As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels. — Nobeernolife

That's not what you initially said. If that's what you meant, fine -- that's fair and it's worth discussing seriously. But it certainly didn't come off that way.

I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters.

If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect.

Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points. — Nobeernolife

Yes, there's plenty of information on the Earth being flat too. I guess it's a wash, then. Great argument for remaining ignorant about science.

What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them? — Nobeernolife

A climate denier is someone, like you, who denies that the climate is changing at a rapid rate of change and caused not by variance but by human activity, mainly from burning fossil fuels, agricultural practices and deforestation.

Someone who talks so much about "propaganda" sure can't recognize the role it's played in his own "opinions" about climate change. What a shocker.

"The climate is always changing" is the current denialist talking point. Surprised you have busted that one out yet.

Again: it's worth educating yourself on this. Try NASA, NOAA, or any college or university science department here or anywhere else in the world. I'll link the first below. Or is NASA included in this propaganda and global conspiracy?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

US centrism is always so much fun.

It's an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy man! ALL the European and Asian universities are in on it too! Damn conspirational experts with their Internet and stuff coordinating all this and STILL nobody can find proof of the stuff I see, which if why I know climate change is a HOAX. The MSM are in on it too! Everywhere! There's not a newspaper in sight that doesn't peddle climate change fantasies. You need to read up on some real news on BREITBART.

They took our jobs!

They're going to take our guns!

Civil war! Semper fi!

US centrism is always so much fun.

It's an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy man! ALL the European and Asian universities are in on it too! Damn conspirational experts with their Internet and stuff coordinating all this and STILL nobody can find proof of the stuff I see, which if why I know climate change is a HOAX. The MSM are in on it too! Everywhere! There's not a newspaper in sight that doesn't peddle climate change fantasies. You need to read up on some real news on BREITBART.

They took our jobs!

They're going to take our guns!

Civil war! Semper fi! — Benkei

Exactly. It's pretty disheartening to know how effective "politicizing" something can be. If I were an Exxon executive, or a Koch brother, and my wealth and power was threatened by the findings of science, I would certainly (if I were greedy and shortsighted) spend a great sum of money on sowing doubt, spreading misinformation, and associating any mention of the phenomenon as a product of the "elites," the liberal universities, or just liberals in general. Tree-hugging hippies, etc.

It's been effective enough to convince a large minority in this country that nothing is happening or, if there is something happening, we can't do anything about it -- and there's always some reason or other why we can't do anything: it'll destroy the economy, the rest of the world pollutes too, it's too expensive, we're all doomed anyway, God promised Noah there wouldn't be another flood, etc.

Regarding the debate last night:

I didn't think Sanders looked bad at all, despite everyone coming after him. I only wish he'd tighten up the "how are you gonna pay for it" stuff with some quick responses. Say Mexico will pay for it, anything. Who cares anyway...certainly not the right-wing hypocrites. They don't really care anyway, they just pretend to when it's a proposal that doesn't benefit the wealthiest .001%, which they all apparently believe themselves to be (or at least have been convinced giving everything away to these corporate masters is good for the economy).

By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him.

I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters. — Xtrix

How do you define "impact" and "civilized"? And why does the Paris Accord matter? Read the thing --- it consists of goals, promises that are easily broken, and wealth transfer to countries for vague promises.

If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. — Xtrix

"Doing something" without have a clear idea of exactly what to do is child thinking. I am not against reducing fossil fuel consumption (if for no other reason that ressources are limited and largely in places we should not be dependent on), but we have to find offer reasonable alternatives. Wealth transfer like the Paris Accord is not that.

I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect. — Xtrix

Well, they expand fossil fuel consumption massively and multiple times as much as the US. And they do not give a hoot how the do-gooders in the West "feel".

Ask a Hawaiian or a Cuban or a Fillipino or a Nicaraguan or a Guatemalan or an Iranian or an Iraqi (etcetcetc) historian what kind of beacon the United States has been. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yeah, and ask other countries about France, The UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany...etc etc etc.

But Oh no, you're the bad apple when others so innocent... As if being a Great Power (or a Super Power) itself wouldn't exactly mean that the country pushes around and gets involved with the businesses of others.

By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him. — Xtrix

You know who will definitely want Sanders to become the Democratic candidate?

The gun manufacturers.

Nothing gets Americans hoarding more guns than a self-declared socialist that actually does have the chance to become President. Trump nation has been poison for gun sales.

