Centrist, Middle, Moderate, or Third Way: Conflated Concerns

Last week I raised objections to “centrist” metaphors on four grounds:

1. It envisions two polar constellations of views anchoring a continuum in which there is a center. Some individual topics may fit this metaphor but as more topics are added, the more meaningless such an analogy becomes.
2. It frequently conjures up images of impotent compromise. (i.e., black and white to get gray. Red and blue to get purple.)
3. It frequently equates unthinking zealotry with having a principled set of positions that correspond to either anchor of a continuum.
4. It is sometimes used as a triangulation tactic. A polarized group presents themselves as open conversationalists in order to sway others to their position and cast opponents as divisive.

At the core, three primary issues are being confused. There is the content of the positions, the posture toward alternative positions, and the relationship with opponents.

Content of Positions

In politics and the Church, we frequently refer to “left/right” or “liberal/conservative” to categorize competing camps. There are positions on a raft of issues that seem to “hang together” enough for us to speak in such categories. Sociologists call these ideal types in their analysis of social phenomena. As Wikipedia correctly explains:

In this sense, we can loosely talk about liberal and conservative in polar terms.

However, rather than seeing the poles as endpoints on a line, a more helpful analogy might be the north and south poles of the planet. These are two distinct points, but two people can depart in any of 360 degrees away from a pole. They can end up halfway between the two poles and still be thousands of miles apart. Similarly, take the “black and white” metaphor. Black is the absence of color, and white is the presence of all colors. They are polar opposites, but there is an infinite variety of color combinations between black and white. With either of these analogies, “center” or “middle” communicates nothing about the location other than to say it is not at one of the poles. “Third way” has the same deficiency as many “ways” other than the two poles.

Posture Toward Alternatives

As we come into contact with alternative ideas, we choose how to respond. Most people I know who are anxious to be identified as centrist are turned off by people who only advocate for their position. I think most of us agree that such behavior on a consistent basis isn’t desirable. However, it is a pure flight of fancy to believe that any person (including ourselves) will come to every issue without prior assessments and no emotional attachments to the positions they have formed.

With regard to positions on theological issues, Kenneth E. Bailey talks about holding them with tentative finality. This applies to all of our life. We are finite, flawed beings. We will never have a complete, error-free understanding of any issue. Yet we must act. Therefore, we advocate and act on our best understanding while being open to more learning. There is always a danger of becoming an unreflective advocate, but there is also the twin danger of becoming a disengaged bystander who imagines themselves beyond the fray.

Relationship to Others

Is my opponent a demonic charlatan or an ignorant rube? Or is my opponent someone created in the image of God whom God has given me to stretch my arms of embrace? How I answer that question says much about how I will conduct myself amid controversy.

Clearly, there are those on the left and right who press their agenda by demonizing their opponents. Communication is shut off before it starts because merely disagreeing is to display one’s malevolence or stupidity. Shut off from dialog, the nearly inevitable response by the opponent is to respond in kind. But we need to be very clear about what this means regarding “centrism.”

There is nothing inherent in the positions of liberalism or conservatism that requires adherents to use demonizing tactics. Not all liberals and conservatives are demonizers. Not all demonizers are liberals and conservatives. Many people who represent themselves as “centrist” or “third way” do so not because they are drawn to a particular set of policies (between left and right) but because they disapprove of unreflective postures and demonizing tactics. Yet many will say, “I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m someone who carefully weighs the issues.” or “I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m someone who wants dialog, not strident name-calling.” In other words, they’ve equated being a liberal or a conservative to being an unreflective demonizer. It is an act of demonization from outside the poles. It does nothing to promote the embrace of those with whom we differ.

Conclusion

If our fundamental aim is to transform the nature of dialog and politics, we must take the metaphors we use seriously. We must untangle our multiple concerns from muddled images of “centrism” or “third way.”

If our concern is that neither liberal nor conservative answers cut it for us, then we need to talk in terms of the content of our solution, not in terms of being in some ethereal mythical center.

If our concern is with a posture toward alternatives, we need to call everyone, not just liberals or conservatives, away from hardnosed advocacy toward discernment and stop positioning ourselves as a morally superior species of humanity that has evolved beyond such baser behaviors.

If our concern is how we treat others with whom we disagree, then we need to at least model how to do so without demonizing liberals and conservatives. All too often, that is exactly what centrist language does.