(And How to Change Direction)

Centrism is broken. Here’s why ‘pissing your pants in the middle’ isn’t a political stance.

At its best, centrism is meant to cut through the extremes, advocating for compromise, pragmatism, and measured progress.

But centrism as a philosophy has lost its way. Rather than standing for something meaningful, it’s becoming a moving target—more concerned with chasing the mainstream than adhering to any set of principles.

Centrists today no longer anchor themselves to enduring values. Instead, they allow their politics to be dictated by the shifting middle, swayed by the current trends. As the middle moves, the centrists move with it, terrified that what was once considered moderate might appear radical or obsolete.

How did we get here?

How did centrism, once a space for thoughtful moderation, devolve into a position so reactive and unmoored that it now represents little more than political convenience? And what does it mean for the future of politics when centrists simply follow the loudest mob down whatever dog-shit laden garden path the Overton window may lead?

The Shifting Nature of the Overton Window

Joseph Overton, a policy analyst, developed the concept to explain how ideas that are initially considered radical or fringe can gradually move into the mainstream. The Overton window categorizes policies along a spectrum from “unthinkable” to “radical” to “acceptable” to “sensible,” finally arriving at “popular” and then “policy.” Essentially, it's a way to gauge what the public is ready to accept at a given moment.

The Overton window is not a fixed entity. It moves and shifts based on cultural, social, and economic forces. For example, what was once considered a left-wing or right-wing fringe idea—such as universal healthcare or severe immigration restrictions—can, over time, shift into the realm of acceptability.

Once an idea becomes mainstream, lawmakers feel comfortable embracing it as policy.

As Joseph Lehman, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, observes,

“The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.”

Lehman’s insight captures a key point: politicians tend to follow rather than lead. They track public opinion like weathervanes, and, in doing so, reflect where the center of the Overton window lies.

Centrism as a Moving Target

Nowhere is this phenomenon more clearly reflected than in contemporary centrism. By definition, centrists aim to occupy the political middle. However, if they define the middle purely by where it sits in relation to the current Overton window, then their position becomes entirely contingent on external shifts rather than internal convictions.

This creates a troubling dynamic.

As Reddit user Recognizant quipped,

“If one side says four, and the other side says twelve, the centrists will say eight. The problem with this is immediately evident. A principled party would say four again, because they have reasons for that. Facts, numbers, strong philosophical ground. But if one side doesn’t care…they can just say twenty, instead of twelve. And then the centrist position becomes ‘twelve’…where the unprincipled party used to be.”

In other words, if centrists are simply responding to where the middle is, they are at the mercy of those who determine the extremes. It is a case of political “pissing your pants in the middle and pretending it’s a point of view.” Centrists who define themselves by where the Overton window falls are not engaging in thoughtful political discourse; they are merely reacting. And in a political climate where the extremes are pushing further away from each other, this reactionism can cause centrism to drift far from any discernible ideological foundation.

Historically, this problem is not new.

Martin Luther King Jr., in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” made a brutal and entirely fucking valid critique of what he called the “white moderate.” He lamented that white moderates, more concerned with order than with justice, often stood in the way of meaningful progress. His comments could apply just as easily to modern centrists who are more committed to a middle position than to a set of core principles. King’s concern was not just that these moderates failed to choose sides but that their desire to maintain a safe, middle ground actually upheld systems of oppression.

Now who the fuck does that sound like?

The Importance of Anchoring in Principles

True centrism shouldn't be about finding the middle ground at any given moment; it should be about articulating a coherent vision for society, rooted in moderation but anchored by core beliefs. This is what makes the difference between thoughtful centrism and an opportunistic scramble to wherever the polls suggest the majority sits.

Centrism at its best is not devoid of ideology.

It is, instead, a philosophy of balance and pragmatism. It recognizes the value of compromise and incremental change. It advocates for a mixed economy that balances the strengths of free markets with the need for a social safety net. It values the rule of law but acknowledges the need for reform.

In short, you could say that principled centrism holds certain truths to be self-evident: that progress is important but must be measured, that power must be distributed but with accountability, that human rights are universal but must be protected within functioning institutions.

But when centrists merely react to where the Overton window has shifted, they risk abandoning these foundational ideas. Without an anchoring ideology, centrism can quickly become little more than a passive reflection of the status quo. And as the boundaries of the Overton window change, centrists find themselves chasing the center of a shifting target rather than standing for anything of substance.

Is There a Middle Worth Defending?

Centrists must be prepared take unpopular stands. For example, during the civil rights movement, a principled centrist might have supported incremental reforms rather than full-scale revolution. But such a centrist would still have been willing to oppose the forces of segregation, even if doing so placed them outside of the mainstream at the time. Likewise, in contemporary politics, a centrist might support policies like healthcare reform or climate action, not because they are currently popular, but because they represent thoughtful, pragmatic solutions to pressing problems.

Centrism can be a principled political philosophy.

True centrism is built on the belief that moderation is not weakness, that compromise is not capitulation, and that progress is best achieved through careful deliberation rather than sweeping changes.

But centrism only works when it is grounded in a set of enduring values. When centrists lose sight of these values and instead allow their positions to drift along with the Overton window, they're standing for nothing at all.

Political extremes are dominating public discourse - and let's not fuck around the bush without a rubber, most of the attempts to shift the window are coming from neo-Nazi influenced, Christo fascist, extreme right ideologies. Centrism has to do more than simply find the midpoint between left and right.

It has to stand for the thoughtful, deliberate pursuit of balance and progress.

And most importantly, it has to be willing to say no to ideas that fall outside of its carefully constructed framework of principles—even if those ideas become popular.

Otherwise, centrism becomes nothing more than a moving target, swaying wherever the wind blows, and centrists will keep pissing their pants in the middle, pretending it’s a point of view.