Will the Center Hold?

A new edited volume explores the philosophical foundations and political viability of centrism around the globe.

---

Centrism is not really an “-ism” like other ideologies. Liberalism is the promotion of human freedom and individual rights, with both market-friendly and more social welfare-oriented sides in contemporary politics. Conservatism historically is skeptical of grand ventures by government, worries about unintended consequences in policy making, and defends traditions, cultural norms, religious institutions, and local communities as the backbone of a well-ordered society. Socialism in its various forms seeks to organize government and the economy in collective ways through national ownership and redistribution to achieve more equal outcomes. Populism of the left- or right-wing variety is an appeal to the virtues and values of the common “people” often defined in nationalistic or exclusionary terms with a focus on reforms and overcoming the rule of political and corporate “elites.”

Centrism it seems is more of an instinct and a way of doing politics in complex societies with competing values and beliefs among citizens rather than a distinct body of thought with clearly defined end goals. There is no obvious philosophical through line in centrism. Centrists are generally liberals or conservatives, thus center-left and center-right, and are not usually full-blown socialists or populists. But some centrists blend elements of all these ideological traditions while others claim to transcend left-right boundaries altogether.

Centrists typically aren’t trying to achieve any one thing in politics other than general good governance built on the rule of law, social stability, partisan cooperation on common challenges, and rising prosperity for their nations.

The content of this balance is often ideologically divergent. For example, self-defined centrists today will defend the “rules-based international order” built on global trade, free movement of people, and common security interests while others will promote industrial policies based on national economic development and the protection of sovereign interests. Centrists may back nationalized health care or a market-based system or some hybrid of both. Political centrists can be fierce defenders of public education or “radical reformers” who want to break up the education bureaucracy and public sector labor unions. Centrists may be libertarian on social and cultural issues or more moderate to conservative on things like family structure, gay rights, or abortion. Centrists both embrace and reject elements of modern identity politics depending on the context and the groups involved.

The lack of a defined centrist ideological core and agenda is both its strength and its weakness. Commitments to philosophical flexibility, pluralism, and avoidance of extremes are all good qualities in politics and usually indicate effective leadership. But the absence of a strong core often leaves centrists vulnerable to charges of mushiness, a lack of principle, and an unwillingness to take on injustice and ideological zealotry.

In modern times, centrism is most identified with the political project of center-left leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who built successful electoral coalitions around a vision of reform that embraced technology and globalization, reined in the excesses of centralized government, sought to “devolve” decision making to localities, and occupied the middle ground on contentious social issues involving guns, crime, and religion. Conceived as a middle path between FDR’s New Deal and Reagan-Thatcher conservatism, “Third Way” centrism blossomed in the late 1990s in several liberal democracies and then slowly diminished politically after a series of self-admitted economic failures that contributed to the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, rising inequality in society, and various populist backlashes against the centrist establishment and its “technocratic” governing style.  

Today, centrism embodies new voices and concepts centered on abundance, supply-side progressivism, and neo-populism. Notable contemporary centrists include French President Emmanuel Macron, current UK Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, and Israeli leaders like Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz. On the liberal side in the U.S., centrists are typically found among New Democrats and remnants of the Blue Dogs in Congress, along with national leaders like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. On the conservative side, prominent centrists generally congregate among the “anti-Trump” and traditional Reaganite wings of the Republican Party (think of former Rep. Liz Cheney or former Maryland Governor and current U.S. Senate candidate, Larry Hogan) or in nascent intellectual efforts to redefine the GOP as a vessel for working-class interests and effective nationalism rather than as a bastion for pro-business, pro-globalization policies.

---

So, what exactly is centrism and what does it seek to achieve?

The Center Must Hold: Why Centrism is the Answer to Extremism and Polarization, an excellent new edited volume by Yair Zivan—a foreign policy advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid—seeks to address these questions through 36 essays from political leaders, academics, and practitioners covering centrist philosophy, goals, policy approaches, and international divergences.

