Standing up for Radical Centrist principles since 2004 [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Review: The Age of Consequences Centroids: Saturday at noon, Courtney White's 2015 book, The Age of Consequences, arrived at my door. I was able to find a new copy at markdown on ebay for $10; retail is $ 25. By midnight I had finished reading the volume's 261 pages. The book is an education on the subject of Radical Centrism and the environment. . This does not say that the opus is problem free, on the contrary there are all kinds of issues with Courtney White's text. However, the first thing to observe is that there is a great deal that political Radical Centrists -this means ourselves- can learn from Wild West Radical Centrists, and the sooner the better. . Some "first thoughts" might be useful. Here are some obvious considerations: . (1) At this time the Quivira Coalition is the Radical Centrist movement. That is, to the extent that there is an actual popular -people level- RC movement as such, it exists in the mountain West as it does nowhere else. Figures for the number of people involved with Quivira are uncertain but a tally of maybe 50,000 should not be far from the mark. But this is misleading, the coalition consists of a significant part of the "leadership class" of an 9 state region -basically New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, Oregon, Montana, Nevada- with outliers in another dozen states and isolated Quivira members in another twenty or so. . (2) Quivira is utterly practical; the coalition shows us the pragmatic dimension of Radical Centrism several times over. We try to be practical; they ARE practical in every possible way. And they are very successful at what they do. . (3) It is all-too-easy for political Radical Centrists to miss the activities of the Quivira Coalition. A great deal is going on in the intermountain West that we are blissfully unaware of. We read, for example, NRO on the Right, The Nation on the Left, and The Atlantic, which is more-or-less RC in outlook. But if you want to know about Quivira you need to follow publications like Wild Earth, High Country News, The Nature Conservancy magazine, or Resilience -A Voice of the New Agrarianism. We operate in parallel universes. . (4) As if there was any doubt, the large scale work of the Quivira Coalition throughout the West -all of which is self-avowedly Radical Centrist- should put an end to anyone here paying the least attention to people who make an issue out of the phrase "Radical Center," as if the concept is an oxymoron, not worth a second thought, and in any case is useless. Actually the exact opposite is the case, and a growing number of people have found the idea very useful and not only that, inspirational. There is a demand for the nomenclature, Radical Centrist; there is almost no demand for such terms as "moderate" or (middle-of-the-road) "centrist." . (5) We need some kind of environmental policy program. To be sure, everyone here knows about my sometimes strident opposition to strip mining of coal in any kind of mountainous terrain, especially in Appalachia. And now and then someone may make a comment about, say, the retreat of glaciers or wetlands issues, but basically we have no philosophy of ecology. This is a mistake; reading The Age of Consequences makes it clear just how much of a mistake this is. . (6) Although the book does not discuss libertarianism except by implication there is no question that Quivira is unimpressed by the libertarian cause. In fact, elsewhere I once came across an article that made it clear that Quivira is essentially anti-libertarian. No need to guess why this is so. Quivira is all about community, about bringing people together, and about finding ways that make co-operation between people with different outlooks possible. Libertarianism is all about building a private castle and protecting it with your life. Radical Centrists are not much interested in castles; they are interested in ranches and rangeland communities, about farms and watershed communities, or, as in our case, certainly now and then, about home life and its relationship to professional or educational communities. Still, our kind of RC and Quivira RC each make it clear that there is something within libertarianism that has high value. For Quivira this is freedom; without it nothing else really matters very much, For us it is emphasis on free speech, also because without it your choices for action are almost non-existent. . (7) Finally, Quivira places high value on creative problem solving; this, of course, is also emphasized at our group. The phrase "thinking outside the box" has become a cliche in some circles but it captures the idea quite well. We are not going to be able to get out of the collective mess we are all in unless we approach issues with a fresh outlook, and unless we refuse, on principle, to persist in established ways of doing things that have gotten us into the troubles we find ourselves in. Both our version of Radical Centrism and that of Quivira focus on creativity. And on finding real answers to questions. Neither of us have any use at all for endless griping that serves no good purpose, perpetual attacks on others, and ceaseless complaining that gets us nowhere. . . All of this said, and there are a number of additional highly favorable things to add, soon enough, there are some serious problems with Courtney White's book. In some respects it misses the point of Radical Centrism as a philosophy altogether. Some respects -most of the time this is not a factor, but the point is that when it is, there are major weaknesses. . For example, while the book criticizes George W. Bush severely, following this up with similar criticism of William Clinton, the author then went on to say that he voted for Barack Hussein Obama as someone who showed us all a path to the future, who understood the need for a paradigm shift in everyone's consciousness, and who promised to lead a moral revolution that would unite Americans in new ways as never before. Only much later in the book does White backtrack and confess that Obama delivered almost nothing and basically was a disappointment. . The point is not that this was incomprehensible; after all, at least a few RC.org Radical Centrists also voted for Barack Hussein, However, others of us saw through Obama's pretensions as if they were not there, recognized what a phony he was (and still is), and foresaw that his presidency would turn out for the worst. NOT because we had serious admiration