On the Principles and Values of a New Center Movement

18 min readMay 1, 2018

A clarification on what such a movement does and does not stand for.

An Opening Note to the Reader. As an opening note to the reader, I cannot speak for everyone who identifies with the New Center. This is my best attempt to capture its core values and ideas. This is not an official ‘manifesto’ or anything representing an organization. It is merely my unofficial take on the movement — what its best ideas and minds actually stand for, and what the term ‘New Center’, on the whole, should stand for. It is my sincere hope that this article can bring clarity and even-handed dialogue to more people across the political map.

We are witnessing a crossroads in our political landscape. Millions of Americans — across the wider Left-Right divide — are seeking a better roadmap for conversations. A better way to reconcile the need for justice with the need for truth. A way to abandon the suffocating atmosphere of rigid platform ideologies and the pressure of the group, the tribe, the ideological narrative. People are seeking a space to think freely, and side not only with reason and evidence, but with human dignity.

One of the single biggest obstacles to this kind of clear thinking — and to sensible, humane conversation — is very arguably our attachment to rigid ideologies and dogmatic thinking. We, as reasoning individuals, as groups, as a society, and even as a species, can do better without it. We can embrace a new kind of politics — a kind that is organized principally around independent thinking, reason and compassion, and against all forms of bad ideas, groupthink and dogma. This radical idea is starting to make headway as one of the most profound underdog stories in modern politics, fighting for mere recognition amidst all the noise made by shouting partisans and ideological puritans. People are making reasonable noises and fighting to be heard. More than ever in recent times, millions of disillusioned Americans are listening, receptive and eager to hear alternatives to the standard ‘Left vs Right’ story we have been fed for so many decades. In short, we are starting to seek a better path — a new roadmap. We just don’t quite know what to call it yet.

Some time ago, at a social event on the NYC Waterfront, a friend of mine who teaches evolutionary psychology opened up about the pushback and visceral reactions he gets — quite regularly, it seemed — from some people on the Left, for discussing some of the basics of his field. When you tell people that science points to our human natures being more than just ‘blank slates’, some, for ideological reasons, double down in recoil. However, this apparently was not the only source of pushback for him — he also gets attacked by the Left for being a critic of Islam. He himself is an ex-Muslim, and hails from a Muslim country. Yet the reflexive reaction of many is to assume that honest criticism of the religious doctrine, or of problems non-Muslim minorities, atheists, gays and women in Islamic societies face, is somehow driven by a hidden bigotry, rather than any genuine argument. Even for people from these societies themselves. This same person is no stranger to being stereotyped, mischaracterized, or attacked by people on the Right, for ‘looking like a Muslim’ or rejecting traditional religious values and supporting a secular scientific worldview. He is too anti-Islam for much of the Left, and too Muslim-looking for much of the Right. The irony here cannot be overstated.

This man’s experience of feeling increasingly isolated by the tribalism and dogma of both groups is something shared by many of my friends, who come from quite a diverse range of countries and cultures. Many are caught between the dogmatism and political correctness of both ends, feeling like the ideological status quo has abandoned classical Enlightenment values of reason, science and humanism. This is not about lots of people whose views are ‘right in the center’; obviously, some lean far more to one side than another, and many have a patchwork of views across the divide that does not conform to a cut and paste checklist. In spite of this, they tend to share a common thread of disillusionment with the current atmosphere, and the predominant ideology platforms that seem to dominate discourse. In an atmosphere of toxicity that rewards closed thinking, people are seeking a better space for nuance.

Andrew Sullivan, a gay, English-born conservative who easily defies any simple political labeling, spoke with Sam Harris and David Frum on a Waking Up podcast episode. He drew a very agreeable reaction by a receptive crowd when he mentioned the considerable penalties people pay in today’s politics for changing their minds, and the visceral reactions many draw by even questioning rigid ideology platforms. Independent thinking is shunned, while conformity is socially and politically rewarded by one’s own ideological tribe. The very idea of being wrong, and recognizing the need to follow the evidence over one’s ideological or sectarian loyalties, is shunned by our popular discourse. Many of these people share a sentiment that I have heard from people like Iraqi-born science and human rights activist Faisal al-Mutar: In between the main narratives we are being sold, more and more feel ‘politically homeless’. Yet now, in the increasing spaces for nuance and freethinking we are starting to see across various forums, more of these people are finding a home.

New Centrism: An Introduction

In all the fog and battle smoke of our polarized quest for being right, millions of disaffected people across our political map are discovering that answers to human wellbeing are found not in political dogma or rigid ideology, but in the willingness to be wrong. In the very desire to change our minds by respecting the power of logic, reason and skepticism.