What wealth? You mean the wealth of the 1%? — Xtrix

Comrade Bernie is that you? Celebrating the wise and just rule of Fidel Castro who taught the peasants to read while he appropriated their land and imprisoned them for wrongthink?

Well ok then. Been to the supermarket lately? Seen the bounteous harvest in the produce department, the shelves full of all kinds of wondrous goods, the meat and fish sections filled with good stuff to eat? Maybe you'd prefer the stores in Venezuela or the Soviet Union or the aforementioned Cuba.

This conversation is frankly beneath me. Please go vote for Bernie. You know one theory I've heard is that the establishment Dems have this problem on their hands, their radical leftists in the AOC/Bernie wing of the party. One strategy is to let Bernie win the nomination then get slaughtered in the general election. Then in 2024 the Hillary wing of the party can take back control. Trump won't have a strong successor, least of all a dead fish like Pence. The Dems are a lock in 2024 with a centrist candidate and their left wing having been fully discredited.

But please, tomorrow as you go through your day, look around at the abundance around you. The bustling commerce, the well-stocked store shelves. Ask yourself if you'd rather live here or in Bernie's Cuba.

LOL. I can't believe you actually said that. Are you joking? You have no idea of the actual, literal wealth of the US -- spread throughout society, though certainly terribly unequal -- relative to the rest of the world?

Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him. — Xtrix

All those people driving to and from work on the freeway, you want to shut down all that commerce. How many would starve under your plan? Are you insane? You seriously want to shut down the US economy? If you did that, ONLY the 1% would survive. They already have their bunkers. The rest of us working stiffs would be crushed in a depression that would make the 1930's look like the good old days.

I would grow out of this fear of "socialism" and try learning something about what Bernie's proposals really are and whether they make sense. — Xtrix

I glanced at his detailed plans on his website. I don't believe his numbers because he hasn't factored in the adjustments people will make in response to his taxes. He'll pass laws, the wealthy will find ways around them. and the middle class will pay. The middle class MUST pay for such enormous spending programs because the rich have lawyers and the poor have no money. This is very basic.

I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump.
— Xtrix — Xtrix

I'm on the opposite side of that proposition. But I did realize that if by some miracle Pence won the 2024 GOP nomination, I'd vote for whoever the Dems run. Pence would be just awful, he's a dim bulb and his brand of social conservatism is of no use to me, I oppose it. That's where I'd draw the line. Trump is a once in a lifetime historical figure. I don't see anyone following his act. Which adds weight to the lose-with-Bernie and win in 2024 theory of the centrist Dems.

Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything?
— fishfry

Given the context, it was very easy to see that I don't like either, but was demonstrating how "low" I would go just to get Trump out of office. How is that hard to understand? — Xtrix

I do understand. I have a different opinion. But you did get me to realize that I'd vote for Bloomie against Pence. Or pretty much any other Republican on the current scene. I don't like many or even any of the GOPs.

As for "neoliberal consensus"...do you even know what that is? — Xtrix

Yes. Hollowing out our industrial base and outsourcing it to China. Endless wars, not just wars but stupid wars. Expensive stupid wars. Open borders for cheap labor, further destroying the working class. The globalist project that took over in the 1980's and really got going in the 90's.

Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc. — Xtrix

No, I disagree. Trumps policies on trade and immigration go directly against neoliberalism. He hasn't started any new wars and he's trying to get us out of the ones we're in. Of course he's been rolled by the likes of Bolton and other warmongers. It's damned hard to fight the establishment alone. But his big overarching politics are directly opposed to the neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism. — Xtrix

Trade, immigration, war. Trump's solidly opposed to the neoliberal consensus and he's achieved quite a lot in that direction. He stood up to China at a time when the Bloombergs of the world want to sell what's left of this country to China. For my part I'm against cybertotalitarian surveillance states and I stand with the million Uyghurs in concentration camps. Trump is standing up to Xi and that is every bit as historic as Nixon's visit to China. You are missing the big picture and you are wrong on the facts.

I assume you're just confused, though, because the word "liberal" is in it. — Xtrix

Anyone who sleepwalks through their American life and doesn't see the incredible material abundance all around them is not one to talk about others being confused.

Excuse me as I laugh myself out of this dialogue. — Xtrix

That's cool, I'm politicked out for a while. I saw that Democratic debate last night and I'm still rolling on the floor laughing. It must be awful to be a committed Democrat right now. But these are good days for the Bernie brigade. I like crazy Bernie personally. He could have won in 2016. He beat himself when he said nobody wanted to hear about Hillary's emails. If he truly had the stones to be president he would have gone after her hard on her corruption. He'd be president today.

