Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists (NYT)

[PETRUS]

The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

<snip>

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

[Demsrule86]

1. That is ridiculous. what you think there will be a middle of the road coup?

Interesting article but kind of silly...

[Kirk Lover]

4. OMG I know...how absurd.

[Demsrule86]

11. ridiculous...a lefty who hates those he considers centrist...the date non-existent and twisted into

knots...we all know the far right loves Putin (fascist). And there is a certain amount of affection for Russia found in far left quarters as well.

[Hortensis]

22. Agree. For decades a loose centrist coalition of left and right

Americans protected Democracy and created widespread stability and wellbeing, and a significant factor in that was that this large relatively "centrist" majority kept extremism in check.

Note, this is also just an opinion piece. Not a NYT article that met editorial standards.

[Demsrule86]

23. I hadn't thought about the fact is is an opinion piece. Makes perfect sense because the

survey and statistics would garner an 'F' from any self respecting college professor. And the reason we have such instability now is the centrist coalition that gave us stability has eroded.

[Hortensis]

26. Spoiled my fun. Pushing for change supported by a few,

no matter how desirable and inevitable over time, instead of widespread agreement that brings electorates together, is an indulgence and/or duty for stable eras. We've shockingly, suddenly taken a very bad turn, and I now sound like the grandma I look like as I keep talking about the critical need to rebuild our center through moderation, cooperation and respect. Who'da thought?

But I didn't grow up in an era when everyone on right and left was being soaked in poisonous messages that our great society never was, nothing good to protect. I grew up before the new wave of conservatism took over, with its resultant national decline in wellbeing. The fix is so simple, getting there... We chose in 2016 to continue on our return to wellbeing started in 2008...

[Demsrule86]

27. I agree...without a center you have to extremes fighting it out to the death basically.

Bad for the country. I still believe there is a center...and that the noise machine on the far let and the far right is still a minority and in time will lessen in numbers...hope I am correct.

[Hortensis]

29. I agree mostly. Our mainstream factions have a lot more

in common than not, as before, but the fracture was engineered and is real. Reaction against the noise machines is showing up in the special and primary elections, so not a question of whether you're right but that "in time." We need it desperately for 2018.

The media certainly doesn't help by describing today's GOP caucuses as moderates and conservatives as if it were all relative. All moderates who wouldn't vote hard-core and go along with the corruption were purged some time ago, and many hard-core and even downright right-wing extremists took their place. Heck, traditional conservatism as a political force was itself purged from the GOP. It'd be helpful if conservatives knew that and belatedly started wondering and worrying about just what has replaced it.

[Demsrule86]

35. That is very true...all good points.

[Garrett78]

31. What do you consider "the center?"

What constitutes a "centrist" position? Without defining these terms, the discussion is essentially pointless.

[Demsrule86]

34. You are exactly right...which means neither could the author who made all these wild claims on

a 'center' that threatened Democracy.

[Garrett78]

36. Yet people are disputing the article without defining the terms.

[PETRUS]

37. Since I posted the OP, my thoughts about this (if you're interested):

For what it's worth, this struck me as an intentionally contrarian article, and I assumed the most/ common reaction would be rejection/disbelief (and some hostility). But I think there's something to it.

First, a few things about the terms "right," "left," and "center."

In my conversations with people (almost exclusively US citizens or residents), I've encountered a fair amount of confusion and disagreement over what constitutes "right" and "left." The definitions I use are the the definitions most commonly used by academic political scientists/political philosopher. In the fewest words possible: left-leaning is a preference for egalitarianism, right-leaning is a preference for hierarchy. But not everyone uses "left" and "right" that way. (I've spoken with liberals who consider themselves to be part of the left, but are more sympathetic to meritocracy than egalitarianism, and I've spoken with conservatives who think being right-wing means being supportive of "freedom," but
neither of those examples fit with the definitions of "right" and "left" as I understand them.)

In the US today, most major media uses "centrist" to describe a the range of policy preferences that have dominated for the last 40 years or so. But (if polling is to be believed), this does not represent the middle ground of American opinion. (It might represent the middle ground among people with significant political influence, though.) And what are the results of the policies? As Eric Levitz put it in an article I read earlier today, "In the United States today, the richest 0.1 percent of households command as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined; the average CEO collects 140
times as large a salary as his (or, very occasionally her) typical employee; the median white family is 12 times richer than the median black one; and the superrich can expect to live 15 years longer than the poor." If that's moderation, then ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery!