for John McCain, but because Obama, objectively, was mostly hot air, mostly dishonest, and ridiculously intellectually unprepared for the office of President. And why wasn't this obvious to everyone else? . So, there's that. Which should say -in some number of cases- that there is a lack of political sophistication in the Quivira version of Radical Centrism that should be seen for what it is. . Of course, this -ironically- is a product of a Quivira strength. The coalition refuses to be drawn into partisan politics. There are no favored candidates publicized by the group because that is not what they do. Members vote for whomever they want, as individuals, and that is that. Their goal is to bring about useful community projects, or projects that help people who are part of the organization -foresters, Park Service personnel, ranchers, farmers, co-op workers, environmentalists, business people, students, teachers, civic officials, and so forth. . However, from what I can tell, this means little by way of serious study of electoral politics, hence lack of knowledge about such matters, lack of working knowledge of all kinds of current political issues, and general lack of sophistication. As if all you need to know about politics you can learn from the movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Which is a caricature more than anything else, but which may be painfully true more than Quivira people might want to admit. . But to provide one glaring example, White's book makes much of the concept of "peak oil." As it should, it might be added, but only in the context of the phenomenon of fracking and as much as 30 or 40 years directly ahead of us of oil abundance. There isn't one comment about this in the book and peak oil is discussed as if it is the final word on the subject. Which is -to be blunt abut it- laughable. . Fracking has changed the entire discussion about energy in the United States as well as globally. For me the question is how we use this bonanza, whether we finally develop long range policy for sustain able energy use, or whether we squander this huge opportunity. Even with fracking as part of the equation the scepter of peak oil is unavoidable; eventually we will hit that plateau. But the old calculations are obsolete and need to be revised. The date has now been pushed decades into the future. Not to take this basic fact into consideration is irresponsible and shows nothing so much as not being informed on a subject that clearly has vital importance. . Then there is White's romantic view of the Amish and their pattern of energy use and lifestyle. What planet is he living on? While many people regard the Amish in a positive light, after all, they are good stewards of the land, they have a very low crime rate, etc., for most Americans they are a throwback to an era long gone that has no future except for local farming and tourism. And their conception of religious truth is pre-Enlightenment, pre-evolution, pre-scientific, pre-psychology, and intellectually indefensible. . To regard the Amish as a model for the general future, especially since they place such a low regard on formal education, is, to say this as kindly as possible, ridiculous. Probably we can learn any number of practical lessons from the Amish by way of group co-operation, the value and practical limits of egalitarianism, and various farming techniques, but that is as far as it goes. And who does not honestly feel likewise? . Courtney White sometimes is not a very penetrating thinker. My best guess is that this is a legacy of his years, decades ago, as a true-believer ideological environmentalist. Indeed, he sometimes suggests as much. However, he might benefit from criticism that says he really needs to go further in "weeding out" some views of those years that linger in his unconscious mind. . There is also the question of what, exactly, White hoped to accomplish with his 2015 book. About 10% of it consists of a travelogue. This is not a misstatement. Page after page in part of the volume take us on journeys to faraway places like Venice, the caves of Lascaux, Rome, and other European locales. Why? Nearly all of that material is beside the point if what you are trying to do is explain the ideas of the Quivira Coalition, the value of Radical Centrism, or, for that matter, the promise of the New Agrarianism. . And there are all those vignettes about his family life. One after another, a verbal portrait of White's household and its denizens. . For one, I do not begrudge him in the least the deep satisfactions of his marriage and having children who offer so much hopefulness. That is all for the best. If anything he should be congratulated. Good for him. He is a decent and healthy human being. Nonetheless, that kind of subject matter would be far better discussed in a memoir or autobiography. In a book like The Age of Consequences, it gets in the way of the theme that you would suppose he set out to develop. . In writing this review, for instance, how helpful would it be if, as part of the discussion, you were treated to side commentary about my love life, my travels in Oregon recently, or what I had for breakfast? . Courtney White needs a hard-nosed editor to tell him, "look, the travelogue episodes are a major mistake. They muddy the waters; they can easily confuse the reader. Save that kind of copy for some other book. At least if you insist on including your family in the text, keep that part of things as short as possible, maybe limited to the introduction or epilogue. People who buy the book are looking for solid information about the Quivira Coalition, or Radical Centrism, or range management, or the latest environmental thinking. It is natural that your family is important to you -but the fact is that it has very little meaning to anyone else outside of your relatives and close friends." . The one takeaway from White's travel soliloquies is that he seemed to be trying to find some way to incorporate global thinking into his conception of Radical Centrism. There are indications of exactly this in a few passages. But mostly, if the travel material was supposed to make that kind of point, it failed miserably. The connections are tenuous or strained; those that are relevant set up distractions. People who buy the book, it must be presumed, want information about making their lives better in Laramie or Colorado Springs or Cedar City. Suddenly they are told all about the canals of Venice or the ancient ruins of Rome. Or what the kids did while in France. . Another