Commie, Nazi, and Centrist: The dirty words of the political compass

You probably hear about it all the time, statements like “he’s a hardcore conservative,” or “she’s bleeding heart liberal” are used to describe people that have political beliefs that correspond to what people consider the current platform, or what people consider traditional to those parties.

When you hear one of those titles, you probably already get a pretty good sense of where someone would stand on a variety of issues. Let’s take the “hardcore conservative” for example.

You can probably already assume that the hardcore conservative is for strong border security, cutting taxes, decreasing the size of government, more than likely pro-gun, definitely pro-life, and statistically more likely to include religion as a part of their life.

On the other side of the coin, there’s the “bleeding heart liberal.” The exact contrast of the previously mentioned conservative, you can usually assess that the bleeding heart liberal will be in favor of laxer immigration laws with less emphasis on borders in general, favors social programs which in turn means higher taxes, and thus larger government. The bleeding heart liberal is generally pro-choice, and is statistically less likely to include religion as a part of their life.

There are other titles that people aptly use to describe themselves, and these can fall anywhere on the political compass. Titles like libertarian, neo-con, democratic socialist, anarcho-capitalist, neo-marxist, or classical liberal are not rare to hear and are easy to find on sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram meme pages, and especially throughout YouTube.

And then, there are the dirty words.

The dirty words

Nazism, described as national-socialism by Hitler, is without question one the most despicable political ideologies ever concocted. Nazism is a malicious concoction that takes most of its ideas from the far-right such as an emphasis on culture, including extreme nationalism, and racial superiority.

Hitler’s Nazism also grabbed some ideas from the left. Carrying a strong anti-capitalist sentiment (stemming from the core belief that capitalism was controlled by Jewish bankers, something that definitely isn’t left wing.) Hitler himself claimed that Nazism as not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved “pure” elements from both camps.

Communism, another dirty word in the political compass, is the political theory derived from German philosopher Karl Marx. The ideas around communism generally advocate for class warfare, leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

It’s another idea that has been given its time in the limelight, and not to much success (depending on who you ask).

And lastly, a word that has become dirty as of late, and somehow got pinned down as somewhat sinister; Centrist.

A label that I fall under.

There’s a growing sentiment among left wing think-spheres that centrism is spineless, and cowardly. All it takes is a quick Google search, and one will find thinkpiece after thinkpiece attacking centrism.

In November of 2018, the Washington Post published an opinion article titled “Down with centrism,” in which writer Paul Waldman scolds centrists for their portrayal as “sensible people,” as the only ones whose views are “distorted by neither dogma nor mindless partisanship.”

New York mag published an article of a similar sentiment, titling “The Case for Centrism in the Trump Era is Hilariously Weak.”

This article in particular argues against the notion that America is a center-right nation, where voters cast their ballots rationally, on the basis of which candidate best represents their ideologically determined policy preferences.

The article states that Republicans winning elections is not because of the Democratic Party’s shift to the left, and that the party has not alienated the moderate swing voters on whom their electoral viabiliy depends.

Basically, what it seems like they’re saying, is that centrism is a trope that holds no truth.

But, that article also goes on to proudly say that Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign was in support of “political violence, religious discrimination, mass murdering Muslim prisoners of war with bullets dipped in pig blood.” It’s tough to take to take criticism on being impartial from someone who is clearly extremely impartial themselves.

There are arguments on both sides of the isle that claim centrists lack a backbone, and that being a centrist doesn’t actually mean anything.

The example I hate most is the following “quip” I’ve seen several times in an attempt to de-legitimize centrism, and as a way to legitimize whichever stance the person speaking takes.

There are 100 babies. One party wants to throw all 100 babies into a woodchipper. The other party does not want to throw the babies into the woodchipper. A centrist comes along and suggests only throwing 50 of the babies into the woodchipper.

This example irritates me to no end. This example suggests that there is no virtue in finding middle ground by giving us the absolute most extremely black and white scenario that has ever existed. No, a centrist would not suggest throwing 50 babies in as a compromise. A rational centrist would take a position based on their core beliefs based on all the data given, and present a solution that they see fit.