In political discussions, I used to define myself as a centrist, and I did so because I thought that
- by not putting myself in obvious opposition to the people I talk to, I learn more about their honest opinions,
- a one-dimensional spectrum between left and right cannot adequately describe a phenomenon so complex as politics,
- my thinking would automatically be biased by tribalism were I to class myself as belonging to a specific political camp.
Today, I prefer to describe myself as politically eclectic. I pick and choose from all sorts of (often deeply conflicting) ideologies, and as I do not believe in absolute evil, I have no principal reservations against any ideology.
All I care about is that a political idea, opinion, or policy makes Bayesian-utilitarian sense, meaning that it has a high likelihood of helping to maximize eudaimonic well-being in a society, given what we know about that society in particular and about human nature in general. I thus try to take my stances on political issues based on ideological unbundling and selecting, informed by broader ethical considerations and the reality of the world.
Now this should sound arrogant enough to make me a proper centrist, but I can still tone up the intellectual pretension—because, you see, there really are four different types of centrists, and people commonly fail to differentiate between them. That is why I have come to find it most expedient to call myself an eclectic, even though what I really am is a selective centrist.