failing of the book is that there is no index. This would not have taken very long to compile, a few days at the most. And an index would have added significant value to the volume. As would an annotated bibliography, and may be a map showing Quivira outreach throughout the American West. . These shortcomings noted, let us look at some important information that White provides his readers, which is very welcome to read about. . . It is hard not to be impressed by his comments about the Oklahoma Food Cooperative. This is in reference to chapter 23, an extended discussion not only of food co-ops in the Sooner State, but also of the principle of locally produced edibles. . As someone who has shopped at the Eugene, Oregon, Saturday farmer's market, this is a subject that has direct meaning to me. Yet it is not difficult to see the downside of local markets of this kind. For sure, the quality of the produce is very high, but variety, while reasonably good for a community this size, is limited. And then there are those food items you would like to purchase but without needing to get up at the crack of dawn to buy -because by 10:30 AM it is all gone, there wasn't nearly enough to last the day. . There is another and more serious issue, as well, discussed to good effect in White's book. In all Western states -there are no equivalents of Delaware or Rhode Island unless you count Hawaii- many farms and ranches are miles from nowhere. A local market might mean the county seat, population 5,000 and little else. Yet a local producer may have a quality orchard or be well known for tasty artichokes or nutritious grains. As things are the best that such a producer can do is contract with a large food business to buy his produce in bulk and be happy with 19 cents profit on the dollar. . The Oklahoman Food Cooperative -hereafter OFC- defines "local" differently than most other places. For the organization local means in-state. This has become possible through the magic of the Internet. . A detailed description of the process is provided in the book but, in brief, how the OFC system works is that farmers and ranchers provide the co-op with harvesting information, what is available for delivery, when. The information from hundreds of farms and ranches (plus orchards, etc) is then posted online. Customers place orders usually a few days before the market is held. On market day a number of drivers pick up the produce from various farms and ranches and deliver it, mostly sorted by orders, to market towns where the customers then pick up their purchases. . The result is variety as well as top quality produce at a fair price and farmers who can net as much as 90 cents on the dollar. As well, and customers know this, it also means money that mostly circulates in the state and has a multiplier effect that benefits their businesses. . The OFC was not an innovation developed by Quivira but what the coalition does is to look for such programs and let its members know about them for their own purposes. But there are plenty of Quivira innovations as such. . The classic has to be the Coalition's 36,000 acre ranch in New Mexico at Valle Grande near Santa Fe. In 2006 a good number of the membership of the group consisted of environmentalists per se, eager to supply all kinds of bright ideas to ranchers about how best to run their businesses and be better stewards of the land. Finally someone found a solution to this 'problem.' Every enviro who had a serious interest was invited to become a rancher and work the Valle Grande spread. It was a rare opportunity and some took the organization up on its word and entered the business. As Courtney White said, they did a pretty good job of it and some, like himself, now own ranches of their own. . If someone has a potentially good idea, especially if it can make money while helping the environment, the chances are that Quivira will stake him of her with sufficient resources for a fair trial. This obviously cannot mean drifters who wander in, but speaking of people who have professional background, or ranching experience, or environmental credentials. And who clearly have a commitment to the coalition. . Another Quivira idea, while not entirely original, has been creation of a system for reclamation of mine spoils -or tailings, piles, sometimes as big as hills, consisting of nothing but vast quantities of rocks and rough gravel with no commercial value. They are public eyesores and rain runoff may poison a local watershed as chemicals leech from the rocks. But if the spoil piles could grow grass cover most of these problems would vanish. Rain would soak into the ground and the processes of nature would take over and, with enough time, create a layer of stable soil at the surface. How are you going to do this? . Quivira set up a demonstration project near Globe, Arizona, to show what can be done. For very low cost, certainly as compared with most alternatives that require tens of thousands of dollars and maybe millions for large areas. . The Quivira idea was simple: Build a network of fences across the entire hill; these would divide the area into a large number of paddocks. One by one, a paddock would be sewn with grass seed, it would simply be scattered on the ground. . Then a load of hay would be scattered over the paddock area. Next a small number of cows would be let into the paddock for some limited time, maybe a day, and allowed to do what such bovines usually do, including stomping the grass seed into the ground and fertilizing it en passant. The process would be repeated until all the paddocks, one by one, had been transited by the cattle. In about two years the hill had an established grass cover and could be used for cattle grazing on the paddock system. . There was a problem. A year after the demonstration project had succeeded Courtney White returned to the site; it was a mess. All the grass was gone and the hill looked like hell again. . What had happened was that when the Quivira people left there was no-one to take responsibility for land management. The fence system was not maintained and some local people simply took advantage of free grazing for their animals. The grass cover was too thin for that kind of treatment and in the space of a few months everything was ruined. . The solution -which in retrospect the Quivira staff could have realized- was to stick with a coalition principle: Make sure the local community is involved and is educated to how it is done and what the benefits actually are -and someone, or a group, is put in