Some of the authors in the volume include Tony Blair, Michael Bloomberg, Malcolm Turnbull, Chrystia Freeland, Matteo Renzi, Kathryn Murdoch, Jennifer Rubin, Yair Lapid, Michah Goodman, Polly Bronstein, Lanae Erickson and Matt Bennett, Arne Duncan, William Galston, Rachel Pritzker, John Avlon, Haley Stevens, and Daniel Lubetzky.

The book is a great primer on centrism for lay readers and students of politics alike. The limitation of an edited volume in terms of the lack of extended treatment of key ideas is balanced out by the ability to open the book to any chapter and learn something new about centrist thought and how it plays out it in various national contexts.

Given my own interest in political theory, the parts of the book I found most interesting included the essays trying to define centrism conceptually, particularly pieces by Micah Goodman and Polly Bronstein. Other readers will be drawn to the interesting international examples of centrist thought in Europe, India, Australia, Japan, and Latin America or to the chapters on centrist views about economic, security, and social policies.

Micah Goodman’s essay examines the religious and philosophical roots of centrism in the ancient search for balance:

The primeval intuition that defines the center was born in ancient traditions that cultivated the idea that balance is at the heart of the ideal way of life. There is no one clear way to attain balance; the history of human culture offers two different approaches: the “golden mean” model most notably favored by Aristotle and the model of holistic equilibrium advanced by Heraclitus.

The Aristotelian model of balance is well defined by Maimonides, a twelfth-century Rabbi and scholar considered one of the foremost thinkers in Jewish history. He writes: “The two extremes of each quality are not the proper and worthy path for one to follow or train himself in.” One must locate these two extremes and place oneself at the midpoint between them: “The upright path is the middle path of all the qualities known to man. This is the path which is equally distant from the two extremes, not being too close to either side.” The middle, the point between the extremes, is the path one should follow. Maimonides praises the golden mean, calling it “the path of God,” and states that “one who follows this path brings benefit and blessing to himself.”

Heraclitus proposes a different version of balance. In his view, balance is attained not from the middle but from the whole. Heraclitus does not seek the midpoint between opposites, but the whole that contains both opposites alike: “Harmony consists of opposing tension, like that of the bow and the lyre.” There is a secret to reality, one for which the bow and the lyre are metaphors. The bow is a tool of war and the lyre is a tool of music, but both are dependent on taut strings. The taut string of the bow shoots arrows and the taut string of the lyre produces notes. What causes the string to become taut and carry out its action? The fact that its two ends are pulled in opposite directions. What would happen if the two ends of the bowstring were not stretched in opposite directions? The string would not be taut and the bow would not shoot arrows. According to Heraclitus, the bow is the organizing metaphor for the whole of reality. The opposites within reality are what holds it together. “God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, abundance and hunger, but he takes various shapes, just as fire.”

Goodman explores how centrism throughout the ages has tried to find balance through ingenious methods of creating a new philosophical whole out of different parts—like “the strings of an instrument, the weights of a scale, and of course, yin and yang.” In practice, Goodman suggests that centrism’s goal of eliminating binary thinking leads to more contextual and pragmatic approaches to governance tied to reality at any given time: “Instead of asking which idea is true, ask which is more suitable for the current, fleeting moment in history, the current context. The question is not how much truth there is in capitalism, but whether this is the moment for capitalism or does the current climate require a larger degree of state intervention?”

Using Goodman’s metaphors, one could easily imagine an entirely different centrism today that doesn’t just look for a middle point between two extremes but instead integrates good ideas from across the ideological spectrum—a practice often precluded by partisan politics in polarized countries like the United States.