2020, I don't think that's going to happen. But that's what they said about Trump in 2016 and Bernie's 2020 campaign is weirdly parallel. Not being taken seriously then the whole party panicking to stop him and the moderates unwilling to get out of each other's way. The parallels are eerie. Anything could happen.

↪boethius Sorry, I was being cheeky and tried to illustrate what the logical conclusion would be of polarisation. — Benkei

Yes, I understood you were trying to point out some absurd logical terminus.

However, by pointing out centrism is not an ideology in itself, is not advocating for polarization. People could be very close to the compromise that makes up the center, my point is simply it's unlikely the working-out of a coherent ideology will "just so happen" to overlap the center completely.

The old word for "centrism" was "reformer", someone who had beliefs different from the status quo but believes it's only gradual step-by-step changes that will yield the best results.

Again, reformism is not an ideology in itself, a reformer under Swiss social-democracy maybe a violent radical under Nazi Germany in WWII, blowing up rail lines and the like.

So violence is not necessarily avoidable, and it's simply common sense to point out that the erosion of democracy, past a certain point, is no longer reformable and will lead to violence as the only viable option; the "centrists" that decided to move to the center of the new Reich, just "accepting reality", we tend to judge today as cowardly collaborators and party to the crimes and that the violent resisters (largely communists and anarchists, though we of skip over that detail) as heroes who saved allied lives and helped end the war sooner (hence avoid more violence than they themselves committed).

The reason the propagandists in the Democratic party have abandoned "we need to reform slowly" is that if that's not actually the goal, but simply to maintain the status quo and their privileged, then eventually people ask "well, where's the reform, things seem exactly the same, if not worse, whether we vote Democrat or not", and so at some point a bad-faith reformer is called out on it, hence the mainstream media in the US trying to make "centrism" itself as some sort of praiseworthy political ideal taking courage and "a certain j'eu ne say quoi" to stand up for how things happen to be and standing in the way of the sticks and stones hurled at the poor billionaires.

It is of course Bernie Sanders who is the reformer compared to the "moderates" in the current situation, proposing fairly small changes: closing tax loopholes, expanding social programs that already exist, spending less on the military and more on those programs etc. in each case with solid basis in policy successes seen in all the other rich countries, so it's simply difficult to support a "slower reform" program than Bernie, and so the logical alternative is simply abandon the pretense of reform and try to to argue for "doing nothing of importance" as the most important thing that could be done right now.

I totally understand all of that. I would have thought that the higher priority would be to avoid another four annoying years of disgrace, executive collusion with our enemies, and the solidification of the SCOTUS in a conservatism that I don't really understand anymore.

But maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. We'll see, I guess.

:up:

I think what I enjoy the most about Sanders is that it is about his ideas, which was also the case for Warren, and not "can this guy beat Trump". I'm sick and tired of the lowest bar having to be met as being a viable option for a President. If politics devolves into running for President because you're more popular than the other guy instead of at least some policy issues, you might as well get it over with and implement an autocracy and enjoy your bread and games. Or in that case the NFL, MBA or NBA and nachos or something.

I totally understand all of that. I would have thought that the higher priority would be to avoid another four annoying years of disgrace, executive collusion with our enemies, and the solidification of the SCOTUS in a conservatism that I don't really understand anymore.

But maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. We'll see, I guess. — frank

Yes, my comments above I don't really expect anyone to be disagreeing with; my interest in this conversation has been mainly to clarify diction that, otherwise, the propagandist takes advantage of if left unclarified, and that, the bad faith centrist just trying to preserve the status quo (in either party), would likely prefer Trump, over actual positive change (for the lower classes).

I think what I enjoy the most about Sanders is that it is about his ideas, which was also the case for Warren, and not "can this guy beat Trump". I'm sick and tired of the lowest bar having to be met as being a viable option for a President. If politics devolves into running for President because you're more popular than the other guy instead of at least some policy issues, you might as well get it over with and implement an autocracy and enjoy your bread and games. Or in that case the NFL, MBA or NBA and nachos or something. — Benkei

I am doing exactly what sickens you. Here's my reasoning: Trump is a disaster, and it is of utmost importance to replace him. Odds of replacing him are improved by choosing the most electable alternative - as long as the alternative is a significant improvement. All the Democratic candidates are a significant improvement.

