Kindred Spirit . Centroids : Here is an essay about Radical Centrism that is clearly in our spirit-- if not always, some of the time, and at some important times. It has real "bite," a Menckenesque attitude, and a sense of purpose. . This said, there are problems which will be discussed at the appropriate places in the text. For now, though, here are the first four paragraphs verbatim. Problems don't start until the end of Paragraph # 4. What does “Radical Centrist” mean? . >From the site : radicalcenterist.wordpress.com Note the spelling, "centerist," not centrist, in the title. . Posted on _May 21, 2011_ (http://radicalcenterist.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/what-does-radical-centrist-mean/) by _teqmc2_ (http://radicalcenterist.wordpress.com/author/teqmc2/) .
The purpose of my blog is to push a certain political agenda. There is no such thing as a political blog that does not push any agenda. In fact, the title of my blog says what that agenda is. Radical Centrist. So, what does that title mean, and what does it say about my agenda ? . To begin with, I would like point out that I have already found criticism of my blog online. That makes me REALLY HAPPY. Criticism is the FOUNDATION of democracy, and of America. I am very deeply a patriot, and I feel that there is NOTHING more patriotic than criticizing politics. It makes me quite proud to realize how much patriotism I have inspired. . However, the particular criticism that I read made a few mistakes. They cited me as an example of “aggressively moderate”. This is quite wrong. There is NOTHING moderate about my blog. That is why the title is “Radical ……” Moderate is the opposite of Radical, but does not specify an agenda. . A radical believes that anyone who disagrees with them is causing great harm to something important JUST BY EXISTING. I most certainly feel that anyone who disagrees with the political agenda of this blog is a TRAITOR to their nation and should DIE. Or change their opinion. That is the center of radicalism : a desire to enforce the choice between conformity or death. . . Comments : Everything was gong along really nicely until the last sentence. We have no interest in enforcing conformity. On the contrary, we seek to persuade people so that, on any issue about which we desire commitment to some universal ethical principle, others will change their outlooks or behavior based on their own inner motivation. There is a world of difference between forcing others to conform, and persuasion. The former is authoritarian, the latter is democratic. . To return to the essay, here are additional quotes-- . "A centrist is a person who does not believe that they are qualified to suggest changes to the system." The author then goes on to say that this is true of himself. . Whatever is true for _teqmc2_ (http://radicalcenterist.wordpress.com/author/teqmc2/) , this does not establish a general principle for others. In point of fact, some centrists do think they are qualified to recommend changes to the political system. Others do not. There is no consensus, in other words. . The writer then says that centrists --and anyone else-- can become qualified to suggest changes. Which is true. This, after all, is the whole point of education, including self education. . This part of the essay begs the question, just when do you know you have become qualified to express your informed desires ? There is no way to tell based on the essay alone. But this problem can be overlooked because of what comes next, a remarkable turnaround even if it is based on a dubious premise --some other valid premise can be substituted easily enough. . Here is the dubious premise : . "So, how does radicalism interact with centrism? I believe that anyone who thinks that they are qualified to suggest changes to the system is a DANGER to our country, and must be stopped, before they cause widespread harm." . This is off the mark ; it also attacks the rights of people to free expression and testing their views in the marketplace of ideas. None of us here agrees with that kind of outlook. Another premise is needed. But even without it what the writer says next is hardly debatable as we see things : . "So, in one sentence the political agenda of this blog is to convince people of how ignorant they are. It is also to correct that ignorance." . This is axiomatic to Radical Centrism as we understand it. As is the following statement from the blog : . "The goal of this blog is to educate readers until they understand the extent of their own ignorance." . Very Socratic. Well said, and consistent with our own views. The writer's insistence that he should, as policy, end all essays with a question, goes too far, but there is no difficulty in understanding his well-taken motivation. . Next the author defines Radical Centrist by comparison to its opposites. . "I am NOT a moderate. A moderate is a person who holds some agenda, but is willing to admit that those who disagree with that agenda might be correct." . This, of course, would define "centrist" as no different than dogmatist --even if that was not his intention. Anyway, all kinds of people are willing to concede that others just might be right about some issue even if, for now, it surely seems as if they are dead wrong. Centrists certainly can have this attitude and often do. This is also true for Radical Centrists --who are very different than "centrists" per se. No idea at all why _teqmc2_ (http://radicalcenterist.wordpress.com/author/teqmc2/) has the outlook here that he does. . Now we get to a very curious paragraph that should be quoted in full : . " My agenda is “you should learn more” and anyone who disagrees with that MUST, by definition, believe “I already know enough” or worse “People should be more ignorant” If you do not believe either of these latter two, then you agree with me. If you disagree, then you are a detriment to your country, and you should convert or die. If you believe ignorance is a good thing, get out. Go die. " . My best interpretation of these words is that they were largely written for effect. If that is the case, then serious objections would miss the point. Another interpretation is that the writer was seriously trying to compose a paradoxical philosophical statement that conceals a truth that cannot be expressed some other way. If so, he dove off the deep end of