In terms of family policy, for example, a holistic centrist approach would argue that we need to encourage two-parent families and “success sequencing” among young people and provide state support for those who fall in between the cracks or need additional financial assistance to help bolster traditional family structures. On immigration, a holistic centrist approach based on the integration of divergent ideas would uphold strict border controls to prevent illegal entry and unwarranted asylum claims and promote better managed legal paths for high-skilled or sector-based immigration to help the economy. On economic development, a holistic centrist approach would argue for state funding and legal authority to help drive the success of important national industries like technology, energy production, and domestic manufacturing and eliminate cumbersome regulations and rules that hinder the growth and stability of these sectors.

Polly Bronstein goes a step further and says that centrism is not only a method of politics seeking balance without specific ideological content. Rather, at its core, the political center embodies the ideal of “liberal nationalism”—a concept TLP spends a lot of time defending. As Bronstein explains:

Globalization and democracy are vital and wonderful tools in human development when introduced alongside community and national belonging, and not in their stead. The last decade has proved as much. Throughout the world, people have begun to rebel against globalization, against the loss of borders and national identity, against the loss of local culture, identity and production, and against changes to the communal and human tapestry.

The ideology that is underpinned by national liberal values can be converted into practical policy by employing a number of principles of centrist philosophy. These principles are the lens through which the center reads the world, the filter through which it examines it. Here are a few of those guiding principles of the center:

1. Elliptical thinking – in the same way as a circle is defined by having one center, a focal point which is equidistant from all points in the circumference, so the ellipse has two such focal points. Elliptical thinking is the politics of both/and rather than either/or. Instead of one center, there are two. Instead of prioritizing one value at the expense of another, there are two values between which a balance must be struck, even if they seem contradictory. Sometimes one of these values offers the chosen path, in which case solutions and mechanisms are found to avoid the other being subjugated to it…

The day-to-day life of a country is no different. Indeed, it rings truer still in the life of a heterogeneous country with disparate groups who hold different perspectives and values on a range of subjects. The center does not pass judgment between conflicting values, where these both hold value for broad swathes of the public.

2. Continuum reasoning – when the center approaches matters of ideology or practice, it seeks to avoid binary thinking that creates a zero-sum yes/no outcome. The center resolves problems using continuum reasoning: instead of examining questions of policy through the lens of “this or that?” the center asks, “to what extent?”. For example, instead of asking “Should abortions be legal?” we would ask “How far along in a pregnancy should abortion be legalized?” Or “Under which circumstances should abortions be legalized?” The answer may range from “not at all” all the way to “fully,” but the mere act of framing the question using continuum reasoning changes the tone of the debate. If we can reach agreement that abortions are possible up to a certain stage and/or in certain circumstances, the chance of reaching an outcome that is acceptable to the majority of the public is higher than if we continue to fight zero-sum battles.

Only through the perspective of a quantitative continuum can we identify creative solutions that take into account any existing tensions. Additional examples? We wouldn’t ask “Should we allow immigrants into the country?” Rather, we would ask “How many immigrants would we agree to let into the country? Under what circumstances? For what length of time?”…

3. Shrinking problems – we often mistakenly take the view that we should seek to end deep-rooted and intractable problems in a decisive and complete manner—or else not address them at all. The political center understands the intrinsic value of shrinking problems, even if this does not end them, and often shrinking problems is a far more achievable outcome, and one that bears significant benefits for all sides. Partial and temporary solutions often provide positive outcomes because they can galvanize public support: even if there is no consensus on a comprehensive solution, agreements can be reached on specific, tangible measures to shrink areas of conflict or challenge, without the sense of an unacceptable ideological compromise…

4. Cross-sector synergy – cross-sector synergy is a tool that puts elliptical thinking into practice in terms of who sits around the table when we come to address local or national challenges. The center understands that connections between the private, public, and third sectors are a key to more creative and detailed thought processes with the potential to bring far more effective results…This is usually the right tactic when setting experts and professionals from one field to creating thought processes designed to resolve problems in another field. Bringing together experts from security, health care, education, welfare, law, economics, tech, social work, urban planning, engineering and so on to work on public processes of every kind will bring surprising and innovative results.

