Tell Me It Ain’t So, Paul.

The link doesn't work, so I'm reacting to the lead sentence.

This seems to imply that being a centrist excludes having strong policy positions.
I reject that outright. I see no reason why a policy has to be totally LEFT or totally RIGHT in order to be strong and specific;
Many of us are getting very tired of the ideology driven politics that have consumed the country, and are threatening to rip the country apart in mutual hate and loathing.

First of all, we have to separate goals from implementation. The goal might be to empower the underclass, for example, but how one achieves that might be framed in several different ways. The goal would be called Left, but the implemantation could be through government, private enterprse or a combination of both.

\I also wonder if Centrist is not just another word for Pragmatist. A pragmatist can have very strong opinions but,,at the samee time,, recognize that good governance involves gaining acceptance by the populace. Personal opinions, then, might need to be moidfied in order to gain acceptance. and preserve stablity.
In short, there is much more to having strong policies than just having them.
Also to be considered is how to shepherd the country through the implementaon process. This involves considering everyone, not just those who adore you.

Bush gave only lip service to being an Americna president,. He was very definitely the Repulican who happened to inhabit the WH, along with his strong policies. He leaves a legacy of extreme partisanship as a result.

I wouild welcome a Centrist/Pragmatist as the next POTUS. Maybe we can get back to being just Americnas, then.

"I see no reason why a policy has to be totally LEFT or totally RIGHT in order to be strong and specific"

My point precisely.

Thanks for your comments.