Eagle367 said:
You are making a lot of assumptions. First of all, how do you know where the good ideas are? Pretending they are always in the middle is stupid. They can be slightly right or more right or they can even be extreme left. And your example ignores that there can be extremist centrist positions as well. Being militantly centrist is only stoking your own ego. It also assumes you are smarter than the right and left wing person and can be the judge on what is right or wrong. And if someone has the best position which is on the left or the right, all you end up doing is diluting things and making them worse by trying to meet in the middle. Centrism would only truly work in a world where the system was mostly perfect but rough around the edges. That is not our world. We need fundamental changes to how things are run today. |
You don't dilute anything. You just look at what makes sense, regardless of its right or left position, and apply it. That's it. Which, oddly enough, would be exactly what you're calling for: fundamental change. Because when was the last time we had a leader who didn't adhere to his/her party's policies? It's always one or the other. One or the other. You may get the occasional leader or politician who is slightly more moderate, but you never get one who is completely outside the reach of the two, overreaching, fundamental power structures. So if you cherry picked from both, took what worked and threw out the BS, you'd have your change. Hell, you'd have a revolution, actually.
