There's A Better Word Than Centrism

And that word is "balanced."

"Centrism" is a word that is relentlessly promoted by certain members of the chattering classes.  It is based upon the proposition that cutting the baby in half is not only a great idea, but in fact is always the best idea.  Giving everyone 50% of what they want always leads to the best results.

Or does it?

In a political system composed primarily of two parties, one of which is extremist, and the other of which is more"centrist" than anything else, the only rational result to expect is that society will slowly march over the extremist cliff, thanks to the willingness of the centrists to compromise.  "We'll meet you half-way," say the centrists.  "Swell," say the extremists, smiling and whispering to themselves "One step backward, two steps forward," structuring their 50% to lead to the next conflict--and the next compromise.

It doesn't matter whether the extremism is from the left or right, either.  The process is the same, as is (sad to say) the result.

What the majority of people, the American people included, want is not a society that moves by inches off the deep end to the dance of "centrism," but one that is balanced over the long haul between diametrically opposed principles (liberalism vs. conservatism, individualism vs. collectivism, and so on).

Why is that different from "centrism"?  Because it means that, sometimes, one side can and should get more than 50% of what it wants, depending on the state of society at a given moment.  Sometimes, society needs a good does of liberalism, as was the case nationally during the Great Depression and its distant relative, the current Great Recession.  At other times, a more conservative approach may be required, as was ultimately the case in New York during the 1990s.

In other words, you accept short-term doses of extremism, in order to get to an overall state of balance.

I have found that my personal politics have tended to reflect this philosophy.  I once tended to be somewhat more conservative than I am now, as a reaction to the knee-jerk liberalism of our political culture in the 1970s and early 1980s.  Since then, of course, the country has lurched to the right, and I have lurched to the left.  Why?  Because I want every liberal fantasy to come true?  No.  Because I want a balanced society.

Balance is what we need to hold ourselves and our country together.  Centrism only guarantees short-term frustration for both sides, and long-term destruction for everyone.  Whatever the outcome of this election, let us all strive not for a Democratic nation, a Republican nation or a divided, frustrated, my-way-or-the-highway nation, but for a nation that finds unity in balance.

I hope that we can do it.  I worry, sometimes, that we have lost our way too much to even try.