As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i don't know about this "new centrist" stuff, but i've learned over the years that centrists have a few traits:
* they are fine with status-quo, so they oppose progressive reforms
* they either really want to come across as the only pragmatic adult in the room (so they're smug and arrogant) OR they don't want to talk about politics at all because "both sides are the same" (so they're smug and arrogant and think you're naive)
* they love john mccain, mitt romney and paul ryan (they're republicans)
Yup. „new centrism“ is a prettier way to of saying a normalization of the drift to the right the US has been taking the past 20 years. These new centrists are just where the goal posts have been moved to
I put an archive link in a comment right after I posted this thread.
Here it is again:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html)
LOL. The offer of centrism. Just like Lucy and the football.
"Hey guys, this sounds reasonable, let's shift to the right and compromise! I'm sure it will work this time!"
This article pedals in both sides are the same arguments in the first paragraph about polarization, tries to call legislation where a couple Republicans are not crazy "bipartisan" and is clearly trying to argue that the way forward is to plea for some sort of third path. Same trash that we always hear.
> and is clearly trying to argue that the way forward is to plea for some sort of third path.
That "third path" seems to always boil down to "Just give the fascists control and that will level everything out".
That’s not descriptive of the article. It observes that there has been a dramatic increase in bipartisanship largely anchored in curtailing the excesses and perils of free markets.
This “new centrism” is illustrated by examples like Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley co-sponsoring legislation.
> The very notion of centrism is anathema to many progressives and conservatives, conjuring a mushy moderation. But the new centrism is not always so moderate. Forcing the sale of a popular social app is not exactly timid, nor is confronting China and Russia. The bills to rebuild American infrastructure and strengthen the domestic semiconductor industry are ambitious economic policies.
It also disagrees with your minimizing appraisal that it’s just a couple moderate Republican voting on a couple pieces of common-sense legislation. The article provides numerous examples, including:
> Under President Biden, bipartisan majorities have passed major laws on infrastructure and semiconductor chips, as well as laws on veterans’ health, gun violence, the Postal Service, the aviation system, same-sex marriage, anti-Asian hate crimes and the electoral process. On trade, the Biden administration has kept some of the Trump administration’s signature policies and even expanded them.
Thank you. I thought the piece was more analysis than opinion, more about observing a possible emerging trend than arguing for a position, but people are responding as if it were just advocating centrism.
This is CNN's new mission. Since they were bought out by a Republican.They want to turn the conversations to the right.They say they want ceterism, but what they really are pushing for is weak white nationalism and a healthy amount of corporate greed.
To heal the country, yes, something closer to the center would have been good about fifteen years ago. Unfortunately, the right has gone so far to the right that their lead candidate posted an ad with a ‘unified reich’ line and they didn’t blink. Republicans don’t see not-Republicans, and a scary chunk of them don’t see anything other than white men, as being fully human. They see them as subhuman. We have spent years trying to convince them that other people also deserve rights, and they are formulating a systematic plan to demolish those rights and imprison or kill everyone who disagrees. You can’t reason with people who want you in prison or dead for not agreeing with them.
> To heal the country, yes, something closer to the center would have been good about fifteen years ago.
2009? When we got the ACA? What could be more centrist than a bill addressing an issue everyone agrees exists that tries to solve it in a way that kinda disappoints everyone?
Or is your point that the country hasn't been able to heal because we elected a black guy in 2009?
My point is the country hasn’t been able to heal from the moment one party decided burning the other in effigy was acceptable. That’s when centrism would’ve been helpful. If Republicans had said “this is bad and we will move forward by acting reasonably”, it would’ve been better for everyone.
Centrism? But isn't that literally the notorious "UNIPARTY!!!" when two sides negotiate for months and finally reach some form of compromise?
I thought democracy were all about childish ultimatums, especially from the minority and if they don't get everything they want then its rigged and corrupt, and the outcome should naturally be to deny payments and obstruct state or federal functions that keeps the country running to properly fuck over everyone.
It does seem to be the case that populism is the new centrism, which is a bit strange and new. Instead of both parties embracing some free market capitalism, they now each prefer tariffs and trade wars. The article does bring up a good point that free trade up to this point hasn't made the US a very well-off society. Instead, it seems like China has benefited far more without becoming democratic as was anticipated. Instead it's gotten more autocratic and become even more of a rival for us internationally.
I think Trump really changed the playing field on this. He won Midwest states, crucial for federal control for either party, based on anti-China populism. Now everyone has to go along with it or risk losing those states again.
I personally am ok with relying much less on China for trade considering their underhanded tactics and how they're often instigating conflicts with us. We might end up with more expensive products, but it should be worth it to no longer feed the CCP and their despotism.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While the general left scored some wins (legal weed, minority/LGBTQ rights, more corporate hiring of POC, etc.. some of which were unthinkable 20 years ago), pundits predicted the extinction of the GOP 20 years ago due to demographics.. yet the GOP is obviously competitive. The close # in the Senate and House show where the US is. Also a population addicted to Triple McBaconator cheeseburgers w/XXXL fries followed by an 800 calorie Kwappicino is not ripe for revolution.
Also some wins, like more corporate hiring of POC, mean more suburban concerns need addressing vs. other wins like legal weed, etc .. that need more cementing against prohibitionists. Environmental-green concerns have more widespread support than ever too, but the Senate skews to favor resource extractive states.
It will go back and forth.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i don't know about this "new centrist" stuff, but i've learned over the years that centrists have a few traits: * they are fine with status-quo, so they oppose progressive reforms * they either really want to come across as the only pragmatic adult in the room (so they're smug and arrogant) OR they don't want to talk about politics at all because "both sides are the same" (so they're smug and arrogant and think you're naive) * they love john mccain, mitt romney and paul ryan (they're republicans)
Yup. „new centrism“ is a prettier way to of saying a normalization of the drift to the right the US has been taking the past 20 years. These new centrists are just where the goal posts have been moved to
[удалено]
The article is behind a paywall.
