Part # 2
Creating a Philosophy of Life
These are the problems facing Radical Centrists today. And there aren't
very many
of us, a few voices in the wilderness, and that, for now, is all there are.
So, what do we do? How can we become effective in at least some sense
of the word? What are our options?
There aren't any "good" answers to these questions. We need to live with
this fact.
But we can make the most of the bits and pieces of answers that can be
identified, maybe, with time, building a system of ideas that does, indeed,
start the process of problem solving.
This is a start toward creation of a personal philosophy based on the
principles
of Radical Centrism but it is only a beginning. There needs to be much
more,
a full fledged philosophy requires its own theory of knowledge, its own
solutions to a number of problems of thought and of human psychology.
But it is a beginning, it is something to add to, to build upon, to
offer criticisms of and offer new recommendations for.
There needs to be a Radical Centrist philosophy of achievement for
independent
thinkers -who also are political Independents. We are, when all is said,
a philosophical movement before anything else. Radical Centrism is a
political
philosophy based on choosing and combining the best concepts from almost
any
system of ideas -essentially only totalitarian ideologies and various
pathologies
like nihilism and homosexuality are excluded. And Radical Centrism places
a premium on original thought, on contrarian views of the world, since
conformism
is dysfunctional by its nature, so we must base our lives on seeking the
new,
on exploration of ideas, and upon creativity. But all of this follows from
philosophical premises.
The prime example of a model we might use as an inspiration, of course, is
Socrates.
And there are a few others -whether or not we agree with some of what
they said,
intellects from different periods in history, for example Lao Tzu,
Spinoza, Voltaire,
Condorcet, David Hume, Dostoevsky, and Charles Saunders Peirce. We might
add Pythagoras to the list if we knew more about his life, which now
exists
moreso as mythology rather than historical fact, or Buddhist thinker
Dignaga,
about whom much the same can be said, but all told there aren't many such
men.
Among women there are even fewer, Diotima, Hypatia, and Hannah Adams,
among them. Yet even these names remind us that there are alternatives
to ineffectiveness despite powerlessness.
.
Plus there have been independent minds from whom to derive inspiration
although
they worked in other fields of endeavor rather than some form of philosophy
or, like Hannah Adams, what might be called philosophy of religion. We can
look to the examples of Van Gogh or Gaugin in the visual arts, Gaudi or
Bruce Goff in architecture, maybe Gershwin in classical music despite the
fact that he started out as a complete novice in the genre as someone
who was originally a pop music song writer. In literature there was
Kafka, in poetry Edgar Allen Poe. And still others.
In so many words, we have our talents, our imagination, and our knowledge
to work with; we can be resourceful with what we do have.
And, in a way, we don't need to be entirely alone.
In my writings you may have noticed that I frequently mention the names
of people whom I respect, who have contributed to my ideas, whom I think
deserve greater recognition than they now have. If they are not well known
that doesn't matter; what counts is the quality of their ideas. The point
that
I try to get across is that in dealing with me, people are dealing with
everyone who has influenced me. In effect a team. I do not demand
that people I cite agree with my views up and down the line, just that,
on some particular issues, they make really good sense, they deserve
to be heard, they have said something with genuine value.
It is in our self interest to help other people who share our values.
When they don't share some of our values but do share others it isn't
all that difficult to make the distinction. But it is important to promote
good people, to give them a boost, to contribute to their successes.
Yet most people, including some who self identify with Radical Centrism,
seem to believe that life is a zero sum game and that if they help others
they are undermining their own successes. The exact opposite is the truth.
.
For all of the criticisms that can legitimately be made about H.L.
Mencken,
and there are many, one thing he understood with the greatest possible
clarity
was a lesson that contemporary libertarian followers of his usually don't
get
at all: The virtue of helping others. Mencken took pride in identifying
new
talent, giving talented but unknown writers a break, or in resurrecting the
reputations of long forgotten scriveners and making them popular in modern
American culture, the way, for example, he brought Mark Twain back to life.
You can say, with some justification, that at least the CATO Institute has
internalized the values of Mencken, but there sure in hell are few other
libertarians who are in this category. Study after study tells the same
story:
Libertarians put themselves as individuals before everyone else, they
lionize
self-centeredness above and beyond the call of duty, and have little
sense of the value of community. "Anything goes" is their motto, and
while there
actually are a scattered few religious believers in this demographic, the
general
rule they follow is "to hell with religious faith," and "who need morality
anyway?"
