bump, we really need to go over this guys.

"Never attack in front of a position that can be taken by turning."

Napoleon Bonaparte(?)

Not flanking, whether in war or in politics, will only result in defeat.

Yeah but that doesn't work in a two-party system.

What do you mean Mujus?

Flank versus center? Well, it's all in the cooking technique. A good flank steak requires loves and care to make it tender and juicy, whereas a center-cut will be much more forgiving.

Being seen as a moderate is risky in politics, especially in America. It's too easy to demonize moderates, because American culture enshrines strength and principle over compromise.

@ redhouse

I know you're Dutch, but bear with me on this. I am using American politics as an example.

@Gun
Of course, this thread is open to people from all cultures and I want to learn different perspectives

Flanks are more ideological which is good if you want people that are more likely to follow their principles and also good because you have a better chance of knowing what they will do. However since politics often comes down to voting for the lesser of x evils then I guess the center is better than the flanks from being safer. I personally prefer flanks as I view them as more honest, and their position isn't just some weak compromise that fails. That said I would definately prefer the center to the flank I disliked. If only one could have the cake and eat it.

I mostly agree with the above.

Me, as a modern American conservative with libertarian sympathies, prefer a strong flank over weak compromise.

The thing is, I have no problem whatsoever with compromise, it's just that I find the only natural way for a compromise to emerge to be a healthy clash of opposing views and explain it as such. It shouldn't be proposed beforehand by a center party.

what if the center party is formed of several groups with clashing opposing views? Kind of like our system

That's what we call "Congress", sweetheart.

...or Parliament, whatever you call it.

or a US Party honeybunch

:-)

Which US party is a center party? I thought you had a center-left and a right-wing party where you come from?

The centre is defined by the people and represents the direction that best matches where the people wish their country to go. The party that appeals most to the centre should win, but the colour of said party doesn't really matter.

It is the business of the left and right winged politicians to try and move the centre via the use of strong arguments. Politicians in the US have instead, via highly devisive politics, moved people away from the centre, which is why their system is currently damned to buggery.

I disagree with you here Octavious, the center is roughly the middle of current political views, not always the most popular choice however (although I do think that what is viewed as the center does change AND that by using terms like center vs flanks/extremists people are generally voicing implicit preferences). And the democrats aren't so decisvely left that they are trying to pull people away from the center.

@soc

I'd say the centre, in its natural form, is both the middle of political views and the most popular choice. It's only after a great deal of harmful work by self serving politicians that the centre can be expunged of the majority. I am convinced this is why topics such as abortion, in which there is no real centre ground, have been made pushed as major left\right issues in US politics and virtually nowhere else in the West.

Maybe you're right in its natural form (that is something I would have to think about), but I think there are many countries nowadays where the center isn't the most popular choice. And the reason abortion is a major left/right issue in US and not in other western countries is that all/almost all other western countries don't have such a strong pro life contingent - the pro abortion (left if you will, although really the issue is more authoritarian vs libertarian) is therefore not what is causing said problem

Personally I'd prefer the abolishment of the party system, and have the entire government full of independents which support their own opinions. And each representative is elected by one area and is supposed to be the spokesperson of that area, and that area only. Then every issue raised in parliament is voted for individually, rather than by this party votes yes, that party votes no. You know, like how the parliamentary system is supposed to work.

Read Mill's Considerations on Representative Government

..and then instead of the senate, you could run a referendum for every issue. Though, we may need more advanced technology to do this without blowing the bank.

However, that form of government would be an absolute cunt in a crisis, like a major war.

@ redhouse

America lacks a truly centrist party. The Democratic Party is center-left to Americans (centrist to you Europeans) and the Republican Party is center-right (firmly right to you Europeans). There are a handful of minor parties that never elect anyone, the most prominent being the Green Party (shares many views with the Democrats; I could not effectively explain the difference), the Libertarian Party (favors individual and states' rights, on everything from gay marriage to healthcare), and the Constitution Party (favors a strict interpretation of the Constitution, aligned with the Libertarians in many ways but tends to be a bit more radical). The latter two minor parties have seen a skyrocket of membership recently, but they still have nowhere near the requisite strength to be a major party.

Not just to Europeans, but enlightened Americans! And the Green Party chooses to focuse more on the environment than the Democrats do.

Let's talk about Kevin.

I agree with a lot of what Octavious has said, Gunfighter raised some interesting points, I disagree with dD_Shock, but that's mainly because we don't have electoral districts here. :-)

Recently, in Holland, a centrist party called "D66" won two extra seats in parliament. The funny thing is, that they're not at all required to form what we consider a typical centrist government, composed of Labour and the Liberal party (liberalism is considered to be a right wing current in some of Europe, including Holland).

This D66 party apparently has "higher educated people" among its electorate, I'm sure some of them are here on webdip themselves.

Now they'll probably be forced to support a lot of the new government's politics, without being able to influence it as they're probably not going to be inside the coalition. I'm very skeptical of our understanding of "higher education" when so many people so easily deamed their vote to irrelevance.

As Gun said:
"Not flanking, whether in war or in politics, will only result in defeat. "

(I'm sure there will be some angry Dutch people now :) )

Personally, I think a centrist party would have the chance to take the most sensible position on pretty much any debate - the ideal is rarely (never) at the extremes of ideology. The issue is that political debate has dumbed down to the point where a shade of grey is seen as a weakness, rather than the intellectual strength to try and establish where the line is.

For example, suggesting that part of a successful approach to dealing with criminal justice is to understand how and why people break the law is immediately conflated with being soft on crime and not caring about victims. Debate shuts down as soon as you have flanks with no ground to retreat to. The same is true of pretty much any aspect of political discourse you care to mention

"part of a successful approach to dealing with criminal justice is to understand how and why people break the law"

Of course. But how could anyone dispute such a thing?

Often, as soon as you express such a point of view, you are portrayed as being more concerned about the criminal than the victim. The flankers on the issue often have a more retributive view of justice - or often only such a view.