Centrist Haplotype Rarity: ~8% of population

Pragmatic Centrist

You value practical solutions over ideological purity. Sometimes government helps, sometimes markets work better; evidence should guide policy, not doctrine.

Orientation: Non-ideological, evidence-based, practical problem-solving

Dimension Scores

Liberty
52
Markets
48
Global
49
Culture
51

Understanding This Type

Pragmatic Centrists reject ideology in favor of practical problem-solving. They believe both left and right have valid insights and serious blind spots—and that good policy comes from evaluating ideas on their merits rather than their tribal affiliations. Sometimes government works best; sometimes markets do. The question is what actually solves problems, not what fits a predetermined framework.

This strain is defined more by methodology than by specific positions. Pragmatic Centrists approach each issue fresh, willing to draw from any tradition that offers workable solutions. They're frustrated by partisan warfare that treats politics as team sport rather than collective problem-solving. Compromise isn't selling out—it's how democracy is supposed to work.

The intellectual orientation is empirical: what does the evidence say? What has worked in other countries or contexts? What are the actual tradeoffs, not the ideological caricatures? This doesn't mean centrism is always right—sometimes one side has the better argument. But the answer should come from analysis, not tribal loyalty.

Pragmatic Centrists often feel politically homeless. They're too willing to criticize Democrats for progressives and too willing to criticize Republicans for conservatives. In a polarized environment, refusing to pick a team means alienating both. Yet they believe someone needs to occupy the middle ground where actual governance happens.

At roughly 8% of the population, Pragmatic Centrists are a significant group—though they're underrepresented in political activism and media, which reward ideological commitment. They're found among independent voters, some business professionals, technocrats, and people exhausted by partisan combat. Critics see them as wishy-washy or naive; supporters see them as the adults in the room.

Dimension Analysis

Personal Liberty

52

Balanced on personal liberty—neither libertarian nor statist. Support individual freedom while accepting reasonable regulation. The right answer depends on the specific issue and evidence, not ideological priors.

  • Evaluate each liberty question on merits
  • Some regulations reasonable, some overreach
  • Gun policy, drug policy: look at evidence
  • Neither "government bad" nor "government good" as default

Market Economy

48

Mixed economy—markets and government both have roles. Neither free-market fundamentalist nor central planner. The question is which tool works for which problem, assessed empirically.

  • Markets work for most goods and services
  • Government needed for public goods, externalities
  • Healthcare: mixed systems can work (various models)
  • Regulation: sometimes helpful, sometimes harmful

Global Orientation

49

Balanced on globalism—neither nationalist nor fully internationalist. International cooperation valuable for some problems; national sovereignty appropriate for others. Trade and immigration have real benefits and real costs.

  • Trade good overall, but losers need help
  • Immigration beneficial with integration support
  • International institutions useful but imperfect
  • Evaluate each agreement on specifics

Cultural Values

51

Moderate on culture—neither culture warrior for tradition nor for progressivism. Social change happens; the question is managing it well. Uncomfortable with both religious right and activist left imposing values.

  • Socially moderate—live and let live
  • Neither crusade for tradition nor for revolution
  • Uncomfortable with culture war from either side
  • Change is fine; imposed orthodoxy is not

Core Beliefs

  • Both parties have good and bad ideas—evaluate each policy on its merits
  • Ideology blinds people to practical solutions that don't fit their framework
  • Compromise is necessary for functioning democracy—not betrayal
  • Evidence should guide policy, not doctrine or tribal loyalty
  • Most political debates are less binary than partisans pretend
  • Solving problems matters more than ideological purity

Internal Tensions

  • Pragmatism vs. having principles worth fighting for
  • Centrism as genuine position vs. just splitting the difference
  • Evaluating evidence objectively vs. everyone thinks they're objective
  • Seeking compromise vs. enabling bad actors who won't compromise
  • Political homelessness vs. needing to actually vote and act

Foundational Thinkers

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Historian of the vital center (1917-2007)

Daniel Bell

Sociologist on end of ideology (1919-2011)

Philip Tetlock

Psychologist on forecasting and open-minded thinking

Daniel Kahneman

Nobel psychologist on decision-making and bias (1934-2024)

