Goldilocks Should Stay out of Politics
– Krishya Nema (FY Bsc)
Estimated Reading Time: 9 minutes
Source: google
BLAH BLAH STARTS HERE:
If I had my way, I’d stuff Centrism in a punching bag and beat it to death. The “middle ground” is a myth. One that we need to stop believing, immediately. What is the problem? Where is this aggression coming from? I’ll give you a hint: not from the centrists.
Centrism refers to a political ideology that lies neither left, nor right, but rather finds a spot in the middle. If this reminds you of Goldilocks, then I’d like to point out that while Goldilocks unabashedly terrorized the home of those poor bears, centrists knowingly (or unknowingly) terrorize planet Earth.
GROUNDWORK:
To understand the monkey in the middle, we must first set a basic understanding of the “extremes.” The political compass stands to be a general guideline for the categorization of political thought. While it has several flaws, we can use it to understand several ideologies at a surface level.
Right-wing political ideology, as held by the ruling party in our nation, centers around conservative beliefs such as natural socio-economic hierarchies and nationalism, which further propagates their opinions regarding authority, property, and wealth.
Contrary to popular belief, left-wing ideas do not mean “government do more.” They comprise a large and diverse stream of thought in which the ideas of fraternity and egalitarianism take the wheel, largely opposing the views of the right-wing.
Such a brief description is NOT enough to summarize two opposing ideologies, but it sets the groundwork for understanding centrism. Another heavily watered-down way of understanding left or right is by assessing who wants how much change. The right prefers reverting to the old, or not changing at all, while the left proposes revolutionary change.
THE ISSUES:
Think of centrists like the “liberal” aunt at a family gathering. Their moderate political views more often than not encompass the social ideologies of the left-wing and economic ideas of the right-wing. This means that they want women of color in the workplace, but maybe not the illegal immigrants, and they support the LGBTQ community, but maybe not THEIR kid, and maybe we should tax the rich, but there’s no need to shoot CEOs. One of the biggest arguments in favor of centrism is the horseshoe theory.
The horseshoe theory is about as realistic as the academic comeback we’ve convinced ourselves is “right around the corner.” It essentially states that ideas that lie on opposite ends of the spectrum, when taken to “extremes”, end up having more in common with each other than the ideas at the center. In simple terms, think of the spectrum of taste. Let’s take opposing sides to be salty and sweet. Anything that’s far too salty or far too sweet will result in an unpleasant experience for someone’s taste buds, but finding balance in the middle is just right. While it seems sensible enough, this logic cannot be applied to politics.
The first issue with this argument is that you cannot encompass the political spectrum of thought to lie in one straight line. Sure, the political compass gives us two axes; however, this is as relevant to political categorization as BMI is to health indicators. People that haven’t read or understood political theory often popularize the horseshoe theory by comparing Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany. (Insert vomit emoji)
It is also due to this lack of understanding of political theory that centrists believe that they can pick and choose ideas from both the left and the right by “individually” analyzing each argument. You cannot compromise on things such as equality and human dignity. You cannot argue for the existence of private corporations that destroy third-world countries to make a profit (Shell) and simultaneously advocate for those whose lives have been destroyed (Nigeria). The delusional idea that you can advocate for women’s rights and also restrict their bodily autonomy, right to life, and right to safety cannot and SHOULD NOT subsist.
Interestingly put by Rebecca Solnit, the notion that all left/right-wing thought exists as a deviation from the unbiased, untouched center, itself is a bias. Furthermore, what is an “extreme” is subject to pre-existing notions of class and society. In fact, we are ALL extremists. The middle ground between left and right narratives cannot exist.
It is often found that centrists condemn the left for its “violent” means of bringing about change. Strikes and armed protests “take it too far” for the moderate, it is only systemic brutality that gets a pass because that’s just “the way things are.” It is for this reason that Centrists end up fighting to maintain the status quo. By playing to the bipartisan politics of compromise, progressive change is slowed down to a trickle.
Source: google
Ironically, the centrist, more often than not, does not believe in the “center” of the political spectrum. In most countries where two main political parties occupy the front stage, be that America or India, the “centrist” finds himself supporting A. neither party or B. a mix of both of their proposed ideologies. The irony here is that more often than not, the party ideologies do not oppose each other, it is not a battle of “left vs. right,” but rather two parties on the same side of the political spectrum. These parties agree on the basic framework of how socio-economic systems should function but have different ways of appeasing their voters and implementing policies. Thus the centrist viewpoint is largely shaped by finding the middle ground of two very similar streams of political thought. In this way the centrist finds a way to maintain the status quo yet again.
Another issue lies in the abject need to “hear out both sides.” People in power stay in power when they dictate the flow of public thought; they change our language so that they may change our perceptions. This is exactly what we refer to when we speak of media biases. In a world where one perspective has systemic support and the other does not, the media often equalizes two clearly unmatched arguments. By pitting climate scientists and climate change deniers against each other on TV, it is falsely perpetrated that these two parties are of equal credibility and stature. Which is OBSCENE to put it lightly. To do the same with anti-abortionists and feminists, homophobes against the LGBTQIA+ community, and white supremacists against people of color is a direct tactic that shifts the overall narrative to one side. It is socially and morally justifiable to treat these opposing arguments unequally because one of them is OBJECTIVELY correct and the other is talking out of its ass.
In fancier words, one may also call this a form of shifting the Overton window. The Overton window refers to a range of socially acceptable ideas with radical or outlandish ideas pushed towards the edges. If the aim of TV debates is to have a yelling match between two radical oppositions then by equating a scientist and a climate change denier we place scientific fact and evidence in the realms of the extreme. The centrist belief in avoiding extremes continually shifts the Overton window further and further right. As the window shifts right, so does the centrist need to remain “in the center.” This leads to growing support for right-wing policies and legislation pulling nations backwards on the path to progress.
An issue adjacent to the matter of centrists is the threat of people who claim to be “apolitical.” People who genuinely believe they can spend the entirety of their lives without “getting into dirty politics” are one of, if not THE, worst people on the planet. I do not say this jokingly. Yes, this world houses the criminal and the unkind but it also houses the ignorant. Ignorance often causes more pain than outright bigotry. As long as someone exists in a political society, they cannot estrange themselves to live in an imaginary apolitical world.
BLAH BLAH ENDS HERE:
You do not have to be subject to oppression to understand that there exists an oppressed and an oppressor. I urge you to stop treating politics like a chore or a one-way ticket to getting cancelled. You are allowed to disagree, and to fight, and to argue. You are allowed to change your perceptions, learn, and formalize your own judgements. You are NOT allowed to remain ignorant and complacent to the woes of this earth.
The middle ground is a myth, because compromise cannot run the world, and while life is not a zero-sum game, politics often is. Centrism often supports the status quo, which can make it challenging to implement necessary policy changes and address pressing issues. If that’s where your opinions lie, then I would like to remind you that “wisdom has been chasing you, but you have always been faster,” so slow down a little.