[RC] The Radical Centrist Manifesto (First Part)
Avesland@aol.com
Avesland at aol.com
Mon Aug 22 15:29:59 EDT 2005
The Radical Centrist Manifesto
A PLATFORM for
CRITICAL-MINDED MORAL POLITICS
By : Billy Rojas
Liberalism must be reinvented for the sake of decent Americans. Liberalism
must
be seized from those who claim its legacy yet who hate everything that
Liberalism
has always stood for. Liberalism must be reborn in a world where Political
Correct-
ness ideologies hold power in government, in academia, in teachers unions,
the
mass media and even in a number of religious organizations.That is, a war
between True Liberalism and False Liberalism.is inevitable. The sooner it
happens ,
the better.
False Liberalism , pseudo-liberalism, must be defeated so that authentic
Liberalism,
created anew for the 21st century, can arise. This can only happen when
Americans
discover a new political philosophy based on clinical truthfulness, total
unwillingness
to compromise with evil, and a commitment to critical-mindedness.
Conscientious Conservatives may want to say something similar about their
politics.
This would be most welcome. The Conservative movement has its own share of
problems, not least of them being misguided loyalty to laissez faire
economic
theory and an often pre-scientific understanding of social causality, but
the primary
task of this essay is to try and start the process through which the
Liberal Left can
be reinvented. For the Left, as this is written in the middle of 2005, is
essentially
a mess. There is no other way to say it and still speak the truth.
For a new Liberalism to arise, for Liberalism to regain all that was good
about it
in the past, it is crucial to come to terms with unpleasant facts. And at
the heart of
the problem is one undeniable fact : The Left has become unable to tell
right from
wrong. Although this is not always the case, it is true so often, concerning
so many
issues, that the seriousness of the problem of the Left cannot be ignored.
This essay
offers a solution to that problem. This solution will upset many people. It
should. It
is intended to be controversial. -because the disease of the Left is so
virulent , and
because the time is long past when incremental reforms had any chance to
remedy
the situation. This essay is intended to break new political ground and to
foment a revolution of ideas.
____________________________________________________________
WHAT IS RADICAL CENTRISM ?
Liberalism must be reconstructed on a foundation of Radical Centrism. This
can
be done because Radical Centrism, while never known by this name, has always
been the animating spirit of genuine, thoughtful Liberals, men and women who
think for themselves and who refuse to act like herd animals. They are people
who refuse to be swayed by any and all arguments that lead to failure.
Radical Centrism is the philosophy and politics of identifying what is good
and
best for Americans -by reliance on objective standards of judgement. This
view
of the world can be just as relevant in other countries as in the United
States,
of course, but the focus of attention here will be America . It is vital
that American
politics is reformed because of the leadership role that the US plays in the
world.
It also is vital because under present conditions American society is
tearing itself
apart, and the prime mover in this cultural civil war is the Democratic
Party,
essentially the American Left.
Radical Centrism is the politics of .synthesis. It takes the view that ideas
that are
good for society can come from almost anyplace on the political; spectrum.
It
also says that there is no problem in taking good ideas from a variety of
sources
and making them our own. And it is predicated on the principle that no
political
party has a monopoly of either good ideas or of workable solutions to
important problems. Radical Centrism seeks nothing less than an altogether new way
to
think about the "vital center."
What Radical Centrism is NOT, is the philosophy of Jesse Ventura. According
to
Mr.Ventura his politics was based on a belief that the best way to conceive
polit-
ical solutions is by means of combining Social Liberalism and Fiscal
Conservatism.
Some journalists interpreted this stand as Radical Centrism. But this is not
what
the movement is all about. All stands are arrived at on a case by case
basis, for
one thing, And for another, this way of proceeding means that on social
issues
Radical Centrists are some combination of Left and Right, approximately
50-50,
although the exact mix may be 60-40 one year and 40-60 the next.The same
principle applies to economics.
This approach requires thoughtfulness each step of the way, and no wholesale
acceptance of anyone else's views. Borrowing one party's social policies
intact
and the other party's economic policies intact is absolutely unacceptable
and is
regarded by Radical Centrists as irresponsible.
To become a Radical Centrist is to see the world with new eyes.We are
discussing
nothing less than a revolution in consciousness. Radical Centrism, when
considered
in terms of what it can become in the future, renders all previous political
views
obsolete. Some political views can even be seen as sick jokes. And just as
no party
has a monopoly on good ideas , Radical Centrism helps us see that no party
is
immune from errors of judgement, either.It offers vast new possibilities for
criticizing political views, political parties, and political candidates.
Although the preferred way of operating is through non-adversarial means,
there is
no restriction on making deserved criticisms when it is called for.
Radical Centrism is the future of American politics even though few current
political leaders have any notion of what it is. But that does not matter.
Radical
Centrism will sweep away existing politics the moment it becomes widely
known in the United States. This will happen because the minute you grasp
its
principles, it is so obviously superior to all other political
viewpoints.That is, as
Victor Hugo one said, "there is nothing as powerful as an idea
whose time has come."
As soon as you understand the Radical Centrist outlook is the moment that
all old
politics ceases to exist for you. The change can be that dramatic.
But to put everything in perspective it would be helpful to make use of a 2
part list
created by Eric S. Raymond in 2001, re-posted on the Web in 2005. The
version
used here is by no means an exact copy of Mr Raymond's material. It is a mix
of
new ideas and his ideas of a few years ago. Some items are quoted exactly,
or
quite closely, because they were impossible to improve upon. On balance most
of this material is new.
TOP TEN REASONS I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT
1. Crime and Law Enforcement. Democrats are almost completely wrong about
this. They take the view that crime is not the responsibility of the
criminal and
that "society made him do it." They prefer to ignore the need to
remove
criminals from society because doing so might upset the feelings of
some
of their constituents.
