I have found that Centrism (not the Marxist definition) is the best form of Political thought and arguably the greatest characteristic of any government (namely democracy, if you can call anywhere in the West truly 'democratic'). I espouse this view manily becuase it chooses the middle ground, that is it tries in the best way possible to appease all sides and thus form the best decision. Now while you do need 'crazies' on both sides, Moderates tend to take the best from both in order to fulfill a decision.

Many on both sides of the political spectrum (no matter what country you are in) would say that moderates/centrists lack a backbone, they cannot stick to one political philosophy. To this I say that many are foolish to think that one 'set in stone' ideology can offer all the anwsers. Take for example the current financial crisis that is confronting us allegedly. On the Left they point to a lack of regulation while on the Right they point to too much regulation as the fundamental causes. Looking at the crisis I would argue that it is a combination of the two and a plethora of events to which none can agree. The Left say it is the 'War on Terrorism' while the Right say it is the environmentalists/Democrats/hippies and their over regulation and excessive tax and spend philosophy. However from an analytical viewpoint it is quite obvious that it is a combination of all these factors that is causing the 'crisis'.

The point I am trying to get across here is that people who are so entrenched in their chosen ideology most of the time refuse to accept that sometimes they are wrong and that maybe their dreaded enemies on the other side of the spectrum might have a viable alternative. The average voter has a chosen set of ideals and will not compromise them for whatever reason. This is a fundamental flaw in democracy or any government and that is why it is necessary to have people like me who point out the problems with every viewpoint. While it does make you unpopular with many, I hope that enlightening them will bring some epiphany to these people that maybe everything isn't a us vs. them world. I personally believe that Humanity works best when we organise and use everyones viewpoint in order to make the best decision instead of a strict doctrine. That's why most of you will find yourself at odds with me most of the time and why I believe in pure, unadulterated democracy not this Dynastic/Oligarchal nonsense we try to pass off here in most of the West.

I think Churchill said it best though:

'The greatest argument against Democracy is a talk with the average voter'

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

There is no definite answer when it comes to right and left. I would think the best choice for a free democracy is between the center and the libertarian side. You should try to get as close to the libertarian side as possible without making it uncomfortable. It will ensure a descent but low level of government intervention and allow people to live freely aswell as safely.

__________________
Left sucks! so visit our new group! Obama is a Joke!

I don't know, living in England for any amount of time will convince anyone that centrism can be a bit of a disaster. Here, the 3 big parties have identical politics (neo-liberal economics with conservative social policies, which for some reason is considered centrist) and just dither about a few meaningless issues to appease the media, all the while ignoring what people care fundamentally about. It has lead to a crisis in our parliamentary system because all policy comes from the top of the parties, all dissenting MPs who represent smaller constituencies are ignored and if they vote against the parties their careers are at risk. This leads people to go to the extreme left and right, igniting hundreds of myths about immigration, globalization, crime and so on.

It's important to have multi-party platforms if you want stability in government but, more importantly, in the economy. In the UK, we have a half-hearted public sector and a ruthless private sector. This works for a while, but as always when a recession comes their is no safety net. Our healthcare is in the process of being privatized, against the will of the public (even the most right-wing of us) and our welfare programs get people out of poverty but don't give them anywhere to go; so I think it's better diffuse power to the lowest level to achieve a higher form of democracy, rather than making all the parties 'moderate'

Centrism is the problem the West faces. The centre is the battleground for all political parties in the West that are serious about being elected to government. It's now a question of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Essentially the same policies but just dusted over a bit with a faint trace of ideology to sucker the voters into thinking that any party seeking government is different from another. The problem with centrism is that there's no progress. Parties seek to replicate one another, maybe seeking out a slight differentiation but no so much that it scares the electorate that is increasingly been instructed to seek the moderate middle. "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was". It's gutless politics and it only encourages careerist politicians who want a nice sinecure.

And we're all culpable of approving of it.

I don't view centrism as a valid ideology.
For one thing, it assumes that the popular ideologies are the extremes, making it an extremely relative "ideology".