As for other people, libertarians see no reason to help others succeed in
life,
no reason to build up the community, and no reason to do anything
except promote the idea that we would all be better off if everyone
lived in isolation from everyone else.
There really are models for a better way to live than that.
What we need to do as Radical Centrists is set a good example.
Promote other people; give credit where credit is due. Take pride in
helping others achieve goals that you regard as contributing to the
good of society. Radical Centrism is based on teamwork even if,
at the moment, you need to work alone. The purpose of our philosophy
is not self aggrandizement, but a better community, better human
relationships,
enabling others to rise to the top, or, anyway, as high as their talents
allow them to progress. Let people know who you admire and
in whom you find genuine value.
However, how many people -including some whom I cite fairly often,
mention me? Almost none. Among published writers the only name
that stands out is O.R. Adams. Among people who at least host
relevant blogs, Ernie is the great exception; Barry is another.
There is almost no-one else.
.
Sometimes you need to live with sickening facts. But you continue on,
regardless. There isn't some other choice. And there isn't a superior
philosophy to stand for than Radical Centrism. In the future, with success,
you can be certain that there will be new friends. Those who treated you
like dirt in the past can then be forgotten and left out of your life.
.
Which is to say that Radical Centrism is not based on public opinion
popularity contests. Until success finally happens you need to live with
unpopularity. That is exactly what is necessary.
.
The whole point of "RC" is identifying the truth; popularity isn't
meaningless
but it isn't essential. The whole point is evangelizing for the truth and
if this
also means uncompromising criticism of enemies of the truth, that is what
you must do. These enemies may be overtly hostile, like Leftists or
Anarchists, but this may also be to speak of ersatz-friends, people who
might even be friendly towards you but who invariably put themselves
first, last and always, seldom if ever reciprocating anything you do
on their behalf, regarding you as someone to exploit, who simply
don't care about any success you may deserve and may have
worked for, maybe over the course of many years.
Harry Truman once said "it is amazing how much you can get done
if you don't care who gets the credit." Radical Centrists should never
forget
this maxim. But we need to take it one step further. We should make sure
to spread credit around, to give recognition to others in all cases where
they actually deserve it. Yet we also need to look out for our own
interests.
If someone else doesn't give you the recognition you deserve, you would be
well advised to tell whomever it is that it is past time for them to
reciprocate
and treat you like a human being; self-centeredness is antithetical
to Radical Centrism.
.
It is also a psychological malfunction that destroys you from within
if you let it. People who never study psychology aren't very smart;
depending on cases they may be emotionally stunted.
.
All of this understood we should focus on the substance of Radical Centrist
philosophy per se.
On this subject I have already written at some length; much of this
material
is accessible at [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected]) . To repeat a few basics,
RC is all about finding the strongest -best- positions taken by each
political
party in America, usually Democrats or Republicans, but certainly not
ignoring minor parties and their ideas, and making these views our own.
As much as possible we should, however, create original solutions to
political issues, and other issues, to approach problems as opportunities
to be creative, to add value to public discussions and debates, and to
not be satisfied with conventional answers to questions. The herd
is usually wrong -and it is wrong as often as it is because most people
are poorly informed, often educated to the wrong things if public policy
is an interest of their's, and unable to think in something other than
Left vs. Right binary categories of thought.
.
You tell me who is more odious: Someone who always votes Democratic
or someone who invariably votes Republican? From the viewpoint of
Radical Centrism it doesn't matter; both are mindless and motivated
by entrenched biases. Growing up in a Democratic Party social
environment I have been most exposed to Democratic political bigots
-who, of course, think of themselves as paragons of enlightened wisdom,
and for whom the GOP has no good ideas whatsoever and consists of
a population of rednecks, ignoramuses, and know-nothings. However,
in more recent years I have met a number of Republicans who are
approximately just as biased against Democrats, who regard Democrats
as a coterie of useless parasites, malcontents, and degenerates.
.
The standing joke among Radical Centrists is that they both are right.
.
However, amidst everything that is wrong, Left or Right, the point must be
made that there are good ideas to pull out from the mix, not just a
few isolated examples. There are many criticisms to make of our elected
officials also, but many are sophisticated professionals with years of
hard won experience in business, the Law, science, medicine, education,
engineering, communications, the military, and many other fields.
If you ever listen to Congressional hearings on C-Span it is hard
not to be impressed. The Radical Centrist view is that there should be
little difficulty in identifying good ideas from both sides -as well as
from
Independents who, as things are, have no voice in American politics.