2. Capital Punishment. They are wrong about this, too. Democrats would
rather
spend money on warehousing violent criminals than on other far more useful
programs. What does it cost per year to accommodate a prisoner convicted of
murder ? $50,000 is the minimum. Some prisoners, like hoodlums in their
20s,
may remain incarcerated for more than 40 years.That translates into an
expend-
iture of $2 million to take case of just one lethal felon. There is no
better way
to spend that money, many billions when adding up the total of all murderers
?
Each violent criminal takes away $ 2 million from disadvantaged schoolkids,
or needy elderly people.
3. Affirmative Action. These programs could not be more diabolical as a
means
to entrench racial prejudice than if the Aryan Nations had designed them.
4. Abortion. All arguments made by the other sde, no matter how reasonable,
are
rejected on principle. Huge numbers of abortions do not seem to bother them
at all. And the absurd view that an 8+ months foetus is a lump pf protoplasm
with no rights while a newborn should have full rights is perceived by all
thinking
people as utter nonsense, The Democrats are clueless about this even if they
make valid points of their own about some percentage of abortions.
5. Communism. I have not forgiven the Democrats -and the further Left
espe-
cially for sucking up to the monstrous evil that was the Soviet Union; their
views were little different than appeasement policies..
6. The Unions. Basically the Democrats have told organized labor to take a
hike,
that they don't need them any more. Although it is true that unions need to
be
reinvented, this betrayal of labor is entirely unjustifiable.
7. Islam and Terrorism . The two are linked and not to understand the
obvious is
almost the worst folly imaginable. While some of the principles behind multi-
culturalism are quite sound, it simply is NOT true that all social systems
are
equally good. Some are quite sick, some are pathological. We do not need
to harbor prejudice against Arabs or Iranians or others, and we should not
in any case, but Islam is as pathological a religion as any religion gets.
8. Defining deviancy down. Democrats have forgotten how to condemn harmful,
self-destructive and other destructive behaviors. "Anything goes," is their
motto, and they do not care how repulsive or anti-social a behavior may be.
Much of this set of anti-values derives from gender feminism, a movement
that
is based on numerous faulty psychological premises. But so what ? All that
counts to the party bigwigs is campaign money from feminists in New York
and California. The values of Catholics and Protestants and Jews are
regarded
as nonsense and are relentlessly attacked.
9. William Jefferson Clinton. Sociopathic liar, perjurer, sexual predator,
and
cynical nihilist. There was nothing but a sucking narcissistic vacuum where
his
principles should have been. His contempt for the military was greater than
any
president in the history of the United States. Democrats worship him.
10.Democrats, by and large, are have taken leave of their senses.
TOP TEN REASONS WHY I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN
1. Coal Strip Mining. As far as the GOP is concerned, Appalachia is a
region
to exploit to the maximum , with zero regard for the people who live thee,
all
of whom they disrespect and disdain. The GOP does not care if every moun-
tain in the region is destroyed as long as cheap coal is extracted. If the
environmental consequences will be with us for eternity, so what ?
2. Drugs. We found out that Prohibition was a bad idea in the 1930s -what
it
did was create a huge criminal class. And the GOP cannot bring itself to
differentiate between cannabis and hard drugs. Thus a war on drugs that
just might be won, a war against hard stuff, is diluted as hundreds of
thousands of marijuana users are arrested and locked up. None of which
is even to mention laws that permit seizure of property on flimsy grounds as
long as a case can be made that a few grams of pot were on the premises.
The concept of justice is difficult for Republicans to comprehend.
3. Creationism. To think that in the 21st century there is some sort of
debate
about evolution strikes me as completely ridiculous.
4. Parochialism. Christianity (with some allowance for a Jewish
contribution)
defines American history ? And we all should be believers ? Not that
Christian faith is not a fine thing, I believe in it in my own way, as a
matter of fact, but not for one minute do I disregard the great good
that can be found in a variety of other religions. Seems to me that we
ought to recognize the good in Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth, and
stop marginalizing people who belong to such faiths.
5. Racism. Although it is hardly true that racism as it exists in the 2000s
is as virulent as it was in the 1950s, regardlessly the GOP has made
political, use of such negative sentiment to further its goals.This started
in the Nixon years and has not really stopped.
6. Libertarian Disease. Downsize the government to the dimensions it had
in the 1880s, or even the 1830s, is about as ludicrous an approach to the
political system as can be imagined. Libertarians have a point about
the need for individual freedoms , but to buy into the programs of this
group of ideologues is bad judgment.at its worst.
7. Anti-science. Again and again the Right opposes scientific advances that
just might be able to cure diabetes, regrow lost tissue, repair spinal
injury,
and so forth, all because stem cell research is regarded as immoral. This
attitude is immoral. It also is anything but smart.
8. Suicidal Tax Policies. The Republican answer to every problem is cut
taxes.
Will doing so ruin the economy ? The question is meaningless. What counts is
winning the next election and if this means several trillion dollars of
debt,
so what?
9. Ronald Wilson Reagan. A B-movie actor who thought ketchup was a
vegetable.
His grip on reality was so weak that Alzheimer's made almost no perceptible
difference. Someone who set back education many years by his example of a
low IQ politician making it to the top. As Margaret Thatcher once said,
after her
first meeting with Reagan, "poor dear, he doesn't have anything between his
ears"
Republican worship him.
10..By and large, Republicans are captive to obsolete ideas.
