Talk:Radical centrist politics

IMHO, John McCain is not at all a good example of a radical centrist. He consistently scores under 20% from the ACLU and is very conservative on social issues, perhaps more so than Bush, whose endorsement from the religous right comes primarily through their unholy union with the neoconservative establishment, to which Bush and his allies are tied far more strongly than John McCain. I'm going to change it to Howard Dean: He and his followers are very activist and radical in their approach, but Dean himself is only slightly more left-wing than Clinton, although Dean is far better (for those biased against the cartel-style behaviour of the entertainment and its allies) on issues relating to cyber-liberties/intellectual property and comes from a state dominated by fairly radical (speaking from an American perspective) politicians like Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy (less so) and where elected Republicans tend to be of the old progressive guard that used to dominate the GOP in the North-East. [Anon]

I'm sorry, but while I appreciate your input, I don't buy your argument, at least not for the Radical Center in the American sense (as perhaps opposed the center-left view used in Europe). In the U.S., while Howard Dean the Vermont Governor may have had claim towards Radical Centrism, Howard Dean the presidential candidate clearly identified himself with Paul Wellstone's brand of liberalism by claiming to represent "the democratic wing of the democratic party." Even most Democrats viewed Dean as being "too liberal for mainstream america" rather than "centrist but too radical." John McCain is generally perceived as being an honest, moderate voice, and best represents the tone of the American Radical Center -- as exemplified by his endorsement of the book by that name. Being dissed by the ACLU is hardly qualifies someone to not be centrist, and besides the radical center is often understood as being socially conservative but fiscally progressive. Dean's claim to the term is acknowledged in the lower section, but he's not a useful example for the typical American audience. I"m reverting, if you still disagree, get an account so we can discuss this meaningfully.Drernie

What qualifies as centrist?

I don't see how "Radical Centrism" can have such a name. They are not "centrists". Centrism is defined by a moderate view which forms consensus between the left and right political spectrum. Centrism does not make its own definitions, and is a constantly changing point of view which reflects the popular polarized politics at the time. It is my opinion that "Radical Centrism" is only named such as a PR move to help influence opinion by "defining the centre," which is what all political parties try to do. Centrists do not define the centre; they form a moderate view based on the current popular polarized politics. "Radical Centrism" to me is just a new political party, which has called itself "Radical Centrism" in order to attempt to show that it is in the centre, when in fact it is not at all. It's an Orwellian naming scheme. (from the discussion on New America Foundation) --Ben

Hi Ben, Thanks for continuing the discussion here. I would answer in several parts:

- Whether its a good name or not, that's the name that is currently used by these groups, and the job of this article is to reflect current practice. And we need to make sure we focus discussion on the article.
- Radical Centrism is not a new political party. It is not exactly a new term (its been around since the 1970s), and it is most assuredly not a political party. It is more properly a movement, historically contrasted with so-called 'sensible centrism.' Historically radical center was associated with the working class, and considered to skew socially conservative and fiscally progressive. vs the sensible center which was associated with the knowledge class and skewed socially porgressive and fiscally conservative.
- True, moderate centrists don't accept radical centrists as being centrist. So? The moderate Left and Right don't accept their radical elements as legitimate either, but the terms stick because they are useful. Why should the moderates be the ones who get to define precisely what is 'centrist' and what is 'not'? Can you document a well-defined historical usage that excludes this possibility? If anything, the radicals seem to have done a better job of defining 'centrism', at least according to google.
- The most important point, IMHO, is that radical centrists do see themselves as centrist -- but not moderate -- in that they are in fact trying to interpolate between Left & Right and develop policies that will generate broad-based support. They may or may not succeed, but I would argue the moderates haven't done much better, so we have to judge both by ideals rather than results.

At any rate, the article should clearly reflect the chasm between 'sensible' and 'radical' centrists, but I think you have an obligation to make sure it mirrors the general attitudes of self-identified centrists vs. the larger radical centrist community, not just your personal grips with the NAF. Drernie 01:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Radical moderates?

Ok, I agree that if this name is well established as you say, then the article should discuss it with the traditional name.