But really what it is is that "compromise" is a single belief... not an ideology in and of itself. I'm a liberal and I believe in compromise. That doesn't mean I don't also believe I should fight for my own ideals and my opposition their own.
Centrism is a point that is reached through battle, not a thing to strive for from the beginning.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I've long thought that the person should create the ideology instead of the ideology creating the person, but the latter seems the more typical way people go about things. They decide "I'm going to be a such and such", and then go about the business of conforming to the dictates of such bolstered by others advancing the same views. It's all an exercise in conformism no matter the professed ideology in that the replication of memes takes precedence over a more self-directed view of the world. I see ideology as filling an identity need, especially among those who have no tribal affiliation otherwise. Their ideology IS their tribe.

I wouldn't say centrism is something to aspire to or value in and of itself, necessarily, but challenging prevailing orthodoxy should. People should build their political ideology upon the values they hold and those values should remain consistant rather than settling upon an ideology and then having to rationalize their values accordingly.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

I think the thing is that the relationship between a person and an ideology is not one-directional.
I don't think you can normally find two people with the same ideology who agree with all the same ideas. But ideology does form a paradigm. There is a certain logic behind each ideology and certain key assumptions. That is what tends to be shared and tends to make changes in the individual.
I tend to think centrism lacks innovation because it attempts to avoid ideology... but since all goals for society are ideological in nature, I think this just causes them to lose sight of their own underlying assumptions... which are typically more conservative or liberal.

Going along with policy no matter what is more a sign of partisanship... which more closely resembles tribalism or sports team loyalty. Parties contain competing ideological groups and base most of their policies on strategy and winning. To me that's a whole other ball game.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I don't think you can find anyone who is centrist/moderate on *all* issues. It's more of a description than an ideology.

Further, all "centrist" means is they don't subscribe to the binary "one extreme or the other are the only choices" logic of partisans. There's no logical reason why any given issue can only have two choices. Or why a given "issue" is the proper framing for thinking about the underlying situation.

For example, on immigration. To hear the partisans tell it, the only valid solutions are either "spend whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration completely" or "we should stop being racists and start welcoming immigrants of all kinds, legal or illegal."

A centrist in this case is simply someone who looks at the two extremes and says "those are both stupid."

An even better example is affirmative action. Conventional wisdom says there are only two correct choices. Either "Scrap it, it's racist" or "We must retain it because society is still keeping minorities down."

Me, I look at affirmative action and say, "Why is it based on race instead of class?" So I reject both extremes, but not because I'm simply splitting the difference out of some congenital or ideological need for compromise; it's because I see a third way that isn't on the blinkered spectrum that has been drawn for me.

Partisans despise moderates precisely because they don't understand them, since partisans see only the binary choices they have drawn for themselves. But that's a weakness of partisans, not moderates.

__________________
Man up.

But I think of this as either being a liberal idea that does not match with the mainstream "liberal" ideas... or else as a pragmatic attempt to reach compromise and avoid deadlock.
Either way it doesn't suggest an ideology.

I think there are some people (I see this commonly in the not-so-informed people I tend to work with at every job) who seem to think centrism is an ideology all its own and take it too far.

By some definitions I'm a centrist. But I just don't see the title as sensible. I view my beliefs as stemming from liberal thought... including my belief that compromises must be made and we should think outside the box.
Self-described centrists just think it's an end in itself... They equate liberalism and conservatism, simeltaneously elevating them as the Two Choices and insulting each one (frankly I'm sickened when people take a somewhat liberal concept and try to claim it's closer to the right just because the Democrats aren't trumpeting it... and I'm enraged when an ultra-conservative idea gets labeled centrist simply because Republicans aren't pushing it!)

I think of moderates and centrists as different animals.
Moderates are non-extremists in any sense... ideological, religious, partisan...
Centrism I think focuses on ideology, albeit without a clear sense of how ideologues think.

And overall I think the term has come to be yet another emotionally charged populist thing. Too many people just see centrism as having cake and eating it too. It's capable of running into the same kind of corruption as other populist political movements do.

I' rather see people reach the center by fighting for what they believe and compromising as necessary.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside