Hi Billy, Nice! I really liked the second half. The first half was a bit too polemic for my taste.
E Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2016, at 13:16, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > The following narrative is derived from examples of the preferred narratives > or Leftists and Rightists as developed by Jonathan Haidt and shown on > Youtube with nicely done short films. > > This said, (1) there should be a much shorter version , or an altogether > different > version -modeled after the Parables in the Bible, which are all classics of > moral literature. However, that is for some other time. For now the > objective was to write out a brief historical narrative along lines > suggested by Haidt. (2) This is still rough and needs some work > before it is ready for prime time. But it may be of interest as is > and I am wide open to criticisms and suggestions. > > BR > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Radical Centrist Narrative: > > The Story of Radical Centrism > . > During the 1990s we had a political system which could be described as > one body with two heads. Concerning issue after issue there was little > difference > between Republicans and Democrats; not because everyone shared good ideas > but because of the opposite. Hence the two major parties agreed to gut the > Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which had, until then, kept the brakes on finance > capital, making it next-to-impossible for the abuses that allowed the crash > of 2008 > to happen in the first place. > . > The two parties also agreed to revise communications law not only to regulate > new technologies, which was needed, but to stimulate competition in the > marketplace so that consumers would have greater choices and pay better rates > for services. Instead, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave us increased > consolidation of media empires with fewer and fewer owners of communications > companies, an effect sometimes called "corporate welfare." > . > Then there was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which did absolutely nothing > that mattered to actually balance the budget. > . > There was also the unnecessary Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act > which increased penalties for crimes motivated by bias of different kinds. > While there may be little question about prejudice in a small percentage > of crimes, this law presumed that judges and juries consist of people > trained in psychology who make inerrant decisions about inner motivation, > a conclusion that is ludicrous on the face of it. But both Democrats and > Republicans decided that this was a good idea. > . > Meanwhile leaders of both parties looked on passively as illegal immigration > primarily from Mexico accelerated throughout the decade, swamping some > American cities with huge numbers of illegal aliens. > . > The election of 2000 changed the picture, with Democrats unable to > reconcile themselves to the 'rube' in the White House, George W Bush, > who was promptly demonized -along with demonization of religious > views associated with his version of conservatism. Republicans in turn, > decided that deficit spending was the ideal way to finance government, > that is, borrow trillions of dollars, especially from the Chinese. > . > The came 9/11 and a temporary meeting of the minds on the need to > enhance security and fight terrorism -never named for what it was and is, > Islamic terrorism, a function of Muslim religion per se. But this led to > a complete breech between the parties after 2003 when the administration > hopelessly mismanaged the occupation of Iraq because of its laissez faire > philosophy and unwillingness to face on-the-ground realities The solution > to this problem proposed by many Democrats was retreat, abandonment > of the country and, along with that, increasing expressions of anti-Zionist > sentiment which , of course, gave support to a rising tide of anti-Semitism > on the American political Left. The mainstream media continued > to blame the Right for anti-Semitism. > . > The economic meltdown of 2008 completed the process of complete separation > of the two parties into deadly enemies. The Republican ticket, which was ahead > in polls by as much as 5% before the crash, fell behind by 7% afterward, and > lost. > . > The stage was set for the rise of reverse racist politics led by demagogues > like Al Sharpton, it was set for appeasement of Muslims around the world > and in the United States -at the expense of Jews and Christians- and > it was set for the 2011 abandonment of Iraq to the forces of the Islamic State > within approximately two years. Meanwhile almost nothing was done to > bring the economic criminals who were responsible for the 2008 meltdown > to justice, none of whom were punished in any meaningful way except, > in a few cases, with fines they had no trouble paying. > . > Simultaneously, both Democrats and establishment Republicans were busy > capitulating to homosexual demands, no-one doing the least research into > to psychopathological character of homosexuality, on the grounds that > the only conceivable way to deal with the issue was in terms of "justice" > -as if vast quantities of empirical research findings to the effect that > homosexuality is a deleterious personality disorder did not exist.. > Republican opposition was almost exclusively confined to religious > argument based on the Bible -a book that believers had not researched in > any depth either, most Christians and Jews blissfully unaware of the many > passages in the Holy Book that unequivocally condemn same sex sexuality. > In any case, such argument has almost no weight in matters of > public policy. > . > This state of affairs was made possible on the Republican side by infiltration > of the party and of conservatism more generally by libertarians, people > who are the ultimate reductionists and who see