The Power of Popular Culture Chapter 6 Part # 2 Why Donald Trump seems to be a Radical Centrist but isn't . .
"Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey" as metaphor . Various characterizations have occurred to us in the process of thinking through the implications of a Trump presidency: Trump can be thought of as a "crazy Radical Centrist," as if a Radical Centrist lost his marbles. Or Trump is a drugged-up version of a Radical Centrist, someone who processes everything through a haze of narcotics. But the image of Trump being a "circus funhouse mirror of Radical Centrism" seems to be most appropriate. The figure of speech should be credited to Mike, who thought it up, and it captures our feelings about the man, not always, but just about daily. In any case, it is impossible to ignore Donald Trump. He is in the news every day, doing one questionable thing after another, and, while there is much about him that has positive qualities, he effectively throws water on all the good things that he does by his sloppy thinking, his carelessness with facts, and never-ending inconsistencies. Can anyone make sense of Trump? -Radical Centrists really try even if we are perplexed. As Mike recently asked out of feelings approaching desperation, "how can a force be negative and positive at once?" It can't, but in Donald Trump it is, and cannot be denied. The dilemma for Radical Centrists is how to affirm what is Radical Centrist about Trump while at the same time disavowing everything that is not. The task is made more difficult than it needs to be because with Trump you get immeasurable uncertainty. He is unconventional to such a degree that we really need another word, "contradictory" or "incomprehensible" come to mind. Which is one reason for public confusion about Radical Centrism and Donald Trump. He sometimes is very much like RC. However he also can be completely different. Some similarities: Pragmatic about issues Mixes ideas from Left, Right, and Other No use whatsoever for Political Correctness Populist outlook Skeptical about free trade In favor of maximum religious freedom Willingness to use non-mainstream media to get his points across Concern with breakdown of American culture However, there are a number of major differences. Trump espouses these ideas that are the opposite of the views of Radical Centrists: * Tendency to think in terms of conspiracies, viz.,. at one time he was a "birther," he has complained about non-existent "rigged elections," and he has claimed that vaccinations cause autism -a view that has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. * Trump seems to regard research as an afterthought, far better, in his mind, to express off-the-cuff opinions and deal with fallout from his mistakes later. Related to this is Trump's disinterest in the sciences. * Irresponsible economic policy that, if enacted, would run up the national debt and require massive foreign borrowing to make up shortfalls from tax cuts, and these cuts would mostly favor the rich. In this he is little or no different than Reagan or George W. Bush. * Lack of concern for the environment even if he can hardly be called anti-environment. Yet he has belittled use of renewable energy sources and has nothing much to say about solar power, wind turbines, tidal energy, or anything else. About one environmental issue there is uncertainty. Trump favors the coal industry and has issued the first of several promised executive orders that have the purpose of reviving mining. As long as this means reasonably clean burning with lowest possible sulphur emissions, this view is compatible with that of Radical Centrists. Where RC takes a very strong stand, at least in my interpretation, is in opposition to strip mining in any kind of mountainous country because of the irreparable harm this does to the environment. It isn't clear at all whether Trump makes this kind of distinction About another issue there is some confusion inasmuch as Mr. Trump can be interpreted as having a Radical Centrist outlook which he really does not have. Perhaps you remember Obama's visit to Berlin in 2008. At the time Barack Hussein talked about a bright future where there would be no more 'walls around nations,' both a reference to the obliterated Berlin wall that fell almost two decades previously and to other walls he did not like, especially the Israeli security barrier and fences along the US / Mexican border. This was consistent with Barack Hussein's so-called "cosmopolitanism," so-called because there is a different and authentic version which simply means broad-minded, interested in other cultures, open to relationships regardless of ethnic or racial background, accepting of religions other than one's own, and the like. What Obama had in mind, however, was the eventual abolition of the nation state, erasure of national boundaries, essentially a Left-wing fantasy of brotherhood with none of the conditions that might make any such thing possible. At any rate, Obama gave his florid speech about no walls. It didn't impress anyone except the hopelessly naive. As Jonah Goldberg has said, quoting a source, "it