Making sense of the politics surrounding apparent contradictions. A brief study of the recent history of extreme centrism and the formation of a broad, moderate opposition to their extremism.
Across various countries, and every few electoral terms, the blue team and the red team switch roles. Centre-right parties will swap with centre-left parties in the political theatre of running the government. Within a decade the parties will likely swap roles again. Despite these so-called ‘changes of government’, various overarching agendas are progressed with minimal interruption. Unpopular policies are rarely undone by the newly elected governments. The vast transfers of wealth, assets, or power to large entities outside of the state are rarely reversed. True accountability for serious wrongdoing, falsehoods, and rights violations is often delayed or denied.
Previous commentators have been using the term “extreme centrism” and I will quote some of these commentators to help define the term.
“In order to occupy the safe and risk-averse middle ground of political discourse – in order to hold power for its own sake, the centre abandons ideology. Rather than seeking to advance the political aspirations of a class or social group (ideological politics), centrists and the centre political parties become administrators as opposed to leaders. By this behaviour politics is reduced to a type of financial governance managed by mere managers – a professional class comprised of depoliticised career politicians. While calling most – if not, all – of their critics populists…” Jason Michael1
“What we’ve been witnessing, together with the neoliberal economy, is a contraction of politics, in the sense that, I’ve been arguing now for some time, that what we have in western politics is neither the extreme left nor the extreme right, but an extreme centre. And this extreme centre encompasses both centre-right and centre-left, which agree on fundamentals; waging wars abroad, occupying countries, and punishing the poor, pushing through austerity measures. It doesn’t matter which party’s in power either in the United States or in the western world, things, you know, carry on like before, this continuity from one regime to the next.” Tariq Ali2
When I use the terms “extreme” and “extremist” I will be referring to actions, policies, and conduct using this dictionary definition.
“2 a severe, stringent; lacking restraint or moderation (take extreme measures; an extreme reaction). b (of a person, opinion, etc.) going to great lengths; advocating immoderate measures.”
2nd definition of extreme in the 1995 version of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English.
I will also be using the opposing term “moderate” which this dictionary defines as:
“1 avoiding extremes; temperate in conduct and expression”
1st definition of moderate in the 1995 version of the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English.
The same dictionary will then define “temperate” as “avoiding excess; self-restrained” which gives us a framework to characterise the “extreme centrists”. The extreme centrists might loiter around the political centre, extending and enriching their political, corporate, and/or bureaucratic careers, through adopting pleasant-sounding, shallow, and/or insincere ideological rhetoric. However, the extreme centrists (despite their, often bland, manager roles) have a tendency to implement actions and policies which are severe, stringent, excessive, and lacking self-restraint. An arrogant attitude of ‘the ends justify the means’ will often be revealed during the career of the extreme centrists.
I consider “extreme centrism” to be a useful description of the politics, or perhaps more accurately ‘the management’, which has grown to dominate the countries which were once described as ‘Western liberal democracies’. This article will focus on the last three decades in countries of the United Kingdom, United Sates of America, New Zealand Australia, and Canada. These countries are also known as “The Five Eyes” intelligence alliance3 and the Anglosphere4. These countries are also, at least at the country-wide level, all Common Law jurisdictions. France will also be discussed as President Emmanuel Macron has identified himself as being positioned at the extreme centre or “l’extrême centre”5 and has displayed many authoritarian behaviours during his time in office. Terrorism, war, spectacular crimes, climate change, and disease outbreaks are used as justifications by the centrists for implementing the more overt authoritarian policies. The extremist behaviour among centrists has noticeably grown over the last three decades, with major leaps towards authoritarianism occurring in apparent responses to each major crisis. The COVID-19 crisis provides an abundance of clear examples of the willingness to implement excessive and severe measures on the part of governments, corporations, bureaucracies, the media, and many other institutions throughout society.
This raises some questions:
Do the centrists become more outwardly authoritarian as a natural response to a severe crisis?
