
#redirect:Radical middle
The term Radical Middle refers to a type of third way philosophy as well as an associated political movement. Followers of this philosophy claim to improve understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides of apparently contradictory issues, whether that be disagreement amongst Left-Right politics or other disagreement or dilemmas. In politics, followers of this philosophy often call themselves the Radical Center or Radical Centrists, terms sometimes associated with politicians such as Tony Blair in the U.K. and John McCain in the U.S. ==Radical Middle Philosophy== Various groups have adopted "radical middle" as a term to describe a third way philosophy which includes their belief that, in affirming the core principles involved on both sides of a dilemma, the dilemma or disagreement can be rendered moot. These groups argue that this reflects an emphasis on epistemic virtue, by resolving false dilemmas -- i.e., finding the ''excluded middle''. Critics argue that this can easily result in the logical fallacy of false compromise. Followers of the philosophy often consider the wave-particle duality of physics, the Christian doctrine of Jesus as both God and Man, and the Federalism balance between national and state authority in the United States Constitution to be representative of the beliefs of the philosophy. The terms ''Radical Center'' and ''Radical Middle'' are often used interchangeably, though it is sometimes useful to distinguish between the specific political movement and the philosophy in general. Typically, "Radical Center" or "Radical Centrism" refers to the political movement. == Radical Middle Politics == The political application of radical middle philosophy is represented by a cluster of loosely related terms and movements: radical middle, radical centrist, responsive communitarian, third-way, etc. As a relatively grass-roots movement, especially in the United States, there is no definitive statement of radical middle politics. A primary recurring theme, however, might be the idea of "sustainably improving choices." This is reflected in the goals of various radical middle groups, which they describe using language such as: *Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential *Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referendums) *Being of concrete help to those in the developing world *Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality *Build Moral character by promoting conscious moral choices *Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships *Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense *enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism == History of the terms == The term radical middle appears to have been spontaneously invented by several different communities around the turn of the millennium, apparently in response to frustration with the violence of extremism and tepidness of moderation. An early use appears to be from Gordon Fee kingdom theology course at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the 1970s, which helped inspire the Vineyard Movement. He used the term radical middle to contrast the evangelical focus on the future kingdom of God with the Pentecostal emphasis on the present kingdom of God. The first known use of the term was by Jules Feiffer in a comic strip that appears in ''Hold Me!'', a collection published by Random House in 1962. While the term radical center has been used in various ways since at least the 1970s, it first had a major influence in the 1990s due to the Reform Party and Ross Perot, who were frequently described as representing the radical middle due to their attempts to partisanize those portions of the American electorate. Despite a strong showing in the U.S. presidential election, 1996, the Reform Party is nowadays not generally perceived as a major player in national politics, though they have impacted state elections -- notably with their Jesse Ventura becoming governor of Minnesota. Today, the term radical middle is most commonly associated with a movement that does not explicitly claim descent from the Reform Party or its ideas, but rather draws its inspiration from the book ''The Third Way'' by Anthony Giddens (1998) and Giddens's highly-regarded follow-up book ''The Third Way and Its Critics'' (2000). In the U.S. third way politics is most actively represented by the New America Foundation and its book by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, ''The Radical Center'' (2001). Subsequent introductions to radical centrist politics include, most notably, Matthew Miller's book ''The Two Percent Solution'' (2003) and Mark Satin's book ''Radical Middle: The Politics We Need Now'' (2004). (Interestingly, Lind was once a promising young conservative, Miller was once an aide in President Clinton's White House, and Satin was a co-author of the U.S. Green Party's founding document from the 1980s, "Green_Party_%28United_States%29#Key_values.") The definitive history of "Centrism" in America, and probably the best-selling radical centrist book to date, is John Avlon's ''Independent Nation'' (2004, pbk. 2005). == Positioning == Radical centrists are related to what is sometimes called the Vital Center in American politics, and similarly claim to be drawing on the best of both sides. However, they differ significantly from traditional centrism, which prides itself on moderate and seeking political consensus amongst the Political Party; radical centrists, for example, are quite radical and populist in their stated policies. Radical centrists also can be divisive, as opposed to the non-partisan approach of traditional centrism. This leads to many moderates questioning whether radical centrism deserves to be called centrist at all (perhaps analogous to how the Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics often distance themselves from their respective radical wings). For their part, radical centrists are quick to dissociate themselves from traditional moderates, whom they often contrast as the "sensible center", or deride as the "squishy center." Radical centrists can be found in both left-wing and right-wing political parties, but (like other centrists and independents) are usually penalized for being out of step with that party's dominant ideology. This leads to tension between what might be called ''separatist'' factions, who want to shed an unhelpful party label in order to run as independents, and ''puritans'' who want to reform (or take over) the party from within. This tension is particularly acute in countries with strong two-party traditions, since it is difficult for third-party candidates to win office or create governable coalitions absent significant electoral reform. Radical centrists see themselves as building majority consensus for radical reforms by sidestepping (or confronting) what they consider the obsolete, polarized and non-productive ideologies of (social Conservatism/economic Liberalism) and (social Liberalism/economic Conservatism). Radical centrists assert that their principles represent the fusion of the best aspects of Conservatism and Liberalism, and thus interpolate at the level of philosophy rather than policy. They claim these ideological moorings (the 'root' behind their sociological use of the term 'radical') provide the basis for their critique of society, government and other political movements. ==Radical Centrist Organizations== *[http://centristcoalition.com Centrist Coalition], an active online group with a blog and forum *[http://www.centrists.org Centrists.org], public policy think tank *[http://www.independentnation.org Independent Nation], home base for John Avlon, author of the book ''Independent Nation: How the Vital Center Is Changing American Politics'' (2004) *New America Foundation, think tank founded by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, authors of the book ''The Radical Center'' (2001) *[http://www.politicsoftrust.net Politics of Trust Network], founded by John Vasconcellos *[http://www.ppionline.org Progressive Policy Institute], think tank for centrists and radical centrists affiliated with the Democratic Party (United States) *[http://www.radicalcenter.org Radical Center American Party], not quite a political party, for now it is just a website with some political thoughts and some links to other Radical Center sites and thought. It even has its own [http://www.radicalcenter.org/radicalcenterwiki/ Wiki] for you to contribute to American Radical Center thought and political-party evolution *[http://www.radicalmiddle.org Radical Middle Newsletter], online periodical edited by Mark Satin *[http://RadicalCentrism.org RadicalCentrism.org], founded by User:Drernie *Reform Party USA, founded by Ross Perot, was said to have appealed to the radical center, because it found that both the Democrats and Republicans were unable to address real issues because of both left-right partisanship and corruption. The platform compromised on traditional issues of the parties, ignores social issues, pushes an agenda of government reform, and calls for some referendums. Some people feel this centrist position had been compromised since Pat Buchanan entered the party for his 2000 presidential bid, and a harder stance on immigration has been added *[http://www.sfcg.org Search for Common Ground], works to help parties achieve "societal conflict transformation" in hotspots all over the world === Howard Dean alleged to be of the Radical Center === In late 2003, several people#Howard Dean links made the claim that Howard Dean, then the front-runner for the United States Democratic Party presidential nomination, represented the radical center. While this may well have been a defensible description of his policies as Vermont Governor, his loss of the nomination to John Kerry was commonly attributed to his being perceived, even by Democrats, as excessively Liberalism in the United States (in the U.S. sense of the word), rather than any form of centrist. == See also == *Third way ===External links=== ====General/Philosophical Uses==== *[http://www.acmecoalition.org/radicalcenter.html Media Literary for a New Millennium: Finding the "radical center"] *[http://www.languagemagazine.com/internetedition/so2000/glen.html Choosing The Radical Middle] (minority-language