Folks, I have an announcement to make.
We’re bringing back an old character of mine. Well, technically, we’re not bringing him back from the dead because he never actually died. He’s just been on an extended vacation.
That’s right. I’m talking about THE ULTIMATE CENTRIST!
For those of you who don’t know, the Ultimate Centrist is my parody character of someone who is so ridiculously centrist about absolutely everything that it becomes downright hilarious. This dude refuses to take a side on ANYTHING. And I mean ANYTHING.
He’s the kind of guy who could watch two people argue about whether the Earth is round or flat and say, “Well, folks, I think we need to acknowledge that the Earth has some round characteristics, but we shouldn’t completely dismiss the concerns of people who prefer flatter geographical interpretations.”
SIR. PLEASE.
I took a bit of a break from this character throughout 2026 because, honestly, the shit happening in the world wasn’t putting me in the mood to make jokes about it. But now we’re approaching the 2026 midterm elections, and I’ve realized something.
HOLY SHIT, DO I HAVE MATERIAL FOR THIS GUY.
We’ve got wars, political controversies, economic problems, AI taking people’s jobs, Elon Musk potentially becoming a trillionaire, physical media disappearing, rising gas prices, food recalls, and all sorts of other insanity.
And I thought to myself, “You know what? Fuck it. Let’s bring the Ultimate Centrist back.”
So, without further ado, let’s hear what our favorite noncommittal bastard has to say about some of the biggest controversies and bizarre developments of 2026!
1. The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro
“Well, folks, I think we need to look at both sides of this situation. On the one hand, there are people who believe that removing Nicolás Maduro from power could be justified under certain circumstances. On the other hand, there are people who believe that kidnapping a foreign leader raises serious questions about international law and national sovereignty.
Personally, I think we should compromise. Perhaps we could kidnap half of Nicolás Maduro. That way, his supporters could have some of him, and his opponents could have the other half.
Alternatively, we could ask him to voluntarily kidnap himself and then negotiate his own release.
At the end of the day, I believe that sovereignty is important, but so is the ability to violate sovereignty when sovereignty needs to be violated. We must avoid being too pro-kidnapping or too anti-kidnapping.”
2. The war involving Iran
“War is a complicated subject, folks. On the one hand, some people believe military action is necessary to protect national security. On the other hand, some people believe military action causes unnecessary death and destruction.
I think both sides should consider a compromise.
Perhaps countries could engage in a limited war in which they shoot at each other every Tuesday and Thursday, but only between the hours of 2 PM and 4 PM. Civilians could be given weekends off, and everyone would be required to provide two weeks’ notice before launching a missile.
Of course, we must also consider the possibility of not having a war at all. But we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the possibility of having one.
Ultimately, peace is preferable to war, unless war is preferable to peace under certain circumstances.”
3. Palestine and the genocide controversy
“Folks, the situation involving Palestine is deeply complicated. There are people who are horrified by the suffering of Palestinians and believe the term genocide accurately describes what is happening. There are also people who dispute that characterization, including on legal and political grounds.
I believe we need to listen to all perspectives, examine the evidence, and take international law seriously.
Now, some people might say that if a genocide is occurring, we should take decisive action to stop it. Others might say that we should be careful about how we characterize a situation before all the facts have been established.
My compromise? We should simultaneously take the suffering seriously, investigate the legal questions, and do absolutely nothing that might upset either side.
Wait, what do you mean that doing nothing might allow people to keep suffering?
Well, that’s a very good point. But we must also consider the possibility that taking action could upset someone.
Perhaps we could establish a peace committee that meets every six months to discuss establishing another peace committee.
Surely, by the time the committees finish discussing their respective mandates, everyone will have reached a mutually agreeable conclusion.”
4. Lindsay Clancy
“Now, this is a particularly sensitive case, folks, and I think we need to approach it with nuance. There are serious questions surrounding the deaths of her children, criminal responsibility, mental health, and the circumstances surrounding the case.
Some people emphasize accountability and the seriousness of the alleged actions. Others emphasize the role mental illness and other circumstances may play in understanding what happened.