Do the centrists take advantage of a natural crisis as an excuse to push forward and unmask their preexisting authoritarian agendas?
Is the given crisis itself completely or partially artificial (engineered, exaggerated, or faked) and created as an opportunity to implement parts of a preexisting authoritarian agenda?
The answers likely differ from crisis to crisis. Evidence of preexisting violent and authoritarian agendas6 can sometimes be found. Perceptions within various parts of an institution or bureaucracy may vary with some mid-level bureaucrats thinking that they are genuinely ‘doing the right thing’ as part of a natural response to a natural crisis. The extreme centrist media plays a major role in shaping and maintaining the narratives and enforcing the artificial edges of the Overton window. The “consensus” around acceptable topics, policies, facts, evidence, values, questions, and ideas is carefully managed and those with “unacceptable views” find themselves banished and smeared.
In this article, I will use two charts based on the Political CompassTM 7 to illustrate roughly where the extreme centrists are positioned and later where a more genuine and more moderate opposition can be found. Note that these two charts are not created using the Political CompassTM questions or methods, and are intended to be a criticism of how the Political CompassTM website will portray both the reality of contemporary authoritarianism and relative positions of parties on the left-right axis. I have thrown an assortment of ideological labels into the “extreme centrism” area straddling the centre between left and right politics. These are ideological labels favoured by various centrists at different times. At this stage, I will not attempt to refine the positioning of each of those ideological labels on the diagram. It may be a futile excise attempting to accurately position these ideological labels because the extreme centrists are known for insincerity and lack of principles.
The rise of extreme centrism in the Anglosphere can be seen in the cosy relationships between UK Prime Ministers and the Presidents of the United States over recent decades. Tony Blair is a central figure, first with his promotion of “Third way” politics and then the protracted “Global War on Terrorism”.
“As British Prime Minister Tony Blair euphorically announced, third-way thinking was “not old left or new right, but a new center and center-left governing philosophy for the future.” In the late 1990s, Bill Clinton would join Blair and other European leaders at a series of international retreats that sought to solidify this project and create a new global political consensus… For all its imprecision and shallowness, the third way represented a genuine shift in thinking about the role of government and ideology. It emerged from the efforts of political thinkers and leaders across the West to move beyond the divisions of the Cold War and face the new challenges of globalization and the information age. Through it all, third-way thinkers and leaders insisted that they had also transcended the stingy and regressive neoliberalism of the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions. In reality, the third-way legacy clearly upgraded the policy assumptions of neoliberalism for a new era of information-age capitalism—and many of its central goals, from public-private economic partnerships to the lax regulation of the financial and tech sectors, continue to drive policy-making across the globe.”8
Accusations of “spin”, “lacking conviction”, “lack of substance”, “waffle”, “ambiguity”, and “disguise” are often used to describe Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and their “new global political consensus”. This indicates that many on the left and right detected that deceit, manipulation, and lack of firm principles were a core part of this new centrist ideology.
"With Great Britain, we have forged a new special relationship, a 21st-century alliance, as the president called it, based not only on all our traditional mutual interests, but on our common conviction of the necessity for a new social contract," Blumenthal said in a speech last month at the World Policy Institute. "Many of the criticisms of Blair," Blumenthal said, "from both the left and the right, are exactly similar to those of the president. Blair is accused of spin and waffling, lacking conviction, offering up a blur, just conservatism in disguise. But the emergence of trans-Atlantic, one-nation politics of a new third way makes it increasingly clear that far more than personality is at stake."9
After George W Bush replaced Bill Clinton, Tony Blair joined the new US president and his neoconservative team in carrying out the “Global War on Terrorism”. In the “Global War on Terrorism” , or the “War on Terror” as it was more commonly known, multiple countries were attacked, invaded, or had their regimes changed. Authoritarian domestic policies were introduced across the “Five Eyes” Anglosphere in terms of increased surveillance, erosion of people’s rights, and more invasive airport security. The Anglosphere centrists became more overtly extreme in policy and practice. Some insight into the inner-workings of extreme centrism could be found in these quotes attributed to a “senior adviser to Bush” by Ron Suskind in the early years of the “Global War on Terrorism”. These quotes indicate an arrogant lack of respect for reality among the extreme centrists as well as their enthusiasm for imposing their unrestrained will domestically and internationally.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."10
As societies across the world assess the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, a crisis where most of the so-called solutions did not appear to result naturally from the “judicious study of discernible reality”, we can wonder how much of the policies were more the imposition of imperial will from some distant capital. When impositions are impractical and nonsensical, we can assume they result from a lack of humility toward reality.