charge by common consent. So, the project was repeated and the community was involved and after that the system worked as designed. . . The point in such examples is that people are organized with the purpose of seeking co-operation for common good. Each project is different, so the mix of people always changes, but the idea is to try and pool knowledge and know-how despite previous differences to build something, or do something, that everyone can take pride in and directly benefit from. . In this kind of system it is an advantage for a mixed group to work together, say a member of the Sierra Club, a rancher, a businessman, a soil researcher from a university, a logger, and so forth. Each can bring his or her own insights to bear on a specific problem and in the end everyone's interests are at least partly met and, especially important, a sense of community is facilitated. Which is the exact opposite of how libertarians operate, with their every-man-for-himself attitude, and who cares about community since self interest is all that counts? . Radical Centrists are anything but oblivious to the worth of each individual but take the view that unless one's individual satisfactions take account of the community of which you are a part, you cannot really have lasting satisfaction that you can feel good about. No man -or woman- is an island, in other words. People need each other and can contribute to one another's well being. Which, needless to say, is also the message of the world's great religions, speaking of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, the Baha'i Faith, the Sikhs, the Jains, and certainly the Mormons. Individualism only goes so far -and no further. The basic premise of libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. . Hence the priority at the Quivira Coalition to carry out projects that benefit not only the natural environment but the people who live on the land; Radical Centrists are not Left-wing Greens for whom the very presence of people in an ecosystem is anathema, who should be kicked out at the first opportunity. The objective is always some version of a partnership between different kinds of people and also partnership of people with nature. The natural world always heals itself. The objective should be to help nature in its healing process -not by getting rid of people but by educating them so that they understand and value the natural order and work with it not only for nature's sake but their own interests at the same time. . However, Radical Centrists are not robber barons, either. Indeed, a large part of what the Quivira group does is to repair damages done to the environment by exploitative people in the past. Like overgrazing their herds, like leaving ungodly messes behind at exhausted mines, or like clear-cutting forests so that regrowth does not happen naturally and erosion devastates the land. The purpose of it all is creation of sustainable systems that are productive -of livestock, or farm crops, and of opportunities for education or recreation- so that people who live in an ecosystem can have faith in the future. . . Another idea pioneered by Quivira is what is known as a "carbon ranch." So far this is a for-the-future concept but one that has considerable po tential. The idea is to sequester as much CO2 as modern technology and ranch management allows, as a step toward reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere and starting the process of climate change reversal so that we do not reach the point where some kind of greenhouse effect goes beyond the point of no return and we irreparably harm the atmosphere. This is an ambitious plan and one that, at first, would cost serious money to implement, but which, if an economical model for how this is done is perfected, could result in climate change reversal globally, gradually undoing the damages done in the past. . The concept is to capture carbon through natural processes, namely: Photosynthesis Resynthesis Exudation, and Humification. . Photosynthesis, of course, refers to the actions of green leafy plants. Resynthesis refers to use of chemical processes along with more usual agricultural practices to turn plant products like cellulose and starch into useful fuel sources, viz, creating renewable "oil." Exudation refers to targeted transfer of plant-produced carbon created via photosynthesis directly into the ground to stimulate soil creation, which is normally a very gradual process that requires about a thousand years to deliver one inch of new topsoil. This is important inasmuch as some farm practices in some parts of the world remove topsoil at incredible rates like one inch per decade. Finally, humification refers to creating humus, the richest kind of topsoil, entirely through careful land management and protecting those areas where the process of humification occurs spontaneously. .. A carbon ranch would also feature: (1) Carefully planned systems of grazing, (2) restoring riparian, riverine, and wetland systems, (3) Removing invasive 'woody' species that choke off grass and other useful vegetation, (4) extensive use of "no till" farming practices that use no chemical fertilizers or otherwise tamper with soils in their natural state, and still other options. . This is a difficult set of objectives to reach. So far, no-one has put it all together economically. Parts of the plan may be beyond reach for decades for all anyone can say. But to the extent that this kind of ranching / farming can succeed it would pay huge dividends in the future. To achieve a viable system along these lines doubtless would also require the co-operative efforts of people who do not normally work together, chemists, biologists, Earth sciences specialists, hardscrabble farmers, seasoned ranchers, foresters, orchardists, maybe vintners, computer programmers, hydraulic engineers, plus a variety of business people who know many different agricultural products markets. . What is important at this juncture is having the vision to eventually develop a carbon ranch. It sets goals, establishes parameters to work with, and helps set a research agenda. . Not that everything Courtney White says on the subject should be taken undiluted. For instance, he treats the subject of coal as if there is no possible view except that of die-hard environmentalists, namely, coal is bad, evil, terrible, horrible, an abomination, etc. But is this the only rational view to take? . I don't think so. But I will also be the first to admit my biases. For a number of years I taught at Alice