Obviously some issues could have been mentioned twice. Such as immigration
policy. Both parties are acting completely irresponsibly . Both parties see
nothing
wrong with millions of illegal aliens breaking the law with impugnity, year
after year, Meanwhile the vast majority of American citizens is alarmed
about this ceaseless
flood of humanity and the effects it has on local economies and social
service
budgets. This majority includes Mexican-Americans, and other Latinos here
legally. Yet there are NO political leaders willing to make this into
a major political issue.
To do justice to Raymond's concept would require a list of about 25 reasons
why I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, perhaps expressing various
reasons of your own. But the purpose of this list was to make a point.
There
are very strong reasons why many people are extremely dissatisfied with both
major political parties in the United States. Which is why there are more
political Independents in America than either Republicans or Democrats.
Radical Centrism is a new philosophy of the Independent movement in
American politics.
__________________________________________________________________
The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
of RADICAL CENTRISM
There is no mystery at all about the most important Radical Centrist
principle. It
simply is this : You not only have the freedom to pick and choose from among
ideas and positions of today's political parties, it is a virtue to do so.
In fact
it is a necessity.
This view compliments another principle that is emphasized by some RCers,
that
of "thinking outside the box." Actually all Radical Centrists value
unconventional
thinking that seeks to solve problems through the creative process. But it
is
a fact of life that we cannot forever re-invent the wheel. Many good and
useful
ideas are available from the two major political parties -and from some
third
parties as well. There is absolutely no reason to disregard such ideas. We
certainly will also need new ideas. There isn't any debate about exactly
that.
Out-of-box thinking has a vital place in Radical Centrist politics. But it
is far
from being the last word on methodology.
Radical Centrism takes it as axiomatic that no political view has the least
value
unless it is researched. ALL political stands need to be based on the best
research findings that might be available. This is true no matter what the
issue and no matter
what the findings indicate is the best course of action . Radical Centrists
are
satisfied with nothing but the very best political ideas and programs.
How are determinations made about what ideas and programs are best ? There
are several factors. One is the pragmatic test.Will an idea work in
practice ?
Does it seem likely that it will actually solve a serious problem ? Can it
be
implemented in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.? What are the likely
second order consequences ? Will solving one problem create another problem ?
That is, it is vital to be pragmatic. However, pragmatism is insufficient
by itself.
Ideas must be moral. They must pass ethical tests. Most Radical Centrists in
the
United States derive their values from one or more of several traditions,
Jewish,
Christian, or Humanist. Other faiths may provide standards of moral judgment
as well, something that falls under the heading of Comparative Religion.
What
this says is that there exists a "family of faiths" that share many or
most moral principles.
Almost any ethical views from these faiths would, in all liklihood, be
acceptable
by the great majority of Radical Centrists. This includes most of the great
religions you have heard of, such as Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, but it
excludes
most forms of Islam, as well as dangerous cults such as Satanism. Islam is
excluded because, despite the fact that it shares a monotheistic theology
with
Judaism and Christianity, parts of a theology anyway, Muslims essentially
live in a different moral universe, one that is basically incompatible with
values that people
in the West and most of Asia find essential to human well being.
To be very sure this outlook is not shared by all Radical Centrists. But it
seems
safe enough to forecast that it is unavoidable and that this view will
become
dominant in RC circles in the future. Ethics trumps metaphysics.
Radical Centrists also have a strong aversion to special interest pleading.
It
remains to be seen whether, at such time as RCers become a significant
factor
in politics, they will always make decisions on the merits without
consideration
for the wants and desires of corporations an other lobbying groups, but at
least
this is the ideal. Perhaps the best we can hope for is an understanding
that people
would have to accept in dealings with Radical Centrists. Whatever lobbying
group approaches a Radical Centrist will be heard -but there will
automatically be an invitation to another lobbying group that sees the issue very
differently.
The goal of Radical Centrism is to learn the views of Right and Left on all
issues
of consequence.To the extent it is practical, "other" views, such as those
of minor
parties or individuals with expertise, should also be studied. The objective
is to
be fair, to make decisions based on comprehension of viable alternatives.
While
in the real world there will always be "special considerations," favors owed
to
friends, the need to thank someone who has been a help in the past, and the
influence of a population group, the objective HAS TO BE keeping such
considerations to a minimum.
There will be compromises; there is no way to avoid compromises. But in all
cases there had better be damned good reasons and there had better be an
understanding that an exception is just that, something unusual that will
not be
repeated, certainly not any time in the near future.
No Radical Centrist can promise that his or her political philosophy permits
the
transcendence of human nature. We all are fallible human beings, we are
imperfect
and have weaknesses. But there is no justification for pandering to our
weaknesses
or for any pretense that these shortcomings can be disregarded. We think
that we
can deal with the problematic dimension of human nature by being honest
about
just what it is.and what the limitations of new ideas or new values may be
in
the political realm.
"Radical," as the word is used here, means going to the roots, holding fast
to
strong convictions. There is no (or very little) "triangulation" involved.
Radical
Centrism is NOT a matter of taking half steps toward the center, giving away
parts of one's most important positions or values. There may well be
compromise,
but this cannot be about what matters most.
The concept is to combine a number of political objectives, or stands, that
are
strong, that , in effect, you would be willing to die for. These positions
will,
of necessity, come from both Left and Right, if not other. By the standards
of the contemporary Left and Right, this combination of positions will seem
incompatible.
But they will be natural to Radical Centrists, and they will be defendable
because
all will be researched thoroughly. Everything said here presupposes
being well informed.
Radical also means boldness and decisiveness. To the extent that Radical
Centrists
have actually made their decisions on objective merits, such boldness will
justify
itself. After all there is no justification for pursuing any worthy cause
half heartedly
or incrementally or with timidity, is there ? The whole idea is to go on a
crusade, to accomplish important things, to see social justice done.
