I'm upvoting you because this is a discussion that needs to be had, because your position is one I hear too often but is one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

First, we need to more clearly define the term. There are actually quite a few variations of the too easily tossed around and undescriptive term "centrist". Are we talking about the academic political science term centrism, the third way centrism you refer to, the centre-right or centre-left, or as the article really intends, the non-party center?

So first, I would argue that the Democrats are indeed not the centrist party, even in the third way sense, and the both sides aren't the same retort against the criticsm that they are is increasingly disproven and is far too often employed by the recent losers of some election or other.

I understand your sentiment though, so before you get too defensive, I think the primary miscommunication here is in the fundamental misunderstanding of most people of the scale of political idealogy. We must break this horizontal only linear idea of left right and centrist to correctly approach the reality of potential political positions. It is a fully dimensional graph, instead of just the x axis it's exists on both x and y.

You seem to have some intuition of this in your comment about a truly progressive party. So it confuses me that you rail against the left "going even more right" when the article never advocated such a thing in the first place. You are arguing against an position that was never taken. On top of that, accusing only one party of being the one "hell-bent on tearing apart anything that threatens its grip on power" while ignoring the very fact that the issue is that they both are doing this smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Respectfully, I would say I think it is this very type of kneejerk tribal reaction that reveals a core-root part of the problem the article actually does a fairly good job at addressing. The point is that it doesn't matter how far left or right on the x axis either party goes, when both are shifting further down the y axis towards totalitarianism, theocracy, dictatorship, and general serfdom. The inability for the left, for example, the admit the oligarchical manipulation of the primaries and the false propping up of the candidates they thought they could handle easily later was part of the reason the stupid masses chose (what they thought was) to rebel against the establishment only reinforces this point even more. (and might I add continuing to deny it only gives the supporters of the current administration extra ammunition I wish they didn't have).

Now, on to the article itself. The author has articulated very well something I have been discussing in a much more "big-picture" way for a while now. I, as a problem solver, sat down to approach the issues of the day with a focus of first, properly identifying the problems without letting preconcieved notions taint the task at hand, and second by being pragmatic about the potential solutions to those problems. I got good at this type of 0-knowledge research after I got out of the Marine Corps and did what I call my "Descartes reset".

The main conclusion I came to was essentially the same as the author. After much deliberation, I have determined that attempts to reform the parties from inside are doomed to failure or to too long a political battle timeframe to be useful. Given some refreshing of Montesquieu, I determined the primary focus should be on restoring the checks and balances system of the branches of government, and the most likely approach of success is through the legislative given it is the one branch most able to be influenced by the populace. After rereading George Washington's farewell address and warning of these very things, the conclusion applied to modern pragmatism shows that the majorty must be taken away from both parties. After reaching that point, it simply has become a heated debate in my household recently on whether this could be done via pure independents or if another, third-party should be formed. My determination is that a coalition of both, including the disparate third parties, is the correct approach. Eventually, over time and with enough shifts in numbers, it would even be possible to then get a president elected who is not beholden to the parties. This was part of my 2020/24 presidential strategy (the details of which is another discussion). I hadn't until just now known of the centrist project, but I will be contacting them to discuss these issues further.

A good and relevant reading: http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explai...