Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

If you are determined to pick middle of all issues, you are not superior neutral thinker. Instead, you are enabler for whoever is bigger lier or whoever is set up to cause more harm.

People dont have to have same opinions as me. But the contemporary idea that if you position yourself in the middle you are doing good by definition is wrong.

> The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.

As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way.

For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also blindly agreeing with anything else they come up with even if it's wrong. It kind of negates any good ideas because, to me, they don't come from a point of reasoning or critical thinking, but from tribalism.

I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific.

However, there are some good ideas financially coming from the (American) right that I think would work well for the US. I say this living in (and enjoying) Germany, which is largely what the left views as "socialism".

As well, living in San Francisco for a few years prior, there are of course a lot of good humanitarian efforts coming from people mostly based on the left - including renewable energy, for example, which seems to be wholly rejected by conservatives.

To me, what "makes sense" is oftentimes owned by one of the sides, and sometimes owned by neither. I'm often found to be politically homeless, and thus why I call myself a centrist - usually my viewpoints have some relation to one of the parties' extreme standpoints but generally nowhere near the fanaticism they exude (e.g. I'm what the Twitter left calls a "trans-medicalist", whereas the right tends to completely deny the humanity of trans individuals entirely).

I don't think people who claim that all issues can have a solution "somewhere in the middle" are centrist. I think they're undecided, uninformed, weak-thinkers, or people pleasers - or some mixture of those things. I myself have strong, solid opinions that oftentimes don't align with either side - hence why I call myself a centrist.

> One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.

This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions:

1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others.

2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining.

The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them.

And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".

> This is especially true for foreign relations.

Their latest issue literally has a massive article against vaccine nationalism. Their opposition to breaking of the Iranian deal.

> A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began

That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. The Economist has changed hands and most of its staff.

> 4 centrist anglophone sources

4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.

Also - why would I read insane crap on either side, my job isn't to read news all day.

It's being downvoted exactly for the reason that this topic is important.

Too many people are hopelessly trapped in their narrative bubbles and unable to calmly evaluate arguments against what they've been taught to believe.