Lloyd College in the heart of East Kentucky coal country. Which is why, having seen strip mines up close, having visited several such operations, I utterly abhor strip mining in mountainous terrain. The practice is a crime against nature, it defaces the environment in perpetuity, it damages watersheds, it creates desolation that destroys tourist potential, and it can ruin the lives of mountain people. There is no justification for it whatsoever. . However, this is not the same as being anti-coal. Especially not inasmuch as America still derives about 1/3rd of its energy needs from coal and also because this resource is something we have in abundance; there are different estimates but a very conservative forecast is that we have sufficient reserves for at least another 100 years at current levels of output; with continued reduction of coal use this might actually be more like 150 years. It has been said that America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And coal is not only valuable as a fuel, it can be processed into a range of chemical products. . But isn't it necessarily a dirty fuel? No. The caveat is that clean burning coal requires extra processing that users generally hate to pay for. But once it is literally ground into dust it may as well be high grade gunpowder, it is that potent. It burns at very high temperatures. As such it is a very efficient source of energy. . The problem arises at the chimney where smoke from burnt coal wafts into the sky. Yet what are known as scrubbers can be installed and they can reduce harmful emissions by as much as 80% or more. This subject is complex, there are a number of different kinds of scrubbers and some, which are more costly, can recover minerals from coal smoke while others capture heat that can then be used for other industrial purposes, but to broach the subject. . In any case, data that I have seen says that the coal industry has spent in excess of $30 billion in retrofitting coal plants with scrubbers in the past decade. The catch is that many more plants need scrubbers and only the largest operations make it economical to install them. Hence a clean coal industry is still maybe 20 years away, that is, as best the industry will be about 60% clean in another decade. These are rough figures that probably will need to be revised, but to give you an idea... . But what is the choice? Because of environmental concerns America has ceased to rely on nuclear power as a major part of its energy mix; we still have atom-generated power plants but their total output isn't much greater than hydroelectric, and hydro is also being curtailed due to environmental concerns. Gas power plants are the next big thing but to date they cannot be built fast enough to keep up with demand -and that leaves coal, not oil, since burning petroleum for raw energy is wasteful and cost inefficient. . We can, we all hope, look forward to a renewable energy future in which most of our needs are met by solar power, wind turbines, tidal power systems and the like, but these sectors of the energy industry are still decades away from being generally competitive. All alternative energy sources combined total maybe 10% of our energy requirements. No-one expects this to rise to as much as 20% much before about 2030. . It would help, in other words, if Courtney White actually studied the coal industry before making ex cathedra remarks about it. . This ought to be a priority for Quivira. After all, most coal mined in the United States now comes from the West. As of 2013 Wyoming's 17 major coal mines produced approximately 40% of all coal extracted in America, 388 million short tons. West Virginia is still a major producer, it ranks second, but only supplies approximately 120 million tons. Other coal states in the West are Montana, Colorado, and the Rockies more generally. There also is a good deal of coal in the Dakotas and the state of Washington. Even Oregon has coal deposits although those are of insufficient quantity to allow cost efficient mining. . . So, there are limitations to the book. But The Age of Consequences is also a trove of information about the Quivira Coalition and Radical Centrism in the West. It is high time that political Radical Centrists take a closer look at Quivira; the organization is doing much that is right, very right, and it has lessons to teach us all. . There is one correction to make about the phrase "radical centrism" as used by Courtney White. As he explained it, this phrase originated as a neologism in 1997 at the time of the founding of Quivira. Actually, as Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's 2001 book, The Radical Center, makes clear, the phrase dates back several decades. It was first used in a sense we would recognize today as describing the views of George Wallace and his movement in 1968; that might be characterized as Right-leaning RC. Left-leaning RC dates to the 1990s and is most associated with Tony Blair's "Third Way" politics or its free-standing derivatives. The first use of the phrase in the much the sense that contemporary political Radical Centrists use those words dates to Marilyn Ferguson's 1980 book, The Aquarian Conspiracy, where it is discussed in several pages of text. Mark Satin, who was a friend of Marilyn Ferguson, used the phrase "Radical Middle" to mean the same thing, also starting in the 1990s; I began using the words Radical Centrism some time in 1995 on the basis of an article in Utne Reader. . . Some citations from the book about Radical Centrism to provide you with the Quivira Coalition's understanding: . Pages 6 and 7 tell is that the Quivira idea started as an outgrowth of the "New Ranch" movement of the 90s, based on the idea that progressive ranching was not only possible but necessary. This meant that the "natural processes that sustain wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and functioning watersheds are the same processes that make land productive for livestock." . "The New Ranch was part of a burgeoning movement in the American West called the "radical center." The Sufi poet Rumi once used the concept "beyond wrongdoing and rightdoing," and, according to White, this is a the heart of RC; that is, traditional rightness and wrongness may have nothing at all to do with best practices in the here-and-now. "Radical centrist nonprofits and collaborative watershed groups of all sizes grew and spread across the West like wildfire, culminating in a vastly changed political, economic, and ecological landscape in only a few