In France we have a saying “Si t’es pas de gauche, t’es de droite” i.e “if you’re not a leftist, then you’re on the right wing” meaning that if you do not explicitly reject the paradigm supported by the right then you’re implicitly accepting it and thus indirectly support right wing and conservatism.
I see what you mean and when I first heard that saying I thought so too. That’s why I developed a bit after. In my opinion it does not mean “if you’re not with us you’re against us in an irreversible manner” at all (I don’t fight against individuals, I fight against a toxic ideology). To me, it mostly aims to denounce the fact that centrists are actually right wing people who don’t admit it. And, at least in France, the situation tends to confirm that : Macron was officially “neither on the left nor on the right” and it has become clearer and clearer that he is, in fact, completely on the right end of the political spectrum (if not worse for some of our ministers like Retailleau who clearly carries a far right ideology).
In the Netherlands we are lucky that we have actually have a spectrum you can choose from.
I am not that versed in the France political system, but I don’t believe in that you are either left or you are right.
I think most people can agree with statements from both the left and the right. At least if they get room to express that.
If you look at left and right political in the Netherlands than there is also an issue. The left generally wants higher taxes for the rich and more income for the poor. The right generally want lower taxes for businesses and want to pay the poor less money to compensate that or something like that. Neither side will focus on the middle class, but currently in The Netherlands it’s the middle class who pay the most taxes percentage wise. (The loss of govern ant benefits, increases the percentage you are taxed in this calculation).
I do believe that there are a lot of good politicians who can parade as somebody else while campaigning and then doing other things after they are chosen. That’s why you generally want more than one person to make decisions. However having 225 people who decide the direction of the country is not working either …
Most people aren’t political if they don’t have to be, the only time they think of politics when they have to vote or something is taken from them.
To call them the opposite of what you are just because they feel like they are unsure because they haven’t thought about it as a way to shame them into your position is to lose them and play into your opposition’s hands - “these crazy people are calling you Nazis/Communists”.
Two sides can play the centrist card to grab the unsure while driving a different agenda - I don’t see what’s stopping the left.
Eg Most people are not aware of how much damage France is doing in west Africa through proxy colonialism - if you ask them they’ll probably shrug. If you ask them to vote on it they’ll pick someone that seems somewhere in the middle. Are they colonialist oppressors? Seems like a far fetch.
Now try to strong arm them into a position, how do you think it’s going to go?
I’m not trying to cause or win an argument, I’ll stop here.
I think the French saying is a response to rising Fascism. If Fascism is taking power in your society and you do not directly and explicitly oppose it, then you are at the very least going to be tacitly supporting it. By definition, centrism cannot fight Fascism, because it will always “both sides” the problem, which ultimately only benefits the Fascists. This is what we are seeing now in the US with the Democrats. The only realistic opposition to Fascism in this scenario is Leftism.
In France we have a saying “Si t’es pas de gauche, t’es de droite” i.e “if you’re not a leftist, then you’re on the right wing” meaning that if you do not explicitly reject the paradigm supported by the right then you’re implicitly accepting it and thus indirectly support right wing and conservatism.
Seems a bit suspect and authoritarian…
Does it work in reverse? If not, why not?
My first thought was, that’s just GWB’s “if you are not with us you are against us”, with different words.
I see what you mean and when I first heard that saying I thought so too. That’s why I developed a bit after. In my opinion it does not mean “if you’re not with us you’re against us in an irreversible manner” at all (I don’t fight against individuals, I fight against a toxic ideology). To me, it mostly aims to denounce the fact that centrists are actually right wing people who don’t admit it. And, at least in France, the situation tends to confirm that : Macron was officially “neither on the left nor on the right” and it has become clearer and clearer that he is, in fact, completely on the right end of the political spectrum (if not worse for some of our ministers like Retailleau who clearly carries a far right ideology).
In the Netherlands we are lucky that we have actually have a spectrum you can choose from. I am not that versed in the France political system, but I don’t believe in that you are either left or you are right.
I think most people can agree with statements from both the left and the right. At least if they get room to express that.
If you look at left and right political in the Netherlands than there is also an issue. The left generally wants higher taxes for the rich and more income for the poor. The right generally want lower taxes for businesses and want to pay the poor less money to compensate that or something like that. Neither side will focus on the middle class, but currently in The Netherlands it’s the middle class who pay the most taxes percentage wise. (The loss of govern ant benefits, increases the percentage you are taxed in this calculation).
I do believe that there are a lot of good politicians who can parade as somebody else while campaigning and then doing other things after they are chosen. That’s why you generally want more than one person to make decisions. However having 225 people who decide the direction of the country is not working either …
I’m not sure it’s a winning argument that’s all.
Most people aren’t political if they don’t have to be, the only time they think of politics when they have to vote or something is taken from them.
To call them the opposite of what you are just because they feel like they are unsure because they haven’t thought about it as a way to shame them into your position is to lose them and play into your opposition’s hands - “these crazy people are calling you Nazis/Communists”.
Two sides can play the centrist card to grab the unsure while driving a different agenda - I don’t see what’s stopping the left.
Eg Most people are not aware of how much damage France is doing in west Africa through proxy colonialism - if you ask them they’ll probably shrug. If you ask them to vote on it they’ll pick someone that seems somewhere in the middle. Are they colonialist oppressors? Seems like a far fetch.
Now try to strong arm them into a position, how do you think it’s going to go?
I’m not trying to cause or win an argument, I’ll stop here.
I think the French saying is a response to rising Fascism. If Fascism is taking power in your society and you do not directly and explicitly oppose it, then you are at the very least going to be tacitly supporting it. By definition, centrism cannot fight Fascism, because it will always “both sides” the problem, which ultimately only benefits the Fascists. This is what we are seeing now in the US with the Democrats. The only realistic opposition to Fascism in this scenario is Leftism.