| Revision as of 10:17, 19 July 2004 editWilfried Derksen (talk | contribs)20,321 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:40, 19 July 2004 edit undoDrernie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users607 edits clarified reference to liberalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In ], '''centrism''' usually refers to the political ideal of promoting ] policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional ] of ], with centrism landing in the middle between ] and ]. However, there is arguably more than one dimension to politics, so even the center has its own radicals as exemplified by ]. |
In ], '''centrism''' usually refers to the political ideal of promoting ] policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional ] of ], with centrism landing in the middle between ] and ]. However, there is arguably more than one dimension to politics, so even the center has its own radicals as exemplified by ]. Centrism, in terms of its reliance on majority opinion, shares some ideals with ], though it distances from the strong ideological commitments often associated with that viewpoint. | ||
| Centrism is important because it applies to very large swaths of the populace. In many countries, most members of the public tend to identify themselves as independent rather than as left-wing, right-wing, or any other political extreme. Politicians of many ] try to appeal to this so-called ], although many ]s find fault in this approach. For example, candidates using centrist politics to gain wider appeal risk losing support from the more idealistic members of their political parties. Also, centrist candidates may find themselves strongly agreeing with opponents in ]s, potentially confusing voters as to how they stack up. This may have contributed to the controversial outcome of the ] in the ] (admittedly aggravated by ] among voters, a fairly different phenomenon). | Centrism is important because it applies to very large swaths of the populace. In many countries, most members of the public tend to identify themselves as independent rather than as left-wing, right-wing, or any other political extreme. Politicians of many ] try to appeal to this so-called ], although many ]s find fault in this approach. For example, candidates using centrist politics to gain wider appeal risk losing support from the more idealistic members of their political parties. Also, centrist candidates may find themselves strongly agreeing with opponents in ]s, potentially confusing voters as to how they stack up. This may have contributed to the controversial outcome of the ] in the ] (admittedly aggravated by ] among voters, a fairly different phenomenon). | ||
Revision as of 19:40, 19 July 2004
In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional political spectrum of Left-Right politics, with centrism landing in the middle between left-wing politics and right-wing politics. However, there is arguably more than one dimension to politics, so even the center has its own radicals as exemplified by radical centrist politics. Centrism, in terms of its reliance on majority opinion, shares some ideals with political liberalism, though it distances from the strong ideological commitments often associated with that viewpoint.
Centrism is important because it applies to very large swaths of the populace. In many countries, most members of the public tend to identify themselves as independent rather than as left-wing, right-wing, or any other political extreme. Politicians of many parties try to appeal to this so-called Vital Center, although many pundits find fault in this approach. For example, candidates using centrist politics to gain wider appeal risk losing support from the more idealistic members of their political parties. Also, centrist candidates may find themselves strongly agreeing with opponents in debates, potentially confusing voters as to how they stack up. This may have contributed to the controversial outcome of the 2000 U.S. presidential election in the United States (admittedly aggravated by political polarization among voters, a fairly different phenomenon).