What follows is a horrific ramble of semi-connected thoughts. Like you all, I've been trying to put some semblance of an ideology together while making it honest and consistent. Here's where I'm at so far:
My thought was originally spurred by a comment I read in William James' Pragmatism that said (paraphrasing), "principles are good, let's have those, and let's also have facts." Our paradigm is that we have two dominant ideologies that ascribe, roughly, to two different concepts. Liberals theoretically seek to control for results. Conservatives theoretically attempt to control for actions. Naturally, actions lead to results, and the sum totality of all action equals the sum totality of all result, when controlling for the sedentary. Action -> Result To indirectly control action while maintaining their "small government ethos", conservatives attempt to utilize principles and tradition (first things). This results in some sort of backporch, internalized tyanny. Contrary to their ideology, of course, when arguments toward "principle" and "tradition" fails or breaks down (Terri Schiavo, gay marriage, etc.), conservatives move toward more direct means of controlling behavior (law). Liberals, on the other hand, are more apt to work toward equitable result (last things) like tax redistribution, hiring requirements, while de-emphasizing individual action. This lends to their reputation by conservatives as being meddlesome, anti- capitalist, and immoral. By their nature as branches of classical liberalism, there's a tendency to be hands-off regarding either one of action or result. Control for action -> Noncontrol of result Noncontrol of action -> Control of result Libertarians go one step further and back away from excessive control of either end. On the other end of libertarianism, theoretically, what do you get when you take the most controlling aspects of the right and left wings, when you control both actions and results? -some sort of Plato's nightmarish Republic or totalitarianism. I think James' quote is right on, but, at the same time, I don't think he's advocating for control of both actions and results, nor is he talking about some hodgepodge of crap- pragmatism is the best of rationalism and empiricism, first things and last things. I think our paradigm is what's wrong. Traditions, institutions, etc. only have value when they have value. It's a redundancy that I have to highlight, because you can't pull timeless traditions and institutions out of thin air, as a single individual can't ascribe value without justification. I think this is why conservatism requires religiosity as a stand-in: something that is "more than human". Really, you could replace the bible with a "holy" coloring book and it wouldn't be much different- any document with some "vouching" authority will do, or else it's no different than a tyrannical edict. But to have a society of tradition and institution and principle doesn't require a holy coloring book: we're missing a possibility. A tradition, principle, institution (blah blah blah, "first thing") can be a method, and not just a set of 'thou's. What about empiricism? It's something that Americans can trace back to the beginning of our history. But it's also a collection of verifiable, accountable facts. We would no longer have to be trampled underfoot by unaccountable imaginary edicts... and that's the important part. Our centrist tradition can be what is right in front of our noses, the examinable. At the other side is dogmatism and the unaccountable. Control what would better be controlled to lead to the general prosperity. Leave alone what would better be left alone that leads to that same prosperity. It's the administrative state with a smart touch. The benefit of an empirical "tradition" is that we'd finally be able to get citizens to agree to the groundrules, so that they can't just feign some level of ignorance based in some vague "values" doctrine to avoid a sensible change in society, where beneficial. It's an unchanging tradition of change when potential prosperity can be shown. If you want a hard center, define general prosperity. If you want a soft center, leave the definition open. On Aug 25, 12:07 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Mike : > Any chance you can tell us more ? On no set schedule I carry out searches > to see what others are saying about the idea of Radical Centrism, or what > others > have said in the past. We are sort of groping our way toward a functional > philosophy of RC. Actually we are further along than that, but as one > aspect > of our quest. > > I could not access the text of the article for which there only is the > short reference > posted. But the issue of tradition, it seems clear, deserves some > attention.. > About which I have become sensitive because of some "new third way" people > I now know, Europeans of the political New Right. For them, as you can > guess, > tradition is a fundamental element of everything even if, in the 21st > century, > their "take" on tradition is effectively Post-Modern. > > Burke, of course, made much of tradition. The trouble with this, of course, > is that > there is no science involved, everything comes down to the equivalent of > natural law philosophy. That is soft stuff ; heck it can be downright > squishy. > Still, it is impossible to fail to see its importance. > > But if one does argue on the basis of tradition, which tradition ? Sure, > in the early > 1800s America revived the spirit of Jonathan Edwards' Great Awakening of > more than > a half century before, but the Revolutionary era itself was dominated by > Deist thinkers > or free thinkers best exemplified by Ben Franklin, or by sophisticated > Anglicans, > and not by Baptists or Presbyterians or other Evangelicals. > > So, what objective criteria does one use in deciding which tradition to use > for > your purposes ? OR, how can we use the best of each of our traditions > for modern purposes? > > A few thoughts on the subject. > > Billy Rojas > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > message dated 8/25/2011 8:33:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > Coincidentally, I've lately been looking at the role of "tradition" > being shifted toward institutionalized rules of action (based on > empirical knowledge, natch), rather than set solid principles (ie: > traditions as logical formulae as opposed to one-size-fits-all > solutions). Doing that creates some type of flexible growth-oriented > conservatism. > > On Aug 25, 11:18 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > faqs.org > > > Post-traditional civil society > > and the radical center > > Article Abstract : > > Many political scientists have called for a sense of community within > the > > nation state. However, this sense of community within the civil society > is > > inseparable from tradition. Tradition rarely leaves room for innovations > and > > social change. To be able to effect social change, there must be a > > willingness to accept individuation. Tradition often leads to cultural > > segmentation and social disintegration. Community can only be effective > if it > > acknowledges autonomy and democratization. > > > Author: Giddens, Anthony > > Publisher: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. > > Publication Name: New Perspectives Quarterly > > Subject: Political science > > ISSN: 0893-7850 > > Year: 1998 > > > Beliefs, opinions and attitudes, Social structure, Giddens, Anthony, > > Social scientists > > -- > 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 -- 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
