Is the word "radical" political poison? To be certain the term is unpopular among moderates and most establishment types; such people live for some version of the status quo. They have no use for bold new ideas, no use for political drama of any kind, and no use for people who have strong moral principles. But this is precisely why the word radical is so appealing to many other people. This is not some sort of empty assertion. Just a few days ago I circulated a lengthy list of people and institutions that are out front in their use of the word -in which they obviously take pride. Let us think about a few of these examples. Take Virginia's senator, John Warner. He was first elected seven years ago advertising himself as a Radical Centrist. Which he more-or-less is. He won re-election in 2014 running as a Radical Centrist, True, his margin of victory was as narrow as it was possible to get, but the fact was that he won -despite a very strong Republican challenger and a GOP tidal wave that drowned all kinds of Democrats from coast to coast. Now may it be pointed out that the office of Senator is as high as it gets except for governors of large states and the presidency. This is no trivial thing. Warner represents the East Coast branch of RC, associated with the New American Foundation and The Atlantic magazine and website. This branch dwarfs our small organization by an order of magnitude, but this is to say that it has a lot of money and powerful institutional support. It does this even though its major spokesmen, thinking especially of Michael Lind and Ted Halstead, self identify as Radical Centrists. Indeed, a decade ago they co-authored a book called The Radical Center which seems to have sold quite well. Where does New American get its money? There are maybe 100 significant sources but among them are names like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They know that New America sometimes calls itself a Radical Centrist organization but that does not stop them from donating millions. Then there is the NY Times, maybe you have heard of it. On its staff is Thomas Friedman, and maybe you have heard of him, too. Well, TF is on record in his columns as being a Radical Centrist. Personally I don't think he is, or is at best is only a Radical Centrist now and then, but the point is that he regards the phrase as something good, he does not run away from it, he embraces it. The same has been true -also in both cases even if it was a mischaracterization- for Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Ventura, one a Republican and the other a political Independent. A host of non-profits call themselves Radical Centrist as do a good number of private individuals including several journalists, such as one in Arkansas and another in the state of Washington. But who we should be most concerned about is the Quivira Coalition, in bushiness for at least 15 or 20 years, mostly in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and other inland-West states I think the group has about 50,000 members, mostly ranchers, small business owners, environmentalists, and the like. To say the least this group is a model of what can be done and an inspiration. They also are professed Radical Centrists. What do detractors of the word "radical" intend for RC.org? That we should ignore all of this and forget why all kinds of people freely choose to use the term to describe themselves? This is preposterous -to use the mildest possible rebuke to such an ill-advised critique. After all, a good critique takes into account not only its own subjective dislikes it acknowledges the strengths of those who take an opposite position. and forthrightly deals with them. But our most avid critic has never done any such thing. Finally there is the insulting character of that line of reasoning. I can only speak for myself but suspect that Ernie has a similar attitude. For a good number of years I have been outspoken in advocacy of Radical Centrism; my signature appears under well over 100 essays and articles written primarily for RC.com and another large number for other people. You don't realize that I gave my choice of using this terminology a good deal of thought to begin with and continue using it for reasons that are persuasive to me and that I believe will eventually be persuasive to many others? A moderate may feel strongly that he should be a moderate. OK, that is not a problem for me. And he can use whatever terminology that he prefers, including middle or centrist (without a qualifier) or any other such vocabulary. But to rant to the effect that Radical Centrists are "wrong" to choose this terminology, that the concept of RC is somehow impossible to maintain, and so forth, well, that crosses a line -into extremely poor judgement. Besides, try telling Senator Warner that his views are wrong and that he cannot succeed in politics calling himself a Radical Centrist. What do you suppose he would say to that? But whatever Senator Warner says or does not say, I have my own reasons for identifying as a Radical Centrist and take the greatest possible pride in doing so. Billy
-- -- 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/d/optout.