Keeping in mind that the survey asked people to place themselves on the political spectrum, I'm not sure we can count on the self-reporting to be particularly meaningful. But I think I can hazard a guess that the middle ground is largely people who are more or less happy with the status quo. Most people value stability, so unless their lives are a mess (and they blame politics), or have strongly-held moral convictions, they are likely to describe themselves as moderate or centrist.

( An aside, but relevant - I wonder how many people in 1930s German who supported Hitler would have described themselves as "moderate" or "centrist?" )

Going by the scholarly definitions of right and left, "democracy" is a leftist idea. (Assuming universal suffrage. If only a subset of the population - say whites, or males, or property owners, or the inner circle of a political party - has the right to vote, then that situation tilts right.) So I would expect the strongest support for democracy among sincere leftists. If my assumption about what "moderate" or "centrist" means to the average citizen, then I wouldn't be surprised if stability and continuity are more important to these moderates than democracy. Are "centrists" as defined by the media
and political leadership committed to democracy? I can't know what's in the hearts and minds of others, but the actions of the political class strike me as rather disrespectful of democracy. There is ample evidence that policy outcomes are driven more by the preferences of a wealthy minority than the preferences of voters.

The survey asked people place themselves on a spectrum from left to right, and the definitions are somewhat fuzzy. So that's something to consider. But after I gave it some thought, bits of which I've outlined above, the idea that "centrists" and "moderates" are not the strongest supporters of democracy is quite believable.

(PS. Have we not had a centrist coup? Perhaps that is indeed what has happened.)

[Demsrule86]

2. Also it is a survey.

[CanSocDem]

3. This is very true...

...and another good example of why people voted for Trump.

"One of the strongest warning signs for democracy has been the rise of populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies. But while these leaders have become more popular, it is unclear whether citizens explicitly support more authoritarian styles of government. I find, however, evidence of substantial support for a “strong leader” who ignores his country’s legislature, particularly among centrists. In the United States, centrists’ support for a strongman-type leader far surpasses that of the right and the left."

Also explaining what goes on around here at times.

.

[Demsrule86]

10. Where is the data to back up his assertion? He does't have any.

[Autumn]

5. I think to a large degree its true, it's an interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

rec

[Demsrule86]

9. True really ...did you read the assertions the author uses?

[Autumn]

17. Yes I did read it, I also understood it just fine. Your opinion may differ.

[Demsrule86]

18. It does differ. I consider this article ridiculous...he should stick to writing about his wife

the interior decorator...clearly an agenda at work here.

[Demsrule86]

21. I would also say that statistics is based on math, it can not be a matter of opinion.

As another poster noted. His work has nothing to back it up. His power point is good and that is about all.

[PETRUS]

45. My initial reaction was "wtf?"

But after pondering, I changed my position. Glad to see at least a few people thought there might be some truth there.

(PS. See post #37 for my thoughts.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. K and R

[PETRUS]

44. Thanks. nt

[NCTraveler]

7. Interesting read filled with highly questionable assertions.

"campus radicals and the so-called antifa"

Damn near non-existent. The whole point falls apart on that alone.

The author must also have not been around for the seventies and eighties.

The author tells us that in North America the two wings are gaining yet "North America, support for democracy is in decline" because of centrists. The author contradicts themselves.

Lastly, the author is using some interesting methods to extract data from two other surveys in order to get the info he wants. Solid in expert practice, poorly done here.

[Demsrule86]

8. Exactly, he devil is in the details.

I read how to lie with statistics when I was in college...this seems real close...manipulation of data and all.

[NCTraveler]

12. I loved my statistical analysis class is business school.

I was a bit taken back at how poorly I was reading, and how often I was fooled by, information provided in charts.

The simplicity in the methods of deception in charts is pretty impressive.

Then there was diving a little deeper in to how people extrapolated data for their own use. Expertly done and it is a great way to go. Not so much here.

[Demsrule86]

19. I felt the same way. I was almost embarrassed by how easily I was manipulated. I loved statistics

and was very surprised how simple it really is...yeah I know it can be very complicated too...but at its core it is pretty easy to understand. I tried some of those methods in my Analytical Chemistry class and was told by my instructor to 'stop the shit unless I had a strong desire to repeat the course'. He later told me when I worked for him that he and the other Chem professors had a good laugh at my futile attempts but admired my initiative....haha.