sounded better in the original Esperanto." The point about Donald Trump is that, as he said when speaking before CPAC -the Conservative Political Action Conference- on February 24, 2017, he made it clear that he was an American nationalist. He did not represent the globe, he represented US citizens. Where there may be some confusion is the fact that Radical Centrists -as the terminology is used here- are also nationalists, at least in one sense. Our political philosophy is intended for Americans. If others wish to organize their own versions of RC we would certainly like to help out, but this is not a form of global politics. However, we certainly are not nationalists as that word is generally used in conversation. Ours is new form of "internationalism," even a new form of "Manifest Destiny." While we have never done much with the idea beyond a few e-mail exchanges, the idea is simple enough: A standing invitation to every country in the Western Hemisphere to join the United States as one or several states. In the 19th century the nations of Central America, in fact, asked to join but were turned down by the Congress of that time. Think of it as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine. Of course, there would need to be a period when, say, Honduras, would take the part of a territory, just like Arizona or Colorado once were territories. The people would need to learn English, which is the language of the United States, and governmental institutions would need to become American in character, observing American laws. American business firms would be welcome as well. But to judge by demand on the part of millions of Latin Americans to enter the US, it would seem that this idea has intrinsic appeal. This would apply to Mexico, which might eventually become 15 or more states, in which case there would be no need for a wall at all. This assumes that Mexicans, while still attached to their heritage, would nonetheless become Americans and could look forward to all the rights of US citizens after the various territories, perhaps after a 10 year period of acculturation, would become eligible to join the Union. The border wall would still be necessary if Mexico was antithetical to the idea. There is an extension of the 'new Monroe doctrine' idea: The invitation to become states of the Union would also apply to island nations in the eastern hemisphere. There would be far too many problems to contemplate American entry onto the Eurasian or African land masses. However, this might mean future states like Taiwan, Micronesia (which sought statehood in the years immediately after WWII), Madagascar, Cyprus, and the Philippines as several states, which was a territory of the USA for several decades in the past. But this has to be understood as comprehensive Americanization. The idea is the "melting pot" at the greatest practicable scale. Or, s'il vous plait, an English speaking worldwide union of states all of whom join voluntarily. It would also mean a market of incredible potential. There is much more to be said about this concept but it provides a vision for the future that can inspire multitudes and that could work to bring prosperity to a billion people. For this goal to be achieved what works, which is the American system, needs to be replicated in other lands. No half measures; we know what is successful and if others want to share in that success then they need to become Americans themselves. This also assumes that there would be very large scale Hispanization within what is now the United States. This is not new. The entire American southwest has already been partly Hispanized, and has been for over a century. That works, too, and adds to our culture. As has French influence in :Louisiana and northern Maine and a few other locations. All of which is a far cry, indeed, from the simplistic ideas of either the current political Left or the political Right. ----- If there is one advantage for Radical Centrists in contemplating the world of Donald Trump it is that he forces us to clarify what it is that makes someone a Radical Centrist. Four of us at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) have been preparing Podcasts during which we discuss issues from a Radical Centrist perspective. Donald Trump has been the focus of attention on a regular basis -often for the same kinds of reasons other people talk about him. He is vexing; "where is he coming from?" is an unanswerable question 50% of the time, maybe most of the time. There is also his use of Twitter. On this subject let me resort to self-serving "logic." I'm all for Twitter when is works on behalf of RC. But by and large I can't stand it and am especially critical of Trump and his use of Tweets, which I regard as irresponsible - except when it isn't irresponsible. But -here we go again- how can you make categorical statements about him? To speak of popular culture and its limitations is to speak of Donald J. Trump. And it is to recognize the fact that for Radical Centrism to become a force in American politics we need to find our own ways to make a difference in that realm. It is essential. An article in