Weak Centrism, Strong Centrism
A Twitter Short
If you’re a centrist and want Antifa banned, I hope you’re also campaigning to have the KKK et al. banned. If not, you’re not a centrist.
You don’t get to play the ’both sides are equally bad’ card if you then only want one side classed as a terrorist organisation. To be a consistent centrist, you’d better come down really hard on anyone who claims to be centrist, but only seems to attack Antifa. Surely you don’t want your neutral, objective, balanced viewpoint hijacked by the very people you claim to be opposing?
As a centrist, you need to be vigilant against anyone who says (or acts as if) ’Both sides are wrong, but Antifa are the real threat.’
Since centrism condemns both sides, it is open to being infiltrated by one side hoping to attack the other, using centrism as an excuse. It’s absolutely crucial, as a self-professed centrist, that you don’t let centrism be hijacked by the very groups you claim to oppose.
If the strength of centrism is condemning both sides equally, a ’centrism’ which doesn’t condemn both sides equally is milquetoast and weak.
Centrism, to some extent, is a bit like agnosticism: you can be a weak agnostic, or a strong agnostic. A ’weak’ agnostic says, ’I don’t know whether God exists’. It’s tantamount to saying that they don’t have an opinion. A ’strong’ agnostic says, ’It is not possible to know whether God exists’. This view maintains that both believers and atheists are wrong. Believers are wrong because they claim to ’know’ that God exists. Atheists are wrong because they claim to ’know’ that God does not exist.
But believers can claim that such ’strong’ agnosticism leaves room for belief in God, while using it to attack atheism as dogmatic. Similarly, atheists may try to use ’strong’ agnosticism as a weapon, claiming that belief in God is the ’real’ dogmatism. ’Strong’ agnosticism may claim ’both sides are wrong’, but it can be used by both sides to attack each other, which undermines the point.
’Weak’ agnosticism, or centrism, is pointless. ’Strong’ agnosticism, or centrism, may have something to say, but needs to be rigorous.
Now personally, in the choice between fascists and antifascists, I believe that centrism is a false equivalence. But that wasn’t my point. I also believe you can only be a centrist if you ignore the entire history and context of fascism. But that also wasn’t my point.
My point is that being a milquetoast, apologist, ’weak’ centrist is obviously indefensible. But if you truly believe it is possible to be a consistent, ’strong’ centrist, you’ll still have a very hard time defending your position.
Stress test for centrists: What is the difference between a fascist calling Antifa terrorists, and a centrist calling Antifa terrorists? If you claim to be a centrist, you need to think long and hard about your answer to that question.
Originally posted on Twitter. Slightly edited.
