Most Americans consider themselves neither right nor left, but independent and centrist. This is not a negative position, but is an emphatic statement that they don't buy into the extremist visions of either right or left. Yet they know what they want, and have fought and died in wars from 1776 to the 20th century to preserve it. They are the Radical Middle.
The founders of America explicitly defined the Radical Middle when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is the position of the Radical Middle - that we, the people, don't want governments or corporations running our lives. We don't want a corporate state or a police state. We want back our democratic institutions, a government again responsive to We, The People, instead of today's government that has become captive to corporate special interests. We want to live our lives in peace and security, but are not willing to tolerate tyranny nor subject ourselves to a police state. We want job security and safety in our old age, and have clearly seen that transnational corporations don't give a hoot about either. We want a clean environment and schools that inspire and fill our children with a thirst for knowledge, and we realize that the modern corporate-controlled state has let profit be more important than clean air or water, and that taking the cheap way out and just throwing more tests at our children kills rather than kindles their enthusiasm for learning.
We don't want a government bureaucracy or a corporate bureaucracy telling us what doctors we can see, but we do believe that a single-payer system funded by our taxes and administered by our government can work for all Americans. We don't want to pay excessive taxes but we are also fully willing to pay our share of the upkeep of the nation, for safe streets and communities, and for our nation's defense. We also, however, think that somebody who spends half their income on food and shelter shouldn't pay as much in taxes as somebody who has such a high income that food and shelter only represent a tiny fraction of their income.
We in the Radical Middle are calling for nothing less than a restoration of democracy, of government of, by, and for the people, in a culture that works for all.
Excerpted from the epilogue of Thom's book We The People - click on the link to see the illustrations.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
i think the radical middle, much like the middle class of america, is becoming extinct.
alot of people think that in order to 'cancel' out the radical right (neocons), they must become radically left leaning. and the conservatives feel the same way about the left. in order to cancel out the left and its environmentalists and activists, they must become hardened and acceptable of a police state.
overall, america loses with this scenerio. im a part of the problem myself, but with good reasoning. after bush got elected, err... i mean appointed in 2000, i became a volunteer for the local democratic chapter here in ft myers. because of local developers and county commisioners (who are mostly conservatives and only think of $$), i have become an activist in local environmental issues also. its an endless cycle i guess, with no winners.
i think to combat this, america really needs a viable 3rd and 4th party system, so people have more choices than just left or right. maybe one day, we can elect a centralist as president, one who would see both sides to the issues and compromise, instead of staying along party and political lines.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
What follows is just my personal view, not meant to be judgmental of how anyone else might find this term appealing, or otherwise, but more about how I work things out in my mind with regards to groups and categorizing.
I can relate to much of what is said in that excerpt. But I've always had problems with the term itself, since I first heard Thom use it. Not knowing what it meant, I at first thought it was an intentional oxymoron, meant to have a satirical slant, which of course appeals to me, but sort of tongue in cheek on the flavor of political verbiage that comes out of the Pacifica radio crowd, which I listen to but don't always find compelling, or in line with how I make sense of the world.
The problem for me with the term, I suppose, is the effort it makes at placement. Identifying and placing a group in some locational sense like "middle" creates a relational context, that for me is inevitably false. It's false because I feel it constricting when I try it out in my mind. I've never much appreciated right or left, either. I understand people like to place themselves, identify themselves as part of something. I don't, particularly.
I don't see positions people take as necessarily set. If things get set in some way, then the entire group starts creating these good/evil scenarios in relation to their ideas, and reasonably speaking, no one is ever intentionally evil, so the contextual issues themselves gets transferred into judgemental categories, and the debate shifts over to who is good or evil, instead of the merits of the ideas in a context, and objectively, context is always changing. Relationships need to be dynamic processes. But of course, much of the tension in relationship is the degree of tolerance for the dynamic aspects of them.
Ethics and morality, it seems to me, stand aside from the group identifications. They must, or we forever will be fighting over who are the good guys and who are the evil ones.
Originally posted by Sue N: Perhaps the middle naturally changes, like the mean, median and mode of a changing statistical group. But can it disappear?
What difference would that make? How would that affect the sense of group identification itself and the taking of positions with respect to other groups? That's the essential problem I addressed. Why would I want to identify as a "middle"? Or a left, or a right?
Why would I want to identify as a "middle"? Or a left, or a right?
Perhaps you would not want to be identified with an extreme, but to be seen to be nearer to most people.
You are missing the point.