So, I think all we're arguing about is whether to expand the section about whether the term is appropriate, right? It sounds like you want to state that the term is 'generally' inappropriate, rather than just considered inappropriate by traditional centrists. Right?
- Well, as you said, this is a traditional term, and if it is in use you can't really argue it. More, I would like to prove that the term's relationship to Centrism is completely fallacious.

However, you cite google as a demonstration of your opinion that radical centrists have done a better job of defining centrism. This is not a good demonstration, because if you ask google to define centrism, the definition it finds is: "a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action"

I appreciate the link to Princeton's definition of centrism. I am willing to concede that the terms 'moderate' and 'centrist' have often been used synonymously. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that the term centrist has also been used more broadly to indicate supporting or pursuing a course of action that is neither liberal nor conservative.
- I think you are misinterpreting that particular definition. I interpret it as meaning that the adjective 'centrist' describes that which is not of two polar opposites, esp. in left-right politics. The other definitions there mention middle-of-the-road, moderate, moderationist. 'Radical centrism' is not moderationist, and it is not middle-of-the-road insofar that 'radical centrists' are basically building a new road.

"The moderate Left and Right don't accept their radical elements as legitimate either." This is your opinion, the subjective legitimacy is a non-issue. Just because I may be a liberal, for example, doesn't mean I don't know that there is a communist party or a socialist party. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they aren't parties. I also know that in they are in the traditional left-right spectrum. This legitimacy you speak of is subjective, and I think it is rather besides the point.

I am basing this on my experience contributing to Right-wing politics - many on the Right refused to accept Fascism as on the Right, and similarly for Communism on the Left, even though that's how they are commonly understood (check the Talk archives). While the analogy may not be precise, my point is simply that a) these terms all evolve over time, and b) its not always clear whose definition to use.
- Yes, the terms do evolve over time, but it is always clear whose definition to use: yours, as an informed objective observer.
  - Um, not sure what you mean by "objective observer." I think Wikipedia only recognizes a Neutral point of view, which is a little different than a claim of objectivity. You are familiar with NPOV and the rules of Wikipedia, right?

"The most important point" I think is the least important point. How radical centrists see themselves is not important, except to note in the article. Taking their subjective view as the definition is not the right way to write an article. Articles are supposed to be objective. Additionally, all political parties would like broad-based support, they aren't necessarily going to get it. Saying that radical centrists are trying to develop policies that will generate broad-based support is, in one sense, a non-issue, and in another, untrue considering their radical stance is, by definition, not broad-based. You can't say that centrists "have not done much better" at forming a moderate view, since "centrism" is by definition a moderate view.

I think you're missing my point, and confusing 'moderate' with 'broad-based.' Sure, 'sensible' centrism is by definition moderate, but that doesn't mean it is broad-based. And something can be radical yet popular. The epistemic point is that radical centrists measure their success by majoritarian support in public opinion polls on the relevant topics, rather than appealing to an intellectual or religious elite. That is, their stated goal is in fact to discover a larger consensus, rather than promote an externally-validated agenda. I agree with you that the article shouldn't state that they *are* doing this, but we can objectively state that they *seek* to do this (or at least claim to).
- I am not confusing moderate with broad-based. These are quite simple terms, and I never said centrism was broad-based. In a polarized political climate, for example, centrism will likely not be broad-based. I think the appeal of a political philosophy is a non-issue. Depending on the policital climate, centrism may not be broad-based. Radicalism can be popular, or broad-based, or not, but only until it is no longer considered as radical (though it may keep the name). Radicalism is subjective to the culture and society. "That is, their stated goal is in fact to discover a larger consensus" Of course is it is. This is what ALL political parties would like to do, as I said. You cannot even objectively state that they *seek* to do this if they in fact do not seek to do this; this is what, as a writer, one must figure out themselves. You can only say they claim to seek to do this. Without being analytical, it is merely a regurgitation of manifesto. You must also consider, objectively, the political situation, and not reference your own political beliefs. If, for example, you think that their way is the best way to form a majority consensus does not mean that it actually will. You must consider the majority views. In the case of radical centrism the majority of political thinking, the liberal and conservative philosophies, might find consensus in middle-of-the-road idealized centrism. Currently, they would demonstrably not find consensus in 'radical centrism,' as the majority does not agree with their philosophy, possibly because they have not been exposed to it, or they do not understand it (one wonders why that would be the case :P).

