The terms
radical center or
radical
middle describe a
Third
Way philosophy as well as an
associated
political movement.
Followers of this philosophy will and can claim to improve
understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides, whether that
be disagreement amongst
left-right
politics or other disagreement or
dilemmas.
Philosophy
Various groups have adopted "radical center" 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.
The terms
Radical Center and
Radical Middle are
often used interchangeably, although the former more often refers
to a political movement or current and the latter to a political
philosophy. The latter use reflects an emphasis on
epistemic virtue, by resolving
false dilemmas -- i.e., finding the
excluded middle.
Politics
The
political application of radical center 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 centrist groups, which they describe using
language such as:
History of the terms
While the term radical center has been used in various ways since
at least the 1970s, its use became more common due to the
Reform Party
and
Ross Perot, who were frequently
described as representing the radical middle due to their attempts
to
partisan those portions of
the American electorate. Despite a strong showing in the
1996 U.S. presidential
election, today the Reform Party is 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 center 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' 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
conservative, Miller was once an aide in President Bill Clinton's White House
, and Satin was a co-author of the U.S. Green Party's founding document from the
1980s, "
Ten 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).
In 1955,
Geoffrey Crowther,
then editor of the UK
publication The
Economist, declared, "It is to the Radicals that The
Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging.
The extreme centre is the paper's historical position."
The alternative 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
both
extremism and
moderation.
An early use appears to be from Gordon Fee's 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. But the first known use of the term
"radical middle" was by
Jules Feiffer
in a comic strip that appears in
Hold Me!, a collection
published by
Random House in
1962.
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
moderation and seeking political
consensus amongst the
parties; radical centrists, for example, can
be quite
radical and
populist in their stated policies. Radical
centrists also can be divisive, as opposed to the
non-partisan approach of traditional centrism.
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, and often form what might be called
separatist factions and run as independents.
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 ("radix", the 'root' behind their sociological
use of the term 'radical') provide the basis for their critique of
society, government and other
political movements.
Michael Lind, in his 1996 publication
Up From Conservatism, writes that, though American radical
centrism is today a minority political philosophy, it was, in fact,
the dominant political philosophy within the United States from the
time of
Franklin Delano
Roosevelt through
Lyndon Johnson
— a philosophy that was shared both by the presidents of that era
and the majority of the American people. Therefore, Lind argues,
the American "radical" centrism of today is simply the adamant
pursuit for a return to the once-mainstream political principle of
New Deal economic progressivism coupled
with a moderate cultural conservatism. This modest cultural
conservatism would be exemplified on the political stage simply by
the "radical centrist" politician's refusal to politicize or
advocate socially-liberal issues like abortion or gay rights.
However, the radical centrist politician might spurn any influence
or pressure coming from the
Religious
Right and other
socially
conservative groups (i.e.
pro-life
advocates,
school prayer advocates,
etc.)
Organizations
- 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 both
parties, ignores social issues, pushes an agenda of government
reform, and calls for some referendums. Pat
Buchanan entered the party for his 2000 presidential bid,
adding a harder stance on immigration
and an anti-abortion stance; but soon after the election Buchanan
left the party again and the party returned to more centrist
economical-political positions (and without official position on
fracturing social issues).
- Modern Whig Party, a party
established in 2007 that esposes its own Modern Whig
philosophy that is somewhat like responsive
communitarianism or radical middle, but many members denounce
the radical middle and claim it is the opposite of their ideology
due to radical middle's implied extreme attitude towards issues.
Istead of being the "hard center" or "squishy center" they claim
their ideology "transcends the political spectrum".
- Centrerion: Canadian Politics, a centrist group
blog discussing Canadian federal politics,
foreign affairs, and economics
- Centrist
Coalition, an active online group with a blog and forum
- Centrists.org, public policy think tank
- Independent Nation, home base for John Avlon, author
of the book Independent Nation: How the Vital Center Is
Changing American Politics (2004)
See also
As opposed to:
References
External links
Philosophical/Ideological
Media coverage
Media coverage of the 'radical middle' phenomena in (mostly
American) politics:
Information from self-described radical middle/radical centrist
sources:
Centrist Blogs
Parties, U.S.A.
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
