Politics of the center. What is it?

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from one extreme to the other, and back again only to repeat.

But where does the pendulum rest? Well, an actual pendulum, it rests upon arrival at the center. I feel this is a great metaphor for the political forces of the right and the left.

But, to reach the center, once we figure out where that center is, I believe we must do it deliberately, as, without deliberation, the pendulum will continue to swing. There is disharmony and disfunction when the pendulum never rests. The trick is to put it to rest, in the center. in Russia and China it has swung too far to the right. With Trump, it was swinging far to the right, but the electorate said NO, and chose Biden. But, we have to be wary of swinging too far to the left, as well. So, let's define things.

So, the place where the equilibrium of both forces are achieved is in the center.

Now, this is not to be confused with 'centrism' as a political ideology, so what it is is the right balance of socialism and capitalism. So let me define what I mean by these things. I mean a government run enterprise is a socialistic enterprise, and a privately run enterprise is a capitalistic enterprise. Most western nations ( if not all of them ) are mixed economies, various ratios of both.

That's how I am defining them here. There are other definitions, and the wiki entry on socialism is 150 pages long, so let's keep it simple. Many on the right accuse democrats of being 'socialist' in the hope people will associate this with the totalitarian countries, and thus reject it and vote for republicans, This is not being truthful, of course, because no democrat favors anything to do with totalitarianism, contrary to what many on the right are asserting. But, that's another argument.

Now then. I'm going to make some opinionated declarations, based on my empirical observation of history.

Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse.

Capitalism, without socialism, will devour itself.

So the trick is to understand what each does the best, and let each do just that.

It's a public enterprise versus private enterprise thing.

A public enterprise works better for what I will call, 'the negative markets'.

What do I mean by that?

These are things we need, and needs are things we absolutely must have, though we may, or may not want them.

Okay, you don't want your house to be on fire, so we need a fire department to deal with it

You don't want someone to steal or rob you or murder you, so we need to have a \ police, sheriff, and FBI to deal with such things.

We don't want foreign countries to attack us, so we need a military to deal with it.

Now, there are a few areas that can be done by both government and private, such as education.

Public education is the guarantee that everyone will be educated, poor or affluent. Private education is not denied for anyone who can pay for it.

So, it's mostly things we do not want, but need someone to deal with it, or public service for those who cannot afford the service, but which service is needed for everyone in order to achieve a literate, educated, nourished and healthy citizenry. This could include health care, food and housing, though all of these will have a large private counterpart.

And, on the other side of the equation, we have what I will call 'the positive markets' these are things we want, such as shoes, clothes, cars, cars washed, carpets cleaned, lawns mowed, toys, goodies, food, boats, jewelry stuff we want and desire for our happiness, etc.

So, public enterprise, negative markets ( mostly), things we need (socialism)
private enterprise, positive markets ( mostly ) things we want. (capitalism)

In short:

Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

Note that there are shades of grey, and options for one or the other. The concept of 'socialism for needs, and capitalism for wants' is not a rigid concept, adjustments can be made, depending on the wants of the electorate. It is a starting point, a guiding principle, a point of reference for clarity when things get foggy.

One country might favor government run critical and strategic services, such as post, railroad, and banking, healthcare, and another country these privately run, noting that in the vast majority of the 50 or so western countries, the health care model is some variant of universal health care.

And the dynamics of public enterprises are quite different than a private enterprise.

With a private enterprise, you must reward productivity and penalize non-productivity, and you must do this or go out of business.

But, with a nation, a public enterprise, the dynamics are different. If you penalize the poor, and overly reward the rich too much, and penalize the poor too much for too log, whereupon the government becomes oppressive and caters to the rich, you could wind up with masses of people with pitchforks marching Washington, you could wind up with revolutions, and the outcomes of revolutions are never good. We demand, much more so, accountability and transparency of our public servants much more so than of our private entrepeneurs. Try doing a FOIA request on a corporation. Now, nothing is perfect, as it is written, the Declaration of Independence did not declare America to be a perfect union, only that we try and be a more perfect union. And yes, there is corruption, but it knows no borders between the public and private, and this is a subject for a nother thread, I'm dealing with philosophical concepts here.