Why would I want to identify in any way with any group?
quote:
/rén:
The problem for me with the term, I suppose, is the effort it makes at placement. Identifying and placing a group in some locational sense like "middle" creates a relational context, that for me is inevitably false. It's false because I feel it constricting when I try it out in my mind. I've never much appreciated right or left, either. I understand people like to place themselves, identify themselves as part of something. I don't, particularly.
Sure an individual does not need any identifier but then you would expect those self selected individuals not to apply it to others without their consent.
Most political movements contain strong elements of Binary Oppositions. All Marxist/Communist doctrines dwell on class warfare for example. I did find the Industrial Workers of the World as an variation of Anarcho-syndicalism.
quote:
Today it is actively organizing and numbers about 2,000 members worldwide, of whom roughly half (approximately 900) are in good standing (that is, have paid their dues for the past two months). IWW membership does not require that one work in a represented workplace, nor does it exclude membership in another labor union.
The IWW contends that all workers should be united within a single union as a class and that the wage system should be abolished. They may be best known for the Wobbly Shop model of workplace democracy, in which workers elect recallable delegates, and other norms of grassroots democracy (self-management) are implemented.
Identification just creates a shorthand for conveying large amounts of information. If someone says they are conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, or green, it tends to just convey a certain set of traits and characteristics of people.
Just like jobs also shape us as individuals. One day I had an African American come to my store, I for some reason had to ask him if he was a doctor. Sure enough his soft hands indicated that yes he washes his hands on a frequent basis. I of course am not a Sherlock Holmes...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Sure an individual does not need any identifier but then you would expect those self selected individuals not to apply it to others without their consent.
Is this incongruous conjuration of words intended to be a response to this?:
quote:
/rén:
Why would I want to identify in any way with any group?
Just trying to figure out what you are running off about this time, since your post follows mine, and does have some spongy, ephemeral connection to what I was saying with that first statement.
If you are possibly addressing what I'm talking about concerning my perception of the topic: "radical middle," and once again, in your ambiguous, elliptical fashion, you are trying to say something that makes sense, then that part I can't help you with. But I can help you to recognize how senseless the post is to me if you want -- if you are interested in finding ways to be less boring in your presentation, to me at least, though there's nothing I can do to help you with your content. That's the best I can do, I'm afraid.
If in some vague, inferential way you are actually addressing what Sue is saying, then you don't need to respond.
But I've always had problems with the term itself, since I first heard Thom use it. Not knowing what it meant, I at first thought it was an intentional oxymoron, meant to have a satirical slant,
I echo your thoughts. Every time I hear Thom use the term in a promo I kind of scratch my head.
After reading "We The People", I've come to believe it is hip quip, kind of like conversational popcorn.
From Thom's book:
quote:
Most Americans consider themselves neither right nor left, but independent and centrist. This is not a negative position, but is an emphatic statement that they don't buy into the extremist visions of either right or left. Yet they know what they want, and have fought and died in wars from 1776 to the 20th century to preserve it. They are the Radical Middle.
99% of the people I know would agree with every word of that paragraph except for the word "radical". It seems like kind of a force fit to me.
Posts: 1807 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: 23 June 2005
But I've always had problems with the term itself, since I first heard Thom use it. Not knowing what it meant, I at first thought it was an intentional oxymoron, meant to have a satirical slant,
I echo your thoughts. Every time I hear Thom use the term in a promo I kind of scratch my head.
After reading "We The People", I've come to believe it is hip quip, kind of like conversational popcorn.
From Thom's book:
quote:
Most Americans consider themselves neither right nor left, but independent and centrist. This is not a negative position, but is an emphatic statement that they don't buy into the extremist visions of either right or left. Yet they know what they want, and have fought and died in wars from 1776 to the 20th century to preserve it. They are the Radical Middle.
99% of the people I know would agree with every word of that paragraph except for the word "radical". It seems like kind of a force fit to me.
Yes, there's something edgy about it. I can't quite place it, but like you note, it has something to do with that word: "radical." The sense of it to me is there's an invitation to join a group of non group oriented people, in an undefined "middle" and everyone is radical about being "there," because democracy is radical to begin with. That, too, goes with the oxymoron impression I had when I first heard it. Like reaching to be poetic but not quite getting there.
