By contrast a centrist always takes the middling, compromising position at the middle of that Overton window. It's centrists that contribute to ethical drift.

That's one way to put it. Here's another to think about: moderates lack rigid principles and avoid ideological convictions.

People on the extremes of both sides have a tendency to "paint." They paint the opposing view as monsters, and they paint people with independent views as "lacking convictions."

It is not accurate.

Moderates are simply conflict averse and don't consider that there is anything worth fighting for, ever. Unscrupulous extremists rely on them as a strategic buffer, because they are easy to manipulate. Neville Chamberlain was a moderate.

You're successfully proving my point from the comment above: you're painting folks who don't share your views. This does you a disservice as you can't possibly understand the arguments. There are many, many ways in which a person can be a Moderate or a particular topic can have a moderate viewpoint.

The cure for this affliction (of imagining your opponents and creating personifications in your head) is to diversify your conversational and reading sources.

Nice attempt at well-poisoning. You'll excuse me if I don't engage with the sophistry that follows.

Perhaps it's you who should broaden your reading sources, as people's behavior is much more amenable to objective analysis than you seem to be aware of. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

"Moderate is an ideological category which designates a rejection of radical or extreme views, especially in regard to politics and religion.[1][2] A moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream position avoiding extreme views and major social change. In United States politics, a moderate is considered someone occupying a centre position on the left–right political spectrum."

Very uncontroversial take by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate

The pinning of subjective elements and personality traits to your political opponents is as dangerous as it is unscientific (and people both on the right and the left do this).

Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US.

It is difficult to successfully invest resources contra the two party system in the US, though. I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties.

I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties.

So, sit in the middle and say 'both parties are too extreme' while bargaining with both for concessions and refusing to organize outside that framework, even though moderates/swing voters consider themselves to be the largest political bloc. That seems like perpetuating the system you complain about for profit, which is exactly what I complained about in the first place - a lack of any identifiable principle. You mention 'principles that the extremes of the parties don't prioritize.' What are they? Where are your red lines?

Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US.

Ross Perot ran 30 years ago, since when we have been through two major wars, a huge financial crisis (and multiple smaller recessions), a pandemic, and a constitutional crisis. No outside candidate has mounted a serious challenge since then. Plus he was only able to do that because he was independently very wealthy.

I have posted this article about polarization here many times since it was published and all I ever hear from moderates is how bad it is, so bad that nobody can do anything about it. Moderates' unwillingness to anchor themselves to anything is a major contributor to the problem of polarization. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-...

I do see specific suggestions from moderates. A lot of them have to do with campaign finance reform. Others have to do with alternate voting systems, like ranked choice. Ranked choice can be advantageous to extreme parties, of course, but they also make 2-3 more self-aware middle parties possible because they can stay in power as the #2 or #3 choice without having to engage in tug-of-war.

I agree that personal wealth is an unfortunate limitation to anyone seeking to run as whatever is in vogue D or R. I only mentioned Ross Perot to remind you of a well-known independent candidate. The 90s were a long time ago, yes!

Both of the proposals you mention are valuable and would do a lot to improve politics, narrow as they are. It would be great if there were an identifiable group clearly advocating for those approaches, whether within or outside existing party lines.

Idk about this. Maybe they just think things are currently pretty good, and that the other options would be worse. I think democrats are largely on the right track. Just enough regulation to ensure market failures are fixed, broad social policy to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm others, a safety net that helps those who are down while encouraging everyone to work hard for the better of society.

Think about a situation where your race was being genocided in a neighboring country. The fastest way to stop it would be to engage in war. Now if you lose, genocide goes on, you have no recourse and your country is vulnerable to exploitation.

Instead, you can use economic levers. Maybe wait for your armed forces to be strong enough to go to war. Wait for winter and destroy food reserves. Maybe strike a deal to have your race only be 'persecuted' instead of genocided. Maybe fund militia instead.

All of these are suboptimal moderate outcomes. All of these lead to some loss of life or huge losses of freedom.for the people you want to save. But it avoids the worst case outcome. Majority of your race stil lives.

Moderates aren't spineless. Rathe, they understand that their agency is limited and you pull levers that are within said agency. If you try to climb a mountain that's too tall, it will lead to your demise.

Idealists want to be olympic gymnasts at 30. Moderates make peace with being a Yoga teacher. That's not spinelessness, that's wisdom.

the point of being a moderate is picking and choosing which policies from which party you support and which ones you don't. The insistence that everyone decide between one of two party lines is what's driving this country towards civil war