Jonathan Haidt

Social psychologist on moral foundations and polarization

Contemporary Voices

Andrew Yang

Forward Party founder promoting pragmatic solutions

Michael Bloomberg

Billionaire and former NYC mayor

Lisa Murkowski

Alaska Senator representing pragmatic centrism

Angus King

Independent Maine Senator

Joe Lieberman

Former Independent Senator and No Labels leader (1942-2024)

Communities & Spaces

r/moderatepolitics Reddit

Civil discourse seekers

No Labels supporters Various

Third way advocates

Suburban independent voters Facebook

Swing voter networks

Undecided voter forums Various

Issue-by-issue evaluation

Business moderate networks LinkedIn

Practical executives

Key Institutions

No Labels

Bipartisan political organization

Problem Solvers Caucus

Bipartisan congressional group

Bipartisan Policy Center

Cross-partisan policy research

Third Way

Centrist Democratic think tank

Niskanen Center

Moderate libertarian-leaning policy research

How It Compares

vs. Moderate Liberal (Close Neighbors)

Aspect Pragmatic Centrist Moderate Liberal
Lean True center Left-of-center
Identity Non-ideological Liberal but moderate
Democrats Sometimes good Usually preferred
Progress Case by case Generally support

vs. Moderate Conservative (Cross-Aisle Partners)

Aspect Pragmatic Centrist Moderate Conservative
Lean True center Right-of-center
Markets Sometimes best Usually best
Tradition Evaluate case by case Generally value
Republicans Sometimes good Usually preferred

vs. Independent Thinker (Fellow Independents)

Aspect Pragmatic Centrist Independent Thinker
Self-Image Pragmatic moderate Unique synthesis
Positions Usually centrist Unpredictable mix
Conformity Seek common ground Proudly contrarian
Compromise Core value Where warranted

Common Critiques

Centrism is just cowardice—refusing to take a stand on important issues
Taking evidence seriously isn't cowardice. Sometimes the centrist position is the brave one—criticizing your own side when they're wrong. Real cowardice is tribal conformity. We take stands; they're just based on analysis rather than team loyalty.
"Both sides" rhetoric creates false equivalence and enables extremism
We don't claim both sides are equally wrong on everything. On specific issues, one side often has the better argument. But on different issues, it might be the other side. Refusing to acknowledge any valid points from political opponents is its own kind of extremism.
Centrism just means supporting the status quo and opposing change
Pragmatic centrism supports changes that work and opposes changes that don't—regardless of whether they're left or right. We've supported criminal justice reform, marriage equality, and many other changes. Opposition to bad ideas isn't opposition to all change.
You can't be neutral on a moving train—centrism is a political position that benefits the powerful
We're not neutral—we're selective. Sometimes power needs checking from the left; sometimes from the right. Centrism isn't about defending existing power structures; it's about evaluating proposals honestly. Ideologues benefit the powerful too, when their solutions don't actually work.
In an era of democratic backsliding and climate crisis, centrism is inadequate
Democratic backsliding is real—and centrists are some of its strongest opponents, because we value democratic norms over partisan victory. Climate change is real—and centrists support carbon pricing and clean energy, which work better than revolutionary rhetoric without practical policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

No—Pragmatic Centrists have strong opinions on many issues. They're just not predictable from partisan affiliation. A centrist might strongly support carbon taxes AND gun rights AND immigration AND lower corporate taxes. The positions come from analysis, not from a package deal.
It varies by election and candidate. Many split tickets or switch between parties. In primaries, they often support moderates in both parties. In general elections, they're swing voters both parties need. Some become independents; others register with whichever party is less extreme in their area.
Everyone claims it; few practice it. The test is whether you update views when evidence challenges them. Pragmatic Centrists try to notice when their side's preferred policies aren't working. They read sources from multiple perspectives. It's a practice, not a label, and it's genuinely difficult.
Most strongly oppose Trump—seeing him as representing the opposite of pragmatism: tribal loyalty, contempt for evidence, rejection of compromise. But they're also critical of progressive overreach that fuels polarization. They want both parties to return to problem-solving orientation.
Not really—centrism is hard to organize because it's defined by not having a predetermined agenda. Organizations like No Labels have tried; third parties struggle in American system. Centrists mostly operate within major parties, trying to pull them toward pragmatism, with limited success in polarized era.

Is This Your Political DNA?

Take the Political DNA Scan to discover your type among 32 distinct political strains.

Take the Quiz →