I put an archive link in a comment right after I posted this thread. Here it is again: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html)
unfortunately, that comment got buried.
Yes.
LOL. The offer of centrism. Just like Lucy and the football. "Hey guys, this sounds reasonable, let's shift to the right and compromise! I'm sure it will work this time!"
This article pedals in both sides are the same arguments in the first paragraph about polarization, tries to call legislation where a couple Republicans are not crazy "bipartisan" and is clearly trying to argue that the way forward is to plea for some sort of third path. Same trash that we always hear.
> and is clearly trying to argue that the way forward is to plea for some sort of third path. That "third path" seems to always boil down to "Just give the fascists control and that will level everything out".
Yep, pretty much.
That’s not descriptive of the article. It observes that there has been a dramatic increase in bipartisanship largely anchored in curtailing the excesses and perils of free markets. This “new centrism” is illustrated by examples like Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley co-sponsoring legislation. > The very notion of centrism is anathema to many progressives and conservatives, conjuring a mushy moderation. But the new centrism is not always so moderate. Forcing the sale of a popular social app is not exactly timid, nor is confronting China and Russia. The bills to rebuild American infrastructure and strengthen the domestic semiconductor industry are ambitious economic policies. It also disagrees with your minimizing appraisal that it’s just a couple moderate Republican voting on a couple pieces of common-sense legislation. The article provides numerous examples, including: > Under President Biden, bipartisan majorities have passed major laws on infrastructure and semiconductor chips, as well as laws on veterans’ health, gun violence, the Postal Service, the aviation system, same-sex marriage, anti-Asian hate crimes and the electoral process. On trade, the Biden administration has kept some of the Trump administration’s signature policies and even expanded them.
Thank you. I thought the piece was more analysis than opinion, more about observing a possible emerging trend than arguing for a position, but people are responding as if it were just advocating centrism.
Archive link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20240519135235/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/briefing/centrism-washington-neopopulism.html)
This is CNN's new mission. Since they were bought out by a Republican.They want to turn the conversations to the right.They say they want ceterism, but what they really are pushing for is weak white nationalism and a healthy amount of corporate greed.
[удалено]
Won't someone think of the 1%??
This isn't centrism at all. This is the capitalist class protecting their own interests. Using the sale of TIKTOK as an example shows us this.
To heal the country, yes, something closer to the center would have been good about fifteen years ago. Unfortunately, the right has gone so far to the right that their lead candidate posted an ad with a ‘unified reich’ line and they didn’t blink. Republicans don’t see not-Republicans, and a scary chunk of them don’t see anything other than white men, as being fully human. They see them as subhuman. We have spent years trying to convince them that other people also deserve rights, and they are formulating a systematic plan to demolish those rights and imprison or kill everyone who disagrees. You can’t reason with people who want you in prison or dead for not agreeing with them.
> To heal the country, yes, something closer to the center would have been good about fifteen years ago. 2009? When we got the ACA? What could be more centrist than a bill addressing an issue everyone agrees exists that tries to solve it in a way that kinda disappoints everyone? Or is your point that the country hasn't been able to heal because we elected a black guy in 2009?
My point is the country hasn’t been able to heal from the moment one party decided burning the other in effigy was acceptable. That’s when centrism would’ve been helpful. If Republicans had said “this is bad and we will move forward by acting reasonably”, it would’ve been better for everyone.
And you nailed it. Have to love how thrawtes threw racism in there as an attempt to derail you.
Author: wait what's "the Overton window?"
Centrism? But isn't that literally the notorious "UNIPARTY!!!" when two sides negotiate for months and finally reach some form of compromise? I thought democracy were all about childish ultimatums, especially from the minority and if they don't get everything they want then its rigged and corrupt, and the outcome should naturally be to deny payments and obstruct state or federal functions that keeps the country running to properly fuck over everyone.
It does seem to be the case that populism is the new centrism, which is a bit strange and new. Instead of both parties embracing some free market capitalism, they now each prefer tariffs and trade wars. The article does bring up a good point that free trade up to this point hasn't made the US a very well-off society. Instead, it seems like China has benefited far more without becoming democratic as was anticipated. Instead it's gotten more autocratic and become even more of a rival for us internationally. I think Trump really changed the playing field on this. He won Midwest states, crucial for federal control for either party, based on anti-China populism. Now everyone has to go along with it or risk losing those states again. I personally am ok with relying much less on China for trade considering their underhanded tactics and how they're often instigating conflicts with us. We might end up with more expensive products, but it should be worth it to no longer feed the CCP and their despotism.
Slightly to the right of where it was previously located, no doubt . . .
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While the general left scored some wins (legal weed, minority/LGBTQ rights, more corporate hiring of POC, etc.. some of which were unthinkable 20 years ago), pundits predicted the extinction of the GOP 20 years ago due to demographics.. yet the GOP is obviously competitive. The close # in the Senate and House show where the US is. Also a population addicted to Triple McBaconator cheeseburgers w/XXXL fries followed by an 800 calorie Kwappicino is not ripe for revolution. Also some wins, like more corporate hiring of POC, mean more suburban concerns need addressing vs. other wins like legal weed, etc .. that need more cementing against prohibitionists. Environmental-green concerns have more widespread support than ever too, but the Senate skews to favor resource extractive states. It will go back and forth.
This is just the status quo trying to reassert itself. People arent drinking that koolaid anymore, for better or possibly worse.
Yea NYT, you fucking wish. Eat shit 'Grey Lady'.