the Daily Beast for February 20, 2017, adds that we live in a time when Popular Culture is front and center in politics. As Erin Gloria Ryan said in her essay, "No Pop Culture Walls in the Trump Era," we have come a long way since Ronald Reagan and Jesse Ventura breeched the entertainment / politics barrier. Which Al Frankin breeched more recently. But now with Trump the entertainment dimension of political performance is almost non-stop. At the least it is every day even if only in the form of Tweets that do nothing more than express an opinion of the moment. There is also "Trump’s performance of the presidency itself. It’s not clear, a month in, if the leader of the free world understands that what he’s doing is actual reality rather than reality TV." This critique goes too far by half but it certainly expresses common enough apprehension. "The day-to-day of the presidency is not enough for President Trump. He pines for drama..." and cannot seem to get enough. The presidency has become a performance art. "Then there’s the president’s media consumption habits. In the past, a person appearing on a news or late-night comedy show could safely assume that the president was busy attending a security briefing, or laying the groundwork for an illegal invasion of a Middle Eastern country, or reading a book. But Trump doesn’t do any of those things. He watches television." Hence we have gotten to the place where "everything is culture and everything is politics, nothing is free of either." A comment by Ernie in another context pretty well sums up our reaction as Radical Centrists: "Our problems cannot be solved by twiddling the dials; substantial reforms are needed in many areas." This is a quote from the entry on the "Radical center" in Wikipedia -which was written by Ernie and which provides a very useful overview of the history and character of RC. The article also discusses the importance to Radical Centrists of fresh thinking about our Information Age economy and the objective to "maximize the amount of choice" which we should try to make happen in American politics, in contrast to the way that the two major parties seek to minimize choice around a binary conception of the political system. The article also brings up the subject of the need to "realistically address the future." This cannot be emphasized enough. In a sense Radical Centrism is a form of futurism aka "futuristics." The objective is to remake American politics, to generate a new political philosophy based on accurate understanding of the forces that are creating the future. It is all about inventing the political future. However, focus here is on current politics and what our new imperatives are since the election of Donald Trump. Our Podcasts also benefit immeasurably from Chris's participation, someone with professional background in psychology and counseling. Indeed, there is a psychological dimension of Radical Centrism that we need to cultivate in ways that we have not done so far. As for Chris, he sometimes acts as our group facilitator, and one thing is particularly true, he brings out the best in each of us. But attention is due to Mike's contributions to Radical Centrist thought. We can begin with his definition of Radical Centrism: RC is the commitment to free, civil, rational, and grounded inquiry with a view to creating mutually beneficial political solutions for citizens. It is an attempt to inject rigor into political theory and practice. To elaborate further, Radical Centrism is also a process, a method, and not really an ideology. It is a way of thinking and trying to solve problems. The process is adaptable to a range of questions by no means limited to politics. The need for Radical Centrism follows from something that Lane Kirkland said, whom Mike quoted in further remarks on the subject : "The great rank and file of the American people are liberal about some things and conservative about others, and the shifting distribution of such impulses depends largely upon circumstances and interest. That is the way it should be, because there really are things one ought to be conservative about and things one ought to be liberal about, and they do change." . That is, politics is a 'game' where the goalposts are moved again and again. . You also "need political allies to win," but this poses the question: what can we all agree upon despite our differences? One possibility is "the idea that every topic must be open to debate," but there are problems with that standard as soon as you give it serious thought. As Mike phrased it: "Granted, a tent should be open, but there must be some structure to it." A number of ideas are in circulation on this matter. And maybe the best we can do is to adopt the concept of "benevolent pragmatism" as our guiding principle. Start with "a two-pronged test is asked of any proposal or idea: "is it good?" and "will it work?" But beyond this we should also ask: "Can a political proposal be both beneficial for the masses, on balance, and be entirely do-able, yet still be missing something? Is there space for the two concepts that are seen as opposed to benevolence and pragmatism: malevolence and idealism?" . That is, how do we justify both strong stands in favor of objectives and also justify strong aversions to related objectives? For it is the nature of RC -a large part of what the word "radical" implies- that we take the strongest possible stands on issues. . The "centrist" part of the phrase says that we are capable of moderation when moderation is called for. What differentiates us from "Centrists" per se is that in our view persistently moderate stands on issues results in a "politics of mush" that means little or nothing. Some issues cry out for bold solutions without compromise even if, on balance, there will be about as many strong Right positions as strong Left positions. Another way to frame the issue is in terms of who is not a Radical Centrist. In Mike's view, edited here, we can eliminate people who are: * Establishment Democrats on economic issues * Neoconservative on social issues * Cold War idealists This list could be expanded but the point should be clear: Partisan purists are not within the Pale of Radical Centrism. No Yellow Dogs, please, but purple dogs are OK. Or purple elephants. What should be added is that Ernie has another "take" on RC, more focused on getting individual issues "just right" than across-the-board balance. He doesn't have any problem with the balance concept and I don't have any problem with getting particular issues right, but we each have a tendency to spend the most time on our favorite approach. Finally about Mike's philosophy of Radical Centrism, he asked a vital question: "Can we expect that we can fairly be vigorous advocates for a position and be entirely objective at the same time?" This really is the crux of RC. The objective for everything is to be objective. As objective as humanly possible. The Radical Centrist point-of-view is scientific in spirit even if we can't always be scientific in how we approach problems or try to solve them. Regardless, the scientific method is in our unconscious mind, if not consistently, repeatedly. Ideas need to be analyzed, compared to similar ideas that are not our own, and tested in whatever ways are open to us. Thought experiments, for example, clinical examination of the data, case study material if available, and so forth. To try and put the case for Radical Centrism in focus here are two e-mails, presented concurrently, sent to the group, addressed to Mike, that spell things out. A title has been made use of to show how philosophical it all is..... Was ist Radical Zentrismus ? You are free to think otherwise but in my lexicon RC necessarily is case-by-case. It is mix and match politics, which is completely consistent with the outlook of most Independents. You can also call it "cafeteria politics," with the 'buffet' having high value. It is good to pick and choose, it is a virtue to do so. Hence RC is that political philosophy intended to be normative for Independents. Why is case-by-case necessary? Because no existing partisan stands on classes of issues are defendable. Classes of issues = economics, environment, values, social questions, culture, governance, etc. Let's keep this simple and look at just a couple of environmental issues that also are -simultaneously- economic issues. Hence the view that coal strip mining in any kind of mountainous country, is pure evil, a crime against the world of nature, and a stupid practice that destroys entire mountains for short range financial gain. To the extent that there are other anti-strip mine people in the world, and there are a good number, this is a Left wing view. However, it is entirely possible to favor the Keystone pipeline. Is there any question that it makes excellent economic sense? There is minimal danger to the environment, we have been assured that there are safeguards on which we can rely, and we need to cultivate North American energy resources for, among other reasons, to break free of dependence on Mid East oil. However, this view is a favorite of Right-wingers. But go down the list of economic (which often also are environmental) issues and you get a similar outcome of some views that are Left and some that are Right. It is a mixture, it does not tilt Left or tilt Right. or if it does, it isn't much of a tilt. The same reasoning applies to social issues, hence being pro-evolution but also opposed to most forms of abortion. Pro-evolution is Left and pro-life is Right. Actually in these two examples there are complications, and each is partly a mixture. Thus, pro-evolution but with a subtext that in my opinion the process is guided, it has a teleological dimension, there is higher purpose even if we are unsure about many aspects of that purpose. Similarly for the issue of abortion. There are classes of exceptions to make and I have little sympathy for absolutists who reject abortion in 100% of cases. In any event, it is case by case. There is also the factor of truth claims, or claims to what is "Good." At least ideally RC is distinguished by emphasis on research, or to say the same thing, really knowing what you are talking about. This sets Radical Centrism apart from the mainstream where Opinion