There may be compromises of different kinds, for example to gain some sort
of
tactical advantage in public debate. Issues that are not at the top of one's
list may
be bargained about .An objective that isn't a high priority can be achieved
at some
other time.In such bargaining sessions what is critical to remember is that
some
tangible progress should be made even if it is not as much as you would like
. But
keeping momentum alive can carry the day, some other day. Be sure to concen-
trate your attention on achieving the primary goals. This is the modus
operandi of
Radical Centrism.
:
Radical Centrists can never compromise-away the truths they stand for,
precisely because they stand for truths .
__________________________________________________________________
The ROAD to RADICAL CENTRISM
Most Americans have already taken the first steps on the road toward Radical
Centrism. All that is necessary is arriving at that point where it becomes
obvious
that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are pretty much
the same party.
About most issues, what could not be more obvious ? And year by year the
differ-
ences that remain become fewer and fewer.This is made clear by a joke once
told
by an English comedian who was trying to explain the difference between our
two
parties to people back home. "There is the Republican Party," he said. "It
is much
like our Conservative Party. Then there is the Democratic Party. It is much
like our Conservative Party." Numerous Americans are fed up with this state
of affairs and demand a real alternative.
The corollary to this viewpoint is the understanding, learned through
countless
frustrations and disappointments, that both of our major parties are
absurdities.
Neither party offers a way out of a political culture that puts a premium on
self-
aggrandizement, on obstructionism, on half measures, and
on slavish obedience to opinion.
After all, when there is a choice between opinion and knowledge there can be
no
question about the superiority of knowledge. As things are, however, neither
party
much cares about seeking knowledge. Democrats and Republicans seem to be
utterly limited in outlook to following the winds of public sentiment
totally,
unmindful of the fact that what the public most wants is enlightened
leadership.
And what the public also wants is education to political realities,
something the vast majority of Americans know all too well they will not receive from
our current crop
of political celebrities.
There are legitimate uses for public opinion. This is not in dispute. But
there are
times, most times as a matter of fact, when what counts far more is the
deter-
mination to lead the public, to educate the public, and to champion what is
right
no matter what happens.
That is, there is no substitute for courage, and for courage of convictions.
Principle, and truth, can create the kind of public opinion that a
political leader
most wants. To be led by opinion is to guarantee that principle will be
sacrificed
and truth treated as an expediency. We must bring the era of opinion led
politics
to an end. We demand principle led politics, and educated public opinion.
It should be obvious that there is nothing inevitable about the positions
taken by
stalwarts of the contemporary Left or Right. The Republican Party of today
is a
laissez-faire supply-side party. But for most of its history the GOP was
protec-
tionist and understood economics as a matter of creation of demand.
The Democratic Party was anything but pro-homosexual in the past and
anything
but antagonistic toward the social values of its labor and middle class
constituents.
Until the 1970s, and in some areas well into the 1980s, the Democratic Party
regarded homosexuality as a blight upon society and a mental illness. As
well, the Democrats viewed the social values of its electoral base as
something to defend
against the ravages of a sometimes rapacious Wall Street with its version of
"any-
thing goes" mentality.The terrible weakness of modern Capitalism, after
all, is the
view of business interests that anything that makes people rich, no matter
how
dubious ethically , and no matter what it might do to shared cultural
values, is
perfectly all right. In the past the Democrats worked against this system.
That was
the era when the party stood for authentic Liberalism. But that era is gone
and we
are all poorer for this turn of events.
In our era the Democratic Party is known for its advocacy of environmental
protec-
tion. In the early 1970s, however, the first party to make environmental
protection
a national issue was the GOP. In the 19th century the Democratic Party was
openly
racist in all too many parts of the country. It was the Republican Party
that stood
for abolition of slavery, then for granting political rights to freedmen.
While it would
be unfair and inaccurate to say that these roles are now reversed, they are
reversed
enough to make a point.
Clearly the political center is not set in stone. Just as clearly the
meaning of the word
"Centrist" does not need to denote a process of abandoning principles to
arrive,
by a process of half-steps, at some position midway between where your party
once stood and the other party once stood. Yet the reality of American
politics in the
first years of the 21st century is exactly this.
Democrats have been conceding point after point to the Republican Party
which,
not accidentally, has been conceding point after point to its rival, until
we find our-
selves with two parties who believe in almost the same things. Both are
essentially uncritical of big business. Both are almost equally unwilling to
create a national
system of health insurance. Both are committed to laissez-faire economic
theories
no matter how dysfunctional those theories may be. The list of similarities
is almost endless, as we all realize. And this we cannot accept.
To be a Centrist in the sense of "Radical Centrist" means something very
different
than being halfway between the views of the major parties. The entire
purpose of
this new political movement is the re-invention of the center, or better,
the rediscovery of the center.
What is necessary is looking at the problems we face as a nation and being
satisfied
with nothing less than the very best ideas which have the most potential
for solving
those problems. This is something that is virtually impossible for today's
Democrats
or Republicans because they are wedded to special interests and to
worldviews
that are ideological in character, all the while not acknowledging these
ideologies
for what they are.
This decidedly does NOT say that extant so-called "radical" political
philosophies
offer any hope. With allowance for various worthwhile ideas that have come
from
such sources, the opposite is the case. Marxism in all of its "orthodox"
forms was obsolete generations ago, and its offshoots in the 2000s -North Korea
and
Castro's Cuba- are utterly ridiculous as political systems, not to mention
criminal in character.That many academics did not get the idea until the fall
of the USSR, and
that numbers of academics still don't get the idea, should tell us that
academia is in
dire need of reform and reconstruction.
But even the Socialist parties who were Revisionist, who took Marx with a
grain
of salt, and who made efforts to be pragmatic, have all missed the boat.