Whoever you are talking about are not centrists. It think it is a dynamic political philosophy, and not a rigid political philosophy. Maybe that is what is the same: Radical Centrists also have dynamic political philosophies. But just because they may both be dynamic, doesn't mean they are related in any other way. Centrism is specifically moderate. "Radical Centrism" cannot be "radically moderate." It is an oxymoron, and because of this obvious fact, in my view, their subjects, names, and overall philosophies, whatever they may be, are totally unrelated.

Well, yes, Radical Centrism is a more-or-less oxymoronic neologism. But that's just the nature of how language evolves. Horseless carriage was an oxymoron when it was invented, as was wireless telephone. As is neo-conservative, and postmodern, and numerous other terms we use all the time. Oxymoronic doesn't mean non-sensical or illegitimate, just unconventional. When new ideas are created, old words are redefined as retronyms. I believe the emergence of the term radical centrists justifies retronyming traditional centrism.
- Then what would traditional centrism be called? I should have clarified that I was speaking more as if it were a contradiction in terms. (It is also an oxymoron in a linguistic sense). To me this is a case of doublethink. Language does evolve, and seemingly contradictory terms can sometimes mesh. However, and this is a key point, with a horseless carriage, you take away the horse and you still have what we now call a carriage. With the wireless telephone, you take away the wire and you still have what we call a telephone. But with radical centrism as a political philosophy, you take away the moderation and middle-of-the-left-right-road, and you have nothing left except an adjective!

I ask you, when does a political party become a new political party, unrelated to others?

Um, I believe a movement becomes a political party when it becomes organized, has membership, and supports candidates for office. To date, Radical Centrism in the U.S. is completely grass roots, with very little connection between the various think tanks and individual activists. There isn't even anything you can join, except a couple of mailing lists and one student group in Ohio.
- Ok, I meant political philosophy (I was actually going to change that before you replied :P).

"Radical Centrism" is not related to Centrism at all. It is a philosophy which I believe is independent of the left-right spectrum.

Actually, I think of radical centrists are 'triangulating' on Left-Right politics rather than simply interpolating. The article on radical middle thinking might be helpful in understand what that means.
- Fine, I don't care where in the spectrum you want to put them as that is not my issue. Their place in any spectrum is a non-issue to me. It is clear we both agree that they are not in the Left-Right politics spectrum.

(My "personal gripes" with the NAF policies are not the issue, I have issues with the nomenclature and definition. Let's get it out of the way--I'll say that in my opinion you defend their subjective definition in a way that suggests you agree with their policies. Now that that is out of the way, let's have no more opinions on each other's motives.) ---Ben 1 Jun 2004

My apologies if that came across a personal criticism. I was trying to understand whether you were commenting on the general concept of radical centrism, or just the specific policies endorsed by the NAF. It is now clear you are concerned about the concept on general linguistic grounds, and I withdraw my comment. --Drernie 20:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Key Points

'Radical centrism' is a misnomer
'Radical centrism' is an oxymoron (unrelated to the political philosophy which has 'radical centrism as its name)
'Radical centrism' is a political philosophy independent of left-right/collective-individual political philosophies.
Centrism is generally the idealized middle-of-the-road and moderate philosophy of left-right politics
Centrism is a moderate version of all the current political philosophies in a culture combined.
'Radical Centrism' is a radical version of selected aspects of the current political philosophies as well as new political philosophies.
The political philosophy of 'radical centrism' is wholly unrelated to the political philosophy of centrism.
'Radical centrism' is not related hierarchically with any other political philosophy, (including centrism.)

---Ben 01:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Best Example

Ok, forget all I said above in my replies (I stand by it, but I think this will most clearly illustrate my point):

Say you have a country that wants but has no healthcare nor education system. The people wish to choose what kind of these services they want.