rules and what counts is winning the "sales war," selling ideas on the basis of appeal to emotions or on counting noses. Radical Centrism means that any issue you take a public stand on is an issue you actually have studied and know a lot about. This, about many, many things, is the diametric opposite of Trumpism. Sure, among friends, etc., you have opinions, I have opinions, and that is that. But it is understood that opinions are provisional, pending actual research. In the meantime have all the opinions you want. But when you go public, be informed. Basic to everything is the view that structurally there will be approximately half of the truth on the Right and half on the Left. It is up to us, or to each one of us, to decide which is which. Simply because the Democrats advocate something does not make it true or false, and the same for Republicans. How do you make the best choices? By becoming well informed, and looking at cases (case by case). ----------------------------------------------------- About an "open tent" for Radical Centrism we all seem to have somewhat different solutions. Here's mine: (1) We eventually need to create an RC "Platform" consisting of key issues arranged in a coherent manner, but a balance of Right plus Left plus Other. The "Other" should include some original ideas that we have put significant time into so that it isn't just original, but persuasive. Corollary to #1: Explain your methodology. How did you arrive at your positions? The methods should also be thought through, not just a hodge podge. But no need to make this corollary into a major production, just enough to make it clear that there is more to your platform than spur-of-the-moment choices. (2) Persuade fellow Radical Centrists of the value of your positions, why each one is excellent, none better, Really Good. etc. And why other views of these matters are off-the-wall, worse, not good, etc. Corollary to # 2: We will have competing platforms for a while; maybe for a considerable length of time. That's politics. But the idea is that we compete for the agreement of others, within the group but also at large, to the general public. It is an on-going yet civil competition to see whose ideas prevail. (3) We are on record as regarding it as essential to learn from each other. The platform "planks" any of us start out with will necessarily benefit from the ideas of others. Even when we stick pretty much with an idea we start out with, a later version of the idea will show influence from others, a later version will be better said, more thoughtful, and take objections into account. And now and then any of us might change an idea here or an idea there, and sometimes several ideas, over the course of time. ------------------------- Not part of a statement of principles, we respect each other and are friends. None of us want to alienate anyone, we give one another all the breathing space he needs. We are every bit as much advocates of free speech as the most firebrand libertarian. And, how I look at it, your success is my success, and my success, whenever it materializes, will reflect the group and be my debt of gratitude to everyone. ------------------------ Finally, about what makes someone a Centrist -upper case... Leaving aside my preference for using the phrase"Radical Centrist," as much as possible, there is another approach. The Centrist part of Radical Centrism, from my perspective anyway, is balance. It can also be "centrist" lower case, but that (for me) is unusual. Sometimes it can be compromise, meeting in the middle, triangulation, and the like. This is an RC option. However, it again is a matter of balance. If there are some centrist or moderate positions that seem best, advisable, there should also be many strong and uncompromising positions. Otherwise we aren't Radical. The idea of RC, as I see it anyway, is to win the political war. To do so we give 100% and stake out strong positions whenever possible. Which , of course, is a Populist trait, or a Teddy Roosevelt trait. ---------------------------------------------------------- Alt-Center and Radical Centrism We have recently started to use the designation "Alt-Center" to describe the more overtly political dimension of Radical Centrism. This is not an absolute necessity but it helps focus on politics rather than various other interests we may have. After all, RC can be a forum for discussion of philosophy, or economics, or culture including religion, or new forms of technology, or the future. There are a number of definitions of Alt-Center that have been made use of by various people, as often as not flippant. Indeed, there is some of that concerning the phrase "Radical Centrism" inasmuch as the combination of words may sound contradictory. But it is much better to regard it as a paradox. What is a paradox? To shut down your computer, you first need to click Start. or You should not go in the water unless you know how to swim. or We are dogmatic in our aversion to dogmatism. At any rate what we are attempting to do is invent a new kind of politics, something which is just as much a circus as is politics as we know it, but