Terrific project-- One piece of advice. Not all Centrist parties are related to RC. Some are ethnic, for one thing. Outside of one nationality they are uninterested in any broader picture. Then there are the Russians. For at least some Russians --who do use the terminology-- RC means a meeting of Europe and Asia, which is logical, given Russian realities. I would not be surprised if there were other hybrids, maybe in Latin America. Look up Gustavo Rojas some time ( no relation ). Never called himself RC --he was years before RC-- but a resemblance to what RC now is all about. RC is known in Canada, and as another guess, the Japanese could now be hip. Keep us posted, very important work. Would like to learn more. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------- 11/14/2011 11:16:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Ok, here's the deal: I'm trying to identify centrist parties from country to country. By centrist, I mean a fairly hard center with a fair amount of wiggle room to account for international intricacies, similar to the moderately large amount of space that the "center- right" and "center-left" occupy. The final goal is to begin to converge in the same way that the left and right have worldwide through international organization. Some identifications are easy, such as the UK Liberal Democrats, who formally ascribe to radical centrism. Other identifications are also relatively simple, like the Modern Whig Party, who ascribe the big, easy points of centrism. The difficulty is that, naturally, there's a tendency of centrism being viewed differently in other parts of the world, as evidenced by a "centrist", "moderate" Islamic party winning the recent national election in Tunisia. Naturally, any Islamist party running in the Western hemisphere would never gain the distinction of being centrist, nor should they. In response, I'm trying to put together some points for consistency that I look for when categorizing a party as "centrist", and I need your thoughts on these points that I put together: -------------------------- * In contrast with rigidly pure social markets and liberal markets, parties that support investment in growth areas like infrastructure, education, science, technology, and medicine are most highly considered. * Parties that are socially moderate or progressive align with centrism. By this, I mean parties that generally prefer social equality among race, sex, religion, etc. over social division. * A lack of favoritism toward any specific religion is a requirement. This eliminates parties from consideration that seek to legislate and govern in accordance with religious doctrine, such as Islamists and Christian Democrats. * A party formally ascribing to Third Way or Radical Centrist thought receives immediate consideration. * Parties that espouse positions that are extreme, such as xenophobia, racial superiority, or communism, are not to any level considered "moderate". Parties that oppose fundamental universal rights to speech, press, property, association, assembly exist out of the realm of centrism. * A balanced emphasis on environmental protection is appreciated, but a moderate or centrist party does not sacrifice advancement for environmental totalitarianism. -- 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