Once upon a time there was a pond with like minded fish which I will call DT fish. They were happy and jumped and frolicked all day long. Then along came a gerbil which I will call Gerbil A and some Gerbil Bs. Wow thought the Gerbil A, this is a fascinating pond, what wonderfully diverse set of thinkers there are here. Luckily as we know Gerbils can distinguish 'me' from 'you'. Gerbil A learned so much about all kinds of educated and 'deep thoughts' but ultimately no matter how he framed the questions or presented the other side of the issue the ID fish just stared back with blank stares. Maybe it was just "dog whistle politics" or they could not change their minds to convergent thinking but ultimately Gerbil A still considered that hope is eternal...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Looks more like a desperate longing for much-needed radical change falling on self's deaf ears. Panicky, non-grounded urge to get out of mess without knowing the whence, where and how-to, thusly getting further into it. Looking for the edge of change but being obstructed by the huge roadblock of the so-called middle. Lacking the sophistication to distinguish between, what shall we call it, dogmatic and adaptive change. Allowing the little awareness that was present to be watered and trickled down to become a toxic I-know-already-Stop-interrupting-me kind of smelly corruption. Mistaking the weary goo of the popular for the instant radicality of introspective self-truth. Deaf ears ensued by Ishmaelitic desert calls and ultimately those of the Wicker Man Jesus: ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
It's pedantic and not all that entirely fair, I know. I'll pray for absolution. Or relativation revelation revolution whatever the term involved. You know.
Originally posted by The Monk: Looks more like a desperate longing for much-needed radical change falling on self's deaf ears. Panicky, non-grounded urge to get out of mess without knowing the whence, where and how-to, thusly getting further into it. Looking for the edge of change but being obstructed by the huge roadblock of the so-called middle. Lacking the sophistication to distinguish between, what shall we call it, dogmatic and adaptive change. Allowing the little awareness that was present to be watered and trickled down to become a toxic I-know-already-Stop-interrupting-me kind of smelly corruption. Mistaking the weary goo of the popular for the instant radicality of introspective self-truth. Deaf ears ensued by Ishmaelitic desert calls and ultimately those of the Wicker Man Jesus: ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
It's pedantic and not all that entirely fair, I know. I'll pray for absolution. Or relativation revelation revolution whatever the term involved. You know.
Excellent. Have no idea what you mean but still excellent.
ELI to me means English Language Interface.
PS: Can someone tell me how General Klaus is doing???
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Excellent. Have no idea what you mean but still excellent.
I know, darling, but pull up your soft cushions and don't you worry, for everything is all right now: It was never hoped that deaf ears would hear it to begin with. Thanks for your concern, though, baby.
quote:
ELI to me means English Language Interface.
Even in this context? Are you mad?
quote:
PS: Can someone tell me how General Klaus is doing???
Der ist leider verstorben, aber Du kennst ihn doch überhaupt nicht wirklich, Bübchen, oder?
If there's barely an S, by the way, how you gonna defend a P that's embedded no less?
Looks more like a desperate longing for much-needed radical change falling on self's deaf ears. Panicky, non-grounded urge to get out of mess without knowing the whence, where and how-to, thusly getting further into it. Looking for the edge of change but being obstructed by the huge roadblock of the so-called middle. Lacking the sophistication to distinguish between, what shall we call it, dogmatic and adaptive change. Allowing the little awareness that was present to be watered and trickled down to become a toxic I-know-already-Stop-interrupting-me kind of smelly corruption. Mistaking the weary goo of the popular for the instant radicality of introspective self-truth. Deaf ears ensued by Ishmaelitic desert calls and ultimately those of the Wicker Man Jesus: ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
Looks more like a desperate longing for much-needed radical change falling on self's deaf ears. Panicky, non-grounded urge to get out of mess without knowing the whence, where and how-to, thusly getting further into it. Looking for the edge of change but being obstructed by the huge roadblock of the so-called middle. Lacking the sophistication to distinguish between, what shall we call it, dogmatic and adaptive change. Allowing the little awareness that was present to be watered and trickled down to become a toxic I-know-already-Stop-interrupting-me kind of smelly corruption. Mistaking the weary goo of the popular for the instant radicality of introspective self-truth. Deaf ears ensued by Ishmaelitic desert calls and ultimately those of the Wicker Man Jesus: ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
If you are possibly addressing what I'm talking about concerning my perception of the topic: "radical middle," and once again, in your ambiguous, elliptical fashion, you are trying to say something that makes sense, then that part I can't help you with. But I can help you to recognize how senseless the post is to me if you want -- if you are interested in finding ways to be less boring in your presentation, to me at least, though there's nothing I can do to help you with your content. That's the best I can do, I'm afraid.
No that is OK, we probably do not need another diatribe. But you could maybe explain to me how I got "interesting" yesterday and today I get back to boring?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Another important use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words. Ironic quotation marks can also be called scare, sneer, shock, or distance quotes. Ironic quotation marks are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes:
My brother claimed he was too “busy” to help me.
Quotation marks indicating ironic use of a term should be used with care. Without the intonational cues of speech, they can obscure the writer’s intended meaning. They can also be confused easily with direct quotations, so some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. (source)
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