They
cannot rid themselves of dogmatism, and with the failure of Marxism per se,
they
have adopted an assortment of dysfunctional philosophies to keep a
quasi-Marxist
ship afloat.Thus a near lunatic like Michel Foucault is seen as offering
answers to
vexing questions by means of an outlook which says that class struggle,
which did
offer some useful approaches to politics, should be replaced by concern for
deviant
minorities, especially homosexuals.By all means, those under Foucault's
spell tell us,
keep alive the rhetoric of oppression, and apply it to every manner of
situation,
anything but seeking to find non-adversarial processes that just might
actually be
able to solve political problems.
Thus we get, on the sad excise for the Left these days, the likes of
Catherine
MacKinnon with her endless diatribes about how women are necessarily abused
and oppressed by men, the only solution being the overthrow of "patriarchy"
and
its replacement by the dictatorship of the National Organization for Women.
This
is what it amounts to. Indeed, the logic of those who follow the leadership
of
individuals like MacKinnon is that all heterosexual sex is rape. You can see
where
this view leads, easily enough. Yet large parts of the Left swallow this
nonsense
whole and regard it as "progressive." This includes Democrats -who, for the
life
of them, cannot understand why Kerry,a Catholic, lost the Catholic vote in
2004.
It simply does not register that the great majority of practicing Catholics
have social values that are approximately 180 degrees different than those of
Kerry's party.
Nor does it register that, despite having better economic ideas, multitudes
of
people are abandoning the Democratic Party because they cannot stand
its social values.
Such is the situation today that, because of Political Correctness
dogmatism, the
Democratic Party cannot even consider fresh ideas.
The counterpart to Political,Correctness dogmatism on the Left is
Libertarian
dogmatism on the Right, something that even has made inroads
in Evangelical circles.
There actually are several different schools of Libertarian thought , but
what it all
boils down to is the fact that Libertarians are Anarchists who prefer to
wear suits
and ties or, in the case of women, designer fashions. Libertarianism is
upscale Anarchism.
For Libertarians, government, ideally, should not exist. The differences
between
Libertarian sects is that some of them believe that there is a minimum below
which
government should not be allowed to fall. That is, some Libertarians believe
in the
worth of limited government.At the further end of the spectrum the view
prevails
that there should be as close to no government at all as can be engineered.
Philosophically there is no public good (or no better than very little),
only the sum
of individual wishes and demands. Almost anything at all is all right as
long as prop-
erty is protected. It does not register at all that every square inch of the
United
States exists because of actions of government, and that in a dangerous
world, the
actions of government are needed more than ever to safeguard us from violent
enemies.That is, although, again, there are some exceptions to this rule (
like those
who think that any state needs a military),. what Libertarianism consists of
is the
worst form of Utopianism, unrealistic Utopianism, a future world that can
never be, because it is a vision that is founded on an obsession with the
concept of "rights,"
and that is aversive in the extreme to the concept of social
responsibility. Instead
of the view that "no man is an island," the Libertarians believe that all
men are
islands, or more precisely, social atoms, and that there is no such thing
as
an organic community.
Because many Libertarians have become influential in Republican ranks the GOP
has been more than willing to dance with the Democrats, jettisoning one
social
value after another, in effect telling Christian believers who constitute as
much as
half of its voting base, that their values do not really matter. With this
exception :
A deal has been struck. In exchange for abandonment of virtually all other
demands concerning social values, the GOP will continue to make at least
half-hearted efforts to untrack abortion rights. In 2004 an addendum was
added
to the effect that the GOP would also make half-hearted efforts to defeat
homosexual (so-called) marriage. But this is about it.
Why ? Because Republicans who also are Libertarians, viz., quite a few
people
in leadership positions, would object to "pushing" social issues too far
since that
would represent government "interference" in private lives.And this outlook
(and
self-imposed set of restrictions) permits the party to co-ordinate
with the Democrats.
Both parties can get away with irresponsibility and unethical politics
because
both are committed to keeping the electorate in the dark, poorly informed,
and
without critical skills needed for making sound decisions. Both parties are
committed to ensuring that the vast majority of Americans remain ignorant of
what everyone most needs to know. To put things in simple English, the
mass media is all too happy to oblige the major parties since most news
organizations are now owned and operated by business firms that are
committed to profit even if this means no commitment to truth.
There is a reason why evening network news on television consists of maybe
10 minutes of actual news (sometimes less) and 12 or 13 minutes of human
inter-
est fluff or other kinds of diversions. News does not sell products. Fluff
feature
material, presented as news, can move the goods. It is that simple. It is
easy to
overlook because we have grown accustomed to more and more fluff in the
guise of news in the years since deregulation in the Reagan Administration
and
the practical end of the concept of news as public service. It has become
entertainment with lots of commercials.
Which is NOT said as indictment of business. Clearly, some form of
Capitalism is
what we all need for any kind of viable economy, hence , for any kind of
fulfilling
future. However, it is legitimate to offer criticisms of the Capitalist
system, as
more and more people are doing, people who obviously have not even the least
connection to Marxism or other such outlooks.
The point is that criticism is necessary because without it we cannot
possibly be
objective about our weaknesses as well as our strengths. Radical Centrism
assumes the mantle of critic. The existing major parties cling to the role
of being apologists for business interests, almost no matter what happens, with
all outrages eventually swept under the rug. Radical Centrists demand that
all serious economic problems must be dealt with, precisely as serious
problems, problems that require redesign of particular parts of the corporate
system.
______________________________________________________________
RADICAL CENTRISM as PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
How does one go about reforming the Capitalist system ? How does one go about
reforming the American political system ? For both must be done.We cannot
allow
ourselves to separate economics from politics; the two exist as part of a
single reality.
