The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi): Adenauer and De Gasperi were the leaders of the respective christian-democratic parties and led the transition of their countries away from 2 of the worst dictatorships humankind has ever seen
ending apartheid in South Africa: F. W. De Klerk was South Africa’s last apartheid president and although he represented the party which created apartheid, he acted as a centrist. He sidelined the far right wings of his party, released Nelson Mandela’s and ended the system. Nelson Mandela also adopted pretty reconciliatory policies once he became president.
1991 economic reforms in India: the centrist Indian National Congress party adopted sweeping reforms that enabled India to face the crisis it was going through and speed up its GDP per capita growth.
I don’t have time to finish but you can easily find more information about the rest in any contemporary history textbook or on the internet.
At the time of those political advancements, it was progressive ideology. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been advancements, it would have been conserving the norm, dumbass.
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure what enemy I’ve created by pointing out progressive policies as… progressive. Even if it’s not as progressive as perhaps some would like at that time. It’s not so much of an “argument” when stating facts.
Perhaps clarify what point you’re attempting to make.
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.
Many of the greatest political advancements in the history of humanity were achieved by people you’d call “centrists”.
Such as?
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
I could go on.
HA! Sure, buddy, sure, we’ll let you call that centrism. Do you need help finding your way back to the children’s table?
Point out which of these don’t have elements of “centrism” plz
Point out where they do.
I don’t have time to finish but you can easily find more information about the rest in any contemporary history textbook or on the internet.
Sure.
Hit me up when you obtain the ability to provide an argument.
At the time of those political advancements, it was progressive ideology. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been advancements, it would have been conserving the norm, dumbass.
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure what enemy I’ve created by pointing out progressive policies as… progressive. Even if it’s not as progressive as perhaps some would like at that time. It’s not so much of an “argument” when stating facts.
Perhaps clarify what point you’re attempting to make.
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.