schooling) *[http://www.vineyardusa.org/about/history/quest.htm Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard] *[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/7ta/7ta072.html New Bishop Frank Griswald claims to stand at 'radical center' of Episcopalian church] *[http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/centrist.html The Centrist Moment] in the Anglican Church *[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radical-middle/ Yahoo! Radical Middle discussion group], a spin-off of [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pomoxian PoMoXian] * [http://www.catbirdpress.com/bookpages/reader.htm Toward The Radical Center: A Karel Capek Reader] *[http://www.quiviracoalition.org/documents/Invitation.asp The Quivira Coalition] for harmony between humans and nature at the Radical Center *[http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html Ground Rules of Civil Society: A Radical Centrist Manifesto] *[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13785.htm John Mark Ministries] - evangelical Christian liberals ==== Political Organizations ==== Media coverage of the 'radical middle' phenomena in (mostly American) politics: *[http://www.independentnation.org/articles/revenge_of_radical.htm Revenge of the Radical Centrists] by John Avlon of the Vital Center *[http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/21/kahlenberg-r.html Richard D. Kahlenberg's analysis of "The Radical Center"] *[http://www.utne.com/pub/2004_125/promo/11350-1.html Leif Utne's article The Radical Middle] from The Utne Reader *[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/idol_pr.html The New American Idol] Wired on Arnold Schwarzenegger as the start of 'radical' centrism. *[http://www.wfs.org/revsatinjf05.htm Environmentalist Robert Olson's article "The Rise of 'Radical Middle' Politics"] from ''The Futurist'' *[http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_923.html What’s on the Mind of the "Radical Middle"?] Economic Growth and Opportunity in the New Century *[http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/awaken/thirdway.htm The Aquarian Conspiracy] - New Age vision of a "common ground/consensus" model of transformational politics *[http://www.public-cio.com/story.php?id=2004.05.12-90221 Smarter Leadership: Managing Change from the Radical Center] (mentions Roger Douglas, a radical centrist leader in New Zealand). Information from self-described radical middle/radical centrist sources: *[http://www.radicalcentrism.org/middle Welcome to the Radical Middle] by [http://www.radicalcentrism.org/about.html RadicalCentrism.org] *[http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/ThirdWayCriticsPR.htm The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy] *[http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/platformtext.html The Responsive Communitarian Platform] *[http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=book_Rev&pubID=1011 The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics] *[http://www.radicalmiddle.com/book.htm Radical Middle: The Politics We Need Now] *[http://masing2004.com/platform.php Hans Masing], Radical Middle candidate for U.S. Congress, Michigan *[http://www.thomhartmann.com/radicalmiddle.shtml The Thom Hartmann Program,] a radio commentator calling for a Radical Center *EarthOps.org's [http://earthops.org/political_plank.html Radical Centrist Party Political Platform?] *[http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~156~1780422,00.html Colorado Voices: The Radical Center] where "compassionate, common-sense solutions" come from *[http://www.theradicalcentrist.com/ The Radical Centrist] a political blogger based in California, co-founder of [http://www.bloginators.com Bloginators] *[http://www.centrustparty.com/ The Centrust Party], inspired by the novel ''The Shift'' (ISBN 0972703497) *[http://www.kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/articles/2005-03-03-EDT-01.html Rantings of a “Radical Centrist”] ==== Howard Dean links ==== * [http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/2003_08_01_gd.html Michael Cudahy on Dean] as representing the Radical Center * [http://www.salonmag.com/opinion/letters/2003/09/19/clark_right/ David Ellis, self-proclaimed part the radical center] responding to Salon magazine's article on Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. * [http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001555.html CalPundit blog on Dean] as more radical centrist than liberal. * [http://deandefense.org/archives/000877.html Article quoting Mark Wiener on Dean being an "exemplar of the radical middle"]
Talk:Radical_middle/archive1 == origin of term == I suspect that there is a (satiric) use of the term from as early as 1963. I seem to remember a piece in ''Monocle'' magazine imagining a centrist equivalent of the John Birch Society that wanted to allow only Cambodia (then radically neutralist under Prince Norodom Sihanouk) and Switzerland to remain in the U.N., etc. Does anyone even know of a library that would have a run of ''Monocle''? -- User:Jmabel 17:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) ...So I asked a librarian. There is apparently no collection of these within several hundred miles of me, so I am not the one to research this. The librarian did, however, give me a list of where ''Monocle'' can be found, which I will place on Talk:Monocle. Is there anyone -- maybe at Yale, or in Los Angeles, or in New York, or even at U. Va. or BYU, who would be willing to follow this up? I promise you, it will be reasonably fun reading... -- User:Jmabel 18:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) :There's a very similar term in a Jules Feiffer strip that must date back to about that time. Hope I can find it in my almost complete collection. User:Dandrake 20:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) :''Hold Me!'', Random House paperback published 1962, strips with copyright dates 1960 - 1962. No page reference because the book has no page numbers, but it's about 2/3 of the way through, and anyway it's worth reading the whole thing. User:Dandrake 04:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) ::Great research, thanks! User:Drernie 17:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Lee Teng-hui== Perhaps Lee Teng-hui would be a good example of a non-Western politician of the Radical Centre. (Anonymously added 13:02:48 by User:209.87.250.38, moved to bottom of page and given a section header by User:Jmabel 21:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)) == communitarianism? == I don't know if communitarianism can be cited here. It's exactly like listing libertarianism; they take elements from liberalism and conservatism, but separate elements. (Juan wrote this and didn't sign...) :Certainly in the U.S. (and I don't know much about this outside the U.S.) "radical middle" politics are often communitarian. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:39, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) ::More importantly, various radical middle organizations cite Etzioni as an inspiration, so there's an ideological connection.User:Drernie 14:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Oh, I think what you're referring to is the 'Responsive Communitarianism' minisection added. -- OK, jmabel, I just learned how to sign User:Juan Ponderas 15:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Recent edit by Drernie == I was a little hesitant to revert, since your edit seemed well thought out and well intended, but point-by-point I disagreed w it. I think a focus on absolute truth (and thus a rejection of moral relativism) is a vital component of the radical middle politics, as are civil rights (such as gun rights) and referendums. Finally, since there is no central radical middle organization, I'm not sure what the benefit of specifying the diversity of sources for these opinions. Isn't the radical middle an adjective, rather than a noun? Isn't it a term used to refer to various trends and politicians, rather than some sort of nascent political party, or smattering of groups? Glad to discuss, 09:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Sam, thanks for commenting. In short, I believe it is appropriate to consider the radical middle a single grass roots ''movement''. While there is no central organization, the various groups who use the term increasingly link to and endorse each other, creating a coherent sense of community. In other words, while it started as an adjective, it has become more of a noun. As such, I think it is both possible and helpful to identify common characteristics. In the radical middle literature, I haven't seen any particular emphasis on 'civil rights' and 'referenda' -- at least by those names; the former smacks more of liberalism, and the latter of populism, neither of which is broadly accepted by those in the radical middle. And, ironically, the only radical middle group I've seen talking about 'absolute truth' is my own [http://RadicalCentrism.org RadicalCentrism.org], which I felt made it too idiosycratic for Wikipedia. :Does that make sense? Given all that, I'd like to add my changes back, but I'll wait for your response in case your seeing something I don't.User:Drernie 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Wow, sorry I took so long! By civil rights I ment gun rights, and other such necessities ;) The term "civil rights" is widely misunderstood to be a synonym for "affirmative action", which I feel is innappropriate. As far as referenda, I always thought of the radical middle ''as'' populist. Also, since we both seem to think absolute truth is a characteristic of the radical middle, I see no reason to censor based solely on your organization. Speaking of which, i should look into you! Cheers, 12:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Let me put my section back, but tweak it slightly to address your concerns. Tell me what you think.User:Drernie 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Ross Perot and the Reform Party == I edited to include Ross Perot because his candidacy everywhere was talked about as appealing to the 'radical middle' (in the press even). He said he was a social moderate and fiscal conservative, but his general tone was of centrism--which is why for years after 'swing voters'/centrist voters/independents