Absolutely. The so-called “center” wasn't born of reason. It was born of terror. The illusion of balance only existed because fascists had been publicly humiliated and momentarily shoved back into the shadows. The post-war liberal order wasn’t a triumph of moderate ideals. It was a survival mechanism built on the smoking ruins of genocide and global war. The Nazis weren’t gone. They were quiet.
What we called “the center” was never consensus. It was enforced shame. And shame has a shelf life.
Now, they’re ruling again. Orbán in Hungary. Meloni in Italy. Modi in India. Trump in the U.S., if not by seat, then by shadow. These are not outliers. They are a coordinated, intentional backlash to the very values that fragile centrism once pretended to uphold.
The center didn’t hold. It folded. And now the monsters aren’t hiding. They’re campaigning. On platforms of purity, power, and patriarchal control.
The question isn’t whether the center will recover. It won’t. The real question is whether we’ve learned that appeasement is not a bulwark. It’s a welcome mat.
The center stopped existing when economically the Democrats joined the Republicans on the right side of the road. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and China Trade normalization while throwing unions under the bus. W passed his tax cuts. Obama made them permanent. Obama let the banksters keep their bonuses while ordinary people both lost their houses and bailed out the banksters.
The cost of centrist complacency is measured in shattered rights, broken lives, and the rise of oligarchs who wield power mercilessly. Neutrality in the face of injustice isn’t wisdom. It’s surrender.
I agree with you, first of all, on the idea of using yet another murky label of “centrism” to describe an Overton window shift. There are always two versions of it in play — the voter version, which says “I don’t want to be seen as a radical Republican or a lunatic Leftist” - ergo, Centrist, check the box. Then the political version, which plays it up when it wants a shift in the Window to the right (usually) or left (occasionally). It’s a manipulative tool. The entire Left-Right spectrum is completely useless at this juncture in politics.
The new word replacing it is “populist.” Trump is seen as a “populist” ideology, which means nothing more than “whatever direction he wants to go, with some poll numbers thrown in to ensure he doesn’t lose too badly” - and even that got f’cked up when tariffs came into play, as well as immigration, as well as now his grift-o-matic administration’s acceptance of bribes through cryptocurrency fraud. So the entire dialect in use to describe political position and ideology, which is what this was all invented to originally represent going back to the French Revolution (where Left and Right came to exist because of the Tennis Court), is failing in its utility.
A possible solution is a simplified dialect that represents priority of ethics, transparency, goal oriented policy execution, elimination of targeted, marginalized harassment and abuse, apolitical and non-religious education standards, and a few others makes more sense now than Left, Center or Right. Just some thoughts to add to the conversation - Really appreciate the article! Great work, please keep it coming - love it!
Rick, I’m so glad you brought this up. You’ve nailed something that’s become increasingly corrosive in our political discourse, the hollowing out of language itself. “Centrist” now functions more like a PR alibi than a coherent ideology. And “populist”? It’s the political version of duct tape: slap it on everything from Steve Bannon to Andrew Yang and hope nobody notices the contradictions.
You’re absolutely right that what we call the “Left-Right-Center” spectrum was never designed to accommodate the kind of weaponized incoherence we’re living through now. These terms might have started in the French Revolution, but at this point, they’re doing more to obscure power dynamics than reveal them.
Trump’s version of “populism” is a grifter’s Disneyland. Tariffs that hurt American farmers and manufacturers, crypto scams masquerading as financial freedom, and white grievance wrapped in a gold-plated golf club membership. It’s not a movement. It’s a scam that happens to have paramilitary theater attached.
What we need, and you’re already gesturing toward this, is a new political taxonomy. One that centers ethical outcomes, measurable harm reduction, transparency, and structural repair. Less “where do you sit on the spectrum,” more “what are your priorities and whom do they serve?” We need a language of impact, not alignment. Of function, not faction.
So yes. Let’s break the spectrum. Let’s name the game clearly. Not Left vs Right, but Democratic vs Anti-democratic. Extractive vs Regenerative. Performative vs Accountable. The axis has changed. Our words have to catch up.
Those who advocate for the “center” are really saying, “move to the right”.
The illusion of a center existed in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, when Nazis were afraid. Now, they’re bold and ruling entire nations.
