Lit Centrists versus Populists? Which would you choose in the canon New Republic?

But I mean, having power delegated to regional sectors and systems is a nice general platitude, but then the Centrists might argue, "You've already been given enough, any more would be anarchy. Our way would be the right balance of federal and regional power." How would we the audience know if it actually is the right balance? The authors would have to go come up with tons more details...which they probably can't be bothered to do.

 

Ah I see where your going. I agree that the extreme populist is going for basically anarchy, but I think it’s a five or take system of course politicians are stubborn. I guess you could say I’m more neutral leaning populist than anything else

 

Rise of Skywalker spoilers:

Spoiler

It would seem the sequel trilogy decided for us what side was right. At the end of the movie, absent a New Republic, everyone was a populist whether they wanted to be or not.

 

Ideally, neither. But if you have to twist my arm, populists. The overwhelming bureaucracy and corruption of the Republic and New Republic were staggering. If the New Republic has to exist, I don't want the head of state and congress having crazy amounts of power since they have thousands of systems to worry about.

 

I usually side with Imperials like Tarkin, Thrawn, Krennic, Sloane, Rax, Pryde, Palleon, and TFA Hux. However, I chose left Populists, with left Centrists my number two choice. Except for Senator Ransolm Casterfo, I found the Centrist characters deplorable.

 

Any new thoughts? I'm thinking we'll probably see this explored more in the books as the era between ROTJ and TFA continues to get filled-in.

 

The New Canon New Republic is full of Borsk Fey'lya Politicians Legends New Republic was not perfect either the Yuuzhan Vong were their greatest defeat but New Canon New Republic will drop the ball hard with the First Order

 

The Centrists are more practical and less utopian in their ideology, but they would have to root out the neo-Imperial elements before I would feel comfortable arguing for them.

 

IMHO what's utopian is thinking the government can solve any problem if it puts in enough effort.
Sometimes it's better to air on the side of freedom and let localities experiment for the best solution. Easier to escape one world doing stupid policies than flee the Republic if it goes full Empire.

 

Honestly ai am shocked but not really by the centrists not being far behind. Some of the populists are far too stupid. Having no galactic government seems like a horrendous idea.

having an empire is also bad. There is a happy medium.

it reminds me of a friend who genuinely argued with me that 50 seperate countries instead of a whole US is better. That’s utter garbage. I would say if I was in the senate I would be a pretty moderate populist if not an independent as I get the appeal of both sides. I am more just turned off by the fact that dozens of them are neo fascists and imperialists. If not first order plants outright

 

Of course, there will be problems, no system is perfect. But there would be more problems if people are allowed to do whatever they want. Anarchy is a seductive concept, no doubt, but it is not conductive to a high quality of life. If there's not overarching authority to stop Planet #5987 from issuing pogroms against [INSERT MINORITY GROUP HERE] then that's a bad system.

 

I'm not an advocate of anarchy, but when constructing a government, I think its better to start from a point that is skeptical of government overreach.
In order to justify any government power, the system needs a clearly articulated and *limited* way of applying it. "For the greater good" is not reason enough. The question needs to be asked: "Is this the only way to do good? Or are we just giving the government power for its own sake?"
Every dictator is the hero of their own story.

 

I would agree with all that, but I would caution about defanging the government so much that it becomes ineffective. The only way to keep people from hurting or forcing themselves on others is to have rules and guidelines in place, and if you lack the power to enforce and back up those rules, then they might as well not exist.

 

Hence why I think a limited Federalism is ideal.
When asking the question, the burden should be on the government to justify its own power, not on the skeptics to justify mistrusting it.
There may be times where we need a central solution, but 9 times out of 10, and especially when dealing with a serious controversy, it's better to trust local government to respond to its people better. It allows greater flexibility, and more freedom in the long run, as each party can live as they like, and if they don't like it they can travel to another world. Whereas when the moment the Central Government passes a law, everyone is expected to fall in line behind it, and it's a lot harder to escape its effects should you disagree. Plus, it is disturbingly easy to delegitimize political opposition when you say everyone needs to get behind one policy position.

 

I dunno. Maybe your right but speaking from personal experience, oftentimes local government can be just as bad if not worse than the "main" government.

 

But the difference is the number of people impacted.
Trust me I have similar frustrations with certain local governments, but I'd rather a handful of local governments do stupid stuff, than having that same stupid stuff be codified by the federal government instead. What many people fail to understand is that if you give the government the power to compel obedience in favor of what you like, it also has the power to compel obedience in favor of that which you hate.

I can move across the border to a neighboring state any time I want, in fact I have thought of doing so on more than one occasion. It's not so simple when the whole country is the victim to that same policy. The local government is closer to the people and more responsive to it, if it actually is so bad the people can remove it with ease. But when 51% of a whole country wants to oppress the 49% there is no going back. In the extremes I can justify the central government stopping objective oppression or human rights abuses, but I can't justify it stepping in just because I think a specific policy is stupid.

 

I would agree with that. At least in the scenario that you have presented.

 

I think a federal system is the only way you can really do a galaxy wide or hell a planet wide government.

 

I'd choose neither and be among the Neutrals. Both sides come off as First Order assets now that I think about it. Look how quickly the Populists turned on Leia.

 

But aren't Neutrals just Populists in all but name, who are just so independent they won't even band together with a Populist coalition?

 

Because the Populists clearly aren't as "populist" as they say...