were called 'Perot voters'. On most issues he came to compromises between Democrats and Republicans with hard solutions. For instance he said both tax cuts and tax increases were needed. He also felt that partisanship and gridlock between the parties caused most problems, including incessant debates on social issues like abortion. But he promoted issues that appealed to the center (that weren't just plain 'centrist' but pro-active positions that at that time hadn't been talked about much before) like balanced budgets, campaign finance reform, referendums, term limits, fair trade, etc. The Reform Party was based on this platform and was radically centrist--members even called themselves 'centrist'. People in the party felt there were definite issues that needed to be solved, and the two major parties had to be challenged to solve them, with the creation of a new party. Today, many might say the party has a chink in this line of thought, because after Pat Buchanan and his supporters entered the party in the 2000 election, hard stances on immigration started to enter party platforms. Which is somewhat right---but even still it doesn't compromise on the idea. I read Noam Chomsky once wrote that in America the groups on the fringes of politics--like Nader on the left, Buchanan on the right, and Perot in the center, agreed substantially on their significant issues--and he proposed that they joined together in a pretzel to form the 'radical middle'. A radical 'centrist' is an uneasy concept, since politics always changes and what will be moderate will change. The idea here though is that there is a growing set of issues that is not shared by left or right parties (fair trade, government reform, balanced budgets), but appeals to the center. That those who support these issues also carry different baggage of their own, tied to left-right positions, like Buchanan with abortion or immigration, or Nader with other issues, should be expected. If you're talking about John McCain, he plays to many of these positions (but is still free trade). But he's usually still what you might call a 'sensible' centrist and usually falls on the right, where he is. I was in the Reform Party (i think my analysis is accurate so don't bring up the bias), and many members hated McCain because he was a 'false reformer'---for instance his McCain-Feingold act made it even harder for third parties, while not doing anything substantial for reform. The sentiment was that he was just taking advantage of the issues for his public image. If you even listen to his speeches on reform he gives no substance just uses the phrase 'special interests' liberally. From what I know about UK politics, Tony Blair looks more like Clintonesque centrism (which is purely political) than anything else. These issues I listed don't specifically have to define the 'radical middle', it could be different issues. The point is, that there may be a set of issues or way of thinking, not dealt with by the left-right parties, that appeal to that part of the public that considers themselves centrist, moderate, or pragmatic. And this is what defines 'radical middle' movements. (This is different than 'populism' in that populism doesn't rely on a middle. Libertarians also differ from left-right but don't consider themselves moderate) What is called 'sensible middle' isn't necessarily a real contrast to 'radical middle'---they aren't opposites. The difference is, when you consider yourself part of the radical middle you are distinguishing yourself from the left and right as a new way of thinking. So 'radical middle' policies can also be moderate in the classical sense. Other centrists rely on the left and the right to define their issues and just negotiate them for politics. Usually they stay within left or right parties, and still maintain most of the ideologies of these parties, and just use centrism to help come to political compromises. The radical middle defines themselves against the left-right and tries to arrive at a new way of thinking about politics. The main and perhaps only difference between the 'radical centrists' and 'sensible' centrists is that 'radical centrists' have -partisanized-. Thats what the Perot movement was about, it was about -partisanizing the center- (making it the 'radical middle'). This of course can be problematic. I wrote about some of the problems with this in my edits to the Reform Party USA article. There were many high-profile politicians interested in the Reform Party, but most backed away at the threat of political suicide. By the way, do a google search for "perot 'radical middle'" and you'll see all of the references. There are also many articles, if I can find them. And they dwarf references to Dean or Schwarzenegger as the radical middle because in American politics Perot is really the 'grandfather' of this movement. So its strange to see Perot hadn't been mentioned in the article, with so much focus on Dean. And Dean, in some ways has been centrist, especially as governor where he fought for balanced budgets--but during the campaign he was talking like a liberal partisan. User:Brianshapiro 11:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, I appreciate your contributions to the article. I agree that in principle, Perot and the Reform Party are the godfather of the ideas discussed by the radical middle, and deserve a mention. Unfortunately -- though I have no idea why -- the modern Reform Party and the modern Radical Middle movement don't seem to refer to each other at all. All the radical middle stuff I've read over the last year refers back to either British Third Way or New Age politics, never to Perot; conversely the Reform Party doesn't seem to show up at any of the NAF forums or other radical middle venues. It is a strange discontinuity, I agree, so I'd appreciate any insight into why that might be -- unless I'm just missing something. :For the difference between 'sensible' and 'radical' centrists, I would point you to the recently archived diatribe, er, dialogue from this page. Many self-described centrists eschew any sort of 'principled' statement of beliefs, substituting compromise and majority rule as their defining characteristics. We 'radical centrists' delight in writing manifestos and arguing from first principles, not merely majority preference. Perhaps that's what you meant by becoming "partisan", but I suspect it goes deeper than that. :Again, I'm not claiming that these are the right terms; five years ago I'm sure we'd have written a very different article; I'm just trying to describe what I see happening *today*.User:Drernie 23:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Drernie, when I said that the 'radical middle' is not necessarily different in terms of goals than what people have called the 'sensible' middle, is that they also usually agree that solutions to an issue are something that deals with the arguments of both the left and right, and so are a compromise. An important point is that this compromise shouldn't be merely a "political" solution, even though that may be the case, but the real and only solution to the problem, even if only because the political factions represent real concerns and issues. ::People who are just 'centrists' usually still adhere somewhat to their parties. Its not that its always without conviction that a middle way is right; though they don't have any real principle they go by to tell them why its right. And often the centrist positions they push don't have any good thought behind them; so they end up being some half-baked position that isn't really a good solution, rather than a real one. I would count Howard Dean as among this group (though I liked Joe Trippi) ::I only know about UK politics superficially, so I can't say too much on why its different. But there are differences. Tony Blair who is cited as in the radical middle seems to be supportive of globalization policies, while the Perot here opposed them. 'Sensible' centrists within mainstream parties here like McCain or Dean or Lieberman still come out pro-free trade, but mainly because thats the 'mainstream' position being pushed by the leadership of both parties. The opposite view which held by a large amount of the public and factions within the parties is dismissed (opponents are called 'isolationists' even if they are just against the opposite extreme). McCain and Lieberman sit comfortably within their own camps. McCain as a politician that tries to be mainstream, and he probably wouldn't have picked up on the issue of campaign finance reform if Perot didn't raise it. Issues that appeal to the radical center in the US depend alot on what views are included or excluded in power. I know there are some issues like this in Europe, like on immigration and gay rights, but I don't know how it figures into the politics. It has seemed to me though that in the United States the appeal to a genuine centrism is far more important, in that both the left and right wing are looked down on equally, when I get the sense in Europe one side is always looked down on more than the other. And I think in some ways the radical middle could be considered the 'new liberals' against the status quo (and some 'progressives' look at themselves this way) but I don't think this is that important to define it that way, and it detracts from the issues (in fact i think it distorts the 'progressive' agenda). ::Anyway it would be an interesting job to try to rewrite the article to include some of the points I mentioned. And actually it has some interesting parallels to a political mindset in the 19th century best expressed in the French 'juste-milieu' or the 'Era of Good Feelings'/'Great Compromises' in the US. Though I think there are things that set them apart (namely hard principles). Also note the similarity of the Reform Party platform to Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party platform. I am planning on adding an article on the juste-milieu sometime. User:Brianshapiro 24:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, Much as I appreciate the impact of the Reform Party, and their claim to the term 'radical middle', think that it reflects a slightly different ideology than the 21st movement which has appropriated that name. I think a separte section on "Radical middle and the Reform Party" would be very useful, but we should