Radical middle

Mosquito ringtone 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 ''Sabrina Martins Monocle'' magazine imagining a centrist equivalent of the Nextel ringtones 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''? Abbey Diaz Jmabel/Jmabel 17:47, Aug 30, 2004
...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 Free ringtones 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... Majo Mills Jmabel/Jmabel 18:34, Aug 30, 2004
: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. Mosquito ringtone Dandrake/Dandrake 20:09, Aug 30, 2004

:''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. Sabrina Martins Dandrake/Dandrake 04:13, Aug 31, 2004
::Great research, thanks! Nextel ringtones Drernie/Drernie 17:54, 31 Aug 2004

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 Abbey Diaz 209.87.250.38, moved to bottom of page and given a section header by Cingular Ringtones User:Jmabel/Jmabel 21:35, Sep 28, 2004 )

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. mother again Jmabel/Jmabel / ailing public User talk:Jmabel/Talk 07:39, Nov 1, 2004
::More importantly, various radical middle organizations cite Etzioni as an inspiration, so there's an ideological connection.aggressive behavior Drernie/Drernie 14:09, 1 Nov 2004
:Oh, I think what you're referring to is the 'Responsive Communitarianism' minisection added. OK, jmabel, I just learned how to sign insurance officials Juan Ponderas/Juan Ponderas 15:15, 1 Nov 2004

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, 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.fox logo Drernie/Drernie 21:51, 31 Jan 2005

Ross Perot and the Reform Party

I edited to include exploits he 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 centrismwhich 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 centristmembers 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 research the Pat Buchanan and his supporters entered the party in the daily evidence 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 politicslike Nader on the left, Buchanan on the right, and Perot in the center, agreed substantially on their significant issuesand 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 back hyperinflation 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 budgetsbut during the campaign he was talking like a liberal partisan.

ridge have Brianshapiro/Brianshapiro 11:53, 28 Jan 2005
: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*.once flippantly Drernie/Drernie 23:00, 29 Jan 2005
::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.
york these Brianshapiro/Brianshapiro 24:00, 29 Jan 2005
: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.i hooked Drernie/Drernie 17:53, 2 Feb 2005


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 on breast dogma" is incorrectdogma is a doctrine which is considered to be speedway needed absolute truth, and the "Radical Middle" philosophy explicitly asserts truth is absolute via it's doctrine[http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html], creating an interesting easy exchange circular definition, but that's besides the point.) I wonder why this paradoxical assertion is even in here. hart was Benapgar/Ben 07:15, 21 Feb 2005
: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 courtyards this objective reality, which is what the article text currently states - my personal http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html is hardly definitive)
::Ah ok I get it.exquisite despite Benapgar/Ben 03:22, 23 Feb 2005
** 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.unimportant on Drernie/Drernie 12:16, 21 Feb 2005
::Ok I'll start making some changes. Just use the history of revisions so you can comparethey'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. Benapgar/Ben 03:22, 23 Feb 2005

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).
Benapgar/Ben 03:53, 23 Feb 2005
: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.Benapgar/Ben 18:00, 25 Feb 2005
:::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? Drernie/Drernie 21:03, 28 Feb 2005

::::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, (Sam Spade/Sam Spade / user_talk:Sam Spade/talk / contributions/Sam Spade/contributions) 21:45, 28 Feb 2005

:::::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.Benapgar/Ben 17:45, 1 Mar 2005
: 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.Drernie/Drernie 20:39, 2 Mar 2005

: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. (Sam Spade/Sam Spade / user_talk:Sam Spade/talk / contributions/Sam Spade/contributions) 21:01, 2 Mar 2005

::There are several acceptable ways to do this. See Cite sources. If you need help, ask me. Jmabel/Jmabel / User talk:Jmabel/Talk 22:57, Mar 2, 2005

:See Footnotes as well, cheers, (Sam Spade/Sam Spade / user_talk:Sam Spade/talk / contributions/Sam Spade/contributions) 11:59, 3 Mar 2005

merger w Third way?

Not something I recommend, see Talk:Third way. Cheers, (Sam Spade/Sam Spade / user_talk:Sam Spade/talk / contributions/Sam Spade/contributions) 22:41, 1 Mar 2005