Two different centrisms: 1- Radical Centrism: At its most basic level, we're attempting to develop a specific system of thought, which is termed "radical centrism". In actuality, it's probably a misnomer - not strictly geared toward what the "average" centrist thinks; in actuality, it's supra-ideological. We are utilizing the term "centrism" in radical centrism because, a) it coincides with the non-right and non-left position on a traditional political spectrum that people understand, b) we don't feel ideologically locked down to policy positions from any specific place on the spectrum, and c) we look for the excluded middle in political arguments. Criticism of the name? Probably a valid criticism.
2- Moderates The relation to the concept of radical centrism to the "center" is the same as conservative & right and liberal & left. Not all leftists are liberals and not all rightists are conservatives. Not all people in the middle will be "radical centrists". Radical centrism is an attractive and hopefully preferable alternative to what's out there, and not simply an attempt to placate every single person who doesn't ascribe to rightist or leftist ideologies. There's some overlap, I think, which causes the confusion. An all- around dislike of left and right extremism is certainly shared by both radical centrists and moderates. I'd point to Eric Hoffer's The True Believer as covering the disturbing tendency of extreme rightism turning into extreme leftism, and vice versa. Basically, they're both the same at the extreme ends. I've gotten lazy about terms over the last couple years. I usually refer to those who are just "in the middle" as "moderates". I refer to "centrists" as those with a specific ideology (pragmatists, radical empiricists, Third Way, radical centrism). I think most of the other guys on the forum do the same. But that's fine, as long as those in the discussion understand the terminology. Naturally, the average person thinks "moderates", "centrists", and "radical centrists" are the same thing, and that will be a battle to wage down the road. I don't care about what the term for the ideology will end up being, though. Call it "cookie monster" if you want, as long as it's understandable. Internationally- Nick Clegg, Britain's Deputy Prime Minister, has said on numerous occasions that his party's ideology is radical centrist and, based on what he's been saying, I agree with him. On a further level, if a party adopts a platform that is substantially similar to "radical centrism", then it's a "centrist" (my lazy term) ideology. When we develop our own ideology, we get to choose what coincides with it. That "a moderate Islamic party" is in the middle in relation to the politics of that country is a given; the question is whether radical centrism should disqualify those who advocate implementing religious doctrine, even if they are otherwise have the same ideological inclinations that we do. On Dec 2, 9:49 am, Rise of the Center <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to be a sticker on terms here, which I'm usually not, but this is > an important point. > > It makes zero sense to use the word centrISM. That implies a system of > thought is in place... and there isn't. There are centrISTS, but all that > means is those people are between the left and right. It makes as much > sense to say centrism as it does to say rightism or leftism. Positions on > the ideological spectrum do not an ideology make. Liberalism is an > ideology. Conservatism is an ideology. Socialism, libertarianism, > anarchism, communism, etc... ideologies. There *is no centrism*. > > This is an entirely different subject, but the branding of 'radical > centrism' is horrible. Most mainstream voters are very turned off by the > idea of anything labeled radical, and one of the appeals of > moderate/centrist politics is that it is the very opposite of radical > politics. That's why the social network for centrist/moderate activism I've > been working on (still in pre-beta, using a primitive design and some major > functionality is still not up) is called Uniters.org - branding is > important, and the center is where our country unites, which you even > touched on in your comment. Calling it radical is a big mistake. > > And as far as the political developments in Britain and France go... they > were heavily infuenced by Anthony Giddens, who either came up with the term > Third Way, or popularized it. They do not call it radical, and have been > quite successful. All three of the biggest parties in Britain have > moderated since the 90's. > > Actually you can fairly call yourself a centrist party and be theocratic if > you happen to be in a country that is steeped in hard core religion. As I > keep saying, centrist doesn't have anything to do with any particular idea, > it just means you are in the center of the political spectrum in the place > you are talking about. In our country being centrist on religion roughly > means you're not anti-religion, but you want a healthy separation of church > and state. > > Weird that I never found this place before... I have a daily email of > centrist searches that caught this in it's net a couple weeks back. > > Solomon Kleinsmith > Rise of the Center <http://www.riseofthecenter.com/> -- 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