probably keep that distinct from descriptions of Mark Satin, NAF, and RC.org. ::I don't think the article needs tocenter around the Reform Party either. But there is no real recognizable entity called the 'radical middle' even though some people have written books and there is RC.org. In US politics the term first became very popular (though used before) during Perot's candidacy. Now, its not as if Mark Satin or these other groups now own the term or the term recognizably refers to them, they are just using it. I think the best idea is for the article to talk about the idea of a 'radical middle' existing in politics, and how that has built up over the last two decades. And reference Mark Satin, NAF, and RC.org as contemporary advocates. Talking about Perot as a force for this type of politics would be good also, without the need to make a separate section. I think the article would be best to be about the general strain of 'radical middle' politics without being completely about certain groups, and it can talk about this historically as well as other ways. -Brianshapiro :::Okay, I've added a bit to try to and work some of this into the article. If you do rewrite it, I ask that you not lose the 'philisophical' sense of radical middle, which seems to inform the Satin-related movement but differ slightly from the Perotian usage.User:Drernie 17:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==NPOV== There are many non-NPOV terms and turns of phrase which are used which should be placed in quotes. For example, "Rational environmentalism" is clearly ''not'' NPOV (my environmental values are not "irrational"). "As opposed to dogma" is incorrect--dogma is a doctrine which is considered to be absolute truth, and the "Radical Middle" philosophy explicitly asserts truth is absolute via it's doctrine[http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html], creating an interesting circular definition, but that's besides the point.) I wonder why this paradoxical assertion is even in here. --User:Benapgar 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Hi Ben, Thanks for the comments, though I'm puzzled why you added a dispute header rather than simply cleaning up the text. The material derives from a melange of sources, so its hard to keep it consistent. I've tried to fix the two issues you identified, though I would point out: ** dogma is usually a claim to possess absolute knowledge, not merely asserting the existence of absolute truth (much less objective reality, which is what the article text currently states - my personal [http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html manifesto] is hardly definitive) ::Ah ok I get it.--User:Benapgar 03:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ** the principles (like enlibra) are intended to reflect what the various groups believe, though I agree the term 'rational' is unnecessarily prejudicial :Anyway, since I feel I've addressed your concerns, I'm removing the dispute header; however, please feel free to identify (or preferably, fix) anything else that appears problematic.User:Drernie 12:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Ok I'll start making some changes. Just use the history of revisions so you can compare--they'll be small changes scattered throughout. I'll try to be fair, but I still might get some things wrong. I'll probably go through it making changes here and there a couple times. --User:Benapgar 03:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Now that I look at it again, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of much of it, and not being in the position to know the point of it, I'm not sure I can change it accurately. Maybe go through one part at a time. The following part, to me, reads like one of those corporate PR brochures with words like paradigm constantly being tossed about. Could you clarify the following: * Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential This seems straightforward, though rather vacant and apolitical. * Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referendums) This seems straightforward. * Be of genuine help to those in the developing world "Genuine" is prejudicial. * Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality "Grounded in objective reality" is prejudicial and, as far as I can tell, doesn't follow. Unless Radical Middle philosophy treats epistemic virtues as dogma? (in that epistemic virtues are objective reality and are therefore beyond question?) Which, if so, this should then be mentioned neutrally. This line is very confusing for me. * Build character by promoting conscious moral choices Character of who? The government or country as a whole? Or simply citizens? * Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships "Community" is undefined. "creating value" is undefined. The "relationships" in question are undefined. * Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense This isn't a goal in the same sense as the others. Who is "possessing" said foundation is undefined. * enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism This seems ok. Enlibra should be capitalized (change that later). --User:Benapgar 03:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, Thanks for making the effort. Yet, somehow, it feels to me like you're over-analyzing this. We're trying to capture, in this section, what the movement says about itself, and the types of adjectives and values that they emphasize. I don't see that being an NPOV issue. If it bothers you, I'd just add another explanatory sentence, like: "At the same time, the movement has a relatively little experience at defining exactly what these occasionally lofty goals mean -- and virtually none at implementing them -- so it is difficult to compare them fairly with other movements." ::''Any'' explanatory sentence is not going to make it NPOV. This is because it is presented as analysis and observation from a wikipedia writer, which is supposed to be NPOV. The whole thing must either be referenced and quoted or re-written from a NPOV. As an authority on the subject yourself, you could even put it on your site and then quote it here. The way I read the word "genuine" for example, it reads like the wikipedia writer has made a POV judgement on the nature of the goals, rather than observed and documented the goals.--User:Benapgar 18:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Hi Brian, I think we're still talking past each other. These statements are all attempts to describe how radical middle authors describe their goals. It is an NPOV fact that Mark Satin lists "be of genuine help to the developing world" as one of his guiding radical middle principles. If that is not clear, then we need to update the preamble to make it clearer. But NPOV is not served by changing the phrasing to appear less prejudicial. If a Marxists goal is to "release workers from the oppression of capitalism", then we should be able to say that without making a value judgement about the accuracy, fairness, or balance of the statement. Right? Anyone else want to chime in? User:Drernie 21:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Certainly. I would say that this is a very mixed issue. On the one hand, I think Ben would admit he doesn't know alot about Radical middle, and that is probably a source of part of the problem here. On the other hand, the article could do a better job of citing who says what. On the grasping hand ;) Drernie can't very well go around quoting himself in the article, that would be original research. If need be, someone else can quote Drernie's website, but him assuming a narrative stance on an issue where, while an expert, he is almost certainly POV, is not a good idea. Wikipedia is about citing sources, not being ''the'' source, if you know what I mean. Anyhow, I think w a few more citations and some understanding of the nature of political science from Ben, we should be ok. Its not like Radical centrism is making any ridiculous claims here, like say... imposing radical egalitarianism and absolute personal freedom simultaneously... ;) (see Libertarian Socialism) Cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 21:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::What I see is that the choice of rhetoric betrays a disguised argument in support of the politics and political philosophy. That, to me, is POV.--User:Benapgar 17:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Hi Ben, I think what we're arguing over is "whose" rhetoric? * If you think that the article does not accurately and objectively describe what these groups *say about themselves*, based on the sources listed at the bottom, then I'll concede you have a point. * If your point is that the article does not clearly label these statements as "self-description" rather than external characterization, then I ask for your help in making that clearer * If you simply dislike the fact that these self-descriptions are prejudicial to other groups, then I don't see how that's an NPOV issue. It is an NPOV fact that these groups (including mine) use language like this to describe their goals. What's the problem with that? :I'm all for citing sources, but how do we do that since we can't inline external links? I'll take one more stab to try to make things even clearer.User:Drernie 20:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) :There is actually an acceptable way to, involving footnoting. I've never done it, but I'm planning to start ;) I'll get a link to the applicable page in a moment. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 21:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::There are several acceptable ways to do this. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. If you need help, ask me. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 22:57, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) :See Wikipedia:Footnotes as well, cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 11:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) == merger w Third way? == Not something I recommend, see Talk:Third way. Cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 22:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Radical_middle:
Radical_Middle
Radical_middle
Radical_middle
Radical_middle/archive1
Radical Middle
#redirect:Radical middle
Radical middle