Absolutely. The so-called “center” wasn't born of reason. It was born of terror. The illusion of balance only existed because fascists had been publicly humiliated and momentarily shoved back into the shadows. The post-war liberal order wasn’t a triumph of moderate ideals. It was a survival mechanism built on the smoking ruins of genocide and global war. The Nazis weren’t gone. They were quiet.
What we called “the center” was never consensus. It was enforced shame. And shame has a shelf life.
Now, they’re ruling again. Orbán in Hungary. Meloni in Italy. Modi in India. Trump in the U.S., if not by seat, then by shadow. These are not outliers. They are a coordinated, intentional backlash to the very values that fragile centrism once pretended to uphold.
The center didn’t hold. It folded. And now the monsters aren’t hiding. They’re campaigning. On platforms of purity, power, and patriarchal control.
The question isn’t whether the center will recover. It won’t. The real question is whether we’ve learned that appeasement is not a bulwark. It’s a welcome mat.
This whole comment 🔥 I wish I could restack it.
The center stopped existing when economically the Democrats joined the Republicans on the right side of the road. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and China Trade normalization while throwing unions under the bus. W passed his tax cuts. Obama made them permanent. Obama let the banksters keep their bonuses while ordinary people both lost their houses and bailed out the banksters.
The cost of centrist complacency is measured in shattered rights, broken lives, and the rise of oligarchs who wield power mercilessly. Neutrality in the face of injustice isn’t wisdom. It’s surrender.
"If centrism is the midpoint between power and resistance, then it is not a neutral zone. It’s a defense perimeter for the powerful."
feckin' brilliant. this^^^^
I agree with you, first of all, on the idea of using yet another murky label of “centrism” to describe an Overton window shift. There are always two versions of it in play — the voter version, which says “I don’t want to be seen as a radical Republican or a lunatic Leftist” - ergo, Centrist, check the box. Then the political version, which plays it up when it wants a shift in the Window to the right (usually) or left (occasionally). It’s a manipulative tool. The entire Left-Right spectrum is completely useless at this juncture in politics.
The new word replacing it is “populist.” Trump is seen as a “populist” ideology, which means nothing more than “whatever direction he wants to go, with some poll numbers thrown in to ensure he doesn’t lose too badly” - and even that got f’cked up when tariffs came into play, as well as immigration, as well as now his grift-o-matic administration’s acceptance of bribes through cryptocurrency fraud. So the entire dialect in use to describe political position and ideology, which is what this was all invented to originally represent going back to the French Revolution (where Left and Right came to exist because of the Tennis Court), is failing in its utility.
A possible solution is a simplified dialect that represents priority of ethics, transparency, goal oriented policy execution, elimination of targeted, marginalized harassment and abuse, apolitical and non-religious education standards, and a few others makes more sense now than Left, Center or Right. Just some thoughts to add to the conversation - Really appreciate the article! Great work, please keep it coming - love it!
Rick, I’m so glad you brought this up. You’ve nailed something that’s become increasingly corrosive in our political discourse, the hollowing out of language itself. “Centrist” now functions more like a PR alibi than a coherent ideology. And “populist”? It’s the political version of duct tape: slap it on everything from Steve Bannon to Andrew Yang and hope nobody notices the contradictions.
You’re absolutely right that what we call the “Left-Right-Center” spectrum was never designed to accommodate the kind of weaponized incoherence we’re living through now. These terms might have started in the French Revolution, but at this point, they’re doing more to obscure power dynamics than reveal them.
Trump’s version of “populism” is a grifter’s Disneyland. Tariffs that hurt American farmers and manufacturers, crypto scams masquerading as financial freedom, and white grievance wrapped in a gold-plated golf club membership. It’s not a movement. It’s a scam that happens to have paramilitary theater attached.
What we need, and you’re already gesturing toward this, is a new political taxonomy. One that centers ethical outcomes, measurable harm reduction, transparency, and structural repair. Less “where do you sit on the spectrum,” more “what are your priorities and whom do they serve?” We need a language of impact, not alignment. Of function, not faction.
So yes. Let’s break the spectrum. Let’s name the game clearly. Not Left vs Right, but Democratic vs Anti-democratic. Extractive vs Regenerative. Performative vs Accountable. The axis has changed. Our words have to catch up.