And as much as Radical Centrists insist upon the high worth of the market,
it also
is a truism that Adam Smith's image of a free market with "level playing
fields" as the
rule, is pure fantasy. No such market system has ever existed and no such
market
system can ever exist. Someone's thumb is always on the scale, or to be more
accurate, many thumbs are on the scale at all times.Thus any economic reform
must
also be political reform.
Not that this insight is original here; many thinkers have made this
observation
before now.
And not that Radical Centrists have some kind of answer for all times. At
the
moment all we really have are some good questions. And a new way to look at
economics that is based on the work of myself and Ernest Prabhakar, possibly
joined by other members of Radical Centrism.org in the future. This
concerns
the value of taking into account the great importance of non-economic
incentives
(self fulfillment, sense of mission, creative urge, sense of responsibility,
love as
motivation, fun tasks, and so forth) as integral to the economic system. Yet
this
factor is almost always overlooked. despite the fact that it seems to
account for
American economic success at least as much as financial reward. That is,
the
United States is known as the "land of opportunity" for good reason.
Opportunity explains our successes. And opportunity sometime has almost nothing to
do with
money. No economic theory can be adequate, as far as the American experience
is concerned, that does not weight the importance of non-economic motivation.
In other words, the economy rests on a cultural foundation. It is an
expression of
this culture. Thus if you seek to reform the economy and the political
system you
also need to reform the culture. And how do you do this ? There is no
simple
answer, but there is an excellent way to approach the problem . It is this :
What is most essential is finding the right heroes to emulate.
This, in turn, means that there is a need for contrarian thinking. After
all, more of
the same ideas, over and over agauin, is a formula for conformism, not
something
else, and conformism , by definition, cannot , enable you to find new ideas.
The term "contrarianism" originally referred to stock investors who refuse
to march
in step with established trends. Not that trends are always wrong. That is
hardly
the case. But trends are always wrong at two critical points, the end and
the
beginning. That is, trend followers cannot see the start to any powerful new
trend
because they are committed to following some existing trend. Moreover,
because
of this commitment, they almost always are unable to fathom the fact that a
trend is
about to collapse and is no longer be a good guide to the future and is
about to
become an albatross around one's neck. It is always crucial to find ways to
anticipate the market, in other words, and this includes the marketplace of
ideas.
But contrarianism, as used here, means more than appeal to futuristics. It
means
analysis of ideas precisely to search for weaknesses so that you can
identify system
failures and so that you can distance yourself from any kind of position
that has
built-in failings. It also means analysis of ideas for the purpose of
identifying con-
cepts that have the greatest strengths, and the most potential, which can be
relied
upon, so that you can gravitate to new positions. So that you can re-invent
yourself, leaving behind previous positions based (at least in part) on
failings. And you may
need to re-invent yourself any number of times in life even if, if you are
at all normal,
you want to keep the number to a minimum. But how can anyone stay the same
at 35 compared to 21, or at 65 as compared to 40 ? We can and should remain
consistent in most ways, but there are times when we need new perspective and
new goals. We cannot make the most of life if we invest in nothing but the
same
things, from one stage in life to the next, from one set of circumstances to
the next. Radical Centrism is a philosophy that makes "re-positioning" a high
virtue.
For contrarianism to work what is a vital necessity is ruthless honesty
about the
evidence, about one's own biases, about pro and con arguments, and about
every-
thing that is relevant to the subject before you. That is, to be a
successful contrarian
you must take as much of a scientific outlook on life as it is possible for
you to take.
A good contrarian is a scientist of ideas.
____________________________________________________________
RADICAL CENTRIST HEROES
It helps when you choose heroes who share this outlook. Doing so means that
you
are far better off when you think of contrarians of the past than of
obvious lime-
lighters of history. This is hardly an absolute rule but the principle ought
to be easy
enough to understand.
As an American I think highly of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.It
would be ludicrous not to. However, I spend very little time in admiration
for these presidents because from the vantage of the here-and-now there is not
that
much to learn from the example of these larger-than-life great men. Not
much
chance that I will lead a rebellion against the British and not much chance
that I will preserve the Union in a time of Civil War, is there ?
Instead the focus of my attention is upon renegades, individuals such as
John
Humphrey Noyes, the founder of the Oneida community , thus Oneida silver,
and
Erich Fromm, the noted psychoanalyst and the most important thinker in the
Socialist Party of Norman Thomas in the 1950s and 1960s.What is interesting
in
a very practical sense about such leaders is how they created enterprises
or
contributed to social movements, starting with few resources, and without
significant public recognition. Radical Centrism is also starting out with
minimal
resources and very limited public recognition. We need to learn lessons
that
others with similar problems dealt with and overcame.
Obviously men like Noyes and Fromm can be criticized, just as other heroes
of
mine can be criticized. But who doesn't have shortcomings ? The idea is
simply
that these men provide ideas for working with little and accomplishing great
things.
To which we can add the name of Benjamin Franklin, as possibly the greatest
contrarian of history, and who, starting with almost nothing, eventually saw
his
dream of an American republic come into being.
All such examples that mean something to me, also, in some way, provide
worthy
moral example (perhaps qualified) along with an opening to some form of
scientific
understanding of political ad social realities. In different ways all can be
thought of
as Liberal leaders and hence still more relevance to Radical Centrism. All
were
willing to take politics as they found it. Then they worked with the
system, seeking
out opportunities to create new alternatives for culture -thus their ideas
were
maximized as much as was thinkable under the circumstances of the past. In
Franklin's case, of course, the ideas in question were maximized to an Nth
degree.