.
This is fundamental to RC political philosophy.
.
In case you have an interest feel free to look up my annotated list of
50 proposed Constitutional Amendments. This set of ideas is roughly
one-third Left-wing in character, one-third Conservative, and a third
"Other."
All are strong positions, there are no compromise views, there are no
splitting-the-difference proposals. The outcome, the balance struck,
is Centrist, but the individual ideas are hard Left or hard Right or
uncompromisingly Independent. This is what makes it Radical.
.
Radical Centrists believe that these kinds of ideas are necessary for
productive
politics and for results that people demand of their elected officials.
We have not
been able to publicize our views effectively, plans for a Radical Centrist
online newspaper are still very much alive but lack necessary resources
for implementation. Trying to do everything on a shoestring simply
isn't practical, so it is necessary to think about alternatives. And,
candidly,
some members of our group have not been sufficiently convinced of
the long range value of Radical Centrism as a force for change that
can actually make real world difference. Therefore, the considerable
potential in RC political proposals has not really been tested.
.
The result has been retrenchment from necessity. How do you convince
people to invest in Radical Centrist ideas? And I cannot fund much
of anything on what is left over from a $12,000 retirement income.
Which says that, for now, there are no good political action options.
Bootstraps preachments are stupid beyond belief in my humble
opinion and attempts to launch major projects are out of the question.
What is available nonetheless is the "Socrates alternative."
.
For it turns out that the principles of Radical Centrist political
philosophy
make perfectly good sense in a personal context. RC offers a set of ideas
that have practical value in formulating a philosophy of life for the
individual.
This is totally obvious to anyone who has genuinely internalized RC
philosophy.
.
The issue is whether one has actually internalized that philosophy. This is
not
about effecting change on the political margins, a little at a time, it is
not about
being "realistic." That approach is death to an actually radical new
philosophy.
That approach consists of playing by everyone else's rules, it depends on
being cautious, it depends on putting 'practical reputation' above
risk-taking
and commitment, and it depends on hedging one's bets.
However, the best way to look at Radical Centrism is to ask the question:
"Are you in it all the way, or not?" If the honest answer is, "well, not
really,
I have more interest in other things, in making money, in seeking to climb
the ladder in a local political organization, in trying to become a
successful
businessman," etc., then there cannot be the kind of commitment necessary
to take bold steps outside 'normal' middle class life.
This does not say that these things are"bad" in any way. Quite the
contrary,
they may be regarded as essential and necessary -and for good reason.
There should be no need to spell it all out; people do need to survive
in the cruel world. And as things are there are no Radical Centrist
institutions, no RC organizations that can pay anyone a salary,
the whole thing is "chancy." Most people, even those who do have
enough imagination to foresee the potential in Radical Centrist ideas,
believe they have no good options but to play it safe. But the trouble
is that such an outlook virtually guarantees failure.
To get a visionary new political cause off the ground requires a
vision of the future that is unshakable. It requires a burning desire
to achieve the goal of making the possibilities inherent in Radical
Centrism
into realities. This cannot be a hobby, or a pastime. It has to mean
going all in, total commitment, nothing less.
.
Columbus did not discover America by playing it safe and not venturing
his ships out of sight of land. Marco Polo did not reach fabled Cathay by
traveling "first class" in merchant caravans. Hell, some of the time he
lived
on almost nothing, he braved storms and hardships, sometimes months
on end. It was the same story for many other explorers known to history.
They put their lives on the line -and some failed miserably. They all knew
there were no guarantees.
.
We are not discussing start-ups in a garage, which, contrary to mythology,
have never been zero funding operations. Some, in fact, like the beginnings
of Google, started off with hundreds of thousand of dollars to work with.
At that, the nearest thing to institutional RC that exists, the New America
Foundation, operates on a multi-million dollar budget. It is underwritten
by billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, plus a host of other
business executives, leaders in the world of foundations, well known
experts of DC government, and the like.
Our group, which we sometimes refer to as RC.org, after its original URL
designation, could never match those kinds of resources but at least
the members, or some of them, have contacts in the business world.
You would think that a minimum level of investment could have been
cobbled together; and there never was any question about our abilities
to create well thought-out business proposals to make the group
accountable.