the pool without a life preserver. . An agenda of "you should learn more" is excellent ; it is intrinsic to RC as we have developed its principles. It assumes that all of us should learn more, however, because it is logically open-ended. There is no need to think that it sets anyone up as knowing everything ; it simply says that we never have all of the knowledge we could use and also says that the more knowledge we are able to gain, the better. Unfortunately the writer leapt to some unwarranted conclusions in that paragraph. . Here is the start of next paragraph : . " There is another definition of centrist : someone who advocates a set of policies which lie somewhere between two other, mutually opposing positions. I do not advocate any specific policy on this blog (or, at least, I try not to). I do, in fact, hold some opinions of things that I think we should do. Everyone can think of many things which they want to change away from. Most people can only think of a few things which they want to change to." . No problem with this. But the rest of the paragraph is another matter-- . " I feel that the latter form of the ‘pretense of knowledge’ is less dangerous, but it is still FAR less good than simply having questions. In my personal politics, I am not this latter type of centrist. I am most decidedly a liberal." . Again, there is a question of empirical validity. Is changing to a new policy less dangerous than abandoning a failed policy ? The most anyone can say is "maybe." But "maybe not" is just as true, especially since new alternatives to failed policies sometimes are total disasters. The Czarist regime in Russia in 1917 was a mess but the Communist system that eventually replaced it was far worse. And you can say pretty much the same things for the rise of the Nazis, the rise of genocidal fanaticism in Rwanda, or even ( take your pick ) the elections of George Bush or Barack Obama. These are not equivalents, needless to say, simply examples of going from bad to worse because of perceived good choice in going to a new politics.. . The author's 'philosophical principle' doesn't hold. At least it does if I have understood what he was saying. . That he is a self-identified "liberal "is not a problem ; been there, done that. In ways I remain liberal. Its just that the kind of "Liberalism" that I identify with has almost nothing in common with the anti-liberalism that calls itself "progressivism," which is normative on the American Left today. At any rate, there is common viewpoint with Radical Centrism as we understand it, in the author's next statement of principle : . " This is NOT my platform to push a liberal agenda. This is my platform to push an agenda of “Learn more”. . That, as much as anything, is at the center of Radical Centrism. . Not only that, there is this, immediately following : . " When I am getting ready to write a post for this blog, I like to do a lot of research, at least if it is a post about the functioning of some part of the system. The more research I do, the more I question my liberalism. It is not the perfect solution. Conservatism creates some problems that liberalism fixes, and liberalism creates some problems which conservatism fixes. I have always been familiar with the first set of problems, but now I am becoming familiar with the second. " . This is exactly how we do things, maybe not always, but as our ideal. . The last sentence of the essay says : . " So, that is the meaning of this blog. I do hope that you all will stay with me on this wild ride while we explore the extent of our own ignorance together." . No argument ; not in the least. Can't say it applies to all issues, all of the time, but as a generalized viewpoint, or attitude, it is our perspective. . Which brings us back to the beginning. Very feisty and spirited. I'd just put it a little differently-- . The purpose of Radical Centrism is to express strong ideas in the most effective ways possible. We are really thankful when others engage us in discussions or well-intentioned and well-informed debate. Criticism is foundational to finding truth and creating solid alternatives to dysfunctional political or cultural systems, and we welcome it. Not only that, we strive to be self-critical in a constructive sense. . We also are patriots although each of us takes serious interest in at least some foreign nations that have personal meaning. If there are good things about America that we can share with these nations, that is something we want to see happen --just as, if there are good things to learn from those nations, that is also for the best for all concerned. . There is very little about us as Radical Centrists that is "moderate." True enough, we may sometimes use the word "moderate" as shorthand for centrist, or to indicate an informed neutral viewpoint. However, we are anything but garden variety moderates. To repeat : We take strong stands. We can compromise when it is smart to do so, but we are not interested in compromise except when there is no good alternative. And most of the time there is a radical alternative if you look for it. . Don't take this too literally, but, for one, I like the way that _teqmc2_ (http://radicalcenterist.wordpress.com/author/teqmc2/) put things : If you are unable to see the truth in Radical Centrist views you are causing great harm to society, yourself, and the nation. Those who are unable to understand and appreciate Radical Centrist ideas are not very smart, or are just plain stupid. If you disagree with our core principles you clearly are unenlightened, ill-informed, and a very bad person deserving DEATH. . OK, this is over the top, but to communicate a commitment to a philosophy that is very important to each of us. We really mean what we say, we really believe in our philosophy, and we would like to convince others that Radical Centrism is superior to anything else "on the market," anything and everything. . Look into Radical Centrism ; really think about our core principles. See how Radical Centrist values are for the good --in many different ways. Join us. Radical Centrism is not another philosophy based on yesterday's bromides ; it is a dynamic set of new ideas that speak directly to the principles and values if independent-minded people and Independent voters. . . Billy R. February 8, 2013 -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
