A recent article by Jeremy Barr of The Guardian questioned Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison’s claim that a large majority of Americans could be considered centrist. The focus was on whether the number was overstated, but that misses a more important point. The issue is not the exact size of the center. It is that we don’t consider what the center actually represents. 

Centrism is defined narrowly as a consistent ideological middle. By that standard, the center will always appear small. But most people do not think in clean ideological categories. Trade-offs, experience, and context shape their views. Many hold a mix of positions that don’t fit neatly into partisan labels, not because they are confused or not engaged, but because they are weighing competing priorities. That thinking requires effort beyond voting along party lines. 

What is often overlooked is that strong partisan identification can act as a shortcut. Identifying as a Republican or a Democrat provides a framework that simplifies decision-making. For many, those affiliations are shaped early by family, community, or region and reinforced over time. This does not make them invalid, but it does make them easier to rely on. 

Centrists, by contrast, do not have that structure. Without a fixed ideological lane, they are more often required to engage directly with the substance of issues. Supporting compromise is not passive; it requires understanding multiple perspectives and identifying workable outcomes. It is, in many ways, a more demanding form of engagement. Yet this group is frequently described as disengaged, wishy-washy, or flip-flopping. 

That perception reflects a flaw in how we measure political behavior. Our systems reward visibility and intensity, clear opinions, strong alignment, and constant expression. Those who approach politics with more nuance or restraint are less visible and often misclassified as less engaged. 

In reality, the center is not disengaged; they are just less performative. They may not participate in constant political signaling, but they are paying attention and making judgments in a more measured way. 

This distinction matters. The center is often where decisions are made, where compromises form, where legislation becomes viable, and where elections are decided. It is less ideological, more pragmatic, and more influential than it is typically portrayed. 

The problem is not that the center is small or disengaged. It is that our current ways of measuring and covering politics fail to capture how it actually thinks. 

Until that changes, we will continue to misunderstand not just the center, but how much of the country approaches public life.