Why don’t we talk more about the anti-establishment center?

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

Perot.
Lieberman.
Yang.
Tulsi.
Manchin.

Where are their fans?

[jojoju1998]

Liberman was a corporate democratic hack, who followed the health insurance companies. How is he anti establishment ?

Same with Manchin.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Liberman was a corporate democratic hack, who followed the health insurance companies. How is he anti establishment ?

Same with Manchin.

Yeah, neither of those is remotely anti-establishment.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

I'm a fan of the anti-establishment centre, as I'm a fan of anyone anti-establishment. But Manchin and Lieberman aren't anti-establishment, they're pro-corporate. I'm a fan of the rest though.

[maclennanc2]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

Wake the f__k up.

Manchin is a massive establishment hack. He loves corruption and personally benefitting from it. He loves favouring the rich and corporations over the rest of us. He hates the idea of upsetting the corrupt establishment and ending the gravy train. He's transparent about it too. Open your eyes.

[BlueSwan]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

Interesting take. I just wouldn't call what you describe "centrism", but rather right wing populism.

I mean, the idea of protecting "Aryans" born to unwed mothers is a deeply right wing populist idea rooted in racism, certainly not a "centrist" idea, regardless of how it might break with traditionalism. Right wing populism isn't necessarily all that traditionalist, it is more authoritarian and nationalist/racist. Sometimes traditionalism supports that but when it doesn't nationalism/racism always prevails over traditionalism.

What horse-shoe theory gets right is that right wing populism and left wing populism tends to converge when it comes to being authoritarian in their fight for "the people" against "the elites", which is also why we have seen a scary number of left wing populists becoming right wing populists over the last few years. In practice, the Nazi regime and the Sovjet regime looked a lot more like each other than either looked like a western liberal country, I think that is undeniable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

Interesting take. I just wouldn't call what you describe "centrism", but rather right wing populism.

I mean, the idea of protecting "Aryans" born to unwed mothers is a deeply right wing populist idea rooted in racism, certainly not a "centrist" idea, regardless of how it might break with traditionalism. Right wing populism isn't necessarily all that traditionalist, it is more authoritarian and nationalist/racist. Sometimes traditionalism supports that but when it doesn't nationalism/racism always prevails over traditionalism.

What horse-shoe theory gets right is that right wing populism and left wing populism tends to converge when it comes to being authoritarian in their fight for "the people" against "the elites", which is also why we have seen a scary number of left wing populists becoming right wing populists over the last few years. In practice, the Nazi regime and the Sovjet regime looked a lot more like each other than either looked like a western liberal country, I think that is undeniable.

Elite establishment types like Franz von Papen were already ending democracy in the Weimar Republic.

[BlueSwan]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

Interesting take. I just wouldn't call what you describe "centrism", but rather right wing populism.

I mean, the idea of protecting "Aryans" born to unwed mothers is a deeply right wing populist idea rooted in racism, certainly not a "centrist" idea, regardless of how it might break with traditionalism. Right wing populism isn't necessarily all that traditionalist, it is more authoritarian and nationalist/racist. Sometimes traditionalism supports that but when it doesn't nationalism/racism always prevails over traditionalism.

What horse-shoe theory gets right is that right wing populism and left wing populism tends to converge when it comes to being authoritarian in their fight for "the people" against "the elites", which is also why we have seen a scary number of left wing populists becoming right wing populists over the last few years. In practice, the Nazi regime and the Sovjet regime looked a lot more like each other than either looked like a western liberal country, I think that is undeniable.

Elite establishment types like Franz von Papen were already ending democracy in the Weimar Republic. There's no question that Papen had a right-wing authoritarian ideology and while ultimately imprisoned by the Nazis his actions really helped them gain power.

Oh, many - probably most - of the people who claim to fight for "the people" against "the elites" are infact part of the elites themselves.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

Interesting take. I just wouldn't call what you describe "centrism", but rather right wing populism.

I mean, the idea of protecting "Aryans" born to unwed mothers is a deeply right wing populist idea rooted in racism, certainly not a "centrist" idea, regardless of how it might break with traditionalism. Right wing populism isn't necessarily all that traditionalist, it is more authoritarian and nationalist/racist. Sometimes traditionalism supports that but when it doesn't nationalism/racism always prevails over traditionalism.

What horse-shoe theory gets right is that right wing populism and left wing populism tends to converge when it comes to being authoritarian in their fight for "the people" against "the elites", which is also why we have seen a scary number of left wing populists becoming right wing populists over the last few years. In practice, the Nazi regime and the Sovjet regime looked a lot more like each other than either looked like a western liberal country, I think that is undeniable.

Elite establishment types like Franz von Papen were already ending democracy in the Weimar Republic. There's no question that Papen had a right-wing authoritarian ideology and while ultimately imprisoned by the Nazis his actions really helped them gain power.

Oh, many - probably most - of the people who claim to fight for "the people" against "the elites" are infact part of the elites themselves.

I don't think he really cared what "the people" thought since he ended democracy in Prussia and served his corporate masters.

