I agree with Chris. I would take out the word ensure because nothing in life is certain and include the word opportunity.
Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Hahn To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:18 PM Subject: RE: [RC] Centrist Values Ernie, I would change * 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 To * We as a society need to invest in sustainable infrastructure (physical, financial, and political) that will ensure our children have every chance to be are better off than we are Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [RC] Centrist Values 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 -- 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