The term Radical Middle refers to a type of third way philosophy as well as an associated political movement. Followers of this philosophy claim to improve understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides of apparently contradictory issues, whether that be disagreement amongst Left-Right politics or other disagreement or dilemmas. In politics, followers of this philosophy often call themselves the Radical Center or Radical Centrists, terms sometimes associated with politicians such as Tony Blair in the U.K. and John McCain in the U.S. ==Radical Middle Philosophy== Various groups have adopted "radical middle" as a term to describe a third way philosophy which includes their belief that, in affirming the core principles involved on both sides of a dilemma, the dilemma or disagreement can be rendered moot. These groups argue that this reflects an emphasis on epistemic virtue, by resolving false dilemmas -- i.e., finding the ''excluded middle''. Critics argue that this can easily result in the logical fallacy of false compromise. Followers of the philosophy often consider the wave-particle duality of physics, the Christian doctrine of Jesus as both God and Man, and the Federalism balance between national and state authority in the United States Constitution to be representative of the beliefs of the philosophy. The terms ''Radical Center'' and ''Radical Middle'' are often used interchangeably, though it is sometimes useful to distinguish between the specific political movement and the philosophy in general. Typically, "Radical Center" or "Radical Centrism" refers to the political movement. == Radical Middle Politics == The political application of radical middle philosophy is represented by a cluster of loosely related terms and movements: radical middle, radical centrist, responsive communitarian, third-way, etc. As a relatively grass-roots movement, especially in the United States, there is no definitive statement of radical middle politics. A primary recurring theme, however, might be the idea of "sustainably improving choices." This is reflected in the goals of various radical middle groups, which they describe using language such as: *Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential *Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referendums) *Being of concrete help to those in the developing world *Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality *Build Moral character by promoting conscious moral choices *Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships *Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense *enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism == History of the terms == The term radical middle appears to have been spontaneously invented by several different communities around the turn of the millennium, apparently in response to frustration with the violence of extremism and tepidness of moderation. An early use appears to be from Gordon Fee kingdom theology course at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the 1970s, which helped inspire the Vineyard Movement. He used the term radical middle to contrast the evangelical focus on the future kingdom of God with the Pentecostal emphasis on the present kingdom of God. The first known use of the term was by Jules Feiffer in a comic strip that appears in ''Hold Me!'', a collection published by Random House in 1962. While the term radical center has been used in various ways since at least the 1970s, it first had a major influence in the 1990s due to the Reform Party and Ross Perot, who were frequently described as representing the radical middle due to their attempts to partisanize those portions of the American electorate. Despite a strong showing in the U.S. presidential election, 1996, the Reform Party is nowadays not generally perceived as a major player in national politics, though they have impacted state elections -- notably with their Jesse Ventura becoming governor of Minnesota. Today, the term radical middle is most commonly associated with a movement that does not explicitly claim descent from the Reform Party or its ideas, but rather draws its inspiration from the book ''The Third Way'' by Anthony Giddens (1998) and Giddens's highly-regarded follow-up book ''The Third Way and Its Critics'' (2000). In the U.S. third way politics is most actively represented by the New America Foundation and its book by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, ''The Radical Center'' (2001). Subsequent introductions to radical centrist politics include, most notably, Matthew Miller's book ''The Two Percent Solution'' (2003) and Mark Satin's book ''Radical Middle: The Politics We Need Now'' (2004). (Interestingly, Lind was once a promising young conservative, Miller was once an aide in President Clinton's White House, and Satin was a co-author of the U.S. Green Party's founding document from the 1980s, "Green_Party_%28United_States%29#Key_values.") The definitive history of "Centrism" in America, and probably the best-selling radical centrist book to date, is John Avlon's ''Independent Nation'' (2004, pbk. 2005). == Positioning == Radical centrists are related to what is sometimes called the Vital Center in American politics, and similarly claim to be drawing on the best of both sides. However, they differ significantly from traditional centrism, which prides itself on moderate and seeking political consensus amongst the Political Party; radical centrists, for example, are quite radical and populist in their stated policies. Radical centrists also can be divisive, as opposed to the non-partisan approach of traditional centrism. This leads to many moderates questioning whether radical centrism deserves to be called centrist at all (perhaps analogous to how the Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics often distance themselves from their respective radical wings). For their part, radical centrists are quick to dissociate themselves from traditional moderates, whom they often contrast as the "sensible center", or deride as the "squishy center." Radical centrists can be found in both left-wing and right-wing political parties, but (like other centrists and independents) are usually penalized for being out of step with that party's dominant ideology. This leads to tension between what might be called ''separatist'' factions, who want to shed an unhelpful party label in order to run as independents, and ''puritans'' who want to reform (or take over) the party from within. This tension is particularly acute in countries with strong two-party traditions, since it is difficult for third-party candidates to win office or create governable coalitions absent significant electoral reform. Radical centrists see themselves as building majority consensus for radical reforms by sidestepping (or confronting) what they consider the obsolete, polarized and non-productive ideologies of (social Conservatism/economic Liberalism) and (social Liberalism/economic Conservatism). Radical centrists assert that their principles represent the fusion of the best aspects of Conservatism and Liberalism, and thus interpolate at the level of philosophy rather than policy. They claim these ideological moorings (the 'root' behind their sociological use of the term 'radical') provide the basis for their critique of society, government and other political movements. ==Radical Centrist Organizations== *[http://centristcoalition.com Centrist Coalition], an active online group with a blog and forum *[http://www.centrists.org Centrists.org], public policy think tank *[http://www.independentnation.org Independent Nation], home base for John Avlon, author of the book ''Independent Nation: How the Vital Center Is Changing American Politics'' (2004) *New America Foundation, think tank founded by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, authors of the book ''The Radical Center'' (2001) *[http://www.politicsoftrust.net Politics of Trust Network], founded by John Vasconcellos *[http://www.ppionline.org Progressive Policy Institute], think tank for centrists and radical centrists affiliated with the Democratic Party (United States) *[http://www.radicalcenter.org Radical Center American Party], not quite a political party, for now it is just a website with some political thoughts and some links to other Radical Center sites and thought. It even has its own [http://www.radicalcenter.org/radicalcenterwiki/ Wiki] for you to contribute to American Radical Center thought and political-party evolution *[http://www.radicalmiddle.org Radical Middle Newsletter], online periodical edited by Mark Satin *[http://RadicalCentrism.org RadicalCentrism.org], founded by User:Drernie *Reform Party USA, founded by Ross Perot, was said to have appealed to the radical center, because it found that both the Democrats and Republicans were unable to address real issues because of both left-right partisanship and corruption. The platform compromised on traditional issues of the parties, ignores social issues, pushes an agenda of government reform, and calls for some referendums. Some people feel this centrist position had been compromised since Pat Buchanan entered the party for his 2000 presidential bid, and a harder stance on immigration has been added *[http://www.sfcg.org Search for Common Ground], works to help parties achieve "societal conflict transformation" in hotspots all over the world === Howard Dean alleged to be of the Radical Center === In late 2003, several people#Howard Dean links made the claim that Howard Dean, then the front-runner for the United States Democratic Party presidential nomination, represented the radical center. While this may well have been a defensible description of his policies as Vermont Governor, his loss of the nomination to John Kerry was commonly attributed to his being perceived, even by Democrats, as excessively Liberalism in the United States (in the U.S. sense of the word), rather than any form of centrist. == See also == *Third way ===External links=== ====General/Philosophical Uses==== *[http://www.acmecoalition.org/radicalcenter.html Media Literary for a New Millennium: Finding the "radical center"] *[http://www.languagemagazine.com/internetedition/so2000/glen.html Choosing The Radical Middle] (minority-language