Where's the flaw in my reasoning? I'd like to know, because the Texas primary is coming up soon.

If you're rich and I'm poor, you have a stake in maintaining the status quo. I'll explain your interest there as selfish and hurtful to me. You'll probably agree, but say that it's survival of the fittest, and you're fitter.

I will in turn argue that Bach was from a lower class. The notion that we're down here purely because we're diseased and stupid robs humanity of the greatness we could express if we had a chance. And further, that's what America is about. I stand for our core values, you against.

And this argument goes on, partly real philosophical difference and partly greed and the associated resentment.

Beyond all of that, lost in time, is a more basic reason humans act to secure the status quo: because we're out on the plains and it's dangerous. The status quo was built by generations of trial and error. Losing skills due to a lack of caution will be devastating to us.

And closer to home, a Ukrainian professor warns that the Russians specifically want to turn the poles against the center vecause of the crippling effects of that.

So there's a lot of layers to it, right?

I totally understand all of that. I would have thought that the higher priority would be to avoid another four annoying years of disgrace, executive collusion with our enemies, and the solidification of the SCOTUS in a conservatism that I don't really understand anymore.

But maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. We'll see, I guess. — frank

:up: I appreciate your reasoning and attempts at caring. I think that is the critical first step, no matter how one votes, or where they fall on the “political color spectrum”. (I’m a pale teal, lol). But so often Reason and Compassion are treated like bygones of an ancient era, superstitions, or totally optional. So I respect and respond to those who seem to value those ideals, and see that those ideals are actually quite practical.

Personally, I’m convinced to throw my lot in and take my chances with Bernie Sanders. Your experience and feelings may differ, no problem. My head tells me that his ideas have substance and merit. My heart tells me he either gives a darn about people or is the greatest actor since Brando. And my gut tells me that if I compromise with a “safe” Democrat once more, I’m going to vomit on the voting booth!

Speaking of Marlon Brando... the speech in his movie On the Waterfront by Karl Malden’s Father Berry character reminds me a little of Bernie Sanders’ style. (Maybe because he was playing just down the block in Brooklyn when this movie was filmed, lol).

Personally, I’m convinced to throw my lot in and take my chances with Bernie Sanders. — 0 thru 9

Cool. Do it.

The old word for "centrism" was "reformer", someone who had beliefs different from the status quo but believes it's only gradual step-by-step changes that will yield the best results. — boethius

I think there's two important things that need to be distinguished here: the place on the political spectrum one is pushing toward, and how hard one is pushing toward it. To my mind, a "centrist" is someone who is pushing toward (what they perceive as) the center of the political spectrum. What you're describing by "reformer" is what I would instead call a "moderate", which is someone who is progressive but not radical, conservative but not reactionary, someone who wants change, but not reckless change, cautiousness, but not hyper-cautiousness.

All the Democratic candidates are a significant improvement. — Relativist

Even Bloomberg?

As far as I can tell, he'd be a significant improvement. Is there anything about Blomberg you"d like to ensure I'm aware of?

He's a billionaire transparently trying to buy his way into the presidency, with no consistent ideological positions, with a known history of racist and sexist comments and political actions, who is awkward and incompetent at public speaking. Sounds like a Trump clone to me. What do you see about him that's different?

There's no flaw in the reasoning, you're working with the wrong premisse. Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom.

He's an actual billionaire instead of pretending to be one?

What do you see about him that's different? — Pfhorrest

Here's a few biggies:

He would be likely to appoint a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg who will have a similar judicial philosophy, and thus retain the right of a woman to control her own body. Trump will replace Ginsberg with someone likely to deny that right.

He would likely support comprehensive immigration reform (including protection for "dreamers"), whereas Trump wants to limit it as much as he can get away with, and would be fine with deporting "dreamers".

He's support measures to protect and extend Obamacare. Trump will do everything possible to kill it.

He is unlikely to interfere in the criminal justice system, while with Trump - interference is standard operating procedure.

Sure, Trump's a symptom of a cancer, but another term will mean it's metastasizing. Metaphors aside, see my prior posts for some of my biggest concerns that are likely to be better under any Democratic candidate.

I think there's two important things that need to be distinguished here: the place on the political spectrum one is pushing toward, and how hard one is pushing toward it. — Pfhorrest

These are not distinctions that are relevant to what I am talking about.

At any given moment, a broad "left-center-right" political spectrum can be pasted over the status quo, and useful as a short-hand for basic "friend-or-foe" identification.