But no-one was ever willing to do any such thing, to talk with others
who might have and interest, use their contacts to best effect, who might
have found people who think our ideas are really very good and worth
investing in. There might have been realistic resources available and
plans that could have been funded to see what could happen but that
never happened. Instead, because of dearth of commitment,
we have remained stuck on "Go."
All of which says that the future of Radical Centrism depends on one man,
and that is me.
Given my limitations, what is possible?
Just one thing, certainly just one thing for the foreseeable future:
Development
of a practical philosophy at the level of a private citizen, a philosophy
that is
founded on ideas that are parallel to those of RC political philosophy.
Of course, there might be more than one man who gets this going. But I will
admit that some of my standard procedures may puzzle others and make
them uncomfortable. For example, I regard it as a virtue to be transparent,
to be honest about one's feelings and tell others what your feelings really
are.
This is a legacy of the time I was an encounter group facilitator, trained
in Humanistic Psychology. Most people, however, are clueless about what
that is and, in any case, regard transparency as some kind of weakness
to be avoided at all costs. But I cannot operate if people around me
harbor endless secrets, always hold their cards close to their vest,
and habitually retreat from open and honest discussion.
.
Regardless, I continue on, whatever happens or is prevented from happening.
Because, like many people, I have my share of enemies, disclosing each
and every idea in my mind would not be very smart, but at least whatever
is possible and whatever seems necessary to ensure that others know
that what they get from me is truthfulness as much as that can be done.
.
Lesson number 1, therefore, is that you are better off personally, even if
you
influence no-one else, by being honest about your options. This has clear
self advantage. The best way to do this is not abstractly, a reminder to
yourself
to be truthful, because your brain may interpret that kind of maxim as
no different than a directive to supply you with information that confirms
your
pre-existing biases. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has observed,
that is what your brain ordinarily does. You may think that you are being
objective because you believe your own self-generated propaganda,
but that is not what is going on. Instead, the rational part of your brain
mostly serves the interest of your dispositions. Your pre-existing values
are reinforced nearly all of the time; actual objectivity is a rare
commodity.
Our brains are "confirmation bias" machines.
There are at least four ways out of this morass; three are methods that
Radical Centrists have borrowed from elsewhere, one is unique to RC itself
even though it has its origins in what is known as "classical liberal"
philosophy
of the 19th century -and to make sure this is understood, that kind of
liberalism is essentially unrelated to left-wing pseudo-liberalism as
found
in the contemporary Democratic Party. The two methods are:
.
1. Scientific method, formulating an hypothesis and then testing it against
hard evidence. It also is necessary to try find counter-examples,
to seek 'wrong results' not only the results you want to find. What have
you
left out of consideration? What are the weaknesses in your theory?
This can also be considered to be a problem in engineering.
You want to build a bridge that spans a major river; it is crucial
to identify everything that could go wrong and make sure that
all problems identified are taken into account and corrected for.
Political ideologues never do any such thing.
.
2. Journalistic method, which requires multiple sources of information;
one source is never enough. The absolute minimum is two sources but
that small number of cases leaves room for error that is unacceptable
for many purposes. It is far better to have three or more sources
so that any discrepancies in information can be allowed for and
factored into your calculations -or recommendations. This can also
be thought of a public opinion survey method in which a sample size
is made use of that statistically should be representative of the
population you wish to generalize about.
.
3. Classical Liberal principle. This is the view that it is important to
hear
all sides to a dispute, to be as open-minded as you might make yourself,
and to evaluate people's views fairly. This should have the purpose, in any
case,
of furthering progress among people, making their lives better.
Then there is Radical Centrist method; this is qualitative rather then
quantitative.
The objective must be comparison of ideas -or of systems of ideas.
Simply thinking about one system of ideas guarantees bias. This does
not necessarily mean that some one system of beliefs or values is wrong,
but you cannot know unless there are objective comparisons and
you approach the problem with the view that you are very likely to find
good in the views you might otherwise think are bad because of your past
voting preferences, let us say, or past ideological commitments.
Similarly you will likely find bad in what you started out thinking is
essentially
all good. The principle is found in Biblical religion which holds that
Satan
is ubiquitous; the Devil seeks to compromise everything. Hence evil
is mixed in with all things -or so many things that it is wise to take
no chances and be on the lookout for evil at almost all times
-including within yourself.
Think of this as akin to medicine. A doctor is not passing value judgement
on you when he (or she) looks for signs of infection or illness in your
body.
The point is "health insurance." It is best to identify a problem before it
becomes debilitating or deadly. You cannot be sure unless you carry out
all necessary tests and eliminate possible dangers.
