The Center Must Hold

The Center Must Hold

Amid the rise in populism, extremism, and polarization around the world, centrism is frequently dismissed by its critics as too poorly defined, too short on passion, too weak to serve as an effective response. But this misunderstands both political centrism and the dangerous trends it seeks to counter. In fact, centrism offers the most potent antidote to the excesses of populism.

To understand centrism, it’s important to clearly explain what it is not. Centrism isn’t the middle between an imaginary left and right. It isn’t a compromise between wherever the extremes happen to be dragging society at any given moment. It isn’t simply a more palatable version of socialism or a poorly disguised right-wing ploy. In short, centrism isn’t the search for an unattainable, and usually unwanted, middle point on the political spectrum.

For too long, centrism has been defined by its critics, while actual centrists have shied away from making the case for their approach loudly and proudly. That has to change, not just for the good of political centrism but for the good of liberal democracy as a whole.

Centrism has a set of core values, a set of beliefs that underpin the entire political approach: a focus on moderation and pragmatism; an embrace of complexity; a deep and unwavering commitment to liberal democracy, including the essential institutions that uphold it; an understanding of the value of compromise; a belief in equality of opportunity; a positive liberal patriotism; and a trust that through balancing the tensions that exist in every nation, we can make people’s lives better.

[McKay Coppins: The Kyrsten Sinema theory of American politics]

Centrism doesn’t look for total victory over one side or the other, but rather for the most effective approach to dealing with complex and ever-changing challenges. Most often, that means managing the never-ending tensions between competing sets of values. So, for example, seeking to maximize the benefits of globalization that increase our quality of life while also protecting local industries; managing the need to provide security without abandoning our commitment to civil rights; balancing the need for free markets, which encourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and innovation, and the necessity of a social safety net that doesn’t allow people to fall into abject poverty; managing the need to embrace the technology that will define the future and the importance of protecting society from its most harmful effects.

The challenges facing countries today are arguably more complex than ever before, and they require cooperation across national boundaries and among multiple sectors of society. The idea that Karl Marx or Friedrich Hayek can offer us neat, all-encompassing solutions to those challenges is absurd.

Centrists believe in incomplete answers as part of an imperfect world; those seemingly partial solutions help us continue living together by creating a shared narrative, a tolerance and understanding of differing points of view, and some measure of continuity in policy making rather than wild swings of the policy pendulum. When centrists govern, it is with the aim of making sure that no one is entirely overlooked, even if no one gets everything they want.

An embrace of complexity and a commitment to honesty about the challenges we face are what make centrism the antidote to populism and, with it, extremism and polarization. It is why centrism is anathema to the extremes that seek to address every issue through the lens of partisan purity tests.

Populists neatly reduce any issue to two basic messages: Solutions are always simple, and failures are always someone else’s fault. Populists always have an easy, if ultimately unworkable, answer, and whatever you’re angry or fearful about, they will always find you someone to blame. Populism is, at its core, the attempt to divide society into two groups—real people versus elites, oppressors versus the oppressed, locals versus outsiders. This divisive approach leaves no room for nuance, context, or complexity. Individuals are removed from the equation, left only as part of one group or the other. Populists leave no opportunity for introspection, debate, or self-criticism—which is why populism almost inevitably results in political extremism and polarization. Populist politicians want us to believe that compromise is never necessary, let alone desirable, but rather that it is a symbol of weakness and failure.

The fear that drives populist politics is real. People who feel a true sense of loss for a world that once was, or genuine anxiety about the world that is coming, are drawn to politicians who offer simplistic solutions, especially if no one else is willing to take those fears seriously.

Branding politicians who push populist approaches as “irresponsible” or “racist” or “anti-democratic” is not enough, although they may be any or all of those things. Fearing the changes that artificial intelligence will bring to the world or rejecting changes to a sense of national identity is not inherently unreasonable. Neither is wanting to protect local industries and local communities. Those fears, and those attachments to what we know, are real, and we have a responsibility to connect to them emotionally and approach them with sincerity.

The answer is to offer a better alternative to the simplistic, if emotionally appealing, solutions offered by populists. That alternative can’t come from a countervailing brand of extremism or a different strain of populism, which would merely replicate the problem. Only the center offers an antidote to the politics of intransigence and inflexibility; it is the center that can counter the messages of despair and divisiveness.

Any politician seeking to halt the rise of populism must start by showing genuine compassion and understanding of the anxiety that large swaths of the public feel, and then offering a more attractive path forward. Centrists must build a hopeful national narrative, one that embraces liberal patriotism as a positive force, respects traditions, and still welcomes progress. Centrism must be pragmatic, but it must also be driven by hope.

Hope is a powerful driver of action, and it is a winning political message that provides an effective approach to governing. In 1960, Frank Sinatra rerecorded his hit song “High Hopes” as the anthem of John F. Kennedy’s election campaign. When Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination in 1992, he ended his speech by declaring, “I still believe in a place called hope.”

[Luke Savage: The making of a leftist]

Jonathan Sacks, the late chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, explained that optimism and hope are not the same. “Optimism is the belief that the world is changing for the better,” he wrote, while “hope is the belief that, together, we can make the world better. Optimism is a passive virtue, hope an active one.” The “politics of hope,” as Sacks termed it, not only inspires an emotional reaction but spurs action, forming healthier societies that are more cohesive, tolerant, and open. That stands in contrast to politicians with authoritarian and illiberal tendencies who imbue societies with fear and create violence and prejudice.

By playing an active role in creating more hopeful societies and in breaking what the political scientist Lee Drutman calls the “cynicism and mistrust doom loop,” centrists not only help build healthier societies but can help create a positive reinforcing political loop that will benefit them politically.

At a time when politics too often feels like a negative force, when politicians are more divisive and divided than the public they seek to represent, and when intransigence feels unavoidable, centrism can offer a dramatic break from the trajectory of politics across the world. It is the antidote to populism; it is the politics of hope.