In a first-past-the-post system such as the US, there is a strong tendency for 2 coalitions to emerge, and take on certain labels that simply stick through time.

For instance, since Reagan the Republican party has been the radical party and the Democratic party the conservative party relative the New Deal post Great Depression policy framework. This is why conservatives have to imagine some bygone era before the New Deal that they are trying to conserve by bringing it back. Most of these radical changes are implemented through the judiciary, such as the union killing ruling that union shops are somehow "forced speech" (radically changing labour relations to capital in one step) as well as things like citizens United, that spending money is speech.

So, although I agree that relative the status quo at any given moment, one may be trying to conserve it, reform it, radically change it or regress to a previous status quo (real or imagined); it's important to note that this may not actually match labels for things society is using. For instance, Republicans do not claim to be trying to conserve the status quo of the new deal, but rather to dismantle labour laws and progressive tax schemes in the name of conservative values imagined to have existed at some era in some prior time to it.

The other major problem with the political spectrum is that reformist and radical ideologies cannot be linearly ordered nor even regressives; we can only place the status quo in the center. Regressives may want to regress as such relative a previous status quo, but rather only selectively taking things from different eras from the past, and these combinations cannot be linearly ordered: if I want a 4 things from last year as well as something from a hundred years ago, this can't be linearly ordered relative someone who wants 3 things from 50 years ago or someone who wants 10 things from 70 years ago but 1 radical change that has never existed. And of course, reform and radical change can go in all sorts of completely incompatible directions.

To take an example, Ireland only legalized abortion a few years ago, so previous to this all the mainstream parties that kept abortion illegal would be extreme right wing position in the US context, but these same parties implemented universal health care, investments in lower education (equally distributed), free upper education, and pretty much the rest of the "welfare state" policies which would be "extreme left wing snow flake socialism" if a candidate started talking about them in the US. From an ideological perspective, the abortion issue can be easily seperated from the free education issue, and there's not much logical problem about being against abortion while for free education at all levels for instance; indeed, it could even be argued that "people who care about children" so much would want to make large investments in maternity leave, child-care support, free education, free university so that those children are also taken care of outside the womb; and so, if we imagined a proportional system in the US we could easily expect there would be christian parties that are basically welfare state socialist but against legal abortion (as was very strong in Ireland) as well as perhaps christian parties that see support legal abortion on legalistic grounds (proper extent of government sovereignty over one's personal body) and are against all social programs to help the poor because "if you do not work, you should not eat". So, ideologies can easily mix and match concepts all over any given spectrum without any apparent logical inconsistencies.

Just as importantly, even if ideologies are placed on the political spectrum despite the above difficulties, it says nothing about the reasons for supporting the associated policies. Two groups that really are very close in terms of policy may have incompatible reasons for believing so; hence, with this naive political compass view, policies that racists generally support is easy to conclude that all supporters of those policies therefore must be racists, or then, at least, are allied and coordinating with racists. Since this isn't true, different reasons can support the same policy, attempting a neat ordering of other people's beliefs lends nothing to a proper analysis, much less constructive dialogue.

So, although the political spectrum can be a useful shorthand to point to broad outlines of a person's politics relative a current status quo (because, probably, they are in the largest camp that general direction points to), it becomes essentially useless as soon as any proper analysis is attempted. Any deeper analysis, even by a European standard millimeter, requires getting into the actual substance of what people believe, what arguments support those beliefs, what alliances they form, or are likely to form, with people that have different goals and beliefs in some respects but overlap in others, and under what conditions are those alliances plausible or stable, and what are the potential, and historic, result of those alliances and so on.

The reason to stay at the level of the political spectrum is to avoid getting into the actual details, and to place oneself "above all that" and comprehend the world as people just getting up and deciding which "place on the political spectrum" they are on and "how hard one is pushing toward it".

But the above is simply useful notes and and simply a segue into my main point which is that a coherent ideology cannot be derived from the political spectrum. The political spectrum is constantly changing as the status quo changes.

There is no reason for an ideology to simply track the status quo; one could make such an ideology of simply believing the existing policies are the best at any given moment, but I know no one who has so it is only of pedantic interest if it's even feasible to make plausible reasons for doing so.

If you are a freedom loving capitalist, social democrat, anarchist or communist and believe in reforming gradually, step by step, the Wiemar Republic through the democratic process and then Hitler takes over and suspends democracy and launches a second world war, there's no reason one would expect any of these ideologies to stay a reformer and strive to reform the Nazi party from within; maybe some did, maybe some didn't, but the point is there's no reason to assume a reformer will stay a reformer if conditions change; it is a relation to the status quo, not an ideology in itself.