also includes, or features, what Ernie has called "a safe place for sane people." That is, we are all about a politics of honesty, of civility, and of community. We do not think we have all the answers; we take pride in our openness to learning new truths -from a range of different kinds of sources, from many different kinds of people. Another observation made by Ernie he took from Einstein. This is the observation that you cannot solve a serious problem at the same level of thinking which was responsible for the problem in the first place. Our model for the ideal "politician" is Ben Franklin, someone who sometimes isn't thought of as politician at all. However, he was exactly that on many occasions, including participating at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The point that needs to be made about Franklin was that he was practical, he was an inventor, and he always sought to learn as much as possible about the world around him, about the people he interacted with, and about the principles we base our lives upon. That is, for us politics is not about collecting opinions it is about identifying truths that can change everyone's opinions. To put it in futuristic terms, this is all about re-inventing America for the 21st century -while remaining true to the values that have guided our republic from the beginning. Sometimes this means rediscovering old principles and making good use of them in a new context. My personal favorite is a statement attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, the fabled Prime Minister of Great Britain in the later years of the 19th century. Disraeli said that to really learn how to think a man needs to study how women think. It is all so different and provides a perspective that men need to understand if their male-centered interests are to have any chance of being listened to by the opposite sex. This principle can just as well apply to people of other faiths, to people with different political views, or people who follow a different philosophy of life than you do. One way this might be done is through town hall meetings. Chris, with his interest in psychology and social psychology, understands this viscerally. What he has in mind is what town halls can be, of course, not what they devolved into during the first weeks of Trump's presidency when many Democrats arrived at open meetings hosted by Republican legislators. These people were seeking to disrupt the proceedings in order to express outrage about their grievances. But what if town hall meetings could be places where people actually discuss issues based on their knowledge of the facts, where conversations are based on realities rather than ideologies? As Ernie has said: "We believe truth comes from examining all the evidence, not just what is popular or agrees with our pre-existing views." And sometimes we need to take unpopular stands. Similarly, we are not anti-Big Media, but skepticism is in order given the record of partisanship we have seen in the past 30 years on the part of papers like the NY Times and Washington Post, plus the major TV networks On the other hand we certainly don't trust conspiracy theories. Most are pure fantasy. What is the best way to counter the mainstream media when it serves the interests of the Left, which it regards as "normal," and has little interest in what the Right has to say? And even less interest in what Independents say despite the fact that four out of ten voters are Indies. Clearly the news media needs to be challenged, head on. However, Donald Trump's bashing of the media has gotten old, very fast. To be sure, the media could use a good critique, but in what way do name-calling smears (bad, fake, evil) provide any kind of useful critique at all? Our hope is to create our own media in the future, starting with an electronic newspaper of practical new ideas. We can leave reports about traffic accidents and murders and celebrity gossip to others; that kind of subject matter does not interest us. What does are stories about the best new ideas. Mark Satin's Radical Middle Newsletter supplies one model of what can be done, but that only shows us a fraction of what should be done; it was an important start but we believe we can take matters much further. The kind of quality we are seeking is epitomized by the excellent writing found at The Atlantic magazine -but without The Atlantic's fascination with niche market subject matter, sometimes of interest to no more than a few dozen of the glitterati. But this is for the future; we do not have the necessary resources for the kind of newspaper we really want to launch. At least not yet. But when we do, many things become possible, including no need whatsoever to make use of Twitter with its three sentence format, to discuss content that requires three detailed paragraphs or sometimes three newspaper pages of feature reporting. That is, if they were available, we would hire Madison and Hamilton and H.L. Mencken, plus Claire Booth Luce and Martin Luther King, Jr. Who we would like to employ if they could be at least a little won over to Radical Centrism would be P.J. O'Rourke and