schooling) *[http://www.vineyardusa.org/about/history/quest.htm Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard] *[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/7ta/7ta072.html New Bishop Frank Griswald claims to stand at 'radical center' of Episcopalian church] *[http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/centrist.html The Centrist Moment] in the Anglican Church *[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radical-middle/ Yahoo! Radical Middle discussion group], a spin-off of [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pomoxian PoMoXian] * [http://www.catbirdpress.com/bookpages/reader.htm Toward The Radical Center: A Karel Capek Reader] *[http://www.quiviracoalition.org/documents/Invitation.asp The Quivira Coalition] for harmony between humans and nature at the Radical Center *[http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html Ground Rules of Civil Society: A Radical Centrist Manifesto] *[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13785.htm John Mark Ministries] - evangelical Christian liberals ==== Political Organizations ==== Media coverage of the 'radical middle' phenomena in (mostly American) politics: *[http://www.independentnation.org/articles/revenge_of_radical.htm Revenge of the Radical Centrists] by John Avlon of the Vital Center *[http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/21/kahlenberg-r.html Richard D. Kahlenberg's analysis of "The Radical Center"] *[http://www.utne.com/pub/2004_125/promo/11350-1.html Leif Utne's article The Radical Middle] from The Utne Reader *[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/idol_pr.html The New American Idol] Wired on Arnold Schwarzenegger as the start of 'radical' centrism. *[http://www.wfs.org/revsatinjf05.htm Environmentalist Robert Olson's article "The Rise of 'Radical Middle' Politics"] from ''The Futurist'' *[http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_923.html What’s on the Mind of the "Radical Middle"?] Economic Growth and Opportunity in the New Century *[http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/awaken/thirdway.htm The Aquarian Conspiracy] - New Age vision of a "common ground/consensus" model of transformational politics *[http://www.public-cio.com/story.php?id=2004.05.12-90221 Smarter Leadership: Managing Change from the Radical Center] (mentions Roger Douglas, a radical centrist leader in New Zealand). Information from self-described radical middle/radical centrist sources: *[http://www.radicalcentrism.org/middle Welcome to the Radical Middle] by [http://www.radicalcentrism.org/about.html RadicalCentrism.org] *[http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/ThirdWayCriticsPR.htm The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy] *[http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/platformtext.html The Responsive Communitarian Platform] *[http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=book_Rev&pubID=1011 The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics] *[http://www.radicalmiddle.com/book.htm Radical Middle: The Politics We Need Now] *[http://masing2004.com/platform.php Hans Masing], Radical Middle candidate for U.S. Congress, Michigan *[http://www.thomhartmann.com/radicalmiddle.shtml The Thom Hartmann Program,] a radio commentator calling for a Radical Center *EarthOps.org's [http://earthops.org/political_plank.html Radical Centrist Party Political Platform?] *[http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~156~1780422,00.html Colorado Voices: The Radical Center] where "compassionate, common-sense solutions" come from *[http://www.theradicalcentrist.com/ The Radical Centrist] a political blogger based in California, co-founder of [http://www.bloginators.com Bloginators] *[http://www.centrustparty.com/ The Centrust Party], inspired by the novel ''The Shift'' (ISBN 0972703497) *[http://www.kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/articles/2005-03-03-EDT-01.html Rantings of a “Radical Centrist”] ==== Howard Dean links ==== * [http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/2003_08_01_gd.html Michael Cudahy on Dean] as representing the Radical Center * [http://www.salonmag.com/opinion/letters/2003/09/19/clark_right/ David Ellis, self-proclaimed part the radical center] responding to Salon magazine's article on Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. * [http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001555.html CalPundit blog on Dean] as more radical centrist than liberal. * [http://deandefense.org/archives/000877.html Article quoting Mark Wiener on Dean being an "exemplar of the radical middle"]
Radical middle
Talk:Radical_middle/archive1 == origin of term == I suspect that there is a (satiric) use of the term from as early as 1963. I seem to remember a piece in ''Monocle'' magazine imagining a centrist equivalent of the John Birch Society that wanted to allow only Cambodia (then radically neutralist under Prince Norodom Sihanouk) and Switzerland to remain in the U.N., etc. Does anyone even know of a library that would have a run of ''Monocle''? -- User:Jmabel 17:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) ...So I asked a librarian. There is apparently no collection of these within several hundred miles of me, so I am not the one to research this. The librarian did, however, give me a list of where ''Monocle'' can be found, which I will place on Talk:Monocle. Is there anyone -- maybe at Yale, or in Los Angeles, or in New York, or even at U. Va. or BYU, who would be willing to follow this up? I promise you, it will be reasonably fun reading... -- User:Jmabel 18:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) :There's a very similar term in a Jules Feiffer strip that must date back to about that time. Hope I can find it in my almost complete collection. User:Dandrake 20:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) :''Hold Me!'', Random House paperback published 1962, strips with copyright dates 1960 - 1962. No page reference because the book has no page numbers, but it's about 2/3 of the way through, and anyway it's worth reading the whole thing. User:Dandrake 04:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) ::Great research, thanks! User:Drernie 17:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Lee Teng-hui== Perhaps Lee Teng-hui would be a good example of a non-Western politician of the Radical Centre. (Anonymously added 13:02:48 by User:209.87.250.38, moved to bottom of page and given a section header by User:Jmabel 21:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)) == communitarianism? == I don't know if communitarianism can be cited here. It's exactly like listing libertarianism; they take elements from liberalism and conservatism, but separate elements. (Juan wrote this and didn't sign...) :Certainly in the U.S. (and I don't know much about this outside the U.S.) "radical middle" politics are often communitarian. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:39, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) ::More importantly, various radical middle organizations cite Etzioni as an inspiration, so there's an ideological connection.User:Drernie 14:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Oh, I think what you're referring to is the 'Responsive Communitarianism' minisection added. -- OK, jmabel, I just learned how to sign User:Juan Ponderas 15:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Recent edit by Drernie == I was a little hesitant to revert, since your edit seemed well thought out and well intended, but point-by-point I disagreed w it. I think a focus on absolute truth (and thus a rejection of moral relativism) is a vital component of the radical middle politics, as are civil rights (such as gun rights) and referendums. Finally, since there is no central radical middle organization, I'm not sure what the benefit of specifying the diversity of sources for these opinions. Isn't the radical middle an adjective, rather than a noun? Isn't it a term used to refer to various trends and politicians, rather than some sort of nascent political party, or smattering of groups? Glad to discuss, 09:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Sam, thanks for commenting. In short, I believe it is appropriate to consider the radical middle a single grass roots ''movement''. While there is no central organization, the various groups who use the term increasingly link to and endorse each other, creating a coherent sense of community. In other words, while it started as an adjective, it has become more of a noun. As such, I think it is both possible and helpful to identify common characteristics. In the radical middle literature, I haven't seen any particular emphasis on 'civil rights' and 'referenda' -- at least by those names; the former smacks more of liberalism, and the latter of populism, neither of which is broadly accepted by those in the radical middle. And, ironically, the only radical middle group I've seen talking about 'absolute truth' is my own [http://RadicalCentrism.org RadicalCentrism.org], which I felt made it too idiosycratic for Wikipedia. :Does that make sense? Given all that, I'd like to add my changes back, but I'll wait for your response in case your seeing something I don't.User:Drernie 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Wow, sorry I took so long! By civil rights I ment gun rights, and other such necessities ;) The term "civil rights" is widely misunderstood to be a synonym for "affirmative action", which I feel is innappropriate. As far as referenda, I always thought of the radical middle ''as'' populist. Also, since we both seem to think absolute truth is a characteristic of the radical middle, I see no reason to censor based solely on your organization. Speaking of which, i should look into you! Cheers, 12:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Let me put my section back, but tweak it slightly to address your concerns. Tell me what you think.User:Drernie 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Ross Perot and the Reform Party == I edited to include Ross Perot because his candidacy everywhere was talked about as appealing to the 'radical middle' (in the press even). He said he was a social moderate and fiscal conservative, but his general tone was of centrism--which is why for years after 'swing voters'/centrist voters/independents were called 