I'm trying to remember the name of a political term. It's to do with shifting what's commonly considered the centre ground. By having or creating extremist groups on one side of the political spectrum (or by simply repeatedly advancing extremist points from mainstream sources) you can alter public opinion on what constitutes the centre ground even if the extremist's point of view seems completely unpalatable to most people. It's based on the way people generally think there should be fairness in politics and all arguments are somehow equal, regardless of the quality of the argument on each side.
I remember reading a Wikipedia article on it but I can't find the bugger anymore.

Also, in a related point, does anyone else feel that this is happening to a certain extent in their own countries? Either via political groups or even through the various media outlets (newspapers, news channels etc).

centrism

No, centrism is movement by a party towards the centre in an effort to gain more voters. This is in the opposite direction: trying to shift the centre to agree with your ideals (bringing the voters to you, rather than going to them). Commonly achieved by pushing more extreme views in public discourse to shift the overall balance.

Serious topics that aren't polarizing don't get discussed anymore.

I think we had this term in my comparative politics class. Unfortunately, I was a freshman when I took that and I barely remember any of it.

Moderating is a job for political parties in an electoral system like the United States has where parties need a larger percentage of the vote to capture political power. But to get that, they need broad coalitions which include many interests, so the parties have to moderate their message and thus when people watch what they say and aren't really that in tune to the issues, the people develop a "centrist" stance on many issues they see as politically important that aren't really all that important. It's been my experience (and I would imagine that it's not too rare) that the more one learns about politics or political/economic theories: the less moderate they become, as the centrist stance doesn't explain "what is to be done" or "the way things are" very well.

in some places, trying to get the non swing voters to come towards you would be called political suicide. >.> <.<

Like in America where there is a Single Member District Plurality system as opposed to Multi Member Proportional Representation.

This might be necromancy but it might open up a discussion. I found the term I was looking for: "the Overton Window".
This is an interesting article on the work of think-tanks in changing public opinion: http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/53

Anyone else feel that modern politics is being manipulated a lot in this manner especially through the newspapers, news channels and political groups etc?
My general view of US politics (as an admittedly ill-informed foreigner) is that while the Dems have constantly tried to pander to the middle ground they lose their base support somewhat as well as seeming rather weak to the middle. The Reps on the other hand since going neo-con seem to have used the Overton window method; appealing to their base as usual seeming strong in that matter but throwing out relatively extreme, radical ideas that have shifted the middle ground towards them. Unless the Dems start pulling back and doing the same in the opposite direction, it can only cause an overall shift to the right which to me seems to be what's happened in the US over the last 20 years.

When I saw your thread title I thought you were going to advocate being moderate/centered, I'm happy that someone else sees through all this crap.

If you still have modding powers, you're welcome to change the title to something more interesting. I suck at thread titles

Hmm... What would be a ridiculously radical version of me being dictator of the world?

I'm going to take a wild guess and respond "what you are what now".

There is the curious, and uniquely American, phenomenon of deciding that all topics can be divided into two opposing viewpoints, neither of which is actually 'correct', and 'truth' must lie somewhere inbetween the two.
I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but I keep seeing it occuring everywhere.

False compromise, I believe.

The liberal principal of the liberal middle school I went to constantly insisted that everyone was right, even if people had conflicting viewpoints of the situation. In her opinion, it was perfectly acceptable for something to be alive and dead at the same time. It was perfectly acceptable for one person to claim something was white and the other to claim it was black, they were both correct.

Not sure, there's the False Dichotomy fallacy which is the first part of your statement but it's contradictory to the rest of what you said.

As for the original post, I'm not sure of the term.

What if I pick and choose from my left and righties because walking in a straight line all the time is for sober people.

The Overton Window a pretty interesting concept. As you know about how your opinions are influenced, you can be a more aware and informed voter.

Wait, what's wrong with a moderate political standpoint?

What Brian cited isn't a moderate opinion - it's PC bull**** that tries to please everyone.

Because you're choosing the midpoint on a line when the truth might actually be in a triangle that your line is a part of. And you can't see the other two lines because republican and democrate are the two endpoints.

Being a moderate simply means that you don't think the liberals have it completely right, and you don't think the conservatives have it completely right. It means you simply don't subscribe to the extremes. You still have opinions on things - you just don't fall under the typical definition of the left or right.

The whole point of this Overton Window is to move the line, and thereby move the midpoint. Voting as a moderate is fine, as long as you remember that the line isn't always constant.

I'm a moderate, so I always make sure to choose the exact halfway point between two stances. I think that we should build half of a fence between the US and Mexico.