THS political centrism (e.g. favouring moderate policies and bipartisan approaches to political engagement, "reaching across the aisle") as a dominant political ideology

Last Update - Fri Oct 18 2024

DK Wien Pre-WUDC Vienna Online Open 2022 Round 3
Madeleine Woo
DPM | OG
85
Politics


Introduction

I'll firstly deal with the main OO contribution, which is that you frame right-wing ideologies as centrist and left-wing ideologies as radical. Then, I'll go on to everything else they have not responded to in our case and show why we're winning.

Rebuttal: Framing of Ideologies

Firstly, let's deal with their main contribution. I think we've already beaten this because, on principle, we may agree that the left is good as debaters. But objectively, this just isn't the truth. I don't blame OO for living in debate land or liberal bubbles, but I want to note that right-wing policies aren't all right-wing supremacists. It is regrettable that Trump has tainted the Republican party to be immigrant-hating and minority-hating. But the reality is that, in the global context, many right-wing parties are still relatively moderate. The fact that he (Trump) still does certain immigration programs probably shows that it isn't as bad as what the opposition wants to say.

Principle: Aggregating Preferences

More importantly, it isn't the opposition's right to determine what people want. We give you a better principle as to how we better aggregate preferences on our side, and that's probably more important.

Claim: Better Outcomes for Vulnerable Groups

The second response to this is that we get better outcomes for vulnerable groups because we challenge the premise that only the left can be good for vulnerable groups. The fact is that, now, as an African-American in the U.S., you are almost certainly not going to vote Republican. That situation is far worse on their side when you make it partisan. So, we actually incentivize more parties to campaign on their behalf on our side of the house, where they try to cross party lines and appeal to a greater voter base. It is far more likely that, on our side, minorities get catered to across all ends of the spectrum versus on their side, where it is likely going to be exclusively the liberal and left-wing parties.

Argument: Scapegoating of Minorities

Let's quickly move on to this point on minorities. The value of this is that even if you don't believe that on OG we massively improve policy-making, we at least eliminate the worst and most harmful policies for minorities. You reduce the risk of them getting scapegoated or facing things like literal genocide and ethnic cleansing in certain countries. This is a concentrated and serious harm on a sizable population. We're not saying that, on our side of the house, none of these harms exist, but comparatively it is better and would be far worse on the side of the opposition.

Analysis: Comparatives and Scapegoating

So, for OO to just say, "No, no, no, but that exists in your status quo," was not enough for them. It was comparative, and they had to deal with the other side of it. The reasons why they're more likely to get scapegoated on their side and less likely on our side are because you're better able to view minorities as expendable when you're able to exclude a sizable amount of the population. This is really important because, often, centrist rhetoric means you are unable to very explicitly alienate or demonize a certain group of individuals. It is significantly harder for you to justify these actions when there's a centrist norm on our side, compared to their side, where it's easier to justify pushing for your people's interest or the interest of "X, Y, Z."

Mechanism: Harmful Policies and Justification

It is far more easier for the general population to not be as guilty of it as to support these policies.It is significantly more likely, on their side, that these harmful policies get passed, and many more individuals get harmed.

OO Response: Political Centrism and Status Quo

The OO push to this is that political centrism upholds the status quo, which currently harms minorities. Note, this is non-comparative. The response we have is that, one, the problem with this argument is that it’s zero-sum. It's true that some extremists can be leftists or anti-colonial advocates, but an equal number of extremists are people like Marine Le Pen. And by the way, at best, extremism from the left is canceled out by extremism from the right. We can call it the "far-right" by saying they aren't centrist. But furthermore, let’s flip their claim. 

Sub-Claim
Those advocating for reform tend to be rather moderate. Why? Because the vast majority of social movements know that they cannot be too radical, or else they won’t be able to change many people's minds.

Claim: Progressives and Moderation

This means that progressives and those pushing for reform are often moderate on either side of the house. Since they’re pushing for more than just political change, vulnerable groups are better off on our side. They're glorified for their compromise exclusively on our side, but not on the opposition.

Response: Political Centrism Benefits Leftists

The second response is that we think political centrism is relatively good for leftists. People in conventional power structures often don’t want to cooperate or work with people pushing for reform. But a narrative of centrism incentivizes those elites to cooperate when, comparatively, they view their own positions of power as a threat.

Claim: Demonization of the Left and Status Quo

Thirdly, this argument shouldn’t be winning for OO even if they win it. Their argument is that people demonize the left as radical. The reason they demonize the left as radical is to uphold the status quo. That incentive doesn’t go away on their side. The political right will just find other ways to demonize the left. It’s unclear why this is the only way they can do so.

Why Do We still Win in our Worst Case ?

Remember, panel, all our arguments about policy-making and democratic backsliding can still win under the OO metric. Why? Because those people who need efficient and effective state policy-making are those who rely most heavily on the state, like groups who need welfare and the most vulnerable groups of people. So, even if, by the end of the top half, OO convinced you that the narrative of political centrism is bad for leftists, we can still outweigh their argument by getting better state policy in general, which mostly benefits these vulnerable groups.

POI

I'll take that POI.

Closing POI

POI: “In the vast majority of instances, obviously within the left, you have significant splits. At the point where you don’t have centrism and are more left, you create different splits within the electorate to accommodate more political views within the opposition world.”

Answer

No, no, no, our argument just showed you that this argument goes both ways, right? We would rather prevent the worst forms of extremism, even if we can neuter some of the good levels of radical lefts.

Claim: Political Discourse

First, let’s quickly defend our arguments. The first one is on political discourse. The value of this argument is what Ryan tells you. What is considered a good policy is relatively unclear. Let’s illustrate this. For example, you may believe that strict laws are good because they can reduce crime, e.g., Singapore. But you may also believe that being able to drink on the streets and having more freedom is better, even if it means dealing with more crime, e.g., in Eastern Europe.

Mechanism: Input and Democracy

What matters is the input and the quantity of this input. Democracy isn’t representative or just if it doesn’t engage in issues people care about. It isn’t fair for the opposition to just go, “No, no, no, but we would prefer a lot of minority investment, and that’s the only thing the right doesn’t do.”

Analysis: Moderated Political Rhetoric

What do we show you under this? Two things. One, political rhetoric is significantly more moderated on our side of the house (by the way, no response from OO). Second, Ryan tells you how you decrease radical discourse because politicians don’t have to double down to try and prove their points.

Mechanism: Radicalizing on Other Issues

Additionally, here's the mechanism I want to give. It’s not just about being radical on one issue; it’s about radicalizing on other issues you previously may not have had a stance on. So, for example, if you are someone who likes Macron’s tax policies but don’t really care about immigration issues, you might watch TF1 in France and hear relatively convincing rhetoric about how Arab immigrants are stealing your jobs, are dangerous, and are potentially terrorists. Sooner or later, you find yourself stuck in this far-right echo chamber on their side. You buy into anti-immigrant narratives and anti-Muslim policies. You get radicalized on stances that you previously didn’t have one on, which is why it’s significantly more harmful on their side.

CO Response: Moderation and Representation

The CO response is, “No, no, no, but being moderate means you are less representative.” But we get better representation for two reasons. One, trivially, most people have moderate political views. Most people don’t want radical change. If political institutions are centrist and moderate, then the largest number of people’s views are represented. Yes, the leftist extremes may be ignored, but we benefit the largest number of people by giving them more representative institutions.

Claim: Buy-In to Democratic Institutions

Two, you get more buy-in to democratic institutions because people are often scared of the other extreme. When that extreme has less influence in politics, people are more willing to give power to governments on our side of the house.