'Perot voters'. On most issues he came to compromises between Democrats and Republicans with hard solutions. For instance he said both tax cuts and tax increases were needed. He also felt that partisanship and gridlock between the parties caused most problems, including incessant debates on social issues like abortion. But he promoted issues that appealed to the center (that weren't just plain 'centrist' but pro-active positions that at that time hadn't been talked about much before) like balanced budgets, campaign finance reform, referendums, term limits, fair trade, etc. The Reform Party was based on this platform and was radically centrist--members even called themselves 'centrist'. People in the party felt there were definite issues that needed to be solved, and the two major parties had to be challenged to solve them, with the creation of a new party. Today, many might say the party has a chink in this line of thought, because after Pat Buchanan and his supporters entered the party in the 2000 election, hard stances on immigration started to enter party platforms. Which is somewhat right---but even still it doesn't compromise on the idea. I read Noam Chomsky once wrote that in America the groups on the fringes of politics--like Nader on the left, Buchanan on the right, and Perot in the center, agreed substantially on their significant issues--and he proposed that they joined together in a pretzel to form the 'radical middle'. A radical 'centrist' is an uneasy concept, since politics always changes and what will be moderate will change. The idea here though is that there is a growing set of issues that is not shared by left or right parties (fair trade, government reform, balanced budgets), but appeals to the center. That those who support these issues also carry different baggage of their own, tied to left-right positions, like Buchanan with abortion or immigration, or Nader with other issues, should be expected. If you're talking about John McCain, he plays to many of these positions (but is still free trade). But he's usually still what you might call a 'sensible' centrist and usually falls on the right, where he is. I was in the Reform Party (i think my analysis is accurate so don't bring up the bias), and many members hated McCain because he was a 'false reformer'---for instance his McCain-Feingold act made it even harder for third parties, while not doing anything substantial for reform. The sentiment was that he was just taking advantage of the issues for his public image. If you even listen to his speeches on reform he gives no substance just uses the phrase 'special interests' liberally. From what I know about UK politics, Tony Blair looks more like Clintonesque centrism (which is purely political) than anything else. These issues I listed don't specifically have to define the 'radical middle', it could be different issues. The point is, that there may be a set of issues or way of thinking, not dealt with by the left-right parties, that appeal to that part of the public that considers themselves centrist, moderate, or pragmatic. And this is what defines 'radical middle' movements. (This is different than 'populism' in that populism doesn't rely on a middle. Libertarians also differ from left-right but don't consider themselves moderate) What is called 'sensible middle' isn't necessarily a real contrast to 'radical middle'---they aren't opposites. The difference is, when you consider yourself part of the radical middle you are distinguishing yourself from the left and right as a new way of thinking. So 'radical middle' policies can also be moderate in the classical sense. Other centrists rely on the left and the right to define their issues and just negotiate them for politics. Usually they stay within left or right parties, and still maintain most of the ideologies of these parties, and just use centrism to help come to political compromises. The radical middle defines themselves against the left-right and tries to arrive at a new way of thinking about politics. The main and perhaps only difference between the 'radical centrists' and 'sensible' centrists is that 'radical centrists' have -partisanized-. Thats what the Perot movement was about, it was about -partisanizing the center- (making it the 'radical middle'). This of course can be problematic. I wrote about some of the problems with this in my edits to the Reform Party USA article. There were many high-profile politicians interested in the Reform Party, but most backed away at the threat of political suicide. By the way, do a google search for "perot 'radical middle'" and you'll see all of the references. There are also many articles, if I can find them. And they dwarf references to Dean or Schwarzenegger as the radical middle because in American politics Perot is really the 'grandfather' of this movement. So its strange to see Perot hadn't been mentioned in the article, with so much focus on Dean. And Dean, in some ways has been centrist, especially as governor where he fought for balanced budgets--but during the campaign he was talking like a liberal partisan. User:Brianshapiro 11:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, I appreciate your contributions to the article. I agree that in principle, Perot and the Reform Party are the godfather of the ideas discussed by the radical middle, and deserve a mention. Unfortunately -- though I have no idea why -- the modern Reform Party and the modern Radical Middle movement don't seem to refer to each other at all. All the radical middle stuff I've read over the last year refers back to either British Third Way or New Age politics, never to Perot; conversely the Reform Party doesn't seem to show up at any of the NAF forums or other radical middle venues. It is a strange discontinuity, I agree, so I'd appreciate any insight into why that might be -- unless I'm just missing something. :For the difference between 'sensible' and 'radical' centrists, I would point you to the recently archived diatribe, er, dialogue from this page. Many self-described centrists eschew any sort of 'principled' statement of beliefs, substituting compromise and majority rule as their defining characteristics. We 'radical centrists' delight in writing manifestos and arguing from first principles, not merely majority preference. Perhaps that's what you meant by becoming "partisan", but I suspect it goes deeper than that. :Again, I'm not claiming that these are the right terms; five years ago I'm sure we'd have written a very different article; I'm just trying to describe what I see happening *today*.User:Drernie 23:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Drernie, when I said that the 'radical middle' is not necessarily different in terms of goals than what people have called the 'sensible' middle, is that they also usually agree that solutions to an issue are something that deals with the arguments of both the left and right, and so are a compromise. An important point is that this compromise shouldn't be merely a "political" solution, even though that may be the case, but the real and only solution to the problem, even if only because the political factions represent real concerns and issues. ::People who are just 'centrists' usually still adhere somewhat to their parties. Its not that its always without conviction that a middle way is right; though they don't have any real principle they go by to tell them why its right. And often the centrist positions they push don't have any good thought behind them; so they end up being some half-baked position that isn't really a good solution, rather than a real one. I would count Howard Dean as among this group (though I liked Joe Trippi) ::I only know about UK politics superficially, so I can't say too much on why its different. But there are differences. Tony Blair who is cited as in the radical middle seems to be supportive of globalization policies, while the Perot here opposed them. 'Sensible' centrists within mainstream parties here like McCain or Dean or Lieberman still come out pro-free trade, but mainly because thats the 'mainstream' position being pushed by the leadership of both parties. The opposite view which held by a large amount of the public and factions within the parties is dismissed (opponents are called 'isolationists' even if they are just against the opposite extreme). McCain and Lieberman sit comfortably within their own camps. McCain as a politician that tries to be mainstream, and he probably wouldn't have picked up on the issue of campaign finance reform if Perot didn't raise it. Issues that appeal to the radical center in the US depend alot on what views are included or excluded in power. I know there are some issues like this in Europe, like on immigration and gay rights, but I don't know how it figures into the politics. It has seemed to me though that in the United States the appeal to a genuine centrism is far more important, in that both the left and right wing are looked down on equally, when I get the sense in Europe one side is always looked down on more than the other. And I think in some ways the radical middle could be considered the 'new liberals' against the status quo (and some 'progressives' look at themselves this way) but I don't think this is that important to define it that way, and it detracts from the issues (in fact i think it distorts the 'progressive' agenda). ::Anyway it would be an interesting job to try to rewrite the article to include some of the points I mentioned. And actually it has some interesting parallels to a political mindset in the 19th century best expressed in the French 'juste-milieu' or the 'Era of Good Feelings'/'Great Compromises' in the US. Though I think there are things that set them apart (namely hard principles). Also note the similarity of the Reform Party platform to Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party platform. I am planning on adding an article on the juste-milieu sometime. User:Brianshapiro 24:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, Much as I appreciate the impact of the Reform Party, and their claim to the term 'radical middle', think that it reflects a slightly different ideology than the 21st movement which has appropriated that name. I think a separte section on "Radical middle and the Reform Party" would be very useful, but we should probably