all issues in terms > of the hopelessly simplistic view that freedom is a universal solvent > for all problems. What this does, of course, is to excuse people from > actually making themselves informed on any subject that is important. > . > There is more, this is only a sketch, but it must be added that both > parties, as much as possible, ignored or deflected major protest > movements that broke out in 2010 and after, the Tea Party and > Occupy Wall Street. Both parties also tried to ignore the rise in > numbers of Independent voters, by some estimates now 40% of > the electorate. Nearly all of these people are shut out of > the political process. > . > All of which should tell you that, as things are, we have had no real choice > but to acquiesce in duopoly politics, a system that is dysfunctional at its > core. > This must end. > . > It has been more than 50 years since we have lived in a political system > that gave Americans good alternatives in their ballot choices, speaking > of the Eisenhower / Stevenson showdowns in the 1950s. After JFK > there were no good choices for either major party. This means all > the national elections from 1964 onwards. > . > It is not at all mysterious why, in the past decades, the numbers of > Independent > voters has steadily increased from about 20% in the 'sixties to twice that > today. > . > Thinking people began to search for an alternative as soon as the breakdown > in the political system became unmistakably clear. And with the 1980 > publication of Marilyn Ferguson's The Aquarian Conspiracy, we had > the first expression of a new political philosophy that would come to > be known as Radical Centrism. > . > There were similar problems in Europe in the 1990s and out of that came > a political philosophy known as the Third Way -which, for a time, > was made use of by Tony Blair and the British Labour Party. However, > while various Third Way views would continue to be relevant, such > as the need to borrow ideas from your opposition to ensure that your party > always advances the best available programs, this kind of politics > was closely associated with the political establishment and could > not shake the need to compromise with monied special interests. > . > Late in the decade there were two important developments in the USA > that took the concept of Radical Centrism further, the rise of what may > be called rancher / business environmentalism that led to the creation > of the Quivira Coalition mostly in the America West, which now has > approximately 50,000 members, and the establishment of the > New America Foundation -in affiliation with The Atlantic magazine. > New America is lavishly funded, among others by Bill Gates and > Warren Buffet, but is closely related to the now more-or-less > defunct Third Way in Europe. Although New America has > produced some superlative scholarship it remains what it was > from its beginning, the Democratic Party Lite. Its main contribution > to actual Radical Centrist philosophy has been to spotlight the need > to "think outside the box," to be creative, work with original ideas > and rethink the issues we most need to solve. > . > One other development of note was the rise of several unaffiliated > RC websites, the most important of which was Radical Middle Newsletter > founded by Mark Satin, whose views were a direct continuation > of the concepts that Marilyn Ferguson had conceived. > . > By 2004 a new group was founded, originally designated as RadicalCentrism.org. > Commonly known as Centroids, it is this is kind of Radical Centrism which > can claim to be genuinely Radical Centrist in ways that none of the others > that use the phrase can be. Centroids -sometimes called West Coast > Radical Centrists- mix hard Right and hard Left positions together to try and > find the very best ideas available to solve our most important political > problems. > This is not a matter of compromise or half steps toward a moderate middle. > . > For Centroids it is a virtue of the highest order to mix and match strong > ideas chosen from Left and Right to invent a new kind of politics that > does not care about ideological purity. This is cafeteria politics as virtuous > politics because we need the best ideas of Right and Left -we certainly do > when they are combined in a balance that does not favor liberal views > more than conservative views or vice versa. > . > However, Centroids Radical Centrists also regard it as essential to think > creatively, to try and develop new and original ideas that defy classification > as Right or Left. And for this reason Centroids also feel free to borrow > as needed from third parties of almost any description, from the Greens > to the Constitution Party. > . > What is Radical Centrism all about? The whole concept can be thought of > very simply: Our objective is to reanimate the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt > and his independent politics of 1912 -everything brought up-to-date and > rethought for the 21st century. Our focus, like that of Teddy Roosevelt, > is on the future. Today's existing parties are obsolete and if they do not > completely remake themselves our goal is to create a new movement > that will result in the revival of Teddy Roosevelt's politics for > modern-day America. We need nothing less. > . > We need honesty in politics, intelligence in politics, and decent values > that are based on the best that America has been in its history. Most of all > we need to have a clear idea of the kind of future we most need > as exceptional among the nations. American needs to lead the world, > but for that we need to re-educate ourselves in just about every area of life. > We need to create the best future we can possibly build for ourselves > as a beacon to the world -starting now. > . > . > . > Billy Rojas > . > May 31, 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. -- -- 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.
