Would you be open for an independent president who is a centrist?

[President Johnson]

Even though it's very difficult to win an election this way, would you be open for an independent president with centrist political views? Potentially someone who comes from an academic or business background (if a businessman, only someone who has treated employees well)?

I'm not running down a long list of political stances here, but they're mainly centrist on each important issue. His/her cabinet would consist two groups: A bunch of outsiders from business, labor, academia and the military/intel community and some experienced politicans from both parties, who are known moderates.

I think it would be a great experiment and very interesting to see how it turns out. Of course, it depends on the individual who is president, but I really like the idea to overcome the partisan bickering and get realistic, pragmatic solutions done. This could also restore trust into government, that has been lost over the last decades.

[dead0man]

always (not a hack)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, Trump ran as a centrist(Obama social programs dont work); and we have Kavanaugh and a natl debt problem due to:more SSA filings for people under 62 and more student loan indebtedness

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Yes, provided that their centrism maps on to the highly idiosyncratic set of extreme views that, along with ignorance and a general lack of moral fiber, usually defines a moderate voter.

May I introduce you to the platform of former General Wesley S. MacGuffin (I-NC)?

✓ 90% tax rate on the richest 1%
✓ Death penalty for pedophiles
✓ National ban on pit bulls
✓ Corporal punishment for drug offenders
✓ School uniforms
✓ National ban on Right to Work
✓ Unilateral withdrawal from NATO
✓ Re-introduction of the gray wolf to every state in the continental US
✓ Moratorium on wind development
✓ Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
✓ Make politicians dress like NASCAR drivers

This one looks like a real winner!

How sad is it that this is less objectionable than tons of actual political platforms of ~mainstream~ candidates?

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Absolutely not.


And especially not a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" moron like Howard Schultz.

[MarkD]

Yes, definitely. I think an independent centrist is most likely going to appoint the right kind of people to the Supreme Court. I hope they don't appoint "moderates" to the Court; I want them to appoint only the most highly objective interpreters of law. Being "moderate" does not equate to being objective. They may vote similarly on the bench, but they do not vote for the conclusions that they do for the same reason. A "moderate" merely comes to conservative conclusions sometimes and liberal conclusions other times. But their interpretation of the Constitution could still potentially be based on their own values. An objective interpreter of the Constitution sets aside their own values when they decide how to interpret and apply.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A predictable post from the OP.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To answer the question, a "centrism" doesn't exist as a coherent ideology. It is an artificial line in the sand to help us divide a broadly defined left from no less broadly defined right. A "moderate" is a real thing, but each moderate have dominating leanings one way or the other.

Would I be willing to vote for a "centrist"? No, unless we have a situation in which it's a clear case of lesser evil v. greater evil. Otherwise I'm firmly on the left.

[President Johnson]

A predictable post from the OP.

Lol.... how so?

[Sirius_]

I think it would be great to have one, even though it isn't happening in this system. I would probably support such a candidate if they were viable though.

[Dr. MB]

I'd much rather have an at least semi-left-wing president, so no. If this centrist independent is the only alternative to a Republican, I guess, but I wouldn't be too happy about it.

[Idaho Conservative]

Yes, definitely. I think an independent centrist is most likely going to appoint the right kind of people to the Supreme Court. I hope they don't appoint "moderates" to the Court; I want them to appoint only the most highly objective interpreters of law. Being "moderate" does not equate to being objective. They may vote similarly on the bench, but they do not vote for the conclusions that they do for the same reason. A "moderate" merely comes to conservative conclusions sometimes and liberal conclusions other times. But their interpretation of the Constitution could still potentially be based on their own values. An objective interpreter of the Constitution sets aside their own values when they decide how to interpret and apply.

Example of such a judge?

[Idaho Conservative]

A Bloomberg or Howard sh**tz type candidate is the opposite of what I'd vote for, I'd sooner vote for Tulsi or Warren.

[Sirius_]

Absolutely not.


And especially not a "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" moron like Howard Schultz.

That's not what any centrists actually mean when they want a centrist. You can be +10,-10 on the political matrix, but them evening out doesn't make you "centrist". You're just opposite extremes. Of course nobody is in the perfect center, but centrists want someone who is actually somewhat close to the real middle.