Heroes do not need to be American, of course. And most of us have at least a
modest number of heroes who lived and died in foreign countries.
Among the many choices anyone can make you cannot do much better than to
study
the life of Henri Saint-Simon, the man most responsible for the advent of
Socialism
and the discipline of sociology. Saint-Simon has been crticized as
"Utopian," thus
as a dreamer, in a famous characterization by Karl Marx, but there is much
more to be said.
For one thing, Saint-Simon fought in the American Revolution. He was present
as a
captain of French artillery, at Yorktown, on that fateful day when
Cornwallis surren-
dered to Washington. It can even be argued that without French help the
battle
might have gone the other way. Saint-Simon, in other words, was pro-American
when it counted the most. He continued to be pro-American throughout his
life,
until the end came in 1825.
Saint-Simon has something in common with Noyes and Fromm.
Noyes, for example, created a unique corporation in which everyone in his
Socialist
community shared the company's wealth as stock holders. Education was vital
to
the community at Oneida as was science -at least as understood in the 19th
century.
We can, as noted , have reservations about this social experiment, among
other
things it featured a system of "complex marriage" in which every man in the
group
was married to every woman, and vice versa, and many people have criticized
this arrangement, but in fact it was successful for about a quarter century
until it was
shut down at the instigation of a local preacher.
Fromm wanted to build Socialism -let's be clear about the word, this refers
to
Democratic Socialism with a take-him-or-leave-him attitude toward Marx- on
a
foundation of psychological health. Socialism should be a political movement
with
humanist values taken directly from the findings of the behavioral sciences.
Thus he
stressed what we would now call "self-actualizing" ways of being, and would
not
tolerate psychological disorders like homosexuality, a pathology that should
not
have any part in a Socialist system of politics. The entire Socialist
movement, as
Fromm conceived it, should espouse programs and political measures that are
consistent with the best findings of psychology and social science.
In Saint-Simon's case, thinking about the examples just given, what was
essential
for the economic betterment of society was citizen ownership of corporations
via
shares of stock, an idea that was as radical as imaginable in his era. Noyes
showed that such an approach can actually work in the real world, and the
idea
was later taken up in Kelso's Capitalist Manifesto.The practice of stock
options
and other employee ownership systems is now a well established part of
American business.
Saint-Simon also had no use for aristocracy, a principle that can be
extended to
our time. Now it is out-of-proportion-to-merit wealth that creates a modern
aristocracy, while denying opportunity to millions. Saint-Simon believed in
a
meritocracy, rewards given to those who achieved the most. That is, Marx
corrupted the Saint-Simonian slogan which originally said : "From each
according
to his ability, to each according to his accomplishments." This allows for
welfare
but not as the basis for any viable economy.
The Oneida system was also accomplishment driven, and meritocratic.
Saint-Simon believed that legislators should be well educated and have a
scientific
attitude , willing to be as objective about politics as humanly possible.
Indeed, he
wanted scientists as such to have governmental responsibilities . And he
believed
that the state, as it would be later under leaders like FDR, should play an
activist
role in establishing needed conditions for a nation's economic success. But
government should also be based on the best available social values as
identified
by the new science of "social physics," as he called it, what would become
sociology and the behavioral sciences generally. That is, like Fromm much
later,
Saint-Simon sought objective good as determined by the best principles that
can
be identified by means of the social sciences -which eventually came to
include
the behavioral sciences and psychology.
This gives us a system of politics in which ideology is subordinated to
scientific
knowledge about the human condition.
We cannot expect to see this kind of system in America any time soon. And a
"pure" version of this idea might well turn out badly, but we can at least
glimpse
a new political world in which ideas and plans for action are tested
against
what is known with certainty about the human condition. One would think that
this would be an improvement over the current non-system in which elected
officials have no obligation to think about the possible psychological
effects of
laws they pass, or about cultural effects, or anything else except whether
or not
some pressure group is placated. This may be a somewhat unfair characteriza-
tion of the political process in America, it is not as one dimensional as
this
suggests, but it tells an important part of the story. If we are going to
try to
achieve objective good, it would help if political leaders understood
their own
ways of operating as objectively as possible.
Finally, about Saint-Simon and heroes, he had about 2 months of leave time
in
the new United States. He was able to tour a good part of the country as
it was
then. He would later comment about his observations in America frequently,
to
provide examples of what he hoped to see arise in politics in Europe in his
day. According to a story that is probably apocryphal (but possible) he
visited
Benjamin Franklin. The legend has it that Saint-Simon was impressed by
Franklin's honesty and republican values.
Saint-Simon was an enigma in his time and he remains a mystery today. How do
you categorize him politically ?. He was a champion of a movement that
became Socialism yet he was convinced that the way to create wealth for a people
was
through capital investment in a functioning market. He was, we might say,
half Socialist and half Capitalist. He was, in fact, a Radical Centrist,
not in terms
of the 21st century, but in terms of the early 1800s.
Any number of additional heroes of Radical Centrism might be mentioned.
Among
the men and women who have had real impact on my life , Sojourner Truth,
Don West of the Appalachian South Folklife Center in West Virginia, and the
great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, might be discussed. Each was
politically
independent and can be thought of as contributing ideas to Radical Centrist
philosophy. Sojourner Truth was an abolitionist and , later, someone who
worked
for Civil Rights for African Americans -at a time when this could not
possibly
have been more difficult.
Don West, who I knew personally, was a Communist labor organizer in the
1930s,
something he never mentioned in the years we were friends in the early
1970s. I was
to learn this only recently as a consequence of contributing to a research
project
about his life. But now I know why he chose not to say anything. He had put
his CP
past completely behind him in the early 1940s. He repudiated Communism and
never
again had anything to do with it. I can respect people who purge from their
lives
some past commitment to something evil. They have sen the light and repented.
