From: Glenn King Columbus Ohio Radical Middle
Goup
Remote User:
Date: 10 March 2002
Enclosed is an article that I wrote about a month ago for the small group of people Eric Vessels, Tadit Anderson, and myself who have been discussing radical center politics in Columbus Ohio. Some good work by persons such as Mark Satin and the authors of "The Radical Center" Michael Lind and Ted Halstead has started just the beginning of a movement. I believe that it is time for grassroots people to begin discussing how to build a movement, what should be the main ideas of a radical middle movement, etc. Perhaps this article and the book review can help ignite some discussion on what is needed to be done.
Glenn King
On Radical Center Politics
In the 1990s, various prominent political writers, leaders, and thinkers discussed a new form of vigorous politics that transcends conventional categories of the liberalism of the left and the conservatism of the right. Simultaneously with this development, at the grassroots millions of voters have increasingly refused to identify with either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Several times within the past decade, these independent voters have supported nonconventional candidates who did not consistently represent the views of either the right or left.
Ross Perot ran in 1992 on an amalgam of issues such as balancing the budget (a classic conservative issue) and opposition to free trade, NAFTA, and GATT all often thought of as left issues. Senator John McCain in the 2000 primary almost overthrew the Republican establishment candidate George W.. Bush in a similar amalgam of populist issues such as campaign reform and more conservative issues.
The new political vision -- called by a variety of names such as the politics of a radical center, radical middle, or a third way by its major proponents -- while holding certain views in common is also quite diverse. What is generally held in common by radical center thinkers is the belief that much of the political rhetoric and world view of both the American left liberal and conservative right establishments of American politics is dysfunctional or unproductive. Thus writers such as Michael Lind, Camille Paglia, and Mark Satin criticize the extreme muliculturalist identity politics of the left. However, they may also reject the extreme antigovernment and culturally more reactionary views of the right as well. While criticizing many of the views of both right and left, radical center thinkers do not reject all aspects of left or right ideologies out of hand. They often seek to incorporate good ideas from whatever source is available. In fact, as Marilyn Ferguson states they seek to "synthesize" and blend "old and new values"
While a certain unity exists between the major intellectuals of the radical center, real differences also exist, particularly if one includes grassroots support of a radical center politics in the equation. For example, Michael Lind in his book "The Next American Nation" supports a conception of "liberal nationalism" as the appropriate response to what he views as a "multi cultural" establishment. Mark Satin, an author of the radical middle newsletter, seems far from any sort of nationalism. On the contrary, he emphasizes globalism, free trade, and cosmopolitan values.
At the grassroots of the radical center movement, ideas also differ. Some adherents of the radical center, for example, often oppose any form of nationalism because it seems opposed to the international principle of opposition to corporate-dominated foreign policies. Others, while perhaps being critical of U.S. foreign policies, may see some good in them as well. Some in the radical center oppose globalism, free trade, and call for fundamental changes in U.S. trade and economic policies. Others are much more comfortable with corporations and don't necessarily oppose globalism. Significant differences exist.
From what has been said so far, it can be argued, and in fact has been argued, that a radical center movement does not really exist in American politics. What does exist is a non-radical politics of moderation in American politics and little more. The promoters of a radical center are simply a handful of intellectuals.
My response to this is that there is some truth to these arguments. The firmest political ground in the United Stares is held by the ideological adherents of left and right. The middle on the contrary tends to be shifting according to the tides of public opinion. The politicians who have advocated a radical center stance such as Tony Blair in England or Bill Clinton in the United Stares in fact have hardly been radical at all in their political stands, at least not radical if the meaning of being radical is to promote fundamental political, social, and economic change.
So does a radical center politics still exist? I will argue that what does exist are some very powerful ideas promoted by some very able spokespersons and a pre-movement population of "independent" voters and traditional Democrats and Republicans who are discontented with their parties and might just be ignited into a movement by the ideas of a radical center politics. The movement thus ignited would be center or middle or traditional in many of their political, social or cultural values.
For example, many may have more traditional values on patriotism, family, or religious issues. Many may believe in the values of business and balanced budgets in government. Many may believe in more traditional moralities and eschew the extreme views of right and left on many of these issues. Thus they may perhaps find discomfort in either extreme position of the abortion debate. They may reject the patriotic jingoism of the far right, but may equally be repelled by the lack of any form of patriotism on the left. In short, they may be moderate and middle. However, is it possible for these people of the middle to be radical? Is it possible for them to struggle for fundamental political, economic, and social reform? Perhaps. That is at least the hope of some of the thinkers of the radical center.
According to the dictionary, there are two definitions of "radical" that are useful here. One is based on the fact that the word radical comes from a Latin word meaning "roots." Therefore, to be radical is to go to the "root" of something. In the political sense, that would mean to attempt to understand the root causes of events or political problems and then attempt to create desired changes. The other definition of "radical" is more familiar. To be radical in this sense is to make fundamental political, social, or economic reform. Both of these definitions are useful.
To be a centrist radical then is to become thoroughly aware of the deep underlying causes ("roots") of political problems or events, and to struggle to create the adequate means to change political/economic reality. Within the context of American society, To be radical would in my opinion mean to seek to create a movement of fundamental reform in this society. Some of the more obvious reforms would include the following.
1. Significant campaign finance and other electoral reforms to create a more balanced system in which the mass of citizens are empowered politically and the corporate stranglehold on politics is lessened.
2. End the control of the political system by the free trade globablist regime of the transnational corporations in Washington. The creation in its place of trade policies based on concepts of "fair trade" with strong protections of the rights of workers, communities, and the environment.
3. Serious educational reform.
4. Reform of the news media and of the cultural production of advertising and consumerism.
5. Energy policy and other environmental reforms.
These are just some of the areas of American life that require profound and radical change.
It is quite possible that people of the middle who reject the dogmatism of both the political right and left may fully embrace and struggle for a program of radical reform in this society. In fact, this is how political change in the real world has always occurred. Profound political change occurs when the mass of ordinary middle sort of people come to embrace certain radical causes because they make sense at the time. For example, the successful struggle of workers in the '30s for union recognition and workers' rights was conducted primarily by ordinary people who shared most of the values of the America of that time. The same was true of the successful civil rights movement of the '60s. It was the "moderate" movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. that won the day.
A political movement of a radical center certainly is not yet a fully developed political reality at this time. It is only in seed form. However, a lot of ideas are out there. Ideas are still needed. Analysis and debate are needed on issues such as the globalism vs. fair trade conflict. The organizations of political linkages and alliances must be formed. Much work is needed to be done. It might just be a good time in which to work on a new political movement to bring more justice to the world.
Glenn King