keep that distinct from descriptions of Mark Satin, NAF, and RC.org. ::I don't think the article needs tocenter around the Reform Party either. But there is no real recognizable entity called the 'radical middle' even though some people have written books and there is RC.org. In US politics the term first became very popular (though used before) during Perot's candidacy. Now, its not as if Mark Satin or these other groups now own the term or the term recognizably refers to them, they are just using it. I think the best idea is for the article to talk about the idea of a 'radical middle' existing in politics, and how that has built up over the last two decades. And reference Mark Satin, NAF, and RC.org as contemporary advocates. Talking about Perot as a force for this type of politics would be good also, without the need to make a separate section. I think the article would be best to be about the general strain of 'radical middle' politics without being completely about certain groups, and it can talk about this historically as well as other ways. -Brianshapiro :::Okay, I've added a bit to try to and work some of this into the article. If you do rewrite it, I ask that you not lose the 'philisophical' sense of radical middle, which seems to inform the Satin-related movement but differ slightly from the Perotian usage.User:Drernie 17:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==NPOV== There are many non-NPOV terms and turns of phrase which are used which should be placed in quotes. For example, "Rational environmentalism" is clearly ''not'' NPOV (my environmental values are not "irrational"). "As opposed to dogma" is incorrect--dogma is a doctrine which is considered to be absolute truth, and the "Radical Middle" philosophy explicitly asserts truth is absolute via it's doctrine[http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html], creating an interesting circular definition, but that's besides the point.) I wonder why this paradoxical assertion is even in here. --User:Benapgar 07:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Hi Ben, Thanks for the comments, though I'm puzzled why you added a dispute header rather than simply cleaning up the text. The material derives from a melange of sources, so its hard to keep it consistent. I've tried to fix the two issues you identified, though I would point out: ** dogma is usually a claim to possess absolute knowledge, not merely asserting the existence of absolute truth (much less objective reality, which is what the article text currently states - my personal [http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html manifesto] is hardly definitive) ::Ah ok I get it.--User:Benapgar 03:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ** the principles (like enlibra) are intended to reflect what the various groups believe, though I agree the term 'rational' is unnecessarily prejudicial :Anyway, since I feel I've addressed your concerns, I'm removing the dispute header; however, please feel free to identify (or preferably, fix) anything else that appears problematic.User:Drernie 12:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Ok I'll start making some changes. Just use the history of revisions so you can compare--they'll be small changes scattered throughout. I'll try to be fair, but I still might get some things wrong. I'll probably go through it making changes here and there a couple times. --User:Benapgar 03:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Now that I look at it again, I'm afraid I don't understand the point of much of it, and not being in the position to know the point of it, I'm not sure I can change it accurately. Maybe go through one part at a time. The following part, to me, reads like one of those corporate PR brochures with words like paradigm constantly being tossed about. Could you clarify the following: * Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential This seems straightforward, though rather vacant and apolitical. * Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referendums) This seems straightforward. * Be of genuine help to those in the developing world "Genuine" is prejudicial. * Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality "Grounded in objective reality" is prejudicial and, as far as I can tell, doesn't follow. Unless Radical Middle philosophy treats epistemic virtues as dogma? (in that epistemic virtues are objective reality and are therefore beyond question?) Which, if so, this should then be mentioned neutrally. This line is very confusing for me. * Build character by promoting conscious moral choices Character of who? The government or country as a whole? Or simply citizens? * Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships "Community" is undefined. "creating value" is undefined. The "relationships" in question are undefined. * Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense This isn't a goal in the same sense as the others. Who is "possessing" said foundation is undefined. * enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism This seems ok. Enlibra should be capitalized (change that later). --User:Benapgar 03:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Hi Brian, Thanks for making the effort. Yet, somehow, it feels to me like you're over-analyzing this. We're trying to capture, in this section, what the movement says about itself, and the types of adjectives and values that they emphasize. I don't see that being an NPOV issue. If it bothers you, I'd just add another explanatory sentence, like: "At the same time, the movement has a relatively little experience at defining exactly what these occasionally lofty goals mean -- and virtually none at implementing them -- so it is difficult to compare them fairly with other movements." ::''Any'' explanatory sentence is not going to make it NPOV. This is because it is presented as analysis and observation from a wikipedia writer, which is supposed to be NPOV. The whole thing must either be referenced and quoted or re-written from a NPOV. As an authority on the subject yourself, you could even put it on your site and then quote it here. The way I read the word "genuine" for example, it reads like the wikipedia writer has made a POV judgement on the nature of the goals, rather than observed and documented the goals.--User:Benapgar 18:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Hi Brian, I think we're still talking past each other. These statements are all attempts to describe how radical middle authors describe their goals. It is an NPOV fact that Mark Satin lists "be of genuine help to the developing world" as one of his guiding radical middle principles. If that is not clear, then we need to update the preamble to make it clearer. But NPOV is not served by changing the phrasing to appear less prejudicial. If a Marxists goal is to "release workers from the oppression of capitalism", then we should be able to say that without making a value judgement about the accuracy, fairness, or balance of the statement. Right? Anyone else want to chime in? User:Drernie 21:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Certainly. I would say that this is a very mixed issue. On the one hand, I think Ben would admit he doesn't know alot about Radical middle, and that is probably a source of part of the problem here. On the other hand, the article could do a better job of citing who says what. On the grasping hand ;) Drernie can't very well go around quoting himself in the article, that would be original research. If need be, someone else can quote Drernie's website, but him assuming a narrative stance on an issue where, while an expert, he is almost certainly POV, is not a good idea. Wikipedia is about citing sources, not being ''the'' source, if you know what I mean. Anyhow, I think w a few more citations and some understanding of the nature of political science from Ben, we should be ok. Its not like Radical centrism is making any ridiculous claims here, like say... imposing radical egalitarianism and absolute personal freedom simultaneously... ;) (see Libertarian Socialism) Cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 21:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::What I see is that the choice of rhetoric betrays a disguised argument in support of the politics and political philosophy. That, to me, is POV.--User:Benapgar 17:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Hi Ben, I think what we're arguing over is "whose" rhetoric? * If you think that the article does not accurately and objectively describe what these groups *say about themselves*, based on the sources listed at the bottom, then I'll concede you have a point. * If your point is that the article does not clearly label these statements as "self-description" rather than external characterization, then I ask for your help in making that clearer * If you simply dislike the fact that these self-descriptions are prejudicial to other groups, then I don't see how that's an NPOV issue. It is an NPOV fact that these groups (including mine) use language like this to describe their goals. What's the problem with that? :I'm all for citing sources, but how do we do that since we can't inline external links? I'll take one more stab to try to make things even clearer.User:Drernie 20:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) :There is actually an acceptable way to, involving footnoting. I've never done it, but I'm planning to start ;) I'll get a link to the applicable page in a moment. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 21:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::There are several acceptable ways to do this. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. If you need help, ask me. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 22:57, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) :See Wikipedia:Footnotes as well, cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 11:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) == merger w Third way? == Not something I recommend, see Talk:Third way. Cheers, (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 22:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Radical_middle:
Radical_Middle
Radical_middle
Radical_middle
Radical_middle/archive1
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
