The Nerve of the Center

Centrology

Centrology

 Since the beginning of politics there have been three main flavors to every party in the race. Firstly, there is the leftwing. They look after the interests of the lower classes. Secondly, there is the rightwing. They look after the rich. And then, like the title of this book goes, there are the Centrists. And their trait is that they are stuck between the other two without really knowing what to do!

 The nerve of the centre-positioned is the fact they appear stable and forthright, when actually they have cowardice against making bold decisions. In centrology, the results are stagnant because there is no shift. When politicians become middle-men in this way (such as Barack), the fluidity of social change is lost while leaders float upon a machine that merely “ticks over” as it always did.

 If a leader stays center, then they are in risk of achieving less because the way to catch public attention is to swing in new directions. If 50% of voters suddenly vote for a younger party, there is a re-jig in the political spectrum and the resultant reaction is that society changes it's allegiances until our wings settle again. Every time election day is close, the media are watching us not them and the situation peaks. Never forget you are in control.

 Looking at Tony Blair, in particular, there is an unusual reason why he was centre. We are led to believe he was a welfare saint who spread socialism in an adapted party but what we never hear is that he had a rightist issue. He cost Britain trillions in debt to achieve his goals then dumped the onus on Gordon Brown when his Democrat-equivalents had run their course.

 And, seeing as Labour died, we can kind of unfortunately thank him for today's coalition. Their deficit and strict taxations are trying to heal the hole Blair created. So, what they have, is nearly Neo-Con because they are obsessed with money at the best of times. It took 10 years for Blair's swing to even out across the land. If Britain had known would No.10 be anything like this?

America has an equivalent tyrrant. When Bush declared War on the known world, he inadvertently put the US in a new situation. He even brought about rightism in his home policy, too. Every working class individual with 2 braincells could easily tell Barack was a shift back because the chasm between them was so wide.

 Now Britain is severely in the red with much less legacy to the good work he envisaged. Was it worth them following blindly now they are stuck with a huge bill and a Tory melting-pot? Probably not. I like what he tried to do, but if the man was marked as Center to start with, they would never have had Cameron trying to be an even worse answer! He is, no doubt, Britain's very own G.W.Bush.

 Britain is worse off than when it started. And Labour are still doing it, too. NewLabour, I should say. There seems to be a reluctance toward any kind of leftism in the US and in the UK. And all these occurences are monetary losses for people as well as party. So something grassroots must be on the horizon soon but it is not Ed Miliband (and certainly not what we're poisoned with at present). Middle-centre means middle-class. Remember that.

 A paradigm I have mentioned, though, is that even President 44 crawling further back along our preferred wing has produced a centrist state because the actions Bush took were so all-consuming. Republican rule cost us our ethics and our insurances. After all, Britain is only failing because America reached a breaking-point. Both countries died quite a while back.

 So, if they both produce a blank canvas for a new phenomenon and act as if the Millenial Clock has been rolled back, then no party would dare draw up the same swindles. We would probably be watching for the most honest figure and may just get the reform we wanted before with a price more akin to the realities of a recovering market here and abroad... Real Socialism! 

We could learn from Britain. They look after their families, the disabled, the ageing, the jobless and the poor. They also deliver free healthcare to everyone regardless of monetary status (something which Barack promised but is slow to follow). What people say is that it doesn't work over here, but as reactionaries, we should be asking "why the hell not"?

Barack Obama smelt like Teen Spirit. He changed some things. But, his social shifts were in the wrong places if you think maybe pushing for same-sex marriages and embracing stem-cell technology can't be as good as giving to unions and easing medical insurance for the poor. The lowest of us need benefit not mere compromise on Godly issues by pruning policy here and there.

 In many political studies of the last Century, there is a feeling that, one day, these working classes could inherit the Earth. We are already the cog in a giant wheel called America and we clean your ghetto, cut your hair, serve your breakfasts, lay your bricks etc. Without our input, the Conservatives could not become rich. We are the salt on everyone's McDonalds. And it doesn't just happen in this country either – There's a world of work.

In fact, when studying power, you always have to take the public into account. Someone who votes a certain way is affected by (and has affect on) all politics within his/her country. If a govt has been fairly elected, it should be a good reflection of proletariat opinion. Voters can swing on their reactions to an issue in the same way the policy-makers do. It is the quintissential point of a governing body.

And, if it is to emulate the consciousness of it's people, we have a reason to embrace the dumbing-down and percentage complexity of proportional representation and the alternate voting system. Every competition, after all, has it's runners-up. Each congress must speak on behalf of real people on the street. As if we had one seat per vote. And the more choice on our ballot papers the better the system (even when media puts spin on who to go for).

 After the elections that brought Mr. Obama to fame, there was a feeling of hope that maybe a Nobel Prize meant world peace. But because he was undoing the global disasters of a large-scale War (and fighting Cons at home who salivated over the corporate pies Bush's fingers were in), he didn't achieve the same Socialism we cried for. The super-rich were probably too comfortable to forgive him his trespasses. He got labelled "too radical" despite his own centership.

 So, what I ask of you as a reader is to govern these institutions straight back instead of being so passive that peers and enemies rule your non-vote. Research their stance on different things. Go for your favourite colour. Go for the one who looks best on TV. Do anything. Just don't let voting day pass you by. It's the most important soccer match for you as an American revolutionary.

 Here in the States (the biggest capital country going), we have already seen our first black man. Let's do the first woman. The first Jew. The first Liberal. We don't have to sit back and let church and institution run our homeland with IMFs and space agencies. Maybe one day we can make greed disappear. A social jackass kicking a dead lion. The voice of the 99% making up an underclass.

 When it looks like Centrology has gripped you (in whatever region of the world), then it is time to act. Working society is the Iron Fist of an Invisible Hand that wants to point at dexterity, social justice, creature comforts and international peace. From the new generation of Iran to the lessening of impoverished Africans, there is always a voice that fascists try and silence. Say something new.

Vote while you can.