years." . The Quivira idea was based on the virtue of activism and exploring new alternatives to search for best answers to the questions that really matter to Westerners: "We vowed to avoid lawsuits and legislation, sticking instead to the grassroots." Hence "in early 2003, we gave the radical center a voice when twenty ranchers, conservationists and scientists gathered in a hotel ballroom in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to craft a document that we originally called a 'Declaration of Interdependence' [that title had been used by a futurist group back in 1975] but ultimately titled "An Invitation to Join the Radical Center." The effect exceeded anything anyone had anticipated. Very soon thereafter "the radical center was energized on multiple fronts" throughout the region; it was an idea whose time had come. . It was all so simple: "Solutions exist if we're willing to work together and try new ideas" -plus rethink some old ideas in new contexts. Radical Centrism was born as a philosophy of community co-operation, and a co-operative system could be created if people rejected the perceived necessity to fight over every issue. What is the point of asserting one's ego whenever the opportunity presents itself? Far better to seek to find useful answers to difficult real world questions. . Pages 162 - 164 provide a pledge from the Radical Center. Among other principles the pledge promises to: * work constructively with people who live on the land that environmentalists seek to protect, * not worry about procedures an, instead, focus on "the production of tangible results," * make sure, as much as possible, that researchers will "make their work more relevant to broader constituencies, * see to it that "the public recognizes and rewards those who maintain and improve the health of the land," and * ensure that everyone involved "learn better how to share both authority and responsibility." . This is an image of "the ranks of the Radical Center" increasing both in numbers and effectiveness so that RC offers people an "image of the future" that shows us all what a beautiful place America can be, because in many ways it still is exactly that regardless of our imperfections. . The pledge was signed by people of diverse backgrounds, Jim Brown an ecologist at the University of New Mexico, Kris Havstad a supervisory scientist at the USDA ARS/ Jornada Experimental Range, Rick Knight a professor of wildlife biology at Colorado State University, Gary Paul Nabhan the director of the Center for Sustainable Environments at Northern Arizona University, Duke Phillips a rancher, Nathan Sayre an anthropologist, and Bill Weeks of the Nature Conservancy, among others. A complete list is provided in the book. . What does "Radical Center" mean to the Quivira Coalition? According to Bill McDonald of the Malpai Borderlands Group, "radical" signifies a challenge to orthodoxies that make progress difficult or impossible. Included was the 'orthodoxy -the belief- shared by people on both sides of the divide but especially by environmentalists that "conservation and ranching were part of a zero sum game, viz, "we win, you lose." That kind of view must be rejected outright in almost all cases. "Center" refers to the "pragmatic middle ground between extremes." Hence center also means the desirability of "partnerships, respect, and trust. But most of all, the center meant action -a plan signed, a prescribed fire lit, a workshop held, a hand shook." All of which was about actually "working in the radical center" and "walking the walk." The idea was to unite people, to bring them together for common purpose, not to divide them. . This not only is good policy in terms of what may be called human relations, it follows from a sense of urgency about the era of crisis in which we now live. There simply isn't time enough to theorize our way through all of the problems we face. We need to go with the best ideas we've got and see what works and what does not and take things one step at a time. We need education but we don't need perpetual study because there are more and more problems almost ever day. What is most needed are people willing to make good use of their education -which may mean years of hard won experience- to do whatever they can to make things right in the world. This means service to others as part of one's self-interest. To state it in slightly different terms it is the Golden Rule -"do unto others"- for the 21st century. . Ultimately, as page 29 puts it, what we are up against is the "near complete failure of our ethics." The dominant forces in society have essentially thrown away the morals, laws, customs, and "cultural checks" that have held us together as a people for all the years since 1776. We may not get another chance to fix the gigantic mess that has become pervasive in our time. While the book does not put it this way, one sense it gives the reader is that it is "now or never." We are rapidly running out of time. . Also for sure, the laissez faire doctrines that insist that all would be well if we simply let the market work its magic are false to the facts. That is not how things happen in the real world. The book quotes Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post to make the point: . "The past twenty years have provided ample evidence that uncontrolled flows of private capital have created massive booms and busts that have overwhelmed the financial system and destabilized the global economy. The booms have misallocated capital, widened the gulf between rich and poor, and eroded the norms of behavior that had contributed to social and political harmony." American style Capitalism, for all the good it can do and often does, obviously has a dark side that isn't merely a realm of shadows but a system that breeds inefficiency and injustice. "It rewards manipulation over innovation and speculation over genuine value creation... And now, through the marvel of global financial markets, they [finance marketeers] have spread their toxic culture and products to economies across the globe." . All of this while libertarians were selling the nostrum that it was all in our self-interest since, of course, the market, any market, is God. . Not that this critique is without its own problems. It overlooks the part played by government misallocation of capital -think Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and Barney Frank- and it short shrifts some rather dramatic government screw-ups like the $500+ million squandered on the Solyndra Corporation that