Thus although I detest Communism, this was never an issue. Don had
re-created
his life and made the most of it, establishing a center for mountain people
and their
kids. There was little or nothing partisan about what he did. He saw a need
and
went to work. He was a tireless advocate for abolition of coal strip
mining,
a practice that has devastated an area the size of New Jersey, all within
Appalachia, which is why no-one cares. Not even the major environmental
organizations. This is
the shame of the "green" movement, it sees what it wants to see, ignores
what is inconvenient to see, and allows the greatest crime against the
environment in history
to continue , year after year, almost without as much as a word said, while
it
expends vast energies seeking to stop logging, and in the process wrecking
the economies of several states, an issue where sane agreements with
business ought
to be easy to accomplish. We need far more people like Mr West and far less
people like the ideological environmentalists who define the movement at
this time.
Nietzsche is another controversial figure, but for altogether different
reasons.
Homosexuals are trying to claim him as one of their own, based on
interpretations
of his letters and life story that are as implausible as anything gets. They
ignore his
deep and abiding love for Lou Salome, a woman who jilted him for a second
rate poet.They also leap to conclusions based on wishful thinking, viz, what
would
Nietzsche have done in Italy if he was homosexual ? Their interpretation
fills in all
sorts of blanks that, to say the least, do not need to be filled in their
way at all, and
in all liklihood would not be filled in that way if more facts about his
life were
known. But for the time being a cloud hangs above his head.Yet he deserves
some recognition. Nietzsche's philosophy cannot be categorized according to
any known political theory. He was popular in Russia in the years before the
Bolshevik takeover,
and many Russians sought to devise a politics that combined the views of
Nietzsche
with those of Marx and home-grown populists. He inspired various members of
the British Left in the years before WWI, and he was on of the heroes of H.L.
Mencken
in America. The far Right also made use of him, most unfortunately the
Nazis,
despite Nietzsche's virulent hatred of anti-Semites. This is not a typo.
Nietzsche
hated anyone who was prejudiced against Jews. And his vitriolic criticisms
of both
the Left and Right of his day teach us lessons that ought to be quite useful
in
the future as a Radical Centrist form of social criticism arrives on the
scene.
These are some additional heroes that merit comment. Let us conclude this
section
of the manifesto with remarks about Christina Hoff Sommers and
Walter Rauschenbusch.
First, what should be said is that women have not been given their due in
this
material. But I have been writing with focus on answering a question about
who
has most influenced me in arriving at a Radical Centrist viewpoint. There
is not
too much by way of example that a man can learn from most women when it
comes to emulating someone who serves as an exemplar for one's life. It just
does not work that way. Women who read this manifesto may well be able to
think of other women who influenced them politically. But the examples of
heroes provided here are not meant to be comprehensive. The point is simply
to illustrate
the kinds of heroes that inspire Radical Centrist values. Men who read this
manifesto may also be able to think of exemplars that have meant a great
deal to them, who
I am unfamiliar with. The stories recounted here are examples, not the last
word.
When saying that someone is a hero (in this case a heroine) of yours who is
still alive,
there is a unique problem. She, in this case, may object to identification
as a Radical
Centrist. As well, for all I can say, Mrs. Sommers may have some deep dark
secret
that, if I knew about it, I would not for a minute consider her for this
manifesto. But
in the real world we do not always know information we most would like to
know.
So, these comments must be provisional. But Sommers' 1995 book, Who Stole
Feminism ?, is, by my lights, surely the best book ever written on the feminist
movement in the United States. It also makes it clear that other people can
arrive
at views that can well be thought of as Radical Centrist, starting from some
place
that is drastically different than where you began your journey.
Sommers finds herself more-or-less politically isolated. She identifies with
what she
calls Equity Feminism, which was dominant in the Woman's Movement into the
1970s, which has largely been replaced by Gender Feminism as espoused by
groups like NOW and by populations like activist female homosexuals. For all
I can say, Mrs. Sommers may have a more tolerant outlook toward homosexuals
than I have, but it is reasonably clear that she rejects their political
views, just as,
by default, she rejects many of the views of the current Democratic Party
-nonetheless not being a Republican. This is also one definition of
a Radical Centrist.
Her book should be regarded as essential reading for Radical Centrists.For
we
can hardly ignore the views of women, and it is a simple fact that the
feminist cause
has political influence. What should our views on the subject of women be ?
This
is the book that allows you to become informed on relevant issues, and
educates
you to how to make a strong case in any debate with feminists or their ilk.
It
provides an image of a desired future that cannot be argued with, a future
in
which the sexes co-operate with each other politically, in which humanistic
goals
replace adversarial goals as the raison d'etre of a re-invented women's
movement.
The last example of a hero is Walter Rauschenbusch, the leading figure in
the
Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century. For our purposes here,
not too
much needs to be said. Yet this is someone who has cast a very long shadow,
and
who has shown us all how to infuse a political cause with values that have a
religious
source, but without mixing politics and religion.
For Rauschenbusch the Christian message translates in the political sphere
as a call
for social justice and economic democracy. Moreover, a real Christian has the
responsibility to offer informed criticisms of unacceptable ills of society,
including problems with the body politic and the Capitalist system.Yet his
message was also
that such criticisms should be fair. They should not spare one party over
the other.
What we need in our era, said Rauschenbusch, are prophets who speak the truth
to all parties responsible for problems that create needless difficulties
for people.
What we need are prophets who do not care whose vested interests may be
jeopardized by telling the truth. And this, too, is a good definition of
Radical Centrism, it is prophetic politics.
End of Part 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://radicalcentrism.com/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050822/d895825d/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Centroids
mailing list