Hi guys, We've spent a lot of time lately arguing our differences. I'd like to suggest we shift direction, and try to articulate the things we *do* have in common.
I know Solomon doesn't like the idea of an "ideology", but he clearly enunciates a set of "conclusions" that most of us would agree with. Even many of Kevin's critiques we'd agree with in principle, if not in practice. So, let's try to make a list of values we share. Here's a start, pulling from the lists below. Please add your own: * Public policy should be driven by informed opinion and honest debate, not rigid ideologies or powerful interests * Government and the political process should be radically streamlined to improve transparency, efficiency, and focus * We need a system where the leaders of the public and private sector serve the public good and keep each other in check , not where they collude to enrich themselves at our expense * We as a society need to invest in sustainable infrastructure (physical, financial, and political) that will ensure our children are better off than we are The hard part is to come up with a list that is comprehensive enough to drive coherent action, yet simple enough to understand. Broad enough to be supported by a majority, yet still internally self-consistent. Ambiguous and open-ended enough to allow flexibility and creativity, yet rigid enough to prevent abuse. It won't be easy, but I believe it is possible. Who's willing to help? -- Ernie P. Centroids Admin On Dec 6, 2011, at 3:06 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote: > It is not that I am opposed to any new growth or reforms and indeed some of > the reconstruction ideas have merit, especially in transportation and > infrastructure. However, in a society that is economically and morally > bankrupt our priority should be getting back to basics by deconstructing what > is not working and rebuilding our economic and moral infrastructure, based on > an enduring set of values. > Consequently, while I see both government and corporations as co-conspirators > in the modern day oligarchy I believe it is government power, more than > corporate excess that we should fear the most. On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Rise of the Center wrote: > You don't seem to have been listening to what I've said... I think ideology > is an impediment to political evolution. I don't care how you define radical > centrism on your website, because the idea of putting together an ideology is > something I'm very much against. I joined this group to discuss issues of the > day with roughly centrist people, not to help you develop an ideology that I > think would be an impediment to the evolution of our country and the center > of the political spectrum in our country if it were to be adopted widely. > I've written about this fairly extensively over the last few years... one of > the better examples of this being 'Centrists Don't Buy Into Ideology Hoax', > from way back last summer. Here is a sample, and this applies just as much to > your ideology as it does any other: > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Rise of the Center wrote: > We don’t need an ideology for the center… we’ve come to our conclusions just > fine without any damn political dogma telling us how we should arrive at our > political beliefs, thank you very much. Many of us shrink from the two major > parties largly because of this, as we saw that old political dogma wasn’t > giving us workable answers to the problems of today. > > I don’t need an ideology to think that I don’t want to pass on such an insane > level of debt to any children I may have. I don’t need an ideology to think > that we should work on developing ways to generate the energy we need for our > economy to keep churning, without destroying out environment. Nor do I need > an ideology to look at that situation and come to the conclusion that a tax > on carbon, or significant raises in the gas tax (or any regressive tax) makes > any sense. I don’t need an ideology to think that my gay friends should be > able to visit their long time lover on their death bed, even if their family > doesn’t want them to, and that they should be able to get some kind of legal > status for their relationship, whether you call it marriage or something else. > > I’ve come to these conclusions by looking at them, thinking about them, > talking to others about them, and coming to my own conclusions. Most don’t > put a fraction of the amount of time I have, but many people, a majority on > nearly every issue, agree with my stances nonetheless. These issues may be > complex, but often the underlying issues are not. -- 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
