The buddha choosed the middle way so I don’t understand why some people hate centrism there’s no one more centrist than the buddha considering at that time there are both externalist and annihilationist and the buddha stand out due to his centrism
Hi cdpatton,
Thank you for your very helpful analysis.
Regarding this:
This is consistent with what I was trying imply by “transcend extremes, rather than just compromise”. As you say “recognize what’s true in their own and other perspectives, [so] they can learn a larger truth that bridges the gap…”
Politics rhymes with chaotic
That’s a very nice post!
The distinction in psychology between the in-group and the out-group also seems to me somewhat relevant to this entire topic (and links to some aspects of your post). IMO a fairly deep part of human nature is this distinction between the in-group (people who are in some way “just like me”) and the out-group (people who are in some way “not like me”). I guess a lot of this comes down to us through human evolution and cooperation and conflict between the small groups/tribes in humanity’s hunter-gatherer history.
This innate tendency can be both positive and negative. It is something quite evident in society and politics, and religion too. Buddhism, in some ways, harnesses it (e.g. belonging to the Sangha and the distinction between the puthujjana, the ordinary worlding, and the noble disciple) and works against it too in other ways (e.g. monastics giving up their families, social status, clans etc.). There’s a human tendency to be overly positive to the in-group and be overly negative (stereotyping) to the out-group. And we probably all picture ourselves as belong to all kinds of different types of overlapping sub-groups.
This tendency is the cause of some of the problems particular groups have historically suffered, e.g., some of the injustices referred to in the OP’s article. On the other hand, this tendency can be harnessed to help solve some of them too (something that politicians or movements can helpfully use or sometimes cynically or perniciously abuse). A lot of politics these days seems to revolve around such group distinctions (injustices suffered by groups, which group distinctions are useful, and which should be de-emphasized). However, it’s probably good if we are a bit wary of this entire human tendency too (it can lead to rather dark places if we’re not careful). There are probably situations where it should be directly worked against it (to try to see things beyond any in-group/out-group distinctions). Appeals to “universalism” can often sweep real grievances of particular groups under the carpet. However, it’s also probably best if society if viewed as more than just a web of power dynamics between different competing subgroups (not everything being viewed through the lens of group distinctions and that hopefully there is a certain universal “centre” that we can all share and agree on). Politics is trying to navigate and find a good balance between some of these forces.
And, even if we’re satisfied that some in-group identification is useful (or think it’s on the side of the angels 
), learning to think a bit outside the box and with some nuance and have a more sympathetic understanding of any positive aspects of the corresponding out-group is probably a useful skillset. Maybe this is an aspect of “centricism” in its best sense? 
3 Likes
A “blogger” I like reading for things unrelated to politics has been posting a series about American politics that is thought-provoking and insightful, providing a useful lens to look at politics and beliefs through. His writing is entertaining, engaging and made easy to understand. Worth checking out, even if you aren’t American because much of it is applicable to people in any political system. Or indeed to people who hold beliefs in general, i.e. everyone. They’re lengthy posts so be ready to hold your attention.
1 Like
And stop glorifying radicalism, especially on this Buddhist forum.
"Good is restraint in the body; good is restraint in speech;
good is restraint in thought. Restraint everywhere is good.
The monk restrained in every way
is freed from all suffering.
Dhammapada 25.361"
The discussions in this thread have become very abstract. Politics and legislation affect people. People experience a lot of suffering as a result of laws and policies. We aren’t talking about theortical physics, here. So, for me the issue is rather simple, and ultimately boils down to one question: Which political group advocates the most compassionate legislation? As Buddhists, I don’t really see what other criteria we can use. Since this post was started by quoting an article about American politics, I’m going to continue talking about American politics. Denying access to healthcare by making it a privilege many can’t afford is not compassionate. The same goes for education. Passing laws to make it extremely difficult, or impossible, for certain groups to vote is not compassionate. Continuing to fight for the production and distribution of firearms, despite the horror they continue to cause with increasing frequency, is not compassionate. Working against greater rights and support for minorities (whether that status is based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation) is not compassionate. Brutally capitalistic economic policies that keep people trapped in poverty, push people into poverty, while continuing to make the rich even richer, is not compassionate.
