my definition is narrow, because unlike Scotsmen it is necessarily defined by a basic idea, (and why i included the Chambers and OED definitions), while Scotsmen are obvioulsy not wholly defined by their inclination to sweeten their porridge.
you're not even defining centrists. you're just characterising them, and in a way that contradicts 𝘢𝘯 accepted definition.
if we always disagree on definition, so be it, but centrism 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 seem to be 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 more in terms of moderate policy rather than an indifference to any left- or right-wing position
i'm no expert, but my own understanding of centrist politics is that it is the prosecution of an agenda that satisfies the majority of people on both sides of the centre, being neither far left nor far right, appreciating that, inevitably, society is served best by combining the best of centre-right and centre-left political and economic strategy.
it's why Tony Blair was so successful.
what it isn't, is treatment of 𝘢𝘯𝘺 opposing political position, regardless of their respective extremes, as equivalent.
as in:
Dem: the same legal rights should be afforded to all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation etc.
(this is a moderate position, and many on the right would agree)
Rep: homosexuals are deviant and shouldn't be allowed to work in schools etc.
(this is an extreme right-wing position and many on the right would disagree)
centrist: both sides make valid points etc.
which, in my opinion, misrepresents centrists, who would unequivocally support the left's position in this example, and vehemently reject the right's extreme position.
i guess some folk, lana included, have a different idea of what centrism is, though.