They can choose between private healthcare, two-tiered (mixed public and private) healthcare, or public healthcare. They can also choose between private education, two-tiered education, or public education.

This is what I believe political parties would choose, where left is for 'collective' politics and right is for 'individual' politics.

Right

Private Healthcare
Private Education

Centrist

Two-tiered Healthcare
Two-tiered Education

Left

Public Healthcare
Public Education

"Radical Centrist 1"

Public Healthcare?
Private Education?

"Radical Centrist 2"

Two-tiered Healthcare?
Private Education?

"Radical Centrist 3"

Public Healthcare?
Two-tiered Education?

etc.

Hopefully you can see why I think "radical centrism" is unrelated to centrism, and why I believe it is a misnomer, and additionally why I think "radical centrists" should more properly be labelled independents in terms of their political orientation. To me, it seems the 'philosophy' is merely "not everything in one place," (which isn't centred by any stretch of the imagination) and which it seems it has no real value as an actual political philosophy. Applying anything more to the label, you just begin to end up with many very different, and independent, political philosophies. --Ben 13:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point at all. Did you make up this example, or are you citing actual radical centrist sources? In my experience, most radical centrists generally endorse some form a two-tiered healthcare analogous to what you say traditional centrists are proposing. It would help me greatly if you could cite sources, so I know exactly what you are reacting against.Drernie 15:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes I made up this example. Sometimes people do that to prove a point. It is supposed to be an analogous example and not representative of any country. The first example of "radical centrism" is independent. Examples 2 and 3 of "radical centrist" are more properly, respectively, moderate right and moderate left. I was using this to demonstrate my point. I don't know how else to say it.---Ben 23:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Back to the article

Hi Ben, I am greatly worried that we are in danger of violating the cardinal rule of Wikipedia, which is to discuss the *article* not the concept. I don't think the article ever claims that radical centrists are centrists, which seems to be your primary beef. If I understand you correctly, you are asking that:

we adopt a more neutral point of tone in terms of describing how rc-ers see themselves, rather than making statements about what they are or are not
we avoid equating radical centrism as being a brand of centrism

Those are both legitimate requests, and I will attempt to modify the article to be clearer about that. I would suggest that further discussion on this page should focus on particular phrases or passages that you find inappropriate. If you want to continue the larger discussion, I suggest you use my Talk page, or we take it to email. ---Drernie 15:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are right, we should discuss the article and not the concept. I propose that I write an "Alternative view" to be included on the main page, and we can leave the first part the same. I do not think the majority of the article is neutral or accurate and I believe my alternative view has merit. And while the article does not claim that "radical centrism" is the same as centrism, your article implies radical centrists are related to, or a brand of, centrism no less than 7 times! As for what I am asking of the article, it is major change. The neutral point of view about how rc-ers see themselves is a non-issue, as long as it is not biased against their view of their view (and seriously, that barely even makes sense). Avoidance is also different than stating what I think is true and important to note: that it is not a brand of centrism. Furthermore, I believe discussion on this subject should stay on this page, but I will no longer try to prove my point about how I see the concept, and why I think the article is inaccurate or not neutral, as apparently it is in vain. Instead, I will create a full "Alternative view" addition to the article, unless you have any better ideas.---Ben 23:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ben, given that seem to be at conceptual loggerheads, I can't think of anything better than an Alternative view. I've tried to be explicit about the differences between radical centrism and what I call traditional centrism, but if you feel that even that comparison is invidious (as opposed to merely inaccurate) then I don't know what else to do. All I would ask is that you take the time to review the larger history of radical centrist literature, especially Gidden's book and Mark Satin's radical middle newsletter, rather than just base your article on what I or the New American Foundation have said. Fair enough? Hopefully then someone else will come along an find a NPOV that accommodates both of ours. Thanks. Drernie 16:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

radical middle / Radical centrism

I merged radical middle and Radical centrism relatively painlessly (at least I thought so, what do you think? ;) Made a number of edits as well. Sam [Spade] 05:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)