I believe both accountability and compassion are important.
My solution is to sentence her to exactly half of the sentence that one side wants and half of the sentence that the other side wants.
What if those sides disagree about whether there should be a sentence at all?
Well, then we should give her a sentence that is simultaneously a sentence and not a sentence.
Perhaps a judge could announce the verdict and then immediately announce that the verdict has been canceled, leaving everyone equally satisfied and dissatisfied.
And, of course, we must remember that mental health is a serious subject. Which is why I propose that we solve the entire criminal justice system by asking everyone involved to take a deep breath and count to ten.”
5. AI taking people’s jobs
“Artificial intelligence is a fascinating development, folks. On the one hand, AI can increase productivity, automate repetitive tasks, and create new opportunities. On the other hand, it can displace workers, concentrate wealth, and create uncertainty about people’s livelihoods.
I think we need a balanced approach.
Companies should be allowed to replace workers with AI, but workers should also be allowed to replace AI with themselves.
Perhaps businesses could employ one human and one AI for every position. The human would supervise the AI, and the AI would supervise the human. They could take turns doing each other’s jobs.
Of course, that would mean companies would have to pay two workers instead of one. But perhaps we could compromise by paying both of them half a salary.
What do you mean that nobody can afford rent on half a salary?
Well, perhaps we should have the AI write a grant proposal to fund a committee to investigate the problem.
And if AI eventually replaces everyone, we could simply declare that everyone is now an AI. Problem solved! Nobody has lost their job because nobody is technically human anymore.
I think we should embrace technological progress while also considering whether technological progress should progress quite so much.”
6. Elon Musk potentially becoming a trillionaire
“Folks, the possibility of Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire raises some interesting questions about wealth, entrepreneurship, economic inequality, and the distribution of resources.
On the one hand, some people argue that extraordinary wealth can reflect business success, innovation, and the creation of valuable products and services. On the other hand, some people argue that no individual should accumulate that much wealth while so many people struggle to afford basic necessities.
I propose a compromise.
We should allow Elon Musk to become a trillionaire, but only on Tuesdays.
On Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, he would be a regular billionaire. Then, every Tuesday, he could temporarily become a trillionaire before returning to billionaire status at midnight.
Alternatively, we could give everyone else a trillion dollars, too. Of course, that would probably change what a trillion dollars is worth, so perhaps we should give everyone half a trillion dollars instead.
But if we gave everyone half a trillion dollars, then perhaps we would need to give everyone a full trillion dollars to compensate for the inflation caused by giving everyone half a trillion dollars.
You see the problem here?
The real solution is to establish a committee to determine exactly how many dollars everyone should have, provided that the committee members aren’t paid too much for their work.”
7. Tesla inventing rocket cars
“Now, folks, I understand that there is a lot of excitement surrounding the future of transportation, including electric vehicles, autonomous driving, and rocket-powered concepts.
Some people believe that rocket cars could revolutionize transportation. Others believe that putting rockets on cars could introduce unnecessary risks and make an already complicated driving environment even more complicated.
Personally, I think we should compromise by putting a tiny rocket on every car.
Not a rocket big enough to make the car fly. Just a rocket big enough to make the driver feel like the car might fly.
We could also introduce a special speed limit for rocket cars. Ordinary cars could travel at 65 miles per hour, while rocket cars could travel at 65 miles per hour plus or minus 500 miles per hour, depending on how much rocket fuel the driver has.
And if the car accidentally launches itself into space, we could classify it as an aircraft and allow the driver to claim a tax deduction.
I believe we should embrace the future of transportation without allowing transportation to get too far ahead of itself.
After all, why drive when you could fly? And why fly when you could drive? Perhaps the best solution is to drive halfway to your destination and then fly the rest of the way.”
8. Physical media being phased out
“This is a very interesting issue, folks. Some people prefer physical media because they enjoy owning their movies, music, and video games. Others prefer digital media because it is convenient and doesn’t require physical storage space.
I believe both sides have valid points.
My compromise is that we should bring back physical media, but make it digital.