[OilemFirchen]

15. From his limited bio, it would appear that he was barely around in the aughts.

Masters in Philosophy, 2017.

Is there evidence that he understands statistical science? Certainly not this. Where, for example, are the standard deviations? How does he determine probability? There are no references to even the most basic statistical variables in the entirety of his "paper".

His hypothesis is clearly based upon nothing more than achieving an outcome. IOW, utter garbage.

He does do Powerpoint well, so there's that.

[Demsrule86]

20. His powerpoint was admirable, the rest no so much.

[PETRUS]

38. Maybe I can learn something from you.

I don't have a background in statistics. Will you explain the problems with the authors methodology? I assume you read the working paper (linked in the article). The other objections you mentioned suggest that you read sloppily or hastily.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I wonder if this is because centrists are less likely to pick the most definite options

That is, the kind of person who places themselves in the middle of a left-right spectrum may not go for "agree strongly", "very good", "very bad" or "essential (10 on a scale of 1 to 10)" for various things. Because that's what he measures, almost all the time. His paper is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fOGwtRUF-y-98IcDs-3YYrtREl8GbaoH/view

[Uncle Joe]

30. Whether he intended it to or not I believe G.W. Bush's quote comes into play in regards

to centrism's long term effect on our societies, that being "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

"We can't change it's too difficult, expensive or politically costly."

Considering that centrism's primary goals or strategies are lukewarm to liberalism's or conservatism's highest ideals in subservience to pragmatism, staying in power becomes the most pragmatic thing you can do or an end unto itself.

In order to maintain this power centrism requires continually adapting to or ceding ground to opposing idealism if there is no strong counter force.

This is not to say that pragmatism doesn't have its' place or isn't needed for consideration but as conditions on the ground in societies evolve/devolve the equations change while pragmatism stays fixed or at best lags behind.

In this sense centrism stays in an ever shrinking comfort zone box.

It's idealism that lifts the people up or emotionally moves them as it connects to their everyday lives if one party preaches idealism or populism while the other predominately promotes pragmatism the latter will inevitably suffer from entropy or disconnection from the people.

When the status quo or moneyed interests aka; powers that be feel threatened by too much democracy or emphasis on the public good at their own personal expense they will for the most part back a more authoritarian figure even if that person is at odds with their fundamental beliefs.

I'm reminded of Hindenburg, there was no strong liberal middle class opposing force in Germany when he ceded power to Hitler, he was just being pragmatic.

[PETRUS]

39. I think you have a point.

I sort of addressed that in post #37. Not exactly, but I had some thoughts along those general lines.

[kwassa]

14. This conclusion is completely implausible.

Authoritarianism has always been a feature of the extremes.

[PETRUS]

40. See post #37 for my thoughts, if you care. nt

[OilemFirchen]

16. No soup for...

woo!

[CanSocDem]

24. The truth of this of this theory...

...is clearly evident in this thread. Known centrists desperately pleading innocence, attacking the messenger and quietly sitting back waiting for another opportunity to attack the progressive voices of Bernie Sanders, Naomi Klein etc. for being out of touch.

It sounds as though they are happy the way things are now.


.

[PETRUS]

46. Thanks for the reply.

"...happy the way things are now." Is what I decided makes a good working definition for "centrist" or "moderate" in most cases. See post #37.

[ck4829]

25. K&R

[blake2012]

28. Bullshit

[PETRUS]

41. Maybe, but maybe not. See post #37. nt

[mcar]

32. This is a really dumb op-ed

by some random researcher. NY Times continues its suspect articles/columns.

[PETRUS]

42. I don't have much faith in the NYT either...

But nor do I think this is as outrageous as you and others seem to think. See post #37.

[Garrett78]

33. Without defining the terms, this discussion is essentially pointless.

What constitutes a "centrist" position in the US? Answers will vary, but I'm curious if those posting comments have even considered that question.

That said, I'm always flabbergasted when I read about undecideds. I'm not talking about so-called independents (studies have made clear that most of them are very partisan and simply like calling themselves independent). I'm talking about those who, as an election approaches, are reportedly undecided. That's dumbfounding to me.

[PETRUS]

43. The vagueness of the terms is a real issue...

But I don't think it renders discussion pointless. See post #37.