went bankrupt in six years. Solyndra was the recipient of money in the form of a loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department with the help of Barack Obama, who touted the company as a harbinger of a new and brighter future; this was one of those "see what can be done under the administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" moments. Instead it was a dismal failure and none of that money ($0.00) was recovered -with the also enthusiastic state of California losing another $25 million in the bargain. . There is plenty of blame to go around, in other words. Massive discredit is due to the Left as well as the Right. But Courtney White's diagnosis is on target; the Capitalist system is fallible and any pretense to another effect, that it is perfect, is total rubbish. Libertarians do not see where there are any problems no matter how catastrophic the outcome of market processes may get. Radical Centrists, who certainly prefer market solutions to problems, know full well that sometimes that simply is not a possibility, the market may be structurally defective, and take the view that therefore we need to fix the market to make it work right. . . There is much more in The Age of Consequences but these comments should provide a reasonable overview of its contents. It should be obvious that the values of Quivira and our group are congruent in many ways. I do not know if quantification of the similarities is useful, and it is no better than an educated guess, but it would seem as if we are in basic agreement most of the time, maybe even 90% of the time although that may be excessive since there are some differences that will be discussed momentarily. But certainly there is a great deal to admire in the work of Quivira. In spirit, as we see the world, we are pretty much on the same page. . There are two questions that should be asked about Radical Centrism and the Quivira Coalition; these are: (1) What can our group learn from Quivira, and (2) what can Quivira learn from [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ? . In part, the first question has been answered in the course of this review. The practicality of the coalition is what is so impressive. And here we are 12 years since the founding of our group and we still do not have a seriously practical program or 'product' to make available to other people. Not that we have not tried. Several hopeful approaches have come and gone. And we are trying again; indeed, the kind of people we are, we will keep on trying until, finally, we do have something objectively valuable to offer others. . Yet there is one star that shines in the RC.org firmament, the professional work accomplished by "our man in Montana," Chris, who has combined his various interests, which include a Radical Centrist outlook, to provide family counseling services to people who need to reconcile differences, whether husbands and wives or families more generally. . One possibility we are currently looking into is whether the group at large can learn enough from Chris to develop a program around counseling, negotiation, conflict resolution, and negotiation. He has been at this for several years already and has professional skills that no-one can learn without an investment of time and study. . The problem, to call it that, is that each of the stalwarts in the group has their own professional interests -as you would expect from a former college teacher (myself), a computer marketing specialist (Ernie, our illustrious founder), political administration in another case, a mature-age college student nearing graduation with a background in broadcast radio and community television, and so forth. The one common thread in many cases is some kind of computer specialization; maybe half the members of the group are professionals is the field, including a top notch programmer. There certainly is a pool of talent if we ever could get organized in a productive way. . However, we lack focus, which the example of Quivira makes all-too-clear. They have it, we do not, and they have accomplished real world projects of many kinds and we have not, it is as simple as that.. . But don't count us out, that would be a really bad idea. . Given the disparity is there anything Quivira can learn from us? The answer is "it depends." Here is where a major difference comes into play. For while Quivira eschews politics, our group thrives on political discussion. And while Quivira seeks solutions that work around mainstream politics, our interests all along have been doing whatever we can to upset the political applecart. No-one in our group thinks that the political establishment deserves our respect, at least generally even if there are case-by-case exceptions. . Essentially, while nothing has come of it so far, our goal is to eventually mobilize Independent voters to create a new kind of politics that actually matters in the world and that transcends the system that is now in place that serves the interests of two large political parties that are so deeply flawed that neither does anyone much good. . But we are reformers, not rebels in the street. We seek the success of America not its downfall. Its just that we don't see any possibility of the kind of success we are after as long as we are beholden to two large dysfunctional political parties. There are different estimates but one figure that seems about right is that 40% of the electorate consists of Independents. My sense of things is that because a significant number of Indies are "soft" in their convictions the real tally is more like one-third of all voters, but in any case what we want is a system that reflects the actual sentiments of American citizens and features a prominent place in it for Independent voices. . It is essential to break the power of today's duopoly. . OR to convince enough political leaders within the major parties that it would serve their best interests to reform their organizations into Radical Centrist parties. About which, there is some reason to think it can be done. He is only one example but Virginia Senator Mark Warner calls himself a Radical Centrist and although he has gotten almost no support at all from the Democratic Party he has persevered and, just maybe, he will be more successful at what he is trying to do during the four years remaining in his second term in office. Incidentally, Warner has no connection to RC.org. His association seems to be with the New America Foundation, which is an altogether different group and much more favorably disposed