There is also a pragmatic dimension to RC. What works? What does not?
How can a conclusion be improved upon? How can we best eliminate
anything dysfunctional from our ideas?
Radical Centrist method tells you to look at both or all sides to any issue
you
may need to deal with. If you actually are a Radical Centrist this becomes
second nature; you would not think of making any kind of decision unless
you
look at all relevant sides to an issue -or problem.
The method is also time sensitive, that is, future consequences are part of
the process. Where do various conclusions lead? How will they play out?
Radical Centrism assumes futurism, in other words.
What is most characteristic, however, is the insistence in Radical Centrism
that
truth seldom resides in only one part of the political spectrum. There are
exceptions, and these can be very important, but even here balance is
part of the equation. The Radical Centrist position on homosexuality
could not be more uncompromising, for instance, complete opposition
to any notion of tolerance towards homosexuality, which is a demonstrable
mental illness with grievous negative effects for everyone concerned.
This is, in other contexts, a "hard Right" political position.
Nonetheless, there is a balance insofar as on another social issue of great
consequence, evolution, Radical Centrists are pro-science without question.
All relevant evidence supports the idea of evolution, and this evidence
-in the form of an extensive fossil record- leaves no room for doubt.
There certainly have been modifications in the theory since the time
of Darwin, who lived before the science of genetics existed, but the
general principles of evolution cannot be doubted unless one chooses
to be wilfully ignorant.
What also follows from this principle is the fact that the findings of
sociobiology
have real world application. To say the least, this helps us in very
practical ways
in deciding what to think about the different behaviors of the sexes, and
about
age appropriate behaviors during the life cycle. Hence a strong sense of
realism
is intrinsic to Radical Centrism.
In this case Radical Centrists affirm a strong Left-wing position -along
with
a strong Right-wing view. And there can be strong negative positions also,
for example clear opposition to climate change denial, a Left-wing view,
but also total opposition to illegal immigration, a position taken by the
Right.
There are also cases where a political position may be both Leftist in
character
and also associated with the Right. This is manifestly the case with
respect to
anti-Semitism, aka "Judaeophobia." About this sickening subject, in
today's
world it is Leftists who most often are anti-Semitic. However, there are
plenty of Right-wingers who share this prejudice, maybe a third of
all anti-Semites.
The Radical Centrist view is one of opposition to both Left and Right on
the
issue, although with the caveat that this does not say that criticism of
individual Jews is verboten. In all cases where individuals of any ethnic
origin merit chastisement that is exactly what they should receive
with no fear that you will be smeared as anti-Semitic (or anti- black,
etc.)
simply because you offer objective criticisms.
But basically anti-Semitism is stupid, not only immoral. It keeps alive
an assortment of medieval European prejudices based on folk mythology,
or it keeps alive various nativist American prejudices, and is totally
unjustifiable. It does not matter who on the Right or on the Left
has anti-Semitic values, anyone who does is a moral cretin.
The point in terms of an individual philosophy of life is that Radical
Centrism
gives you "permission" to combine truths regardless of where these truths
originate or with whom they usually are associated in society. You are not
obliged in any way to follow the party line of Democrats or Republicans
or anyone else. Hence our connection to political Independents;
RC is -or should be- the default philosophy of Independents.
Usually, however, a "typical" Radical Centrist position combines within
itself
elements of Left and Right and sometimes Other. About abortion for
instance,
the RC view, at least as I understand it, is based on the sanctity of life.
This outlook, in the West, is Biblical in origin but is entirely
consistent with
Buddhist philosophy that holds life to be sacred, with Albert Schweitzer's
concept of "reverence for life," and so forth. But unlike most pro-life
advocates
we draw our inspiration from many sources, each of which we regard
as valid and valuable.
However, unlike extreme pro-life advocates, allowance is made for classes
of exceptions, including rape, incest, and, especially, danger to the life
of
the mother. There is no real question that if a choice must be made, the
life
of a pregnant woman or the life of a foetus, that of the woman has
priority.
In any case, other kinds of exceptions should also be allowed, extreme
young age of a female is one example, genetic deformities is another.
What, after all, is remotely moral about bankrupting a family so that
the life of a baby born without a cerebral cortex can be sustained
at outrageous expense over a course of years, knowing that even
these measures cannot save the child from eventual death?
Pro-life absolutism makes no sense whatsoever.
