19
Do you think centrists are bad?
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
19 points (78.8% liked)
Asklemmy
52873 readers
434 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Centrists in Canada are just Liberals and while I disagree with some of their policies, they're not bad, just status quo. Centrists in the US are undoubtedly bad though because what the hell?
The status quo is bad if you view us of the periphery as equal humans whose suffering matters the same as you.
Sorry, what are you referring to exactly? If it's the treatment of indigenous peoples in Canada or historical collaboration with the US' imperialistic wars then I'd agree with you but I know the average Liberal voter isn't thinking about either of those things. While it's bad that it's not on their mind, I wouldn't call them bad people for it as I would do with enthusiastic supporters of Pierre Poilievre's CPC
I am talking about how the status quo of the entirety of the imperial core is built on and sustained by the pillaging and superxploitation of the periphery through imperialism and neocolonialism.
I'm very much critical of those topics, but they're a bit beyond the scope of my initial comment. Just to make it clear, I'm not a centrist nor a Liberal voter. My original point is that the average Canadian LPC voter is not voting out of malice for others but out of a desire for stability (especially now in a time where things are very unstable). For example, a Liberal would generally want existing social support systems like our socialised healthcare to continue being funded at the levels that meet people's needs but are generally anxious at the idea of funding new similar programs like pharmacare.
Most of these voters also have zero real insight or historical context on geopolitical topics such as neocolinialism and I can say confidently that they're not thinking about it when voting.
I think it's all ignorant, misguided and lacks vision but I don't consider it something that's worthy of being labeled "bad".
Not to be mean, but I think you’re approaching this from a place of pretty immense privilege, where it’s possible to sidestep the fact that the “stability” and social care you’re talking about are materially predicated on the largest, most advanced, and most comprehensive immiseration machine in human history, currently headed by the US and enforced by its hunting dogs.
I understand what you’re saying about intent, but I think you’re putting far too much weight on intent and far too little on material outcomes. From the perspective of people in the periphery, whether harm is done out of malice, fear, or ignorance doesn’t change the harm itself. The status quo imposed by the imperial core is anything but neutral; it is actively sustained through extraction, coercion, and violence, regardless of how polite or well-meaning its defenders may be.
The claim that Liberal voters “aren’t thinking about” neocolonialism doesn’t really mitigate anything. Apathy and ignorance aren’t accidental flaws of the system, they’re systematically reinforced. Liberal politics trains people to narrow their moral horizon to national borders and to treat global suffering as unfortunate but external. Wanting stability at home while refusing to interrogate how that stability is financed is still a political choice, even if it feels passive or unavoidable.
I’m about to make an inflammatory comparison, and before it’s taken the wrong way I want to be clear that I’m not calling you, or Liberal voters, Nazis of any kind.
What I’m pointing to is a similar moral logic to the “clean Wehrmacht,” but applied to liberalism: the idea that all the real harm belongs to the obvious villains, while those who uphold the same system in a more moderate, respectable way are merely ignorant, apolitical, or trying their best. That framing launders responsibility. It treats liberal participation as an unfortunate accident rather than a core function.
From the standpoint of those who live with the consequences of your stability, calling it “misguided but not bad” reads as a refusal to take structural violence seriously.