Now, we are born into the status quo and so it's quite natural that this is the starting point for political reflection, and I have no problem calling the status quo "the center" nor with most people likely to be fairly close to the center whenever things have been relatively stable for a while; the point I am making in this thread is that centrism is only an external description of a person's beliefs relative the status quo, and there cannot be a coherent ideology of the center as such (as it is the result of compromise between incompatible belief systems of the different political forces through time).

To my mind, a "centrist" is someone who is pushing toward (what they perceive as) the center of the political spectrum. — Pfhorrest

Things are already, by definition, in the center, and so one cannot move towards it. It is simply a construct of propaganda the idea that there is some natural balance between the left and the right and the responsible political actor pushes the pendulum always in the opposite direction to where it is moving. If that were so, all responsible political actors in America should then be pushing towards reestablishing the rule of the English Crown over the upstart American colonies, which is a reasonable political center between native American order and the government that exists today.

It simply doesn't make sense to call the center an ideology in itself. For instance, if Bernie wins and gets all his policy objectives implemented, Scandinavian style social democracy would then become the new center. Would today's centrists immediately start pushing towards this new center? Would Bloomberg immediately update his ideology to focus towards the new Bernie center in this scenario, or any other person that could be considered a centrist with your definition? Maybe, but maybe not. But, if yes, then today's centrist changing to tomorrow center after a change, it is unlikely to be due to some ideology that is setup to track the center, but rather changing ideas (for instance, after seeing the results aren't catastrophic, coming around to the Scandinavian style of doing things) or then maybe they seem go along with the new center without really believing in it, for practical expediency (in this case their ideology has not changed, just an update of what battles are winnable in the new political dynamic).

What you're describing by "reformer" is what I would instead call a "moderate", which is someone who is progressive but not radical, conservative but not reactionary, someone who wants change, but not reckless change, cautiousness, but not hyper-cautiousness. — Pfhorrest

Though you can use moderate to refer to a reformer, as used in the US mainstream media today, a moderate is usually used to refer to a centrist in the sense of someone simply wanting to maintain the status quo, as far as I can see, but this is mere quibble.

As for "wanting change, but no reckless change" there is essentially no political camp that has more history than few camp fire diatribes, no matter how radical, that views their program as reckless. Radicals view the maintenance of the status quo and only contenting with slow reform as the reckless position. Again, consider resistance fighters under Hitler, they concluded they needed radical change because they viewed the Nazi regime as fundamentally dangerous and evil and no reasonable steps of reform available, and hence that leaving Hitler and his minions to do their thing as the reckless choice.

Likewise today, radical environmentalists view the status quo as unsustainable and reckless to leave to business as usual; that is is performing a global scale one-time experiment on the earth's atmosphere and living systems that is the opposite to cautious position; that simply because we are already doing it doesn't somehow magically make continuing the experiment the exercise of caution. Although reform was at one point available, it no longer is and only fairly radical changes are now available for any meaningful effect. So, in terms of avoiding reckless action, the radical environmentalist will argue they are less reckless than a step-by-step slow reformer. What is preferable cannot be determined by positioning on a political spectrum and some intuition of what part of the spectrum seems the most comfortable. Should Hitler be resisted violently? Depends on the verifiable details, what is he up to? Likewise, depends on exterior factors, is there external forces that are also fighting against Hitler which make intense violent resistance effective? Likewise, is there an environmental crisis, to what extent and what can be done about? A prerequisite empirical investigation is required to determine if environmental radicalism (of one form or another) is warranted.

The "meta-debate" about whether moderates are good as some sort of moral evaluation is simply propaganda to distract from the actual issues up for debate.

Dems had an interesting day. On the one hand, party stalwarts like Pelosi and others signaled some level of acceptance of the Bernie freight train bearing down on them.

Nancy Pelosi says she would be comfortable with Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination
.

At the same time, the NYT published a story in which they interviewed 93 superdelegates, who were astonishingly open and up front about how they intend to shaft Bernie.

Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.

Also, the powerful and influential Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina endorsed Biden, who immediately jumped up in the polls. If Biden shows he can hold the African-American vote in South Carolina Saturday, he may do better than expected three days later on super Tuesday ... in which case the corrupt and senile old coot may make it to the nomination. Bloomie's a bust, time for them to run Biden up the flagpole again as the great centrist hope.

Stay tuned.