“Argumentum ad nauseam refers to the logical fallacy that an argument is correct by virtue of it constantly being repeated. Argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy that a point is wrong because of personal critiques of the person making it.

A new logical fallacy should be added to the list: Argumentum ad centrum, or the flawed claim that an assertion is accurate because it is from the ideological center.

The argumentum ad centrum is increasingly popular in politics today, as working-class people all around the world become more and more frustrated with the status quo. The rapid rise of left-wing alternatives to an increasingly right-wing political modus operandi — with Bernie Sanders in the U.S., Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K., Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and more — has apologists for power on the ropes, desperately clutching for any argument that can beat back the dissent and discontent.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the incessant liberal attacks on Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose unexpected presidential campaign has, in mere months, taken U.S. politics by storm.Columnist Jonathan Chait lobbed a series of argumenta ad centrum at the Vermont senator in “The Case Against Bernie Sanders.” The article, published this week in New York magazine, went viral with tens of thousands of shares.

The crux of Chait’s argument is that Sanders is too extreme of a candidate, and that U.S. politics is too far to the right, for him to get anything done. It is not until the final paragraph of his piece that Chait, an unabashed Clinton aficionado, makes it clear that he does not endorse “Sanders’s policy vision.”

“In other words, Chait is essentially telling the American left to simply give up, because the cards are stacked in the interest of power. His entire article is a defense of fatalism and political resignation, covered with a thin veneer of liberal analysis.”

“Chait further confirmed these suspicions in a tweet, writing, “Even if you agree with Sanders’ ideas, which I don’t, they’re badly mismatched with the powers he would have.”

“The Week’s Ryan Cooper has described Chait as a “squishy moderate.” Chait has openly called himself a “liberal hawk,” and was one of the loudest liberal cheerleaders for the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Chait has constantly shielded President Obama from the many, many substantive left-wing critiques. If he has a relationship with power, it is one of deference, not dissent.”

“Centrist liberals cannot grapple with the fact that the American people are tired of the Clinton dynasty and its strident neoliberalism, bankrupt center-right politics and seemingly infinite capacity for corruption. They can’t wrap their heads around the fact that left-wing Americans are tired of the “liberal hawks,” with their cozy relationships with Wall Street and their fetishization of U.S. power. They want something new. As imperfect as he is, Sanders represents that.

Chait’s piece is just the beginning. Expect more and more articles with similar centrist talking  points, as Sanders’ popularity increases throughout the U.S.

After all, defending the status quo is a profitable enterprise.”

Read on: Debunking the Case Against Sanders | Salon