I’ve yet to meet a centrist that is comfortable or capable, of defining centrism. When offered a few choices such as those below, they don’t seem to like the options. When asked about other possibilities, they can’t think of any options on their own.
If you’re a Philosophical Center type of centrist, then you’re claiming a middle ground that is not known to exist in philosophy. As an example, what is the middle point between objectivism and subjectivism? That’s a tough one, I know…
If you’re a Political Center type of centrist, then you’d be claiming that your views are in between the prevailing views of your country, state, etc. This would mean that your views are relative to your environment, which means your views are not really views in the sense that the left and right have views, and they would necessarily change if you moved to another part of the world. If you want to be in the middle, then you have to pick some combination of principles from the left and the right. Hypothetically, if there are ten views and you have six that you share with the left and five that you share with the right, are you still a centrist?
If you’re a Split the Difference sort of centrist, then maybe you find harmony in meeting in the middle of any and all legislative issues. That sounds wonderful, until you try to defend those wavering positions based upon a consistent core philosophy. All you can say here, is that your philosophy is to always be in the middle. Perhaps this is the only true definition for a centrist.