( there is the grey area of the non -profit corporation, which is a hybrid, but I will not get into this here )

You've never heard these terms (negative and positive markets ) because I just made them up, to illustrate a concept. So, don't hark back and say you've never heard of them. Of course you haven't, I've coined the ideas to illustrate my political philosophy.

So, the idea is, socialism for individual needs and needs of society, and capitalism for individual wants, and wants of society.

So, the idea isn't a centrist philosophy, the idea is the right balance of socialism
( government run enterprises ) and capitalism, ( privately run enterprises, and this includes corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, independent contractors), i.e., the idea is NOT to do away with either side of the pendulum, but achieve an equilibrium of both political forces. Finding the sweet spot, is what it is all about ( for me, anyway ) and that is the eternal struggle between the right and left, and there yes yet to be one leader who understands it fully, let alone explain it well to the electorate, so that everyone can agree on it.


That is the general idea of my political philosophy, and, as such, it is not really a socialist philosophy, because true socialism is the pendulum too far to the left, where it will ultimately fail. All the way to the right is total anarchy which will never be anarchy, it will be an plutocracy/oligarchy because, in a libertarian world, capital will find it flowing to fewer and fewer hands, and power controlled by fewer and fewer people. So, this is why I don't agree with conservatives and libertarians.

This can be true, (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) in a different way, in terms of central control, with communism/socialism and too far to the left, as evidenced by Soviet Russia, Cuba, N Korea, etc.

However, in my view, the farthest and safest place away from both extremes is the most inert point, and that is the center. Because that is the ONLY place the pendulum can rest.

The trick is, where, exactly, is the center? That is where the real debate is.

For me, America will not achieve it without universal health care, allowing for private insurance for those who prefer it.

 

You've obviously spent some time and effort at putting together your thesis, and I congratulate you on that. So a few observations:

"Left" and "Right" are benchmarks that we've had since the French Revolution, and by and large they've served us well. But I suspect that:

a) they may be breaking down

b) are not clearly defined

For example, "...With Trump, it was swinging far to the right." Now do you think Trump was more to the "right" than the other GOP candidates in 2016? Was he further right than Cruz, Rubio, or Jeb? And in what way? They way I would view it, Trump was the least right-leaning version running in the primaries that year. If anything, his platform was more 1980's labor Democrat than anything else. My point is that these right/left definitions are not that firm and when establishing a thesis, it's usually a good idea to define your terms right from the start; beginning with how you intend to use right and left.

 

Trump is not really left or right. The pendulum swung away from him more due to his pathology, than his policies. As long as Trump was firmly against illegal immigration and a staunch supporter of gun rights , he could have done pretty much anything else he wanted and the hard right would have followed him pretty much anywhere. Others who were more centrist, couldn’t handle his psychosis any more.

 

Interesting comments...Particularly about his mental instability.

IMHO.....It is not so much not being able to deal with his nonsense ( nuttiness)........as seeing that his pathology was a detriment to doing the very responsible job of POTUS. He acted like a buffoon. , as opposed to a proper statesman. He has absolutely no insight into how his words and behavior affect others...........and does not seem to care. That is a negative in that job. .......regardless of any party preference or affiliation.

Competence is what matters.

Folks who are more centrist seem to have a more objective and logical view of the issues. (or as logical as one can.....when it comes to politics. The idea o f a centrist ideology seems to have a lot of merit ......eg: it can be a combination of the best of both current parties. with its own unique features.

 

Trump is out for himself.

 

The republican party, as a whole, has shifted so far to the right is is practically off the chart.

 

My own position resonates a lot with the OP.

 

Nice post. I don't particularly disagree with any of it in so far as it goes. But there are a couple of things to note.

1: And just because you made a point of saying that you made them up and don't holler about never having heard of such. There is such a thing as negative and positive markets. You're just using them in a different way than they are normally used for.

2: The pendulum can never rest. That's just a simple fact of life. It can never rest because there are too many subjective things in life. Everyone has an opinion that is unique to themselves. And although they may find people with similar opinions, they will never find anyone with the same exact opinion, which would be required for complete rest of the pendulum like you wish for. For instance my kids asked me what was worse, rape or murder. My son said murder. My daughter said rape. I told them its subjective and threw in serial murderers as an example vs a murderer who killed someone because they found out that X person had raped their daughter long after the deed had been done. When I did that my son paused, but still ended up with murder as being worse, my daughter never did and still insists that rape is worse. Those are two things that one would think common ground could be had. Yet all three of us still had differing opinions.

