Social Liberal Union

fishhook theory ≫ horseshoe theory

Ainland wrote:

I'm afraid I find this approach disingenuous. I appreciate that there are those on the far left who are very passionate about their views. But in debating different ideas, it is my view that it is not productive to accuse those who adopt different positions of being deluded or dishonest. I also find it unhelpful to conflate ideas with specific regimes or people.

You might have had the basis for a fair point if you wanted to demonstrate how dissatisfaction with moderate leaders could lead to polarisation to the extremes. It is unfortunate that instead, you chose to characterise radical centrism as being "solely designed to suppress any actual leftwing governments while allowing rightist extremists to proliferate freely..."

I think that horseshoe theory seeks to demonstrate how, if you go to the extremes of either side of the political spectrum, you move towards a socially authoritarian position, albeit with different goals. That seems valid to me.

I would argue that centrism is about being wary of ideology and instead being pragmatic and realistic about the problems that face us. This means that ideas can come from across the political spectrum, focussing on evidence over emotion or ideology. It may be that dissatisfaction with this approach pushes people to the extremes - this appears to be the case with the Labour party in Britain at the moment. But I don't think that this is evidence for centrism being a deliberate cover designed solely to suppress the left. I believe there are people who are genuinely keen for a sensible, pragmatic approach that favours negotiation and compromise over ideology and dogma.

Well, said "pragmatic" approaches and "enlightened centrism" tanked his approval ratings to an alltime low, brought the country on the brink of near civil war (There is civil unrest in the country for sure as evidenced by the mass working class Gilets Jaunes protests and riots every week) started mass deregulation and privatization of the economy and weakening of labour rights, massive handouts to the ultra-wealthy oligarchs, and imposition of regressive tax hikes that disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

And now look where Le Pen is in the polls. Still in a solid lead above Macron, despite her sharp turn to the right. Even Donald Trump is more popular than Emmanuel at this point. Pivoting towards neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus is what you don't wanna do to stem support for the far right, as more income inequality and the seeming out of touch "left" (Such as the "Socialist Party" in France or the Labour Party in U.K. who turned sharply towards Tory or UDR-lite in the 1990s-2000s and eventually led to the whole "PASOKification" phenomenon that paved the rise of populism) who betrayed the working class is the best recipe to fan the flames of anti-democratic demagoguery.

And in the end, an attempt to satisfy both sides and offer milquetoast half-measures will end up pissing off both sides and would in the end worsen the situation even more (As happened with Obama passing a rebranded version of Romneycare as his hallmark health reform instead of going for proper NHS-style healthcare, even when he had a literal veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of congress and a much more friendly SCOTUS) than before said centrist got elected, because seriously, if I wanted a government that is rightist and laissez-faire on the economy, I would've voted for the conservatives, NOT the "progressives" or "democrats".

All this political talk is confusing me lol

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

Middle-roading is what led us to this whole hubbub of rightist extremism and income inequality to begin with, because when both the mainstream left and the right adopt Reaganomics and laissez faire Gilded age trickledown economics,  who on earth should one turn to as an alternative to neoliberalism?

Extremist discontent is nothing new as far as I know. You're drawing conclusions that can't be verified and I don't agree with. As far as who to vote for, that's everyone's problem and good policy should appeal to as many people as possible.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

Well, said "pragmatic" approaches and "enlightened centrism" tanked his approval ratings to an alltime low, brought the country on the brink of near civil war (There is civil unrest in the country for sure as evidenced by the mass working class Gilets Jaunes protests and riots every week) started mass deregulation and privatization of the economy and weakening of labour rights, massive handouts to the ultra-wealthy oligarchs, and imposition of regressive tax hikes that disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

And now look where Le Pen is in the polls. Still in a solid lead above Macron, despite her sharp turn to the right. Even Donald Trump is more popular than Emmanuel at this point. Pivoting towards neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus is what you don't wanna do to stem support for the far right, as more income inequality and the seeming out of touch "left" (Such as the "Socialist Party" in France or the Labour Party in U.K. who turned sharply towards Tory or UDR-lite in the 1990s-2000s and eventually led to the whole "PASOKification" phenomenon that paved the rise of populism) who betrayed the working class is the best recipe to fan the flames of anti-democratic demagoguery.

I am afraid I haven't been able to extract any evidence at all from this statement to support the claim that Macron's centrism is the cause for support of far-right policies in France, as opposed to if Macron had been a socialist.

Macron's approval ratings appear to be following roughly the same trend as Sarkozy's based on his time in office, and certainly much higher than Hollande's. Protest is nothing new in France, it is a fantastic thing about the country that the right to free and fair protest has long been alive and well. Another fantastic thing about France is that their presidential election system is so open. Macron stood quite clearly on a centrist, social liberal platform and beat his socialist opponents. I see no evidence that there has been a significant change in his ideology since taking office.

The British electorate had the choice between a right wing government or a socialist government in 1979. They chose right wing. The same choice in 1983 resulted in the same outcome. Yet again in 1987, and again in 1992. Then the Labour party underwent a fundamental change. It relaunched itself, moving to the centre and rebranding as New Labour. The party won by a landslide in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It would be disingenuous to disregard or attempt to explain this away when it is so central to your claim that centrism results in the rise of the right.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

And in the end, an attempt to satisfy both sides and offer milquetoast half-measures will end up pissing off both sides and would in the end worsen the situation even more (As happened with Obama passing a rebranded version of Romneycare as his hallmark health reform instead of going for proper NHS-style healthcare, even when he had a literal veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of congress and a much more friendly SCOTUS) than before said centrist got elected, because seriously, if I wanted a government that is rightist and laissez-faire on the economy, I would've voted for the conservatives, NOT the "progressives" or "democrats".

In a democracy, you cannot expect the leader to adopt your own style of polarised, binary thinking, and implement a full-scale socialist agenda, to suit your individual reasons for voting for him. I don't think Obama ever promised a single-payer healthcare system. If you think that Obamacare has done no good at all and that you would have been no different voting conservative, then there is probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. But in a democracy, you don't get to be happy with everything your leader does, even if you voted for him. There are many more people than just you in America.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

As long as you don't sell out or betray the very people you should be representing to begin with (If you are an leftist). Inclusivity is good, but specific policies must not be watered down or flipflopped on just to satisfy your opponent, as you might as well not bother running against him to begin with.

I think this exposes a fundamental difference between us, which likely explains our differing approaches to ideas like negotiation, compromise and pragmatism. It is my view that, in a liberal democracy, the leader's duty is to represent the whole nation, not just the socialists.