Imagine purchasing a physical Blu-ray disc that contains absolutely nothing on it except a QR code linking to a streaming service. That way, you could physically own something that you don’t actually own.
Alternatively, we could introduce subscription-based physical media. Every month, you would receive a new disc in the mail, but the previous disc would stop working when your subscription expired.
And if a streaming service removes a movie from its library, the physical disc could automatically disappear from your shelf.
That way, physical collectors and digital subscribers could finally experience the same level of disappointment.
Ultimately, I support physical media, but I also support digital media replacing physical media, provided that physical media is available for people who prefer physical media that has been replaced by digital media.”
9. Shortages
“Shortages are a complicated economic issue. When there isn’t enough of something to meet demand, some people believe we should increase production. Others believe we should reduce consumption.
I propose that we do both.
If there’s a shortage of eggs, we should produce more eggs while simultaneously encouraging people to eat fewer eggs.
If there’s a shortage of gasoline, we should increase gasoline production while encouraging everyone to drive less.
If there’s a shortage of affordable housing, we should build more houses while encouraging people to live in fewer houses.
And if there’s a shortage of common sense, we should manufacture more common sense while asking everyone to use less of it.
Of course, we must also consider the possibility that shortages are actually a sign that we have too much of something.
For example, if there’s a shortage of money, perhaps we have too much money. If everyone has more money, then money becomes less valuable, and we might have a shortage of valuable money.
I think the solution is to ensure that everyone has exactly enough of everything, but not so much that anyone has more than enough.”
10. Rising gas prices
“Folks, rising gas prices are a concern for many people. Consumers want affordable fuel, while businesses have costs to cover and may point to factors such as crude oil prices, refining costs, distribution, and taxes.
I believe both consumers and businesses deserve to be heard.
My proposal is to introduce a bipartisan gas price. Half the price would be determined by consumers, and the other half would be determined by gas stations.
If consumers want to pay $2 per gallon and gas stations want to charge $8 per gallon, the price would be $5.
What if consumers can’t afford $5 per gallon?
Well, then we should compromise by allowing consumers to pay $2.50 per gallon and gas stations to charge $7.50 per gallon.
What do you mean that the average is still $5?
That’s an excellent question. Perhaps we should establish a government agency to calculate the average.
In the meantime, everyone should consider buying an electric car, riding a bicycle, taking public transportation, walking, or continuing to drive their existing vehicle.
We mustn’t be too pro-gasoline or too anti-gasoline. I believe gasoline should be affordable, but not so affordable that people can afford it.”
11. ICE shootings in Minnesota and elsewhere
“Now, folks, this is a serious matter involving law enforcement, immigration enforcement, public safety, civil liberties, and the use of force.
Some people emphasize the importance of enforcing immigration laws and protecting officers. Others emphasize the need to protect civilians, investigate shootings, and hold law enforcement accountable when wrongdoing occurs.
I think we need a balanced approach.
Officers should be allowed to do their jobs, but civilians should also be allowed to survive encounters with officers.
Perhaps we could introduce a new policy in which officers are permitted to use force, but only after obtaining a permit from a neutral third party. The third party would then need permission from another third party, who would need permission from a fourth third party.
By the time everyone has signed the paperwork, the situation might have resolved itself.
Of course, there are emergencies where immediate action is necessary. So perhaps we should introduce an emergency permit that allows officers to use force before obtaining permission to use force, provided they obtain permission to use force afterward.
And whenever someone is shot, we should investigate the circumstances, examine the available evidence, and determine whether the use of force was justified.
Unless the investigation makes someone uncomfortable. In that case, we should investigate the investigation.
My position is that law enforcement must be able to enforce the law, but the law must also be able to enforce law enforcement. And everyone should be held accountable, except for those situations in which accountability might be considered controversial.”
12. Food recalls
“Food recalls are another issue where I believe both sides need to find common ground.
On the one hand, food manufacturers want to provide products to consumers and avoid unnecessary waste. On the other hand, consumers would prefer not to eat contaminated food.
I think we should introduce a compromise system.
Whenever a food product is recalled, half of the product should be recalled immediately, while the other half should be recalled after a reasonable period of time.
