the emotions it brings up in you can help, because the fundamental issue is deeply psychological.
The bad thing is, nobody wants to do that, because it’s lots easier to just say “those guys suck” and “we’ll best them at the polls”. But unless the underlying issue is addressed, you’ll lose again. And then time will pass, and you’ll win, maybe, and then lose again. And each time, it will be shocking, and each time, a worse leader, and each time, the mentality and it’s supporting antithetical mentalities spread.
But, once people realize they can’t escape a thing, and it needs to be faced, they face it.
You could say this whole thing is a battle between (or a lack of capacity for mutual understanding by) the explicit and the implicit motivators.
You’re dead on but this place is an echo chamber.
Your first mistake was trying to inject logic and reason into a conversation controlled by two opposing factions of hyper-fanatic zealots. Your second mistake was assuming that people who willingly sign up to become mindless drones of the party are capable of higher level thought. Nice try tho, I respect the effort.
I have yet to see the trucks with an idolized Kamala Harris holding an American flag on them or even a single article of cultwear pushed out like the MAGA hat, so the Democrats are really slacking in their zealotry.
Zealotry comes in many forms. Of course you wouldn’t use anything that smacked of what the Republicans use, and vice versa. Different teams, and all.
I bow to your superior insight. I stand corrected.