Even in the times before the COVID-19 crisis, the term “extreme centrism” was used to describe French President Emmanuel Macron. This was because of his policies that favoured the multinational corporations and the way he rapidly imposed policies with an intolerance for differing viewpoints.
In an interview with Les Inrockuptibles, Canadian intellectual Alain Deneault describes Macron’s governing style as “extreme centrism.” If this label sounds like an oxymoron, Deneault argues that Macron’s political approach is extreme in the sense that “its policies are destructive, unfair, and imperialistic. They consist of maximizing the profits of big corporations and shareholders, and facilitating access to tax havens.” Macron’s regime is also extreme from a moral standpoint, because it uses “intimidating discourses” and is “intolerant towards anything that is not its own,” Deneault adds. Deneault compares Macron and his party, La Republique En Marche (The Republic on the Move), to an “ideological steamroller which aims at convincing people that there is an imperious urgency — without taking the time to debate — to apply a political vision, his specifically.” 11
During the COVID-19 crisis, Macron’s rhetoric and policies toward those who refused the injections provided more evidence of his authoritarian tendencies as shown by these (presumably translated) quotes attributed to him in The Guardian.
“But as for the non-vaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy.”
“We are putting pressure on the unvaccinated by limiting, as much as possible, their access to activities in social life…only a very small minority who are resisting. How do we reduce that minority? We reduce it – sorry for the expression – by pissing them off even more.”
The same article in The Guardian also included quotes from leaders of France’s “far right” and “radical left” political parties who offered strong condemnation for Macron’s rhetoric and policies. Marine Le Pen was quoted harshly criticising the President for “turning the unvaccinated into second-class citizens.” and Jean-Luc Mélenchon was quoted as saying “It’s clear the vaccine pass is a collective punishment against individual liberties.”12
President Macron’s policies and and rhetoric were similar to those used by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, US President Joseph Biden, Tony Blair, and Australian Northern Territories Chief Minister Michael Gunner during the injection mandates and vaccine pass phase of the COVID crisis13. Previously in 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was publicly driving forward other ambitious agendas such increased internet censorship (in close collaboration with President Macron)14 and boasting of work to implement the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda within New Zealand.
“The Government I am proud to lead, is doing something not many other countries have tried. We have incorporated the principles of the 2030 Agenda into our domestic policy-making in a way that we hope will drive system-level actions. This is not just a new scorecard, it is about fundamentally changing how we make decisions and therefore how we allocate resources." Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaking at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Goalkeepers 2019 event15
Jacinda Ardern is reported to have been part of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program16. Another WEF Young Global Leader with a keen interest in the 2030 Agenda is former Danish Minister for the Environment and WEF “Agenda Contributor” Ida Auken. Having been the head of the European Union delegation at the United Nation’s Rio+20 Conference17, Ida Auken should have an insider’s understanding of the the 2030 Agenda and the associated UN Sustainable Development Goals. This background makes, Ida Auken’s 2016 article, titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better”18, more than just speculative science-fiction. Ida Auken’s article describes a futuristic city where people live without owning anything. Those in the city hire, or are given for free, all of their needs and wants. The 2030 city is depicted as a high-tech, environmentally-friendly, socialist utopia where work is optional and people use bicycles, public transport, and flying cars for their daily travels. More dystopian aspects of the city are briefly mentioned in the article, such as how the constant surveillance has become so extreme that thoughts and dreams are being constantly monitored with technology. It is unclear from the article whether a benevolent communist regime or benevolent megacorporations provide all these “free” services to those within the city. Based on the stated purpose of the WEF, I would assume public-private partnerships are involved.
WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, has been promoting at least four labels related to a vision of the world;“The 4th Industrial Revolution”, “Stakeholder Capitalism”, “The Great Reset”, and a post-COVID “new normal”19. Another article will be required to explain in detail how these labels fit with other “extreme centrist” agendas. On a shallow level the overall vision is one of a more benevolent corporate world, where Environment, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) scoring and other activist pressure has improved corporate behavior to deliver a world “more inclusive, more equitable and more respectful of Mother Nature” . In this future, automation, artificial intelligence, and digitisation have caused profound changes in societies. Government has grown larger and intervenes more through increased taxes and regulations. More of society will presumably be managed by “public-private partnerships”.
“In general, there will be more regulation covering many different issues, such as workers’ safety or domestic sourcing for certain goods. Businesses will also be held to account on social and environmental fractures for which they will be expected to be part of the solution. As an add-on, governments will strongly encourage public-private partnerships so that private companies get more involved in the mitigation of global risks. Irrespective of the details, the role of the state will increase and, in doing so, will materially affect the way business is conducted. To varying degrees, business executives in all industries and all countries will have to adapt to greater government intervention.” Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret in COVID-19: The Great Reset
In the United states, some distinguish between different types of “centrist”, noting that the elitist “corporate Democrats” are different from the more populist candidates which gather votes from across the political spectrum by opposing the political/economic establishment.
“Lieberman, Schultz, No Labels and others who share their views have managed to monopolize the “centrist” and “independent” tags. But take any modestly successful third-party presidential candidate of the past century: They look nothing like Schultz. Eugene Debs was a socialist. Theodore Roosevelt was a trustbuster. Robert La Follette was a progressive. Ross Perot was a trade hawk. All were populists. As was Bernie Sanders. And as was Donald Trump. Rather than adopt the politics of the financial or political elite, all portrayed themselves, in one way or another, as outsiders, fighting on the side of the little guy — which is where the actual center resides.”
“…Though he technically ran as a Republican, Trump used an unorthodox mash-up of left-wing (anti-free-trade) and right-wing (anti-immigrant) stances to attract voters dissatisfied with the political establishment. In his own extreme way, he ran as a moderate. Which helps explain why 12 percent of Bernie Sanders primary voters then voted for Trump, and why 9 percent of Trump voters had previously voted for Obama.”20
A critical insight which is missing from the above quote is that Donald Trump was also viewed as the anti-war candidate. Trump positioned himself in alleged opposition to Hillary Clinton’s record of maintaining the nation in a state of constant war. Trump gained considerable votes in areas of the United States which suffered the most casualties21 fighting in the extreme centrist’s “War on Terror”. For military families and military communities in the United States, voting for Donald Trump may have been a life-or-death decision.
Research by David Adler claims that those who identified as “centrists” tended to have less favourable views on democracy when compared to those on the “far right” and “far left”. It is worth noting that most of these ‘“far” people actually identified themselves as “right” or “left” on the survey spectrum. The prefix of “far” appears to have been added later by those interpreting the survey data. I would argue that most of these “far right” and “far left” people would likely be “moderate right” or “moderate left” in my diagrams22. There is no indication that these “far” people in the survey were generally supportive of genocide, dictatorship, or the abolition of private property. In fact, the survey often found these “far right” and “far left” people to be more supportive of civil rights and less supportive of dictatorial powers than the “centrists”. I doubt most of the “far” people were really that extreme, probably they were just being more definitive when identifying as left or right in a survey.