What if the contamination affects the entire product?
Well, then we should recall the entire product, but only halfway.
Perhaps we could put warning labels on recalled food that say, ‘This product may or may not be safe to consume, depending on your personal interpretation of food safety.’
And if someone asks whether they should eat the recalled food, we could provide two equally sized pamphlets. One explaining why they shouldn’t eat it, and another explaining why throwing away food is wasteful.
Of course, we should prioritize public health and follow food safety guidance. But we must also acknowledge that food waste is a concern.
Perhaps the ideal compromise is to throw the food away, retrieve it from the garbage, inspect it again, and then throw it away a second time to ensure that both sides have been adequately represented.”
13. The 2026 midterm elections
“And finally, folks, we have the 2026 midterm elections.
This is a particularly exciting time for centrists because it gives us the opportunity to support absolutely nobody while simultaneously supporting absolutely everybody.
Some voters prefer Republicans. Others prefer Democrats. Some support third parties, independents, or write-in candidates. And some people would rather stay home and watch television.
I believe every voter should consider the candidates, their policies, their records, and the issues that matter to them.
Personally, I think every candidate should win exactly half of the election.
If one candidate receives 60% of the vote, they should receive only 30% of the presidency, governorship, or congressional seat. The remaining 30% should go to their opponent.
What do you mean that’s not how elections work?
Well, perhaps we should consider a bipartisan government in which every elected official has an equal and opposite elected official whose sole responsibility is to disagree with them.
If the president proposes a policy, the vice president must propose the exact opposite policy. If Congress passes a law, the opposition party must pass a law repealing half of it.
And if nobody can agree on anything, then nobody gets to do anything.
Wait, isn’t that basically gridlock?
Yes, but it’s bipartisan gridlock, and that makes it more respectable.
At the end of the day, I encourage everyone to vote according to their conscience, provided their conscience has thoroughly considered all available perspectives and has refrained from reaching a conclusion that might alienate anyone.”
The Ultimate Centrist’s final thoughts
Well, there you have it, folks. The Ultimate Centrist has officially returned, and he has opinions about everything.
Well, technically, he has opinions about the importance of not having opinions about everything.
And that’s what makes this character so ridiculous.
There’s nothing wrong with considering opposing perspectives. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, acknowledging uncertainty, or finding common ground with people you disagree with.
But sometimes, there really are situations where you have to make a decision. Sometimes, the evidence supports one conclusion more strongly than another. Sometimes, a compromise simply doesn’t work. And sometimes, trying to remain neutral in every situation is itself a decision with consequences.
The Ultimate Centrist, however, is incapable of understanding this.
He believes that every argument requires two equally valid sides, every problem requires a compromise, and every controversial issue requires a committee to determine whether the controversy itself is justified.
He could be standing in front of a burning building, watching firefighters debate whether to put out the fire or let it burn, and he’d be the guy suggesting that they extinguish exactly 50% of the flames.
And when the building collapses, he’d turn around and say, “Well, folks, I think we can all agree that both the building and the fire played a role in this unfortunate situation.”
GODDAMMIT, MAN.
But that’s the beauty of it. Reality is already absurd enough, and sometimes the best way to highlight that absurdity is to create a character who takes one perfectly reasonable idea and pushes it so far beyond its limits that it becomes completely ridiculous.
So, to those of you who remember the Ultimate Centrist, welcome back.
And to those of you meeting him for the first time, I hope you’re ready.
Because this man has absolutely no intention of taking a side, and he’s prepared to explain why for the next 47 years.
The Ultimate Centrist: not left, not right, not even sure whether left and right are valid directions.
He’s just a man, standing in the middle of a burning building, asking everyone to respect the fire’s perspective.
WELCOME BACK, YOU BEAUTIFUL, NONCOMMITTAL BASTARD.
And remember, folks: if you can’t decide whether to take a side, just take both sides.
Or neither.
Or half of each.
Actually, let’s form a committee to decide.
I’m sure we’ll reach a conclusion eventually.
Maybe.
Probably.
We’ll see.