March 01, 2019

Centrism: the new, old way of keeping everything the way it is

located:	United Kingdom, USA, Germany
editor:	Gurmeet Singh

At the still point of the turning world, the past and future are gathered, to paraphrase T. S. Eliot. This is the figurative point of calm and authenticity from which a person stays true to themselves, and watches on with indifference as the world roils about. Eliot may have meant to describe a personal, psychological experience, but it could also be applied to the new forms of centrism which are springing up around Europe. 

In Germany, the Green party are increasingly seen as 'the sensible party', with a liberal social-outlook and left-leaning policies on the environment but also fairly traditional, neoliberal ideas on the economy. They're being touted as a replacement for the discredited Social Democratic Party, who have lost votes to the Greens all across the country, for what many see as a failure to offer an alternative to the ruling Christian Democratic parties. That being said, it is questionable just how much of an alternative the Greens actually offer, other than their more liberal social agenda. 

In the U.S., Howard Schultz, the Starbucks founder is positioning himself as an independent for a 2020 Presidential run. Schultz, a billionaire, is trying to post himself as a 'sane', centrist individual, offering a counter-weight to Trumpian bluster, and Sanders' socialism. 

But the most obvious, and possibly the most effective form of centrism has emerged in the U.K. The newly-minted 'Independent Group' of MPs was formed last week. It brings together both Labour and Conservative politicians (as I write 11 in total), who have quit their parties amid the ongoing, clumsy Brexit debate. The MPs cite the general approach of both parties to Brexit, as well as both parties' attitudes to race and nationality, as reasons to quit.

The Independent Group has had a transformative impact on the debate; as a new faction inside the House of Commons, they have managed to offer a visible counter to others, which has arguably led to the Labour party actively calling for a second referendum on the matter. However, the new faction has not led to a change in voting patterns in the house, since the members of the group would have voted predictably inside or outside their parties. 

This can indeed be seen as a positive – the debate did need changing. But what do the Independent Group, and other centrists actually stand for? Their Wikipedia page (which takes information from their website) says that the group is not a party as such, but a group of like-minded MPs who believe in 'evidence-led' policies, and not 'ideology'. It then mixes in a number of pro-EU and pro-U.K. sentiments with unclear aims, other than to get the U.K. to remain in the EU as a member. 

We might want to ask further what this form of pragmatic politics actually entails. Firstly, following an 'evidence-led' agenda is already an ideological one. Ut may seem as though it is anti-ideology, but the evidence the group will choose to follow is of course ideologically-defined (do you accordance the evidence of the UN, say, more credibility than you do than say, a left-wing NGO?).

Furthermore, does evidence also mean that you do things which are contrary to the mood and spirit of your country? By all evidence, it can be argued that the U.S. and Russia are closer to nuclear war than they have been for decades – Donald Trump's close ties to Russia could therefore be seen as evidence of a positive, proactive, and necessary approach to political-alliance building. It is of course, not seen that way. And does "evidence over ideology" sound remarkably familiar anyway? Isn't it the same technocratic and managerial form of politics which led to the crash of 2008 and the Brexit vote itself? The kind of politics which says, 'we're above ideas and emotions, we're just about hitting targets and meeting standards'. 

It might be worth asking what the implicit suggestion about 'evidence vs ideology' is. It seems to me that one underlying current emerges: those voting for these forces are simply "dumb", and those against are "clever". Now, imagine having this viewpoint. Imagine thinking that the only reason people did not vote what you wanted is because they are dumb. What does this mean? This means that what you want is so obvious and entrenched that you don't even have to argue for it – it's simply the right and obvious thing to do. I suspect that this is what the Independent Group MPs mean by 'evidence', that it's simply so obvious what we should do, that anything else is just stupid. Indeed, Brexit could be seen as an opportunity to enshrine workers' rights against the EU's policies, for example – not something the Independent Group readily admits. 

Ideology isn't dead. Even if it uses the language of management and targets and business. Even if it looks natural and normal. No, ideology is still very present in our politics. Extreme right-wing ideologies are on the rise, and are counter-balanced by socialist ones, also gaining ground. The Centrist ideology is simply a neoliberal one – it says "wealth and power must be maintained in exactly the same state as they are now, with exactly the same 1% benefiting", and yes, it also throws in a token liberal social agenda to give a sheen of legitimacy and depth. 

We risk falling into a cycle of thinking we don't have to fight for what we believe – that our opponents are simply too stupid to understand what is right if we fall for yet another batch of centrist policies. Given the parlous state of the social fabric (with welfare reduced, hate on the rise and people needing to rely on handouts), as well the challenges of the gig-economy and increasing precariousness, it's more important than ever to fight for what we believe in, and not fall into lazy thinking and thinking that 'everything will be better if everything stays the same'.

Photo: Twitter/Three Tory MPs have left the party to join the new Independent Group

Call to Action

People deserve a final say on Brexit – for them and for Europe

Support now