“In almost every case, support for civil rights wanes in the center. In the United States, only 25 percent of centrists agree that civil rights are an essential feature of democracy.” David Adler 23
In
the charts displayed
in David
Adler’s
article,
the
Anglosphere countries
of Australia, New Zealand, United States, and Britain showed the
clear trend of lower
percentages
of people
agreeing
with “democracy
is a “very good” political system”
among
the “centrists”
and higher percentages
agreeing
that democracy is “very
good” on
the “far
left”
and “far
right”
in
each country. In New
Zealand, Australia,
United
States, Britain a
higher
percentage of “centrists”
were reported to
agree
that “a
strong
leader who does not have to bother
with a legislature” is
good,
when compared the “far
left” and
“far
right” which
were reported to have lower levels of agreement with that
more-dictatorial leadership style.
In
Australia,
the “centrists” and “far-right” were similar, and
in the countries of continental Europe the “far
right” appeared
more supportive of “a
strong
leader who does not have to bother
with a legislature”
than
the “centrist”.
Thankfully,
the the majority of people in all political categories and all
countries featured in David Adler’s article rejected ‘unrestrained
authoritarian leadership’ being a good idea. Based on that article,
the largest group of supporters for authoritarianism within the
Anglosphere is likely to be from some factions within the
“centrists”.
If
you accept that the
extreme
centrists are willing to use
a variety of severe
measures to protect their power and
agendas from
the interference of “populists”
(or
a
functional democracy),
then these survey results are unsurprising.
What
would a broad, and moderate opposition to the extreme centrists
look-like on a Political CompassTM-style diagram?
On the above diagram, I have drawn a broad horseshoe shape through the moderate areas around the extreme centrists. This horseshoe arcs from traditional moderate socialists, down through the moderate libertarians and back up to the traditional moderate conservatives. Even when this horseshoe rises into the authoritarian territory it does not reach the authoritarian heights already occupied by extreme centrists. Could these different people work together? The protests, convoys, and capital occupations run across the Angosphere to express opposition to the COVID19 “vaccine passes” and injection mandates have demonstrated that very broad political movements are possible. Those protests also demonstrated the violent authoritarian measures that the extreme centrists will use against those largely peaceful protesters. The existence of a sizeable group of “Bernie bros for Trump”24, hinted at by the “12 percent of Bernie Sanders primary voters then voted for Trump” quote earlier, shows that a “populist” politician that challenges the centrist establishment (and their media partners) can gain a broad base of supporters. The fate of Donald Trump (and other recent “populist” leaders in the Anglosphere such as Jeremy Corbyn) may also prove to be a cautionary tale about the need to build enduring political and cultural movements which are not so dependent on a single leader. Within a broad opposition there will be differences and disputes, though you would hope that they would largely be principled differences resolved by genuine discussions. No doubt such a ‘broad horseshoe of critical moderates’ would have some intense discussions over how large and powerful a government should be, and what the role of that government should be in our lives. However, the consequences of the severe measures imposed on much of the world’s population through the “War of Terror” and the COVID19 crisis (as well as a range of other issues) is causing many to re-evaluate how the relationship between people and government should operate.
When forming and maintaining broad and moderate opposition movements it is important to reject actual extremist policies and practices. Since we cannot consider extremism to simply be ‘having views that oppose the centrists’, what is a working criteria to identify actual extremists? I would view extremism in terms of excessive, severe actions and policies which are deeply damaging to people and society. They are the types of behaviours which prove a lack of self-restraint and a lack of principles on the part of those proposing or implementing the polices.
From the perspective of someone within an Anglosphere country, I would consider the following as actual extremist policies and practices:
After comparing that list and the behaviours exhibited by many governments over the last few decades, we can see that centrist establishments across the Anglosphere have implemented many of those actual extremist policies. In other cases, we see the extreme centrists displaying worrying signs that they could be working towards openly implementing other extremist policies from the above list in the near future.
