Radical Centrism at the University of Oregon Centroids: Yesterday's lecture about Radical Centrism at the U of O went reasonably well. Enthusiastic applause at the conclusion, and some nice comments afterward. Nonetheless, there were a few problems, a few things I wish I would have done differently. So, here is an "after action report" that hopefully will have value to anyone else who may at some point speak in public about RC. There is a real problem in trying to describe the overall picture of Radical Centrism. Essentially the "field" is messy, it has several "currents" and there are all sorts of people who use the phrase inconsistently. But I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible since ( 1 ) few in the audience had any meaningful knowledge of RC, including people who may tune in to the presentation on local TV, and ( 2 ) who knows when any of these people will be exposed to RC ideas again at any time in the future? So, this was "it," a one chance to "sell" RC to an educated audience and hope that some of those present might become interested. About which I can say that, yes, there seems to be newfound interest, that a few people probably will look into RC further. This seems like a good conclusion to reach to judge from on-the-scene comments. I must have done something right. On the other hand, I'd really like to "take back" a few things . The Big Problem is that the story of RC needs a coherent narrative line. Parts of my lecture had a sense of "story," but other parts were way too rough in terms of introducing information at odd times when other times would have been better, and not thinking through some serious problems with RC themes or issues when this was really needed. Another problem concerns explaining just how RC fits into everyone else's conventional political typology. Doing this requires at least 5 or 10 minutes of commentary and wherever you choose to place this in a discussion of RC presents problems. I did so toward the end of the lecture , the idea being tying together all the loose ends from the preceding hour. Placing this part of the lecture at the very beginning might work well enough in a classroom where you know that students will be present the following day even if you speak about the subject longer than a few minutes, but in an open-to-the-public presentation you don't have that option. Anyway, this needs to be done somewhere, and wherever you place it there will be problems. Finding a good way to discuss people who have misused the concept of RC, or who misunderstand it and yet have set up RC blogs, is another problem that deserves attention. I think I was effective enough in this area, but it sure could have been better. Giving credit where credit is due was also somewhat weak. If Ernie ever sees a video of the lecture he would find himself referred to on two occasions. one more-or-less extended. But I wanted to say more than I did, not because Ernie is perfect ( we obviously have X number of disagreements ), but because, in doing the research for the presentation it dawned on me just how much of an influence he has been --sometimes despite our differences. I gave Mark Satin plaudits even though he also irks me at times, and sometimes I am outraged at his views But he has done a great deal for the RC cause and he deserves recognition. Members of our group were alluded to at points in the lecture, but it would have been far better to have been more specific -even if this is only clear to me in retrospect. Not to be cynical about it, since I genuinely am appreciative of everyone who has contributed to RC.com, but because we all are human. And face it, if someone mentioned "Billy Rojas" in an article the chances are fairly high that I would cite the article repeatedly from then on. And this is what we all desire, our creative efforts, our statements of belief in a cause, being cited by others so that our ideas are carried further than anyone can do on their own. Alas, while Ernie and Mark and Ted Halstead and a few others did get mentioned directly, several other names that also deserved the same thing, only received indirect reference. This won't happen again. Surely there were other weaknesses, but let me get on to several strengths that were obvious and which anyone can build upon in the future. I think that use of humor was a really good strategy to discuss RC. Several jokes and funny quotations seemed to warm the crowd in attendance to the message which was to follow. For example, it seemed like a good idea to address the plain as the "nose on your face fact" that so far there have been fairly few women involved in the movement. There is a conundrum here, or is it a dilemma ? Anyway, the fact is that men's discourse, among men, tends to be self reinforcing. When women are present men tend to moderate their masculine outlooks and frame issues in more gender inclusive ways, but it may require women's presence first -even if this may be what is most needed to interest women to begin with. I'll guess the opposite is also true, but what is more relevant is mano-a-mano dialogue at Centroids. So, we need to be aware of the fact that there really are differences between the sexes. To get this point across I quoted two experts on the subject, first Elayne Brosler : " When women get depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. Its a whole different way of thinking." The other was Dave Berry : "If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant without even considering if there are men on base." Why do we need Radical Centrism ? A number of funny quotes also made this clear. " The more you read and observe about this politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other ." Will Rogers But the biggest laugh came from this zinger by Emil Vrabic : " Don't you know the difference between the two economic systems ? Under Capitalism man exploits man. But under Communism its just the opposite." To cite just one other example, here is a definition from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary : " Conservative, noun. [ Someone ] who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." Humor is no substitute for substance, but it can be a real help. There is no need to outline the talk, especially since it would take some time to do so and, more germane, that is territory most of the group is very familiar with. But there are some new ideas that deserve mention. By way of metaphor, suppose there was a newsstand magazine called, to be completely original, RADICAL CENTRISM. What might some of the stories for the current issue be called ? Who most thinks like Radical Centrists ? You decide : Charles Krauthammer, Cokie Roberts, Juan Williams, or Fareed Zakaria ? What happened to the California RC boom of the early Schwarzenegger years ? Vaclav Havel's unique version of Radical Centrism -a re-evaluation Early use of the concept of Radical Centrism before there was modern Radical Centrism The example of George Wallace Religious RC vs Atheist RC F. A. Hayek, precursor to Radical Centrism ? Radical Centrist Feminist : Christina Hoff Sommers, Firebrand Extraordinary Wonk RCers and Techie RCers and Academic RCers How they differ and why they hang together Was Kemal Ataturk a Radical Centrist ? Right-wing Radical Centrist -Otto Strasser, former Nazi George Washington's Radical Centrist Cabinet Jefferson, Hamilton, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolf ------------------------------------------------------------- I made much of the Quivira Coalition and also looked at C-Span as the TV equivalent of RC, with special appreciation to Brian Lamb. BTW, since Pacifica Forum, the venue for my talk, has been vilified for once having had David Irving as a guest speaker, plus many others, of course, it is worth noting that in 2004, C-Span made plans to televise both Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving. Ms Lipstadt and Irving are on opposite sides as far as Holocaust scholarship goes, with Irving minimizing death tolls for Jewish victims of the Nazis, ( to about 2 -1/2 million ), Lipstadt defending the conventional 6 million figure. When Lipstadt decided not to allow TV use of her past speeches or lectures C-Span decided to cancel that program, but in point of fact the Irving part of it was set to go. C-Span has broadcast David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Dinesh S'Souza, David Horowitz, Tomas Sowell, and Peggy Noonan. But it has also given a platform to Robert Reich, Henry Louis Gates, Molly Ivins, George Soros, and Ralph Nader, all on the Left. Additionally it has aired a number of people we might consider to be, if not RCers as such, RC-compatible, like James Fallows, Kevin Phillips, and P.J.O'Rourke. This is the kind of programming that it is safe to say warms the hearts of all of us "purple people," we who are neither Democrats or Republicans but something of both, and sometimes "other." Back in early 2008, when he was first interested in RC, Lennart made this observation : " I can't seem to shake the notion that the "proper view" of anything and RC is basically a contradiction in terms." In a sense that is 100 % true. On the other hand , in re-examining Ernie's Wikipedia article I took a fresh look at what he said about "Epistemic Virtue" as defining what RC is really all about. Not sure exactly to what, but it can be argued that we need an alternative designation for "Epistemic Virtue," -while retaining the phrase for use among scholars-- but the idea says it all when you think about it. RC, while it does have an ideological dimension, essentially is non-ideological and, instead, stands for character. I put together two lists, using the list of Epistemic Virtues provided by the link in the article and developed the overall concept further. Much more might be done with the idea but for now , as an oversimplification ( let me stress the "oversimplification" part )--- RC is strongly opposed to: All forms of prejudice and anti-Semitism Both strict patriarchalism and gender feminism ( sometimes called radical feminism but for obvious reasons not the way we like to use the word "radical" ) Dogmatism, narrow mindedness, and true-believer partisanship Political Correctness In contrast, RC stands for and promotes Honesty and truthfulness The need for practical results from our bright ideas The importance of education and of seeking solid evidence for just about anything Respect for both history and science Deep awareness of the human propensity to error, hence a sense of limitations The extreme value of curiosity, ingenuity, creativity and imagination Family values. About which, the whole epistemic virtues theme , really could use some serious work some day, to become more clear on the subject and to develop it in persuasive ways . Well, there was still more, as much as could be crammed into about 90 minutes, but to give you an idea. Billy
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
