The Danger of Reactionary Centrism in American Politics
As the United States navigates the turbulent aftermath of Donald Trump's presidency, a concerning political phenomenon has gained significant traction. Termed "reactionary centrism" by political communications specialist Aaron Huertas in 2018, this ideological stance presents itself as moderate while disproportionately targeting progressive movements. The approach creates dangerous false equivalences that ultimately weaken democratic institutions and empower far-right agendas.
The False Equivalence of Modern Centrism
Reactionary centrism operates under the guise of balanced criticism, claiming to oppose extremes on both the political left and right. However, its harshest condemnations are almost exclusively reserved for progressive policies and liberal initiatives. This asymmetry became particularly evident during the moral panic surrounding so-called "wokeness" and identity politics, where countless columns amplified isolated campus incidents into existential threats to American democracy.
The fundamental problem isn't that progressive actions should escape scrutiny, but rather that the relentless pursuit of fault on "both sides" generates a misleading perception of equivalence. This dynamic proved particularly damaging during the 2024 election cycle, where Trump's victory was framed not as the result of specific political strategies or voter mobilization, but as a legitimate backlash against perceived left-wing overreach.
The Agency Fallacy in Political Discourse
Another troubling aspect of reactionary centrism involves its implicit assumptions about political agency. This worldview suggests that only liberals and progressives possess genuine agency, while conservative actions are merely reactions to external stimuli. According to this framework, everything from Stephen Miller's immigration policies to broader Republican initiatives represents backlash rather than self-generated political projects.
This perspective creates a dangerous blind spot in political analysis. It prevents observers from recognizing that far-right policies often emerge from deliberate ideological commitments rather than mere responses to liberal actions. The result is a failure to properly assess the substantive threats these policies pose to democratic norms and institutions.
The Narcissism of Liberal Self-Critique
Following the dual shocks of Trump's 2016 election and the Brexit referendum, many liberals engaged in extensive public self-criticism. They confessed to neglecting the "left-behind," promised to better understand rural America, and performed elaborate displays of contrition. While self-reflection can be valuable, this particular brand of liberal self-flagellation often contained a profound narcissism.
The underlying assumption suggested that if only liberals had communicated differently or demonstrated more empathy, political outcomes would have been dramatically different. This reinforces the problematic notion that liberals alone possess agency in the political sphere, while simultaneously validating conservative claims to represent the "real America."
The Asymmetry of Cultural Acceptance
American political discourse operates with striking asymmetry that reactionary centrism both reflects and reinforces. Republican politicians can routinely malign urban dwellers without facing significant backlash, while Democratic comments about rural communities trigger prolonged controversies. This double standard has become so normalized that demanding apologies for insults against urban populations seems almost unthinkable.
This represents a significant victory in the ongoing culture wars. Democrats have largely accepted cultural framings imposed by their opponents, despite polling data suggesting that liberal positions often enjoy broader public support. The result is a political landscape where popular progressive policies are constantly framed through conservative lenses.
Centrism in an Asymmetrical Political Era
Centrist positions aren't inherently illegitimate, but their contemporary manifestations require careful examination. Twentieth-century centrism positioned itself against both fascism and authoritarian state socialism, but today's political landscape presents different challenges. A reflexive commitment to the "middle ground" makes little sense when political asymmetry has become so pronounced.
While nobody is obligated to embrace progressive figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders, equating their politics with Trump's authoritarian tendencies contributes directly to democratic erosion. Similarly, procedural centrism that prioritizes compromise remains valuable for functional governance, but becomes problematic when only one political party actually practices bipartisanship while the other exercises power without restraint.
The Post-Trump Political Landscape
The Biden presidency was accompanied by constant warnings against "overreach" from centrist commentators. As America moves beyond the Trump era, there's genuine concern that reactionary centrism will experience a revival. These ideological "background singers" may once again dominate political discourse, creating false equivalences and undermining necessary democratic reforms.
Understanding this dynamic is crucial for anyone concerned about the future of American democracy. The challenge isn't merely defeating specific candidates or parties, but confronting an entire framework of political analysis that systematically distorts reality and weakens democratic institutions through asymmetric criticism and false equivalence.