The next main article will be Part Two on the topic of “Extreme Centrism”. Part Two will focus on those policies and agendas which largely remain unchanged when your country swaps one colour of centrist government with another colour of centrist government. Although we are unlikely to be sure of their authentic ideology, we can describe the overall direction-of-travel of the extreme centrists and practical implications of those agendas. We can also identify areas where we need to concentrate practical opposition and develop alternatives.
We live in interesting times, so remain moderate and remain strong.
Footnotes
1 Jason Michael, 2019, The Extreme Centre, Random Public Journal, https://randompublicjournal.com/2019/06/14/the-extreme-centre/
2 Tariq Ali -The extreme centre, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmge7_-8wN4
3 Brad Williams, 2023, Why the Five Eyes?, Power and Identity in the Formation of a Multilateral Intelligence Grouping, Journal of Cold War Studies, https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article/25/1/101/115125/Why-the-Five-Eyes-Power-and-Identity-in-the
4 Andrew Mycock and Ben Wellings, 2017, The Anglosphere: Past, Present and Future, The British Acadamy, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/review/31/anglosphere-past-present-and-future/
5 Pierre Mayrant, 2023, Emmanuel Macron, un « extrême centre » résolument opposé aux extrêmes, La Nef, https://lanef.net/2022/07/13/emmanuel-macron-un-extreme-centre-resolument-oppose-aux-extremes/
6 Michael Meacher, 2003, This War on Terrorism is Bogus, The Guardian, https://web.archive.org/web/20131207193359/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
7 Political Compass™, PACE NEWS LTD, https://www.politicalcompass.org/
8 Lily Geismer, 2022, How the Third Way Made Neoliberal Politics Seem Inevitable, The Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/third-way-dlc-bill-clinton-tony-blair-1990s-politics/
9 Thomas B. Edsall, 1998, Clinton and Blair Envision a Third Way International Movement, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/06/28/clinton-and-blair-envision-a-third-way-international-movement/0bc00486-bd6d-4da4-a970-5255d7aa25d8/
10 Ron Suskind, 2004, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, The New York Times https://web.archive.org/web/20160203071033/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html
11 Juliette Legendre, Macron’s Extreme Centrism: Democratic Threat, Lobe Log, https://lobelog.com/macrons-extreme-centrism-democratic-threat/
12 Jon Henley, 2022, Macron declares his Covid strategy is to ‘piss off’ the unvaccinated, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated
13 Bardosh et al. , 2022, The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports and Restrictions May Cause More Harm Than Good, BMJ Global Health, https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684
14 Eleanor Ainge Roy, 2019, Christchurch Call: Details Emerge of Ardern's Plan to Tackle Online Extremism, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/13/christchurch-call-details-emerge-of-arderns-plan-to-tackle-online-extremism
15 Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XsUV7pwSRg
16 Ryan Heath, 2023, ‘Succession’ has Nothing on Davos: Elite Conclave Mulls Next Leader, Polilico, https://www.politico.eu/article/succession-has-nothing-on-davos-elite-conclave-mulls-next-leader/
17 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/ida-auken
18 Ida Auken, 2016, Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better, World Economic Forum, https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710
19 Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, 2020, COVID-19: The Great Reset, Forum Publishing, World Economic Forum.
20 Simon van Zuylen-Wood, 2019, Is Centrism Doomed?, The Washington Post Magazine, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/06/24/feature/is-centrism-doomed-the-cautionary-tale-of-howard-schultz-and-the-surprising-promise-of-a-populist-center/
21 Zaid Jilani, 2017, Study Finds Relationship Between High Military Casualties and Votes for Trump over Clinton, The Intercept, https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/study-finds-relationship-between-high-military-casualties-and-votes-for-trump-over-clinton/
22 https://dismantlingdystopia.substack.com/p/mallet-politics
23 David Adler, 2018, Opinion: Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists , The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html
24 Don Surber 2020, Bernie Bros for Trump, https://web.archive.org/web/20201101022303/https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/10/bernie-bros-for-trump.html
Already a premium member? Log in here
Skip the Trial - Join Us Now
.svg){kind=logo}
By Dismantling Dystopia