I might agree that your claim, "They are just parties", was pointless, but that probably isn't what you meant.
If we take this to have a point, it's filed under the stopped-clock rule. Yes, it's all noise, but if we compare the noise to reality, the effect of the noise is to help conservatives through equivocation of history and constriction of acceptable discourse. Most of the noise is a marketplace effect that benefits those invested in uncertainty.
The conservative abandonment of verity has been going on pretty much my whole life; the point that it is all noise can be established as true, as such, but it is also in that reality, that marketplace circumstance, the fact of that noise has significant implications that defy equivocation.
The thing about centrism is kind of like I said five years ago↑[/url]: One of the things to remember about political terms like liberal and conservative is that centrism is how we find ourselves, as an American society, condoning rape culture, torture, mass murder of civilians abroad, systemic domestic genocide, or the economic necessity of hunger and malnutrition, just to name a few. Short form: The American middle ground is atrocious. Or, all of a
couple weeks ago↗, the comfort of familiarity includes the sins of the traditional corpus. The more complicated version is that the traditions of our prevailing narrative will have much to say about why our American centrism is what it is.
That's an extraordinary description of a "majority of the population".
To what degree does this perspective account for those whose mission is that government should make matters worse,
i.e., Republicans and conservatives?
As I told you
last week↑, for nigh on forty years, the conservative thesis on governance has been to wreck government. In any other job interview, if the candidate says, "I think this company is wrong and should only be allowed to exist if it is so weak and precarious that I can destroy it on a whim," we would not hire them. For conservatives, however, it's requisite.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Centrism currently holds left-side theses such as food security and universal housing is too radical, but conservatives are actually empowering supremacist, authoritarian governance. Both sides, left and right, have their rhetorical and behavioral extremes, but conservatives are empowering theirs, and centrism plays along.
We might wonder how many of those were of such centrist inclination as to demand liberals compromise with conservatives by agreeing to fail.
Loan guarantees, like Obamacare, are a compromise with failure, a manner of forestalling universal access.
That "nothing" would include not cutting education budgets or deliberately hamstringing schools over the course of decades. It's unclear what would have worked if centrism did not require compromise with failure.
That's just make-believe. The subprime mess is a result of compromising with failure. It's not so much that "'everyone' should be able to buy a house", but that everyone should be able to have housing. And remember, compared to impossible loans, housing guarantees are considered too radical and extreme.
That's what we get for compromising with Republicans.
Yes, it's called compromising with conservatives.
Compromising with Republicans.
Comproimising with
failure.
It's actually kind of unclear which parts of history you're overlooking, since it actually kind of looks like you're missing pretty much all of it.
Said like a true conservative.
Well, Republicans seek to injure the administration of the state; Democrats are obliged to compromise with Republican demands for the failure of government. We might wonder what the centrists you describe, the "majority of the population", actually expect. "A government that usually just makes matters worse" would actually seem to be what they demand.