[President Johnson]

Yes, definitely. I think an independent centrist is most likely going to appoint the right kind of people to the Supreme Court. I hope they don't appoint "moderates" to the Court; I want them to appoint only the most highly objective interpreters of law. Being "moderate" does not equate to being objective. They may vote similarly on the bench, but they do not vote for the conclusions that they do for the same reason. A "moderate" merely comes to conservative conclusions sometimes and liberal conclusions other times. But their interpretation of the Constitution could still potentially be based on their own values. An objective interpreter of the Constitution sets aside their own values when they decide how to interpret and apply.

Example of such a judge?

Maybe John Paul Stevens?

[courts]

maybe. depends on their policies and the rest of the field

[Idaho Conservative]

Yes, definitely. I think an independent centrist is most likely going to appoint the right kind of people to the Supreme Court. I hope they don't appoint "moderates" to the Court; I want them to appoint only the most highly objective interpreters of law. Being "moderate" does not equate to being objective. They may vote similarly on the bench, but they do not vote for the conclusions that they do for the same reason. A "moderate" merely comes to conservative conclusions sometimes and liberal conclusions other times. But their interpretation of the Constitution could still potentially be based on their own values. An objective interpreter of the Constitution sets aside their own values when they decide how to interpret and apply.

Example of such a judge?

Maybe John Paul Stevens?

Ok but he's a liberal.  A believer in a "living Constitution" which basically means "The meaning of the Constitution changes even if the words don't" AKA ruling based on personal opinion.  The only consistent standard is originalism/strict constructionalism.  With anything else, the judge rules on their opinion.  The founding fathers created a mechanism for when society's values change, the amendment process.  I'll give sn example: if society comes to accept gay marriage, that doesn't mean there is magically a right to same sex marriage in the Constitution that never existed before.  Instead, legalize it legislatively, or if it's REALLY high priority, make an amendment to legalize.  But if judges can magically change the meaning of anything in the Constitution at will, it defeats the purpose of even having one.

[courts]

Yes, definitely. I think an independent centrist is most likely going to appoint the right kind of people to the Supreme Court. I hope they don't appoint "moderates" to the Court; I want them to appoint only the most highly objective interpreters of law. Being "moderate" does not equate to being objective. They may vote similarly on the bench, but they do not vote for the conclusions that they do for the same reason. A "moderate" merely comes to conservative conclusions sometimes and liberal conclusions other times. But their interpretation of the Constitution could still potentially be based on their own values. An objective interpreter of the Constitution sets aside their own values when they decide how to interpret and apply.

Example of such a judge?

Maybe John Paul Stevens?

Ok but he's a liberal.  A believer in a "living Constitution" which basically means "The meaning of the Constitution changes even if the words don't" AKA ruling based on personal opinion.  The only consistent standard is originalism/strict constructionalism.  With anything else, the judge rules on their opinion.  The founding fathers created a mechanism for when society's values change, the amendment process.  I'll give sn example: if society comes to accept gay marriage, that doesn't mean there is magically a right to same sex marriage in the Constitution that never existed before.  Instead, legalize it legislatively, or if it's REALLY high priority, make an amendment to legalize.  But if judges can magically change the meaning of anything in the Constitution at will, it defeats the purpose of even having one.

yeah to be honest i was a little uncomfortable with how that played out. even if i obviously don't have a problem with the outcome

[TML]

If centrist means corporatist, then HELL NO!

[Lechasseur]

If it's someone in the mold of the American Solidarity Party, yeah absolutely. On the other hand, if it's going to be a "fsically conservative, socially liberal" type, not so much.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Only if he/she has overtaken the Democratic nominee in the polls and voting for him/her seems the most likely way to prevent a Bush 43- or Trump-style presidency.

[Sirius_]

If centrist means corporatist, then HELL NO!

Um... no. How many times do I have to say that "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is not centrist.

[Leinad]

No, as there are issues I care more about than hack fantasies that fetishize half-assed political wankery as anything less than a mockery of whatever fibers of usefulness the institutions of modern society had left to offer.

"Centrism" for the sake of "centrism" is not a virtue, and hopefully the people on here learn this before they're old enough to vote for more BS feel-good hacks that do nothing but kick the cans of real problems down the road so the system that favors their rich friends can stay in power.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In terms of the judiciary, maybe the better solution would be to strip the executive of the right to influence it all plus generally give the branch less scope to influence laws? A powerful and politicicized judiciary is not an effective way to run a democracy.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Actually centrist, as in midway between classical left or classical right? Sure.

"Centrist" as in halfway between the actually centrist Democrats and the rabid alt-right Republicans? Hell no.