![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dpolicarIn a recent discussion about centrism (where "centrism" was defined as a willingness to propose a 50/50 middle-ground solution without differentially endorsing the initial positions of either side), I ended up writing up the following, which I endorse enough to capture here:
I think there are a few distinct use cases worth separating.
Case 1: Sam and I have conflicting but not opposing values. Like, I want to paint the room green, and Sam wants it red; Sam is OK with red, and I am OK with green. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 2: Like case 1, but Sam and I have opposing values. Like, I cannot _stand_ green and Sam cannot _stand_ red. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 3: Sam and I are asymmetric... I cannot stand green, Sam is OK with red. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 4: Like case 1, but Pat suggests mixing the red and green paint and painting the room shit brown, which both of hate.
In all of these cases, the issue at hand is trivial. I could construct an equivalent example where Sam and I disagree about something higher-stakes, but I think that makes it more difficult to think about clearly.
In all of these cases, I think Pat is a centrist in the sense we're using here.
In case 1, I think Pat's centrism is reasonable, and I would endorse it. It's not the only possible resolution, nor even necessarily the best one, but it's OK.
In case 4, Pat is an idiot and their centrism is superficial, completely fails to engage with either party's real values, and in general just wastes everyone's time.
In case 2, Pat is not _quite_ as much of an idiot as in case 4, but is still basically failing to engage with either party's real values, and there are undoubtedly better answers that Pat is ignoring. Pat is _not_ helping.
In case 3, Pat is still not helping, and also is being disproportionately unjust. Pat's proposed solution makes life much worse for me than it does for Sam, despite its superficial "fairness", because it fails to account for the different initial conditions between Sam and I.
(There are many other use cases that matter here, including the important ones where Sam and I are lying about our internal states; I'm just not focusing on them right now.)
So... I guess I would say I endorse case-1 centrism where it is possible. I think Sam and I living in a green-and-red room we both like some of and are OK with the rest is a better solution, for example, than Sam and I continuing to fight over the room color.
I don't endorse the other cases at all.
And the important difference, it seems to me, is whether Pat's centrism is coming out of a genuine understanding of what's going on, or is just a kind of formulaic "meet in the middle" superficial function of Sam's and my starting positions.
I think there are a few distinct use cases worth separating.
Case 1: Sam and I have conflicting but not opposing values. Like, I want to paint the room green, and Sam wants it red; Sam is OK with red, and I am OK with green. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 2: Like case 1, but Sam and I have opposing values. Like, I cannot _stand_ green and Sam cannot _stand_ red. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 3: Sam and I are asymmetric... I cannot stand green, Sam is OK with red. Pat suggests painting half the room red and half green.
Case 4: Like case 1, but Pat suggests mixing the red and green paint and painting the room shit brown, which both of hate.
In all of these cases, the issue at hand is trivial. I could construct an equivalent example where Sam and I disagree about something higher-stakes, but I think that makes it more difficult to think about clearly.
In all of these cases, I think Pat is a centrist in the sense we're using here.
In case 1, I think Pat's centrism is reasonable, and I would endorse it. It's not the only possible resolution, nor even necessarily the best one, but it's OK.
In case 4, Pat is an idiot and their centrism is superficial, completely fails to engage with either party's real values, and in general just wastes everyone's time.
In case 2, Pat is not _quite_ as much of an idiot as in case 4, but is still basically failing to engage with either party's real values, and there are undoubtedly better answers that Pat is ignoring. Pat is _not_ helping.
In case 3, Pat is still not helping, and also is being disproportionately unjust. Pat's proposed solution makes life much worse for me than it does for Sam, despite its superficial "fairness", because it fails to account for the different initial conditions between Sam and I.
(There are many other use cases that matter here, including the important ones where Sam and I are lying about our internal states; I'm just not focusing on them right now.)
So... I guess I would say I endorse case-1 centrism where it is possible. I think Sam and I living in a green-and-red room we both like some of and are OK with the rest is a better solution, for example, than Sam and I continuing to fight over the room color.
I don't endorse the other cases at all.
And the important difference, it seems to me, is whether Pat's centrism is coming out of a genuine understanding of what's going on, or is just a kind of formulaic "meet in the middle" superficial function of Sam's and my starting positions.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-28 09:04 am (UTC)I can imagine quite a few of the radical liberals saying that they didn't get in to politics to paint the room brown.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-30 12:18 am (UTC)So if you're only looking at things on that axis, then the Lib Dems look like centrists. In your analogy, this is like Pat having a definite preference for brown as the right colour for the room.