"Is Political Centrism Possible?"

 The cartoon I took from the internet, with the understanding we should be able to laugh at ourselves. Nevertheless, extremism is a serious concern. As Clint Eastwood, at age 94, said in a February 20, 2025 interview, “And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.” And I would suggest we have more than our share in Washington (and in many state capitals and large cities) today.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Is Political Centrism Possible?”

April 13, 2026

 

“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground

exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. 

Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”

                                                                                                                                Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

                                                                                                                                Skeptical Essays, 1928

 

“They told us they wanted a culture that could tolerate disagreement without treating it as heresy.”

                                                                                                                                Katherine Dee (c.1993-)

                                                                                                                                “Exit Strategy”

                                                                                                                                The Spectator World, March 30, 2026

 

In his 1920 poem, “The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats included lines that have pertinence to our cultural and political lives today:

 

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,...

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.”

 

Recent polls conducted by Gallup and Pew Research suggest that the number of Americans identifying as political moderates has declined, from 43% in 1992 to 34% in 2024. Not surprisingly, Pew Research notes that far-left and far-right voters contribute more money, attend more political rallies, and have higher turnout rates at elections than their more moderate brethren. In both parties, social media users with moderate views are reluctant to post about political and cultural issues. In 1992, James Carville, strategist for Bill Clinton, coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It helped Mr. Clinton win the election. In 2026, the phrase could be: “It’s the extremists, stupid!” In this environment it is fair to ask: Can the center hold?

 

Ironically, this is happening at a time when more Americans have been doing better financially than at any time in history. In a recent survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, reported on by Aimee Picchi of CBS six days ago, the “core” middle class no longer represents the largest group of Americans. Now, for the first time, that honor belongs to the upper-middle class. Yes, there are more people classified as “rich” – 3.7% in 2024, versus 0.3% in 1979 – but those categorized as “poor or near poor” have shrunk from 29.7% to 18.7%. Are things perfect? Of course not, but the trend is in the right direction.

 

Yet extremists continue to play to emotions. Extremism is not a new phenomenon that one can blame on Donald Trump and J.D. Vance or Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It has been gestating for years. In an article from last October, Johanna Dunaway of Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship, and who sees Americans as more divided today than at any time since the Civil War, wrote: “Much of the polarization that escalated in recent decades was largely driven by misperceptions people have about ordinary partisans on the other side – the everyday people in your neighborhood or office who happen to support the other party.”  She was writing of people like us, Nixon’s “silent majority,” or Trump’s “forgotten man and woman.” Social media has aggravated the situation. While instant communication has benefits, one of its drawbacks is that people react; they don’t think. 

 

Trump-hatred plays a role. Like Andrew Jackson who became President 197 years ago, Mr. Trump elicits emotional responses far in excess of any rational policy differences. Iran is a perfect example. For forty-seven years the Country has been a theocracy run by religious fanatics. Unlike Russia or China, whose governments forbid freedom but whose leaders are conscious of the risks of nuclear annihilation, Iran’s leaders would be unafraid of unleashing a nuclear holocaust, as they seek paths to Paradise, in shahada (martyrdom). Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was (and is) in the interest of all mankind. Yet Presidents from both parties have been ineffective in stopping them, that is until Mr. Trump. Now their nuclear capabilities have been curtailed and most of their ICBMs obliterated, thanks to the President and to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Iran retains the ability to deprive the world of badly needed fossil fuels and fertilizers. The Strait of Hormuz lies in international waters. It is not a toll booth. It needs to be open for trade. 

 

Yet Democrats in the House and Senate will not support any initiative begun by President Trump, no matter whether to do so would be good for us and the free world. For example, listening to Senator Chuck Schumer belittle the President, one could easily conclude that he would prefer to see Mr. Trump humiliated than for the U.S. and Israel to defeat Iran and bring peace to the Middle East.

 

And mainstream media has been no better. Their biases, along with their sanctimonious idiocy, know no bounds. CNN anchor Dana Bash, sounding like Orwell’s O’Brien in 1984, recently said: “Objective reporting now, rightly so, means explaining what someone says when its false or when it’s not right or when it’s misleading.” I understand that Mr. Trump can be coarse and rude to both friend and foe. He is not the leader I would prefer, but no other President has taken on Iran’s leaders. He speaks to them in language they understand. The United States is stronger when its people are not torn apart by self-serving politicians and media-types, but the United States and the West will be safer with Iran neutered. 

 

While I cast more blame on Democrats for this state of affairs, populist politicians in both parties, along with their partisan media allies, play to their choirs, offend their political opponents, and leave the public to make sense of their lunacy. A Rachel Maddow or a Tucker Carlson has no interest in persuading the skeptic; their only interest is in playing to their partisan (and perverted) acolytes. 

 

And yet, most people I speak with are reasonable, despite the fact we have fundamental differences in terms of the role government should play. Most appreciate the beauty of our political system and understand why it has lasted so long – the sovereignty of the people, the three independent branches of government, and the rules of laws that are constructed by Congress through debate. 

 

Is political centrism possible? Perhaps, though it seems unlikely in the near term. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind the wisdom expressed by Dwight Eisenhower at a press conference on November 17, 1963: “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” The success of Artemis II is reason to celebrate a unified American. Can we at least do that?