Dave Berry, two funny-as-hell libertarians. Temperamentally we aren't far removed from "libtars" even if, philosophically, we live on different planets. How different? It depends. We have considerable respect for the Cato Institute; but there are so many dogmatic libertarians out there that it really is in our best interests to keep maximum distance between ourselves and that coterie of malcontents. One thing to say about libertarians is that they are not afraid of controversy. Many have actual backbones; many like to fight the good fight. They are unafraid to battle the Establishment. And Radical Centrists can look forward to future wars of ideas guaranteed to generate large scale controversy. In other words, there are some very strong stands to take that are anything but universally popular and that necessarily will provoke fierce opposition. By now the point should have been made with complete clarity: At least by my interpretation, Radical Centrism, while it means much else, and while Radical Centrists would like to be recognized as conciliators between Right and Left, sometimes there is nothing like a good war for circulation of your blood. Something of what is meant was outlined in a column by _Clive Crook_ (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/AQp3hO-GQyI/clive-crook) in the May 9, 2013, edition of Bloomberg View. It has the title : "pathological centrism." The title is satirical, not to be taken literally. But the satire makes its own point. If you call yourself a Radical Centrist some people will call you crazy. It comes with the territory. As Clive Crook explained at the outset: ...I'd like to comment on his accusation that I'm afflicted with "pathological centrism. "I've been accused of worse things, so I probably shouldn't complain. But there's a distinction to be made between different kinds of centrism. Split-the-difference centrism is often necessary in a democracy, and not to be despised, but that isn't how I think about issues" He went on to add that on many issues he 'votes Left,' such as higher taxes on investment income, but on other issues he comes down clearly on the Right, such as curtailing the power of public sector unions. Indeed, the list of positions Mr. Crook takes which are approximately equally divided between Left and Right is lengthy. As a consequence: "Neither party wants anything to do with me, obviously. Perhaps that makes me a centrist -but not a split-the-difference centrist. I prefer to think of myself as a radical centrist. Big difference." This is very important; many people assume that any kind of centrism must be split-the-difference in character. Radical Centrism is very different. RC is all about taking strong stands on clearly defined issues. Sometimes you need to compromise, if course, but the guiding principle of Radical Centrism is to compromise as little as possible. The final chapters of this book are "hard Right" in character. These are my personal positions; not all Radical Centrists agree with me. It is my task to make my case with as much evidence as is available at this time, as persuasively as can be done. Regardless, it should be noted that on some other issues my stands are "hard Left." These are matters that deserve detailed treatment and which I have written about on various occasions in the past; its just that they will not be discussed here. Neither are related to the theme of Popular Culture. But this does not mean that I am any less invested in them. Two examples: * Complete opposition to strip mining of coal in mountainous terrain, especially in the Appalachian region. This does not mean antipathy toward coal as an energy source, which, assuming power plants with effective scrubbers, makes perfectly good sense. But there can be no excuse whatsoever for destroying entire mountain ranges and watersheds simply to extract coal cheaply. * The strongest possible objection to laissez faire economic theory. The caveat is that laissez faire can work very well, indeed, if we are discussing infant industries where there is no competition from industrial giants. Beyond that the foundational assumption of laissez faire theory, that every economic activity takes place on a level playing field where competition is always fair, is simply ridiculous. Not even to count, as Robert Kuttner notes, the role played by international capital, sometimes state sponsored industries, where there may be a dozen thumbs on the scale at any given time. To be sure, on social issues I regard Kuttner as a total idiot, but on the subject of laissez faire he is my 'Bible.' The two issues discussed in the four concluding chapters are Islam and homosexuality, each of which have powerful impact on Popular Culture in many ways. On the issue of homosexuality I once tried to explain my outlook to Dr. Paul Cameron this way: "About homosexuality, Pat Robertson is far to my Left." About Islam I don't know of anyone who is to my Right except Pamela Geller. Which says that I had better have some damned good arguments to make. You will be able to make that judgment for yourself. -- -- 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.
