By centrist, I mean either centre-left or centre-right, not fully centrist. I understand that being a pure centrist is pretty much impossible, but sliding into authoritarianism is the worst thing that can happen (and it’s already happening around the world tbh). Both far-left and far-right have shown they only have repression in mind, and they all benefit the elites instead of the public. There’s nothing perfect in either political system, but at least the centrist forces do allow some criticism if it means it will make things better imo.
And yet in the US at least, extremism won out over the centrist option, I would argue, because the centrist option was TOO centrist, and people were sick of it.
@Reverendender This is what happens when you only provide two options on the ballot - the left and the right (not to mention the president is also the executive). In much of the rest of the democratic world, systems allow for the existence of multiple political parties, so that people have where to choose from. Usually, no single party holds the majority, so forces have to form coalitions in order to form a government. This has the effect of a better representation, as extremist views are usually held only by a small minority of a population (see for example the coalition in the EU Parliament, which is leaving the far-right political families on the side).
There is a flip-side to it, indeed, where a situation like the one in France can occur - where the parliament is almost evenly split between the political groups - i.e. the center, the left and the far right. This could lead to political crises, as it makes coalition negotiations harder, but I think it is still a better outcome than having the far-right get in full control of the government.
The US political system was thought out in a way to keep extremist forces away from the mainstream, which was a good intention, but the architects of this system didn’t think about the possibility of at least one of these political forces (i.e. the right in this case) to slide into authoritarianism and extremism.
I saw some opinions on the internet about the fact that there are still some Republicans who do not agree with the MAGA movement, but they’re pretty much unable to do anything - MAGA has closed the ranks in the entire GOP leadership and at this point it is pretty much impossible to overthrow it.
That sounds promising, but you still need someone to implement it. And once they’re in power, we’re not sure whether that person will hold their power or if they’ll be happy to give up on it.
And their true face is fucking ugly.
Who can support the horrid state of things. Give me a progressive over a centrist any day.
You’re aussie, aren’t ya?
By centrist, I mean either centre-left or centre-right, not fully centrist. I understand that being a pure centrist is pretty much impossible, but sliding into authoritarianism is the worst thing that can happen (and it’s already happening around the world tbh). Both far-left and far-right have shown they only have repression in mind, and they all benefit the elites instead of the public. There’s nothing perfect in either political system, but at least the centrist forces do allow some criticism if it means it will make things better imo.
And yet in the US at least, extremism won out over the centrist option, I would argue, because the centrist option was TOO centrist, and people were sick of it.
@Reverendender This is what happens when you only provide two options on the ballot - the left and the right (not to mention the president is also the executive). In much of the rest of the democratic world, systems allow for the existence of multiple political parties, so that people have where to choose from. Usually, no single party holds the majority, so forces have to form coalitions in order to form a government. This has the effect of a better representation, as extremist views are usually held only by a small minority of a population (see for example the coalition in the EU Parliament, which is leaving the far-right political families on the side).
There is a flip-side to it, indeed, where a situation like the one in France can occur - where the parliament is almost evenly split between the political groups - i.e. the center, the left and the far right. This could lead to political crises, as it makes coalition negotiations harder, but I think it is still a better outcome than having the far-right get in full control of the government.
The US political system was thought out in a way to keep extremist forces away from the mainstream, which was a good intention, but the architects of this system didn’t think about the possibility of at least one of these political forces (i.e. the right in this case) to slide into authoritarianism and extremism.
I saw some opinions on the internet about the fact that there are still some Republicans who do not agree with the MAGA movement, but they’re pretty much unable to do anything - MAGA has closed the ranks in the entire GOP leadership and at this point it is pretty much impossible to overthrow it.
Anarchism is a far left movement and it is very much the opposite of repression or benefiting the elite instead of the public.
That sounds promising, but you still need someone to implement it. And once they’re in power, we’re not sure whether that person will hold their power or if they’ll be happy to give up on it.
Removed by mod
The problem is that the Left can’t agree on where the centre is.