5. Trust and empathy – without ascribing positive intentions and an ability to empathize to the other, there is no route to agreement on the rules of the national game, the division of resources and the decision-making process. The center approaches every challenge understanding that the first stage must be listening to and learning the voices and arguments on all sides and being ready to understand their perspectives, identities and interests. Ultimately, it is about recognizing that political rivals are not enemies to be defeated. The center does not shy away from disagreements, rather it solves problems without trampling on its interlocutors, out of a genuine effort to build trust and collaborations that seek to improve the outcome for as many citizens as possible and create improved dynamics for the future.

6. 50/30/20 – democratic nation-states are, to differing degrees, in the throes of a period of great upheaval…50/30/20, a concept defined by former Israeli education minister Rabbi Shai Piron, is a new operating system that boosts the national liberal center while protecting the interests, unique aspects and diversity of each group and sector. 50/30/20 takes the lessons we have learned over the last decade: a democratic nation-state requires a shared upper layer (the 50 percent) that is robust and nationwide. Below this are those levels that provide a measure of freedom and autonomy to the different population groups—30 percent a localized or group-based middle layer and the lower 20 percent a community layer.

Bronstein’s definition of centrism as liberal nationalism built on these six approaches is an interesting concept that deserves further elucidation in different national contexts. The idea of blending a commitment to individual rights and patriotism allows for particular national cultures—with different histories and interests—to determine the values and agenda items of centrist politics while encouraging wider cooperation among national partners holding shared values.

Similarly, both the Goodman and Bronstein essays, along with others in the volume, raise important questions about the sociology of centrism—that is, the non-political institutions in society that help to nurture a culture dedicated to pluralism, cooperation, mutual understanding, reason, and balance.

The rise of extremism and polarization in contemporary politics is no accident and coincides with the demise of other critical counterbalancing institutions found in education, religion, local neighborhoods, and the media. Without effective institutions dedicated to sustaining the values underpinning liberal democracy, any hope for centrist stability in politics will almost certainly remain elusive and prone to attacks from illiberal voices on the left and right.

---

With elections in France and the UK occurring in the next few weeks—and in the United States and possibly other countries like Israel this fall—we’ll soon get a real-world test of the long-term viability of political centrism in established democracies.

Looking at polls ahead of these elections, the only safe bet for centrist victory right now is UK Labour—itself a telling fact given the miraculous electoral turnaround of the party under Keir Starmer after the disastrous Jeremy Corbyn years. President Macron’s gamble to head off a far-right surge in France after the European parliamentary elections may yet pay off—or perhaps not, as polls ahead of the first round of voting show Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) leading both the left-wing bloc and Macron’s centrist alliance while also being favored on the economy. Likewise, President Biden is at best a tossup against former president Trump. He certainly could win—but it won’t be easy or pretty. Although voters are not particularly fond of either candidate, Biden currently faces deep disappointment as the incumbent and trails Trump on numerous economic and national security indicators. Biden’s advantages as a centrist candidate in 2020 have so far not helped him overcome voter doubts about his presidency in 2024.

The fortunes of centrist parties in Israel, like Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) and Benny Gantz’s National Unity party, currently look pretty solid in the polls—probably why Prime Minister Netanyahu appears in no rush to call elections.

If elections do come again, Israeli centrists—and others around the globe—would be wise to pick up Yair Zivan’s great new volume of essays on the centrist model. It’s chock full of important guidance on how to define centrist politics and make it a winning formula in upcoming elections—and governments.

Politics remains a pendulum, and disappointed voters across the world continue to take out their anger about social issues and the economy on incumbent governments of all kinds. Political centrism, ironically, may currently be more viable as an opposition force rather than as a governing power.

But perhaps the solid ideas in The Center Must Hold will help new leaders ignite longer-lasting support among voters for centrist solutions and governance—and find the elusive balance and stability in society that many citizens around the world yearn to create.