> "Medicine: Works great pure free market. Works great purely nationalized. What we don't want is a complex network of regulations from lobbyists combined with mandatory insurance (whether by government regulation or by practicality). Both the far-right and the far-left solutions would work great! We've landed in a no-man's land in between."

I don't think the far-right solution ever worked great. ACA is far from perfect, but it is saving lives. But the problem with US health insurance goes far deeper than merely how you pay for it and who gets access to it; the entire system is run in a very non-transparent way in order to maximise profits. The goal of the current system is still profit, not healing people, and that's where it goes wrong.

It's good that you mention mandatory insurance by practicality, because that's really the case: only very rich people can pay medical costs out of pocket; to most people, medical costs are a life or death issue, so it can never be a truly free market. A healthy-in-between system would be private insurance in a strongly regulated system; this works in a lot of countries. It's the lawless free-for-all where it's fine to screw or misinform patients for profit, that doesn't work.

My primary "centrist" issue is probably abortion: in the US the discussion seems to be all-or-nothing: either all abortion is legal or all abortion is banned, no matter what. A sensible compromise would be to allow early term abortions (first trimester miscarriages are extremely common, the embryo is still in an early stage of development), while strongly regulating late term abortions (they're already rare, and are only necessary for extreme medical problems). Abortion as an alternative to contraception can be made unnecessary through better sex ed and better access to contraceptives.

This reads a lot like "My very-conservative positions are centrist."

I don't think you'd find very many people willing to agree those positions are centrist.

Which is fine. Your positions are your positions, and obviously you hold them because you think them to be reasonable. But "centrist?" I don't think so.

You're both applying a wildly subjective label whose meaning nobody can agree on. I happen to think (as a relatively centrist American living on the West Coast) that those opinions are indeed "centrist". They might count as "very conservative" in the part of the country I live in, but in many other parts they would be distinctly "liberal" (another word whose meaning has been utterly scrambled).

In general I think there's a tendency for politically engaged people to put "views I disagree with" in the "other" bin, and everyone defines "extreme" and "center" to reflect their particular idea of what the sane, morally correct opinion is. There were plenty of people on the left who seemed to think Warren (for example) was a centrist neoliberal sellout.

This is exactly it. Every conservative I speak with thinks I'm Joseph Stalin, and every liberal thinks I'm Adolf Hitler. I've stopped talking to people about these things.

What's amazing about it is you can voice disagreement in just one place, and you're either a liberal snowflake or a Trump-supporting racist. It doesn't seem to matter which place you disagree, or whether your disagreement falls on the other side of the political spectrum.

What terrifies me even more is when the same tribalism leads people on either side to start reflexively defending their entire "side" - thus the right-wing fondness for Pinochet or Franco, or the left-wing fondness for Castro or Maduro (just to cherry-pick some examples). Sooner or later you just end up delegitimizing liberal democracy altogether (which I'm sure is the entire point, for some).

I live in Texas. The list of more-conservative areas in this country is very small. I am surrounded by conservatives, and these views are very common among right-wingers.

Pro-charter schools, free market medicine, 2nd amendment over all, free speech and "cancel culture" as prime issues of race -- these are generally in line with conservative positions, and very, very far from liberal positions.

And again, as I said, that's fine! I'm not disagreeing with the positions, I'm just saying that claiming to be "centrist' doesn't actually make you centrist.

Most people aren't far-right nor far-left. Most people, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt positions from each side. Holding both right-wing and left-wing views doesn't make one centrist, it makes one independent, and I think most people are in this category.

This dismissal is both factually very far from correct, and, I think, an example of the toxic partisanship that is too common on the internet.

None of this is strong or principled. What's the principle?

* Charter schools: Politicians create charter school setups that don't have proper checks and balances and tend to completely shirk their responsibility to public schools in the process. Your statement isn't some fringe idea. It's just not why charter schools are pushed. If you take a look at what happens with charter schools you'd see why people get divided on them. We aren't presented with a rational system. We're presented with a system that gets hijacked to push religious schools and/or defund public schools without.

* Medicine: "Works great pure free market." - Citation Needed. No one will give us your far left solution.

* Gun control: In case you haven't noticed, we aren't allowed to question it. We aren't even allowed to study it. This game is rigged.

* Race: How does cancel culture play into this? I'm not allowed to find a different Applebees if the manager is a racist? "The left's oppression of free speech" - do tell.

Many poor countries have free market medicine: the number of medical providers is not constrained by a guild system; new drugs and medical procedures are regulated lightly if at all; pricing is completely transparent; patients can choose their standard of care, and there is extensive unbundling (e.g. a surgeon gives you a recommended list of supplies, and you have the option to obtain them yourself in any way you wish); non-emergency procedures must be paid for in cash in advance (which tends to result in prices being reasonable); the very poor rely on charities or an extremely basic state-funded backstop.

Such systems are surprisingly efficient and often seem to work better than the lawyer- and lobbyist-designed mess of American healthcare.

I’m not sure those are centrist positions. On the first one, I disagree with you on the science. On the second, you explicitly pointed put why centrism is bad (and with important qualifications, I sort of agree with the point you were making there). With respect to guns... meh that might be centrist, but it’s not really specific enough to base actual policy and constitutional law on - the history is also much more complex than you imply. With respect to race, I’d suggest you’re painting with an absurdly broad brush that doesn’t reflect the actual ideological spectrum.

In my opinion, trying to be “centrist” is more of an aesthetic choice than actually related to ideology.

What I will give you is that any community where honest discussion of actual, specific issues is impossible is toxic... but in practice I see that critique most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs.

1) You don't need to agree.

2) Each of those is an essay or two to justify. Of course they're not specific. This isn't a political essay. I'm giving examples -- enough to understand the gist, not the nuance.

3) In modern America, all of these views piss everyone off -- left AND right. If you articulate most of them, you'll get fired WHOEVER your boss is AND uninvited to the family dinner.

That this "critique [is] most often wielded by dishonest provocateurs" is precisely because everyone else is afraid to speak. In a functioning civic society, we'd have many opinions like the ones above, and we'd all discuss them and work towards the best solutions. I've found that the best solution to "dishonest provocateurs" is still to assume the best intentions until shown otherwise.

1. I know, I also don’t think its meaningfully “centrist”.

2. Not sure what your point is here - you originally pointed out why either right or left solutions would be good, but the compromise is bad.

3. I don’t think that’s true - believe it or not it is still possible to discuss actual issues. I certainly do, with people who disagree with me.

So... there are a few positions on which you might be a “moderate”, but I don’t see any argument actually presented for why centrist solutions are preferable to those backed up by an actual ideological goal.

I think you define "centrist" differently than I do.

Your definition seems to be "split the left-and-right down the middle." That's not the one I've heard or used.

That's okay; words are used differently in different places, but I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing as much as initial posts suggested. Most people I know who consider themselves "centrists" hold a mixture of left-wing and right-wing views. They don't just find the median opinions.

I think what you call "centrist," where I live would be called a "moderate."