Interesting discussion of RC, that is, of different conceptions of Radical Centrism. One which seems to be worth future exploration concerns the centrism of the working class, which is radical because it combines "hard" positions from L & R in a way that is outside of mainstream views. This is not always for the good but it always is a form of Radical Centrism. That is, at least so far, we have not come up with a solid definition of RC that excludes the bad stuff. Example, the Radical Centrism of Wallace voters back in the 1960s / early 1970s, which included forms of racism. But looked at in total, Wallace voters held a variety of positions that defied both Republican and Democratic philosophies while sometimes agreeing with one or the other. Plus there were new ideas which could not be categorized as either L or R. By ( current ) definition, this qualifies the Wallace movement as RC. Which none of us here at RC.org would regard as acceptable precisely because of the racial element. A more benign example might be Reagan Democrats, viz, working class voters, mostly white, who were Democrats on a range of issues, but when it came to values lined up with Republicans sufficiently that they helped elect Reagan. Plus they also had some ideas that were separate from either normative Democratic or Republican views. This also qualifies them as RC-ists. Probably my own experience, for a time, in the construction trades, makes me sympathetic with working class Radical Centrism. I think that I "get it," that is, the worldview of people who identify only partly with either the Democrats of Republicans and sometimes have ideas of their own that are outside of the interests of the DNC or RNC. Yet, this said, political reality being what it is, working class people only infrequently organize into separate political movements and generally vote Democratic. Among Republicans. Mike Huckabee was one of the few who could pull strength from working class voters, but we saw what happened to him, pretty much gang-tackled by the GOP establishment in 2008. This is called to everyone's attention because, if we could ever find a way to reach working class Americans this obviously could be a source of popular appeal for RC. That is, what would a working class RC movement look like ? The following paper does not answer the question directly, but starts the discussion and provides some key concepts. Billy ==================================================== from the site : The League of Ordinary Gentleman (Political) Myths Doesn’t Equal Unreal by Chris Dierkes on April 29, 2010 Br. Jamelle goes on the attack _against radical centrism of the Thomas Friedman variety_ (http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/radical-centrism-like-the-tooth-fairy-or-detox-is-a-myth/) . He writes: The term “radical centrism” is absolutely incoherent. The New Oxford American Dictionary _defines radical_ (http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/SEARCH_RESULTS.html?y=0&q=radical&category=t183&x=0&ssid=785776012&scope=book&tim e=0.930407100268489) as “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.” Which, incidentally, is the precise opposite of “centrism.” For centrists, public policy is only “good” when it offers a concrete benefits to existing stakeholders and entrenched interests. By and large, centrism is an ideology of the status quo, and centrists are most concerned with maintaining existing institutional arrangements. Reform is rarely pursued, and then, only when it can be achieved through tepid incrementalism (the exception, of course, being wars and defense spending)…Like I said at the beginning of this post though, “radical centrism” is a complete contradiction in terms, and it would please me to no end to see the phrase mocked, denounced and completely excised from political dialogue. This caught my eye since _the other day I wrote a rather positive review _ (http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/04/radical-center-review/) of Michael Lind’s review of his decade-old book Radical Center. Lind differentiates between (in his words) the radical center and the mushy middle of centrism. The “mushy middle” centrism of Lind is the radical middle of Thomas Friedman, correctly critiqued by Jamelle–a little confusing to be sure but important to keep in mind. Here’s the passage I quoted from Lind (with my emphasis): To make things even more complicated, as journalists such as John Judis pointed out back in the 1990s, America’s loose but real class system produces not one but two centers: the radical center, which is based in the white working class and lower middle class; and the “mushy middle” (or the “ sensible center” or “moderate middle), which is based in the corporate world, the corporate media and in many think tanks in Washington. While the socially downscale radical center is center-left in economics and center-right in cultural matters (in favor of lowering the Medicare retirement age, against race-based affirmative action), the socially upscale mushy middle is center-right in economics and center-left in culture (in favor of cutting Social Security and Medicare and also for promoting ethnic diversity in an elite that is homogeneous in class and worldview). The mushy middle represents the class interests of the college-educated professional/managerial overclass, a group that makes up at most 10 or 20 percent of the U.S. population. That 10 or 20 percent, however, accounts for nearly 100 percent of the personnel in corporate management, news media and the universities. As a result, the only “center” that is ever represented in mainstream political discourse is the mushy middle, whose spokesmen include David Gergen and David Broder. Deprived of credentialed advocates in positions of power and influence, radical centrist voters are forced to find their tribunes among anti-system politicians or journalists, like Ross Perot and Lou Dobbs, whose theatrical styles and appeals to (sometimes justified) resentments allow the establishment spokesmen of the mushy middle to dismiss them as primitive Neanderthals and pitchfork-wielding populists. (my emphasis) I don’t really like Lind’s use of the term “white” in “white working class ”, I would prefer simply “working class” across ethnic-racial distinctions, but I think his point otherwise stands. I’m not married to the use of the term “radical center” (or similarly radical middle, rational center, etc.), but as slight pushback against Jamelle I think the term is (at least in principle) coherent. Truth be told, there is basically no one in US elected office who represents said views consistently and the only de facto “centrism” at play in Congress is precisely the kind (correctly) mocked by Jamelle, Lind, and others. In other words, not to be splitting hairs here (because I think the words actually do matter), Lind and Halstead called their book _Radical Center_ (http://www.amazon. com/Radical-Center-Future-American-Politics/dp/0385720297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272494450&sr=8-1) and therefore if it’s an “ ism” it’s Radical Center-ism not Centrism. Centrism then being the ideology of people like Lieberman, Graham, Nelson, Snowe, and Collins. Radical center in contrast as used by Lind means the following: Radical: to the root of problems. Looking for large-scale, systemic change. Center: More concerned with what it sees as the natural social-economic-political center of the country (and particularly the left)–the working classes. It has the bonus of being able to “center” (i.e. ground) itself by cross left/right adherence. It does so through “centering” (i.e. focusing on) on various policy arenas and finding synthetic connections across the boundaries. This is different than the mushy middle centrism which (as the name suggests) is just the lowest common denominator of the political opinions on a simplistic linear spectrum model. In the Thomas Friedman model of radical centrism, Jamelle is right–the term is self-contradictory. But in the way Lind-Halstead use the term, I don’t think the same criticism applies. So while I can appreciate Jamelle’s desire to eradicate the term radical centrism out of existence given the dominance of the mushy middle centrism, but there might be some healthy (political) germs along with the unhealthy ones that would be sterilized if we totally followed that process.
-- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
