There’s like, two lines in that that are centrist.
The rest of it is what you might call not prejudiced in the more literal sense of things.
Just because someone believes in not judging by large swathes rather than by individual actions doesn’t mean they’re arguing for any given ideology. They’re arguing against building artificial walls.
Whether anyone agrees with that or not is irrelevant. Centrists aren’t the only ones that hold that married belief.
Until they got to the point of saying you are behaving like they said you would, that argument was neutral. At that point, it became centrist, though one could argue that they wouldn’t have to be to express that idea. I wouldn’t make that argument, but it could be made.
Here’s an ugly truth.
Unless you plan to kill every single Republican in the country, you’re going to have to work with at least some of them in order to counter any future issues. Being aware of that, and acting accordingly is a damn good idea because the alternative isn’t going to win many allies.
So, you know, if you wanna lump all Republicans together as bad, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that there’s enough will and manpower to solve the problem without eradicating them if that’s how things are going to be. And, tbh, there’s not enough people willing to do that in the first place. You got an army willing to put a bullet in millions of people? You gonna co-opt the army or national guard? None of the left wing militias have the numbers to do it, and not all of those are radical enough to begin with.
By you, I don’t necessarily mean you OP, more the people that think they can wave a magic wand and all the Republicans will disappear or convert to another ideology with protests and online arguments.
The centrists? The actual centrists that genuinely think that the current us problem can be solved by a balance of power and that things need to remain as the status quo was, where two parties in roughly equal power would find the right answers in the middle. They aren’t going to join a civil war to begin with. Even if the fight really was Republicans vs Democrats, they wouldn’t join a side. They sure as hell won’t join in against the rest of the U.S. that’s neither of those parties and against them both.
So, yeah, be prepared to find Republicans that are less bad than the rest if you don’t want to essentially slaughter every one of them
I appreciate the argument you are making, but I disagree with the main premise that “republican” is some inherent identity akin to someone’s religion, and that we need to be magnanimous in our messaging about being involved with that political party in a time like this. This type of political affiliation is a check mark on a form that can be changed at any time. The kind of argument you are presenting is reminiscent of “all lives matter” or “not all men” arguments. I think it is missing the point. It is not to say that literally everyone who is a registered republican is an irredeemable monster, but that supporting that party, being a part of it, is not some neutral thing that can be ignored (maybe that would be different if their base fundamentally opposed the party’s actions, but they are supportive).
There is no evidence to suggest that reaching across the aisle in that way has any net positive effect. History has shown that the opposite is true. We can embrace those people if they leave their ideology and come to us, but not the other way around. We will not be able to counteract billions of dollars’ worth of media and propaganda apparatus by being accepting. It is better to make it clear that the actions of that organization are unacceptable.