I commend you on what you want. But it simply isn't possible. The best we can hope for is to limit how far the pendulum swings in either direction. Not too far right. Or too far left.

 

Politics of the center. What is it?

Undecided.

 

It can be achieved actually, not perfectly, but we can do better, and what will go on is not whether it has, when it is, it's just that I suspect that that debate will continue more with those on the far right, and far left. You are right in that it will never be perfect, but, we can do better, in my view, but there will be continued discontent, which is only because of the extremes on both sides will never be happy. I think in time, they will calm down as they see the wisdom of balance.

 

Personally, I do not like labels. All too often after that label is applied, a person is put into a category which does not fit. Where that pendulum is now and where it is heading is a fools errand. It tends to depend on what you believe is important.

I don't like Trump as a person, but like much of what he does. I like Biden as a person, but do not like much of what he has done and do not trust him. I don't like Harris as a person or what I fear she might do as president.

Politics is a compromise. If anyone is completely happy with a single candidate, they are likely more driven by politics than the person itself.

 

To say you don't like labels is just like saying you don't like calling the color blue, blue, and the color, red, red.

Colors exist. The political spectrum exists, and understanding it will help, not hinder, in the management of, and design of, public policy.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I do not like labels for the reasons I gave. When you put that label on them, it is nearly automatic to assign all characteristics associated with that label when many, if not most may not apply.

 

Not at all. In any spectrum, there are hues with varying degrees of intensity, characteristics. When speaking of left or right, it is common
to be more specific, and the references are common.

 

That is not what I am talking about. When you put a label on people, the tendency is to assume they have characteristics based on that label whether they posses those characteristics or not. Therefore, I tend not to label people..

 

I think my user name speaks for itself...

 

Your statement, in essence, means nothing when you are not defining your terms. It sounds like your definition of left and right breaks down like this:

left: Things I like

Right: Things I hate.

Maybe you could explain in what way the Republican party has shifted right in the past 20 or 30 years? I'm not seeing it.

 

Bingo. His political philosophy is amorphous, to say he believes in anything he thinks can get him in power.

 

I'm not labeling anyone, I talking philosophically about the spectrum, and the polar forces of politics are very real.

 

Not true. Dems propose stuff I think is wrong, and it's still on the left.

Look at the republican platform of 1956, and see if you can figure it out:

 

Most Republicans say the same thing about the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the left. Its all become so polarized and tribal, It’s hard to have any respect for either party.

 

In order to vote in the 1956 election, you would have to have been born in 1935 or earlier and you would be 84 today. That was during the Eisenhower administration. A totally different time. There were no wars and the economy was in pretty good shape. A number of those are not as they would appear today.
2. Protect Social Security. Increase the payments and/or increase the social security age. They were already realizing that the social security program was not self sustaining.
3. Provide asylum for refugees. That was real refugees, not just a flood of illegals through our border.
4. Improve unemployment benefits. Along with that was to make it more self sustaining.
5. Equal pay for equal work did not mean equal pay for man and woman. It was strictly equal pay for equal work.

 

"Universal health care" is a death sentence unless we solve the issue of subsidizing illness.Center for me is minimized government interference and not forcing beliefs onto others.

 

The pendulum is indeed a good analogy, but it swings on a plane, not a line. At rest is voluntaryism (some would call it anarchy...). Force is required to get the pendulum swinging just as it is required to prevent anarchy. The more force applied to the pendulum in any direction, the more force it swings back with. The 'left' and the 'right' are in a pushing war, each trying to push the pendulum toward the other with more and more force. If continued, eventually either the tether will snap or the pendulum will fully orbit its anchor. Either of these is more likely bad than good.

 

You've done a good job outlining your philosophy and you've noted, in particular, this one are where you think the government needs to get more involved in a sector of our economy to balance things. I'm curious if there are areas you think the government needs to be less involved, to take a step back and let private enterprises handle things they're currently trying to do, and doing poorly. What would those areas be, in your view, where we need the government to do less?