The Buddha was a radical. His teachings are radical in many ways. He took the idea of compassion and metta to an “extreme” (like in the simile of the saw) . As Buddhists we are all radicals, really. Monastics are definitely radicals (if celibacy isn’t radical by the world’s standards, I don’t know what is). Coincidentally, Bhante Sujato is also an anarchist. I’m rather partial to anarchism myself, but moved to what many in America would consider an evil communist country (Sweden) to get from under the crushing heel of capitalism’s boot. So even if I weren’t a Buddhist, I’m “radical” in the eyes of most Americans.
4 Likes
Right, too abstract, which is ironically what the article is criticizing in the first place. Centrism in the abstract is meaningless. So too is radicalism. To base one’s own ideas around some inherently pure “centrism” is meaningless, which is what the article is pointing out.
Centrism and radicalism only have meaning in relation to the status quo. Arguing for a “middle way” between arbitrary political positions, is not a Buddhist principle, but a lack of principles.
1 Like
I think that a centrist or moderate is a leftist who makes a distinction between a wish and a plan. I was very interested in Elizabeth Warren’ s “plan” for Universal HealthCare in the US 2020 Democratic primary. She supposedly had many great plans and I was excited to hear them.
Then the inevitable happened. She was asked how she would fund it. The answer was crickets. She had no plan. She had a wish. After about a month she came back with a real plan for how she would pay for it. It included having employers paying based on the number of employees they have. I thought that was a great incentive to get employers to lay people off. We see a similar problem with Obamacare. When you say employers only have to pay for full time workers guess what? They only hire people part-time. Centrists want change, but want to know that there are real, thought through plans to make the wish a reality.
I will say this about centrists, they execute and put in concentration camps far fewer of their opponents when in power than extremists.
Do they really though?
That’s actually my point: the Overton Window is constantly shifting so that the “Centrist” position is always to ship out the Jews, or the Asians, or the “Communists”, or the “illegal immigrants” or whoever the boogeyman du jour is. In Nazi Germany, to call for an end to the Holocaust would have been as radical (i.e. not Centrist) as e.g. calling for open borders is today.
Here is the problem with the position against centrists, they are accused of trying to get everyone to compromise, split the difference, and hear both sides then when they make a point, double speak is employed to say they are extremist in their own right.
And yes, they do execute and imprison far fewer of their opponents when in power. Name a centrist who killed more than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
And no, centrists were not the ones shipping Jews to death camps.
Yeah, this is just wishful thinking, as was so insightfully documented by Hannah Arendt: Adolf Eichmann thought himself perfectly moderate and reasonable.
My point isn’t that centrism is automatically bad. I’m just saying it’s not automatically good either.
Hitler never tried to compromise or listen to both sides in good faith. You are playing loose with the meaning of words. Also those who were not rabid nazis who did do terrible things did so fearing for their lives. Humans are not suicidal. Give examples of centrists who did these types of things without coercion.
Yeah, exactly. You’re erasing all the Germans who were in between “rabid nazi” and “feared for their lives” — those Germans who took a little convincing.
This is important because if we don’t appreciate how ordinary German “swing voters” could fall for such rhetoric, we leave ourselves open to the same manipulation.
1 Like
Hitler never got more than 34% of the votes in an election that was not run by nazis. He did not get the swing vote.
Are you going to blame everyone in North Korea because they live in a country run by a madman because they don’t virtue signal and get themselves killed in the process? I knew many Russians from work. They could tell you stories about how terrible it was to live in the USSR. One couple I new were sent to Siberia.
Tell me this, why do you think the left is more virtuous and what would have made them behave better under the same circumstances?
Did I say this? That’s very interesting that you ascribe such a view to me.
As could I! Ditto China. The stories from Hong Kong last year were so sad, no?
How do you compromise between two groups when one group wants to exterminate the other group?
What’s the centrist position between genocide and letting everyone have rights and a dignified life?
3 Likes
I’m an American, and talking about the state of things in the U.S.A…
The last 6 years have made it abundantly clear to even a casual observer of current events that there are significant differences between political parties and that voting does matter.
Anecdotally, all of the apolitical I’ve conversed have lives that are not effected by politics.
That is the best response I’ve seen to people complaining about intolerance for spreading disinformation, or hatred inspiring views.