« A return to "Clintonism"? | Main | Getting on Board the Cedar Express »
March 04, 2005
On the subject of Radical Centrism...
I don't believe that Dean Esmay uses the term "Radical Centrism", but this morning's post at Dean's World called The Genesis of Rights, does a fair job of explaining what it means to me. This is definitely the "must read" of the day (and the day has just begun!)
A few highlights:
At one time, I considered myself a socialist. At some point in my youth, I came to reject that and, in reaction, for a brief while, I considered myself a radical libertarian.After a while I settled down and, to make a long story short, in the wake of 9/11 I came to the conclusion that what I am is a liberal democrat and a conservative republican--and a bit of a rational anarchist perhaps, but only around the edges.
Yep! That about captures it.
Go on, try to get around it. Quote the Magna Carta at me; I don't care. Quote Ayn Rand for me; I still don't care. Quote Karl Marx or Rousseau for me; then I definitely don't care. Indeed, take any political philosopher who has written at length about any of these issues, and consider: it only takes enough of us who say, "that's a crock!" to expose any such intellectual edifices as castles made of sand.
This is what we should be teaching in our universities. Read the big name political philosophers, they're occasionally amusing and even informative, but learn how easy it is to just say "what a crock!" and not only mean it, but solidly defend that position. Our heads are full of paper tigers; big ideas with important pedigrees that don't have a whole lot to do with reality. Blink a couple of times and look at them hard and they fall away.
Actually, Dean says pretty much the same thing...
Honestly, I think that most such people are guilty of taking a sledgehammer to the very soapbox upon which they stand.
Lovely...Really, go read it now.
Posted by Jay on March 4, 2005 at 09:35 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834558cb369e200e5504ea46b8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On the subject of Radical Centrism...:
» More On The Genesis Of Rights from Dean's World
Once in a while a thread here surprises me, generating a lot of discussion. Such was our discussion last week on the concept of "natural rights." My own take: the 20th century has proven, quite definitively, that the best protect... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 8, 2005 9:05:49 PM
Comments
I'd blush if it weren't for the fact that 80% of what I wrote there came from better men than I, at whose knee I learned.
Of all of it, I wish the line about the soapbox were my own. Alas... ;-)
Posted by: Dean Esmay | Mar 5, 2005 1:06:49 AM
You are free to define Radical Centrism in any way you
see fit, I suppose, but not all definitions are true to
the character of the movement. To put it succinctly,
Jesse Ventura's political philosophy is NOT
Radical Centrism. And what we get from Sacramento these days is latter day Venturism, NOT Radical Centrism.
RC is not a mix of social liberalism and fiscal
conservatism. That mix is Venturism.
RC is based on the principle that EACH issue in
politics must be seriously rethought and fresh
conclusions arrived at through basic research.
This results in combinations of positions that defy
simplistic categorization. For instrance, since I
did considerable research for my (so far unpublished)
book, The Liberal Case Against Homosexuality, I take
a decidedly "conservative" stand on the issue -for
reasons that just about No cobnservatives understand
or make use of. At the same time my view is that
evolutionary biology is essential to education and,
moreover, that we must utterly defeat all attempts
to teach so-called "creation science" in the public
schools.
Or take the mantra, "big government is bad." The RC
postion on this matter ought to be- some government
agencies are too big (objectively, due to inefficieny,
poor service, etc) but others are too small ( a need
exists that is only being partly filled), while still
others seem to be about right. Moreover, the real
question is what is the best option in each area
that governement operates in, not what size an
agency or program may be.
RC is a matter of creative problem solving, "thinking
outside the box," but also of taking the best positions
of Right and Left and Other (Libertarian, Green, Etc)
and putting these ideas together to maximum effect
for the good of the entire community.
There is NO triangulation for the sake of political
expediency. Clintonism is anything but Radical
Centrism. ALL POSITIONS in Radical Centrism are
based on philosophical principle.
RC is nuanced politics to the Nth degree. There never
is simplistic reasoning. We do not say, for example,
that we are opposed to fundamentalism and in favor
of humanism -because, as things are in the real
world, that kind of dichotimization is a disservice
to everyone. Sometimes fundamentalists may have the
best postion to take and sometimes humanists may be
quite wrong about particular issues. As a rule we
may well line up with humanists on most issues but
this is not necessarily so since it is essential
to examine all positions on a case by case basis AND
to recognize the fact that no popular view would
exist in society unless parts of it were good and
true. Therefore demonization that characterizes both
Left and Right these days has no part in serious
Radical Centrist politics. Such demonization
obscures the truth and makes it impossible to
recognize one's own weaknesses for what they are.
Posted by: Billy Rojas | Mar 22, 2005 10:35:40 AM
