Middle-of-the-road needs to get edgy

I’ve been accused of being a fence sitter a few times over the years, and frequently take exasperated flak for playing devil’s advocate. I don’t easily get angry or militant, but that doesn’t mean I’m not passionate. I find myself becoming a more militant centrist every time I see the news these days.

The simple fact is that the world is complicated. Very complicated. And politics, as a reflection of the world, is also complicated. This is not automatically a bad thing. But it can be a bad look. Politicians of the centre can appear paralysed and unresponsive.

Meanwhile, the political extremes – most notably the far-right – are on the march. And on one level it is easy to see why. Simplifying. Streamlining. Cutting waste. Taking decisive action. Generally tidying up. These are all things that sound very appealing.

Take probably the most contentious issue that the far-right love to latch on to around the world: immigration.

I think most people would agree that moving to a different part of the world can be a good thing for the individual and for the country they move to. When there are jobs to go to and contributions to be made, immigration is mutually positive.

I think most people would also agree that migration forced by wars or by desperate poverty is not desirable for anyone involved. The humanitarian calamity wrought on the people of Syria from 2011 onwards was a major landmark moment for Europe, and for the populist politicians who have been scapegoating refugees ever since.

Liberals, in their desire to be non-discriminatory and open-minded, often do not want to discuss immigration because discussing where new arrivals come from, and why they are coming, can be considered racist. Indeed, judging by the tone of some conversation, it frequently is racist. But if one side fails to talk about it, the other will use it as a tool to win votes.

The political centre realises that things like foreign policy, development aid, climate mitigation, conflict mediation, tax incentives, domestic education policy, housing policies, tax policy, and more, are among the hundreds of tools governments can use to control migration without resorting to roving gangs of immigration enforcement officers terrorising the streets.

The centrist approach is hard to quantify, hard to see, and moves slowly. The alternative, by contrast, is a clear illustration of the populists “tidying up”. Their supporters have tangible evidence of promises being kept. And their opponents are very often the ones being ‘tidied up’ (i.e. silenced).

Furthermore, when you’re on a roll, it is increasingly easy to tidy up all sorts of people; from journalists and artists, even whole TV stations, to sexual and gender minorities, climate scientists, and opposition parties. To avoid this fate, the centre needs to talk even more openly about the difficult issues.

Even in Luxembourg, where this month’s Sonndegsfro poll proved sobering reading for the centrist parties and a confidence boost for the ADR – the country’s furthest-right political force – it is no longer possible to count on voters’ natural aversion to political extremes. The ADR is not extreme-right by wider world standards, it is important to say, but it is populist. And, I would argue, it is continually testing the waters, inching slowly rightward with time.

In a country as multicultural as Luxembourg, a far-right government would bring unknowable consequences, and it’s not entirely out of the question – given that only Luxembourgish citizens can vote. The centre needs to keep voters on side, for all our sakes.

Following the poll, the ADR is already seeking to make hay. It’s parliamentary faction leader Fred Keup declared this week that Luxembourg is full, and suggested that the government is more interested in bringing in more immigrants than it is in protecting services for Luxembourgers.

You can’t argue with facts: nobody wins if there are too many people and not enough roads, police, schools, or hospitals. The centre needs to keep on defending Luxembourg’s international community, flagging their contributions, justifying the benefits of immigration and – above all – making sure that there are enough services and houses to go around. This small country has plenty of space for more houses – and they would almost certainly be built by mostly non-citizens.

My advice to centrist politicians (unrequested and unlikely to be heard though it is) would be first and foremost to not compromise with the far-right by cherry-picking from their agenda to win back support. It just doesn’t work. The far-right’s approach of providing big, simple, sweeping answers to complex questions will forever be their forté.

My second piece of advice is for the centre to engage more fully with their concerns. Responding to hate speech simply by pointing out that it is hate speech, and therefore not to be discussed further, often plays into the hands of the hater. “They say what we think,” is something often associated with leaders of the far right.

The old saying “nice guys finish last” might occasionally be true in sport, but it is in everyone’s interest – even their would-be voters – to make sure that nasty guys don’t finish first in politics.