The path that many new centrists like myself are advocating involves taking on the same attitudes of humility and curiosity that make science such a beautifully powerful and consistently effective endeavor. If we can overcome our neurological barriers to skeptical thinking — our political egos, our natural resistance to being wrong, and our visceral reactions to being challenged on our beliefs and political platitudes, then we may actually start to see much of this smoke clear.

An analogy I explore in depth in The Reason Challenge (a nod to Brazilian Jujitsu and the Gracie Challenge of the early UFC days) perhaps captures the essence of how New Centrism is seeking to change our political landscape.

“The key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.”

The aim of being open to new centrism is not to forsake your principles or needlessly ditch your political identification — to the contrary, be who you are! The idea, rather, it is to put skepticism, science, reason, and evidence first, before your ideological tribe, party, team or political identity. Perhaps above all, be willing to change your mind. Strive, with diligence and intellectual honesty, to reject all forms of political dogma and tribalism, no matter whose ‘side’ or ‘team’ they arise on.

It is about a rejection of the team sport mentality that has so toxically hijacked not only our politics and our discourse, but also our very desire to be shown when we are wrong. A mindset that has poisoned our intellectual curiosity. My take on a New Center movement is to put skepticism, reason, compassion and human dignity before anything else, and help re-align how we envision our political axis. The ‘Left vs Right’ model is fundamentally not working for us.

What are some guiding principles?

There is no dogma, hierarchy or ideology platform in the New Center. It is guided by certain principles and ideas. For one, it rejects the idea of holding identity over truth, evidence, science, compassion or human dignity. It rejects the tribalism and identity-centered politics often seen on the far Left, and which occupies much of the Right, especially the Alt Right. While identity and struggle is certainly important in many contexts (such as some of the very real struggles and unjust hardships that many minorities still face), it should not be in conflict with truth-seeking and our precious gifts of reason and independent thinking.

In addition,

-We should value skepticism and science above dogma. Especially in politics.

-We should value an epistemology that seeks truth, being willing and even eager to change our mind.

-We should seek to always place the rights and dignity of people above group belonging or ideological narrative. While we can and should discuss things like privilege and inequality among groups, we cannot coldly reduce people to their identity in a group — people are far more than that. People have inner lives. People have struggles, and unique experiences.

-Group rights and the politics of groups do indeed matter, and cannot be ignored or dismissed — but they matter because individual human beings matter. This often gets lost in translation on both ends of our politically polarized spectrum.

-Most importantly, people have rights, people come first. Ideology is secondary.

I invite people — centrists and critics alike — to explore this, together. And to perhaps see if we can end up somewhere better off on the intellectual map.

A few main points about a New Center Movement, to help clear the air

Here are a few of the main areas of misunderstanding that I encounter from others, especially from the Left. It is my hope that this can clear up at least enough cross-talk to lead to real conversation

· It is important to understand that the emerging ‘Center movement’ is about rejecting extremism as a style of thinking, along with political dogma, tribalism and reflexive ideology platforms.

· It is not — contrary to a seemingly endless supply of repetitious memes and cliche strawman attacks by critics — about “always being in the middle”. It is not about reflexively taking a center position between any two ends of an issue. I explore that later in the article, and I strongly encourage people to read and consider this issue.

· It does not reject being ‘extreme’ about being on the right side of a moral argument or issue, in the sense that we should be passionate about fighting for truth and justice. Rather, it rejects extremism as defined by a tribal, closed and dogmatic way of thinking. This distinction is crucial.

· One can, in fact, have very progressive views (such as universal healthcare, single payer, more gun control, radical justice and police reform, much stronger safety nets, etc.) and still reject certain facets of Leftist dogmas — and the very idea of dogma within politics to begin with.

· Many in the New Center, including friends of mine, actually have some views that line up with much of the Left. There are Bernie supporters in the movement. There are moderate conservatives. There are Independents. It is not about any one political platform, or set of positions. It is about a style of thinking.

If there is a single sentence that encapsulates the New Center for critics on the Left, perhaps the following phrase will suffice:

It is the new non-druggie version of “freeing your mind”.

Sadly, it seems that relatively few understand what the term ‘New Center’ actually is, or represents. It is not about any one political platform, or set of positions. It is about a style of thinking. It’s about rejecting the hivemind — the herd mentality — that has defined so much of the modern Left and Right across today’s political landscape.

The term “The Center” — of which there are many forms, just as there are with “atheist” or “secularist” or “skeptic”, or “liberal” and “Leftist” for that matter — is a term that needs to be far better explained and defined in our conversations than it has been in the past. Many people — including a good number of my friends in the skeptic, science and human rights community — have done, in my opinion, a wonderful job of explaining it. However, this often gets drowned out by all the tribal noise, trolling and two-way vitriol that often accommodates the wider topic, especially across social media. We should all strive to create better discussion, not only for those leaving the echo chambers or dogmatic belief systems of a particular ‘political tribe’, but for critics of New Centrism. This invite to better understanding is how we evolve, grow, and thrive in our discourse.