Besides the self-satisfaction you can derive from knowing that the
political views
you make your own are simply the best that anyone can believe in, that is,
are most rational and the most ethical, you can use the ideas that got you
to that place to examine many other areas of private life.
With limited resources you aren't going to be able to change public
opinion
in a significant way, maybe even not at all. You are drowned out. But you
can try to be an influence on other people, one at a time, the way that
Socrates sought to make his truths known to the Athenians.
In terms of immediate effectiveness you may have little to show for your
efforts
but if you are really at the cutting edge of political thought, or other
forms
of thought, you can lead the way. If your "truths" actually are true others
will follow. You can take pride in that much.
Philosophy is that kind of phenomenon where one man -or one woman-
through the power of ideas alone can change the world. The trade-off
is that you may need to sacrifice immediate rewards, even something
of the necessities of biological life. But that alternative, if it comes
to it,
allows you to live without compromise of what is more essential:
Your character as a person.
Radical Centrism is ultimately about character. What kind of person are
you?
What do you really live for?
It is certain that you cannot find the truth and nothing but the truth
through
partisan politics. It is just as certain that it is far better to forget
about
popularity if gaining recognition comes at the cost of your soul, This
adage is
hardly original with me but needs to be repeated because those who are
part of the human herd are all-to-capable of saying these words and then
doing the opposite. After all, what if what really counts even if you never
are
explicit about it, is your $350,000 home, your career, your investments in
the
stock market, and your lifestyle featuring vacations in Colorado, the
Caribbean
or in Europe. None of which is morally "wrong" in any sense, its just that
if the price to pay for these nice things is your integrity, then you
aren't much
of a person. Instead you would be a failure where it matters the most.
What is your life really worth if it is built upon lying to yourself, upon
lying to others about your true feelings, upon accepting values supplied
by others that make you part of a herd, upon endless compromises,
and upon never standing up for principles that you would like to defend
but dare not, because if you did, then you would jeopardize all
of the goodies and status objects that have come to define you?
This is, of course, also a statement of personal feeling. I have known
far too many materialists in my life to think otherwise, however,
and all of them make me sick. It isn't possible to think of a more
shallow class of people. But this is also another reason why I was
attracted to Radical Centrism. It is that philosophy that values
independent mindedness before all else. It is that philosophy
which says that the examples of Socrates, of Cicero, of Schweitzer
and still others matter very much, not as icons of culture, even if they
are exactly that, but as exemplars of a life each of us can choose for
ourselves. Included in this list must be Hannah Adams, strictly speaking
not a philosopher but nonetheless an original thinker and a woman
of deepest integrity.
Maybe it isn't much, but there is, in the ideas of classical-era
philosopher
Boethius, inspiration in philosophy. His book, written in 523 AD,
The Consolation of Philosophy, makes the point that the virtues within you
are what defines you as a person, that determine your true being and your
feelings of worth. Obviously a thinking person should seek more than this
in
life but here is, at least, a minimum that can never be taken away from you
and that can live on long after you are gone. Radical Centrism is also
based
on this outlook, a blend of the best ideas of Christian faith and the
wisdom
of the Greco-Roman world. The concept is that we are "in it" for the
long haul, the really long haul, all future history. You will be
remembered,
if you are remembered at all, for your virtues, not for your Summer cottage
in the woods or your Cadillac.
Boethius was an inspiration to no less than Geoffrey Chaucer, Queen
Elizabeth I,
Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Edward Gibbon, C. S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien,
and a number of other literary figures, plus a multitude of other people,
especially Christians of all eras of time.
This is the fundamental message of Radical Centrism: Make your work so good
that it will last and become a beacon to future generations.
Radical Centrism is the opposite of hack politics. Radical Centrism is a
politics that is constructed on a foundation of philosophy.
Make no mistake, at any time there is opportunity for success in the realm
of practical politics Radical Centrism is also about using that opportunity
to make change happen, to remake culture and everything that follows
from a reborn social contract, but most of all it is about character
and integrity.
It starts with one man plus the truth, it can start with one woman and the
truth
just as well. Existential truth. The truth that really matters.
Compromise any of this? Don't be absurd. To hell with what any of my
detractors
say about me. I'm not about to compromise about anything.
I know exactly where I stand. And everything I stand for is based on
empirical
truth as best as I can identify it. This is the philosophy of Radical
Centrism.
I made my decision long ago, what is yours?
-------------------------------------
Eugene, Oregon
May 9, 2016
--
--
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.
