I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties.
The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?).
The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.
It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
I agree and imagine that the overwhelming majority of people do
> feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
Yet our system only allows for `pick red or blue`. In this case the control of the minority by the majority on what are incredibly complex topics is filtered down to a binary decision.
In what world is our current system reasonable!?
Our current system is a tyrannical mess, and it's no surprise everyone is polarized to the max under it.
You may be right about orders of magnitude, but I think there is an important distinction to the relative loudness of these two groups though.
There is a large silent majority of people who distrust both parties and ignores and avoid politics.
However I think the "trusts both" group tends to be overrepresented in the media, government and political classes because it has utility to them: hard to work with or get interviews or jobs with politicians that you've called disingenuous or bought by special interests - even when it is clearly the case.
I think there is a breed of people who watch the West Wing and see it as a utopian possible reality ("Federalists"?) and they prioritize the power and respectability of the state as more important than the results of political actions. I believe these people self-sort into these roles and are able to advance in these roles more easily because of this ideology.
I would beg to differ. Anecdotally I have overheard a lot of people expressing frustration that there are only two real choices in political debates. There are a lot of "nonpartisans" out there but they are suppressed by ignorant and xenophobic politicos on both sides
I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that the rational position is the compromise in the middle. I have heard people argue that it's the only politically available option in one circumstance or another, which makes sense because the structure of American democracy creates a strong pressure for there to be two parties of approximately equal power.
When I talk to people I generally hear people taking specific positions on specific issues, which often but not always aligns with their preferred political party's position on that issue.
> The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way.
For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also blindly agreeing with anything else they come up with even if it's wrong. It kind of negates any good ideas because, to me, they don't come from a point of reasoning or critical thinking, but from tribalism.
I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific.
However, there are some good ideas financially coming from the (American) right that I think would work well for the US. I say this living in (and enjoying) Germany, which is largely what the left views as "socialism".
As well, living in San Francisco for a few years prior, there are of course a lot of good humanitarian efforts coming from people mostly based on the left - including renewable energy, for example, which seems to be wholly rejected by conservatives.
To me, what "makes sense" is oftentimes owned by one of the sides, and sometimes owned by neither. I'm often found to be politically homeless, and thus why I call myself a centrist - usually my viewpoints have some relation to one of the parties' extreme standpoints but generally nowhere near the fanaticism they exude (e.g. I'm what the Twitter left calls a "trans-medicalist", whereas the right tends to completely deny the humanity of trans individuals entirely).
I don't think people who claim that all issues can have a solution "somewhere in the middle" are centrist. I think they're undecided, uninformed, weak-thinkers, or people pleasers - or some mixture of those things. I myself have strong, solid opinions that oftentimes don't align with either side - hence why I call myself a centrist.
Regarding "I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."
Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media, they might imply or present thinking from the right as "uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."
I take the "How informed about..." quizzes at Pew regularly. And I regularly score in the top group across the board. And I identify as conservative, after growing up as blue collar, patriotic, and somewhat liberal.
The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?).
The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.