New Centrism Decoded

There are so many language barriers and points of misunderstanding that a Universal Pocket Translator may be needed for conveying to the wider public what the idea of a ‘New Center’ is. I think an effort to go over its main principles would be best served by an explanation of some of its most misunderstood words and concepts. If I am to build a bridge with people reading this article, I need to make sure there is a chance to really think about and discuss this movement — and its set of ideas — without the confusion and cross-talk that often colors our discourse on just about anything having to do with “centrism”, “skepticism” or “freethinking”. These words are admittedly misused, badly referenced, and misappropriated for things unsuitable for a fair hearing on their true meaning.

Let’s start with science, and some of its related words — perhaps one of the concepts most in need of explanation. A problem often arises whenever people raise the terms ‘science’ and ‘skepticism’, or advocates for more ‘logic and reason. Many seem to get stuck on this crucial point, because we don’t always define it (or ask others to do so). It often becomes a stumbling block for misunderstanding, cross talk and confusion. Many tell me that talking about the need for ‘logic, reason and skepticism’, or for ‘science within our discourse’, is somehow redundant. We all ‘support science’, don’t we? Do we not all want to be ‘reasonable’? Everyone certainly claims to value these things, and almost no one will openly denigrate them. These terms are often branded by critics as being too redundant, too general and obvious to have any real meaning. “I find it pointless to emphasize ‘being reasonable’ and supporting ‘science’…because, it’s redundant; don’t we all support these things?”.

No, we don’t.

In fact, the majority of our political discourse and partisan tribalism is not only lacking in support of scientific thinking and skepticism, but often vigorously opposed to it. Therefore, defining this ahead of time is greatly important.

Here is a summary of what the term ‘science’ and scientific thinking should convey. As you read this, take a moment and imagine how this would apply in politics. Or should, but almost never does.

Science and scientific thinking involves

(1) A desire to be proven wrong;

(2) A willingness to seek truth over dogma;

(3) A willing exposure to a plurality of viewpoints;

(4) A willingness to embrace dissent and peer review;

(5) An ability to detach one’s ideas and theories from ones identity

The basic idea beneath the terms ‘science and skepticism’ cannot be shouted loudly enough, or from high enough hilltops. What does it mean to advocate for these things within politics, as a movement? What, specifically, does this involve?

Simply put, this involves following the evidence. It involves a willingness to change our mind. A desire to see where we could be wrong, and adapt to the facts, the evidence, and the logical side of argument. It is essentially the opposite of dogmatic or ideological thinking. This is a distinction we don’t make nearly enough, and this has to change dramatically within our politics.

Addressing common misconceptions: A starting point

I cannot ever recall how many times I’ve run across the same trip wires and battle lines over the (often fruitless) digital trench warfare of Facebook and Twitter.

“New Centrism is the language of bigots and Alt-Right sympathizers. It’s used to cover for bigots and racists”.

How often do we hear this as a sweeping dismissal of the New Center, and everything it stands for? I recall memorable and painful occasions of seeing people break down or fight back an onslaught of tears due to legitimate traumas or hardships they were reminded of by the language around them. There have been countless other times where simply being sensitive to the feelings and sensitivities of others around us is clearly the good and decent thing to do. Sadly, many people take a cruel and empathy-lacking approach, especially online, and use the term “fuck your feelings” as a blindly applied slogan of automatic fire rather than a selectively employed statement against political correctness in its excess. This is part of what exacerbates this divide: the dismissals by many of real human hardships that we as decent people should care about. This, in turn, often elicits a sweeping dismissal of ‘centrism’ as a whole by opponents on the Left.

I have seen this unfortunate dynamic more times than I can count. These sweeping dismissals by some on the Left seem to use a legitimate concern about toxic forms of centrism (or the misuse of what New Centrism actually stands for, or of bigots hiding behind its language) as an excuse to wholly dismiss its deeper ideas, its core values, even its intellectual and scientific principles. This is itself a serious point conversation failure that we have to address.

There is a critical distinction that we must make, right off the bat: our ideas and language can be misused, like most any set of ideas within the political and social domain. Terms like ‘freethinker’ have been used to provide cover to bigotry. The word ‘skeptic’ is misused — as well as misunderstood — at a tragic rate. The term ‘political correctness’ can be used to dismiss legitimate concerns about human dignity and suffering, while the pejorative use of the term ‘SJW’ has been taken to the extreme, to the point of the term losing almost any productive value in cooperative conversation. The ideas behind ‘centrism’ have been coopted in very unproductive ways. We must reclaim the term, and take it back from the echo chambers of tribal discourse and harmful misunderstanding.

