Yeah.  About  the word "liberal," that is kind of hard to  completely 
demonize since
there are the Liberal Arts   --and in common speech, not  questions of 
politics,
about various things someone can be more liberal or more  conservative,
maybe about tastes in clothes or attitude toward modern art, etc, so  you
are right about that. Still "liberal" often is used as a cuss word by the  
Right
and when it is so used the Left seems to have conceded.
 
"Socialist" is another matter and precisely because of the old USSR.
But in my case, and a lot of other vintage Democratic Socialists of  yore,
we would have loved to have driven Saabs or Volvos if we could have
afforded to do so, we always were angry at the Commies for stealing
the word Socialist since they weren't Socialists at all, they were  
Stalinists
or Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks, or etc. 
 
Those years are long gone but I have never forgiven the Commies  for
their word theft and still fight that fight.  Especially since the  concept 
and
the word predate Marx by a good 25 years and the original "Socialists" 
include one of my heroes, Saint-Simon. 
 
Don't fret about now knowing too much about him, hell, most historians  
don't
know jack squat about him either. 
 
Humor me , OK ?  I'll return the favor some day when you need it  most.
 
Muchos Gracias,
 
Guillermo      
 
------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
1/10/2012 10:18:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]  
writes:

Covered Socialist and Liberal elsewhere. Hope you  find that. 

I don't like losing words either, but we don't want anyone  to think that 
TR is one of today's progressives. 

David 

  _   
 
“A society that does  not recognize that each individual has values of his 
own which he is entitled  to follow can have no respect for the dignity of 
the individual and cannot  really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek  



On 1/10/2012 11:16 PM,  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  wrote:  
 
1/10/2012 9:00:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   writes:

You  don't like language "corruption." Fine. Then what are we to do with 
the  KJV in which Paul's vision has Jesus telling him "it is hard for thee to  
kicketh against the pricks." Does anyone today know what that means?  
Without an Old English dictionary, I doubt it. Throw out the KJV? The  Fighting 
Fundies are going to be after you! :-) 


Actually  this is anything but a problem for me. Most of the time I read 
the  NEB, sometimes
the New  Jerusalem or Oxford. These are the best scholarly translations, 
and they  are
well done,  at least the editions before about 1985 or so.  The KJV is  
strictly
for language  as far as I am concerned. It is like Shakespeare. Simply  
inspirational.
Otherwise I read the 3 translations, usually  the NEB, well over 98 % of 
the  time.


Take back the language? Great idea, how is that done? We  didn't quite get 
here overnight. We aren't going back overnight. 
 


We are now on the verge of losing two perfectly  good words to the Right,  
"Socialism"
and "Liberal."  I feel like  fighting to save those words also. On grounds 
of historical 
meaning and cultural relevance.  But now it is the Left that has pretty 
much given up
on the fight.  If that's what  they want to do, OK, I am anti-today's-Left 
anyway.
But the classical US Left of the era  1900 - 1930 I feel like fighting for. 
Today's Left
hates that Left and regards  those people as backward and unenlightened.
 
Being an historian means that some issues that draw blank stares from  most 
people
are burning issues to me  --and to many members of the AHA (  American 
Historical
Association ). 
 
But you're right, " We didn't quite get here  overnight. We aren't going 
back overnight."
That is absolutely correct.  

Its like SMU, no football program for decades, and  now they're baaaack.
 
Things like that can happen if you work at  it.
 
Billy
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


David


  _   
 
“A  society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his 
own  which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of 
the  individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich  August von Hayek  



On 1/10/2012 11:37  AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])   wrote:  
 
Hrummmmph.
 
There are advantages to the word "progressivism." If we are serious  about
assuming the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt then we need to find some  way
to work with the word and, in the process,  break the  identification the 
term
now has with  ( the sad excuse for ) today's Left. 
 
That is, partly what we have going-on  is a word war, or "War  of the 
Words."
Creatures from Mars arrive in UFOs to teach us how to use language  better
and  to provide Earthlings with better conceptual and  communications 
skills.
 
We are those creatures from Mars.
 
Little Green Radical Centrists.
 
So, let's not surrender any "heritage vocabulary." It can only be a  fight
but let's, win back all the good words that others have tried to  
appropriate
for nefarious purposes.
 
If you were an historian you might well be sensitive to this. Read  texts 
written
in previous decades ( historians read history just about every day  ) and 
that may 
make absurd sense if we define words in them in modern-day  ways. 
 
"Don we now our gay apparel," the Christmas carol ( one of about 20  with 
this problem ) 
sounds bizarre now. Solution,  fight to discredit homosexual  use of "gay." 
 Similarly, 
in the era of the Korean war, the USAF referred to Mig jets as  "fagots"  
( can be spelled with one or two Gs ). 
 
Republicans like to demonize "liberal" and socialist."  Why  should we 
accept
such word poisoning ?  Both words have entirely good and noble  meanings.
 
All of this said,  I also like your list of alternatives,  evolutionary 
centrism,
activist centrism, scientific centrism, etc, each of which can be  used
in the right context to very goof effect.
 
 
Billy
 
===============================================
 
1/10/2012 9:16:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])  writes:



On Jan 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Chris Hahn wrote:





 
 
a  rational progressivism that supports testable change to improve  the lot 
of the entire populace, rather than the traditional  American progressivism 
which moves toward some moralistic  utopia.







 
 
I  like your concepts, but I don’t like the word progressivism.   It will 
be too easily be confused with American progressivism which  already has a 
meaning.  Instead of rational progressivism, how  about “rational improvement”
 or “rational  evolvement”?





I'm with Chris; great insight, but potentially confusing  terminology.


How about:


- scientific centrism


- progressive centrism (adjective instead of noun)


- progressive design


- evolutionary centrism


- activist centrism


- improvisationalism


Not quite there yet, but worth working on.  As usual, I  prefer a name that 
is oxymoronic and paradoxical in order to inspire  cognitive dissonance. A 
good test would be whether it infuriates  Solomon. :-)


-- Ernie P.





 


Chris
 
 
From: [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])  
[_mailto:[email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) ] On Behalf Of Mike  Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012  9:32 AM
To: radicalcentrism
Subject: [RC] Thoughts on this  tenet?
 
I  want to home-in on this particular tenet and get to the heart of the  
point (tempered optimism + our brand of centrism = rational  progressivism):

When pessimism infects centrism, it becomes  angry populism. When apathy 
blends with centrism, it creates the  traditional view of the lazy, valueless 
independent. What is needed,  instead, is a tempered positivity in 
scientific centrism, channeling  the best aspects of an ideology that believes 
in the 
application of  workable solutions in individual, piecemeal fashion to 
civil  society. Consequently, a rejection of pessimism and apathy in favor  of 
sober belief in a society's ability to improve itself is an  essential aspect 
of centrism. The result of this is a rational  progressivism that supports 
testable change to improve the lot of  the entire populace, rather than the 
traditional American  progressivism which moves toward some moralistic  
utopia.
-- 
Centroids: The Center  of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) >
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(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

Reply via email to