to the existing political establishment than we are. We regard New America mostly favorably but it is clear to us that its people represent what may be called the "Democratic Party Lite." We are not that at all, we are Independents, strait up, no chaser. . To further contrast our group with Quivira it might also be noted that in the area of environmentalism we are babes in the woods. This is not in the least doubt. However, which is important objectively and also because Courtney White's book makes an issue out of it, is the fact that there is a huge issue that the coalition, so far, has hardly addressed at all, social and values questions. In this area -this seems to be a fair assessment- the roles are reversed, with Quivira being the babes in the woods. Or so it may be surmised to the extent that White's comments on social issues are typical. If they are, Quivira is very naive and could use a good deal of education. . That is, as crucial as environmental issues are, this is anything but the only major concern for us as Americans. In case you have not noticed, we are under a threat as great as Fascism in the 1930s, namely Islam. Muslim religion is an ideology that is anti-American in character from start to finish. But in tandem with that is a threat from within, namely the secular political religion of the Left. You could see this in operation most clearly during the 2008 election campaign of Barack Obama but it takes many forms including male-bashing feminism, political correctness ideology that infects colleges from coast to coast, and the left's sacralization of the various minorities that make up its voting bloc. That is, it is nearly impossible to make objective criticisms of any of those groups -doing so is off limits, verboten, and deserving of censure. All this while the Left has become the driving force behind contemporary ant-Semitism. . None of this excuses the ignorance and narrow minded perspective of much of the political Right. This is not -be assured- some sort of screed on behalf of the Republican Party. Speaking personally, it now looks like I may vote for a minor party candidate for president this November. I cannot stand any of the leading GOP contenders and if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination I could not possibly vote for her. Yet in 2016 the weight of the problems is on the Left, that is not in contention. And it is the Left that most coddles Islam and valorizes criminals like Trayvon Martin as if a hoodlum deserves the kind of respect once due only to real leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. . And then there is the movie industry -which has done more to undermine American culture than just about everything else added up. What we need are great films like, for example, How the West Was Won. What we get are travesties like Brokeback Mountain based on in your face anti-family values. You could say almost the same thing about the news media, which dispenses political propaganda 24/7 that is biased, dishonest, and so highly selective in its coverage that it is some kind of joke to call it news at all. . These are the kinds of issues we have spent a great deal of time on in the past decade and more. About which we have substantial information at our disposal. And expertise. Concerning religion in general and Islam in particular, for instance, I bring a background in teaching (among other things) Comparative Religion. My good friend Barry once hosted a weekly TV show called "Islam Today," in which he covered the news about Muhammad's religion from around the world. . On these kinds of issues we know what we are talking about. Nothing we say reflects the poorly informed view of the Religious Right. Yet we are Radical Centrists; the political Left will find almost nothing at all that they currently regard so favorably. Indeed, as far as we are concerned, what the Left regards favorably in these areas we look upon with horror. . Most of the group are modern Evangelicals; however, there is a cross section of faiths, certainly when adding lurkers. We are anything but racially biased; our founder has India heritage, in appearance might be right at home in Bangalore, but he is a Chicagoan by birth and now a Californian. There is also Spanish/Latino background in the mix although, despite my name, this does not include me since this reflects my step father, who was Filipino. . Courtney White's book also discusses Native Americans. For what it may be worth, twice I taught a course on the history of Southeastern American Indians, viz, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creeks, Seminoles, and others. . The book talks a good deal about places in the West. Many are locations with which I am quite familiar. I've lived in Oregon about 18 years, about 17 years in Arizona (mostly Tempe, Flagstaff, Phoenix), 5 years in the state of Washington and another 5 in California, plus a half year in New Mexico -where I was a graphic artist and writer for the now deceased New Mexico Independent newspaper of Albuquerque. Also spent a little time in Colorado and Utah. . About New Mexico, in case the reader has the view that "of course" the only attitude to take concerning sexual deviancy is that of the political Left, that homosexuality necessarily is as civil rights issue, be advised that (1) there never -ever- has been an open debate on this matter, not even once, the media will not allow it, and (2) evidence for the strongest possible case that homosexuality is a psychological sickness, can be found in abundance in a 2000 book by New Mexico attorney O.R. Adams, As We Sodomize America. My detailed review of the book appears at Adam's site, American Traditions. He is not a Radical Centrist he is best described as an "old fashioned" Christian, but his 700 page book on the subject essentially is a 400 page legal brief with 300 pages of religious commentary. I do not recommend the commentary but regard the legal brief as a gold mine. Whatever views you have on the issue will be replaced by those of Adams if you actually read his book. . But here the issue is Courtney White's 2015 book, The Age of Consequences. It is must reading for Radical Centrists. Yes, it has some limitations, but there is noting like it on the market and it opens windows of understanding into the history of the Quivira Coalition that, quite simply, are indispensable. Most of all the book takes you into the future as the Quivira Coalition sees it and wants it to become. .
-- -- 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.