Where Centrists and Leftists can bridge the divide

Let us unpack a few examples of how the common divide exists — in this case, between people on the Left and those who lean more towards the center — in very simple terms. Some criticism of Islam is not bigoted, but reflects honest efforts at important conversation, touching on things we cannot in good conscience simply ignore. Other criticisms of Islam by some are in fact driven by bigotry, or aimed to attack and slander Muslims as people. The difference matters, like night and day. This is a classic example of the wider gap we need to help show more and more people how to bridge through better communication. It is also a great starting point in showing how our broken communication can (and must) be bridged, as most reading this will likely agree on this basic distinction, as well as the importance of seeing the difference.

I recall a time a friend of mine from the Middle East was talking about the problems of theocracy and extremism that took hold during the elections following the Arab Spring protests in Tahrir Square in 2011. We were discussing my experiences in the Middle East and feelings about reform within Islam as well. Surprisingly, the topic changed course rather quickly: we had to contend with the problem of secular Westerners — specifically, Leftists — telling people like my friend that he was in fact bigoted for talking negatively about Islam and theocracy as he saw it in his own country. This is not an isolated phenomenon: many of my ex-Muslim friends, from a diverse range of cultures and countries, have told me and others about this problem. It has acted many times in our wider discourse to hurt the very conversations we need to have — long overdue conversations — about freedom of conscience and human rights across the Islamic world.

Many Left-leaning people who resist criticism or critical discussion of Islam or Islamic societies don’t seem to notice the difference between criticism of ideas and practices (such as the burkha, the persecution of homosexuals and ex-Muslims, or certain interpretations within Quranic and Hadithic jurisprudence), and bigoted attacks on Muslims as people. This difference should be obvious. Very often, however, in the smoke and fog of ideological tensions and conversational crossfire, it’s not obvious to those in the conversation itself. Why is this so? Many people see things from their own vantage point, not realizing that the other person may be bringing different concerns to the forefront of their mind, and seeing things from an entirely different vantage point. This is quite admittedly where more new centrists really need to reach out on this issue. We need to strive to separate the genuine and reasonable uses of these terms from the toxic ones. To separate the real freethinkers from the trolls and bigots in the eye of public discourse. We must operate by example, and always reflect and seek self-improvement — as individuals, and as freethinkers. This is more essential than ever, especially at a time when dogmatic thinking and tribalism are peaking, and skepticism and freethinking are under constant attack.

Here is a way to help visualize how this can work — let’s simplify and re-phrase the above:

Below is a simple 2x2 table to help convey this distinction, especially useful if you’re having an argument after your 3rd cocktail.

Here is another example — and a distinction that most in the Center and the Left should generally agree on, as a starting point.

(1) Don’t say hurtful things just to be a jerk. Hold bigots accountable. Help society move away from racism, misogyny and hate.

(2) Don’t stifle needed conversations. Don’t shun dissenting ideas in order to protect political dogmas. Don’t automatically assume the worst in someone’s motives for making an argument.

If critics are able to step back for even a moment and see these distinctions, it may open a gateway for far more fruitful discourse, perhaps for years to come.

Conclusion: A New Solidarity for More People across the Political Map

These ideas and principles above, to me and many others, comprise the heart and underlying spirit of The New Center. It is something that fellow freethinking centrists should voice in every public debate, defend across the internet, explain on every podcast and write about in the local and mainstream media. The value of these principles cannot be overstated, and the need for them in our discourse — across the ideological spectrum — is almost always ignored or understated.

We must move away from the increasingly unsustainable model we are seeing overtake so much of our campuses and communities. This does not negate the very legitimate and often crucial role of protest and of making noise. It does not seek to silence the downtrodden nor take away from the aspirations of those seeking to be heard. It does not seek to diminish or demean people’s genuine frustrations and grievances. Rather, it is about moving away from a paradigm based around dogmatic thinking, closed mindsets, groupthink, echo chambers and rival tribes.

This model of human conflict is destined to break us if we don’t discover how to break away from it first. We must find a way to do this, if we are to combat increasing radicalization and the toxic effects of echo chambers. We need to give people, across the spectrum, a viable alternative to extremism and civil strife. We need to build on a new movement — and a new paradigm — that recognizes the need to listen to the downtrodden, fight for the vulnerable, and stand up for true equality — while avoiding the entrapment of dogmatic ideology or the toxic fringes of our discourse. This movement already exists in its emerging stages — people across all walks of life are converging on a kind of ‘new center’, to try and put reason, science and human dignity at the forefront of the conversation.