[BlueSwan]

Here's a hot take: Fascism and National Socialism are centrist extremism.

There are really two different axes, the left-right axis and the moderate-extremist axis. Extremists are those willing to use tactics of violence, terrorism, genocide or brutal totalitarian dictatorship to impose their ideology, regardless of where that ideology falls on the left-right spectrum. On this axis the Fascists and Nazis were obviously extremists.

But when it comes to the left-right spectrum, which is primarily about two things - economic redistribution and social traditionalism vs. progressivism - fascism/Nazism was broadly in the center. Especially compared to real far-right extremists would would favor absolute monarchy or theocracy or an ultra-capitalist dictatorship like Pinochet. The fascists were broadly centrist on the economy, favoring a mixed economy with the explicitly stated goal of balancing the interests of the classes. (Compared to actual rightists who unapologetically side with the rich just as much as leftists side with the poor)

And the fascists, who used a lot of "progressive" or "futurist" rhetoric, were not necessarily hardcore traditionalists on things like religion and the role of women. Contrary to popular belief, fascism wasn't 100% "SoCon" - while they were violently opposed to homosexuality and obsessed with birthrates (therefore opposed to abortion of "eugenic" babies) they would gladly attack religious institutions or disrupt traditional social values if doing so benefited their ultra-nationalist goals. Hitler for instance effectively ended social discrimination against unwed mothers and illegitimate children, as long as they were of pure Aryan blood, which was not in line with the "SoCon" attitudes of the time. Or even today, at least in the USA, where conservatives still demonize single mothers and fret over out of wedlock births.

That's the real problem with horseshoe theory or any theory based on a one dimensional left right axis. Left and right is about ideology, extremism is a separate thing. There can be extremists in any ideology, including centrist ones. ISIS and the KKK are far-right extremists, but Nazis are centrist extremists.

Interesting take. I just wouldn't call what you describe "centrism", but rather right wing populism.

I mean, the idea of protecting "Aryans" born to unwed mothers is a deeply right wing populist idea rooted in racism, certainly not a "centrist" idea, regardless of how it might break with traditionalism. Right wing populism isn't necessarily all that traditionalist, it is more authoritarian and nationalist/racist. Sometimes traditionalism supports that but when it doesn't nationalism/racism always prevails over traditionalism.

What horse-shoe theory gets right is that right wing populism and left wing populism tends to converge when it comes to being authoritarian in their fight for "the people" against "the elites", which is also why we have seen a scary number of left wing populists becoming right wing populists over the last few years. In practice, the Nazi regime and the Sovjet regime looked a lot more like each other than either looked like a western liberal country, I think that is undeniable.

Elite establishment types like Franz von Papen were already ending democracy in the Weimar Republic. There's no question that Papen had a right-wing authoritarian ideology and while ultimately imprisoned by the Nazis his actions really helped them gain power.

Oh, many - probably most - of the people who claim to fight for "the people" against "the elites" are infact part of the elites themselves.

I don't think he really cared what "the people" thought since he ended democracy in Prussia and served his corporate masters.

I agree. Same goes for virtually every other authoritarian.

[Mercenary]

Perot.
Lieberman.
Yang.
Tulsi.
Manchin.

Where are their fans?

Take out Lieberman and Manchin, but I fall into this base. I was rooting for Yang and Gabbard in the primaries and would have voted for either in the general.

[หมูเด้ง]

Perot.
Lieberman.
Yang.
Tulsi.
Manchin.

Where are their fans?

Perot kind of just did whatever he wanted. Lieberman and Manchin are worth talking about. Yang and Tulsi aren't really center.

Sinema is just like Manchin or Lieberman.

There really hasn't been a very effective "radical center" movement because of how it is seen as a distraction.

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

If not Manchin and Lieberman, who would you replace them with?

I do want to push back a bit. Both have been the ire of their party. Just because someone is pro-corporate and beloved by donors doesn’t mean he/she is favored by the political establishment.

[Ferguson97]

Perot.
Lieberman.
Yang.
Tulsi.
Manchin.

Where are their fans?

If someone likes all of those people simultaneously, then they don't actually have any values. They all use populist rhetoric, but I can't imagine that all of these people agree on more than 5-10% of the issues.

[Anti-Penguin Tariff Voter]

Centrism isn’t real. If you think about it the concept doesn’t really make sense. Moderate yea, but centrism usually just means a person with right wing and left wing beliefs, not moderate

[Mr. Smith]

It doesn't really exist, that's why. Not in a stable way.

Donald Trump was the closest thing in 2015 and we all know where that went.

[Hammy]

The center IS the establishment

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

If not Manchin and Lieberman, who would you replace them with?

I do want to push back a bit. Both have been the ire of their party. Just because someone is pro-corporate and beloved by donors doesn’t mean he/she is favored by the political establishment.

Corporations and donors ARE in large part the political establishment. Which is why despite Trump being president, he's still anti-establishment cause donors, corporations and old guard politicians oppose him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The center IS the establishment

Correction, the center is defined as what the establishment wants, no matter how batsh**t crazy they are.