Radical Centrism: A New Hypotenuse
Radical Centrism: A New Hypotenuse
I have spent time describing #RadicalCentrism as an ideology
that is, “Positioned within the first sigmas of a "Liberty Bell
Curve" it , actively--radically--opposes the apoplectic noise from beyond
those sigmas.” This call to the Bell Curve deals, largely, with how we might
think about the raw politics that Radical Centrism addresses.
At the risk of mixing metaphors, I’ll address social and
economic Radical Centrism within a more Euclidian framework (metaphor). As a
methodology for the absorption of culture, a Radical Centrist engages in
conscious, interactive triangulation. From a two-poled line of 180 degreed
opposites, Radical Centrism pulls together disparate voices, opposite and
adjacent, at points of tangency that create the broadest hypotenuse that may
support a productive discourse. A productive discourse, undergirded by the
human right (codified in the U.S. Constitution) of free expression, is most
important to the Radical Centrist’s task.
As a Radical Centrist, in support of productive discourse
that presents, “increasingly sustainable policy solutions,” I work to curate robust
discourse among others who may not otherwise interact civilly. Although I understand that all voices are
valid—if not always factually correct—that curation requires me to muffle the
noise reverberating in echo chambers, root out nasty trolls (and Russian bots),
and to eschew inflammatory, partisan, hypocritical rhetoric. Such expressions
are valid, and feed the solution set, but may not always be germane. Such responsibility, as any curator who must choose which pieces to put on a wall, can be overwhelming. The proliferation of
voices and media in which to express those voices compounds the difficulty. And
even so, not every conversation includes everybody.
When a desired discourse doesn’t happen organically, the
Radical-Centrist-as-curator may create the forum—as an integration of otherwise
disconnected texts--and report upon it.
Two of the recent nonfiction books I’ve consumed are Pete Buttigieg’s
Shortest Way Home and Ben Shapiro’s The Right Side of History.
This exercise spoke to both sides of and affirmed my #PoetEconomist spirit.
These two books represent, more wholly than any two I’ve read this year, the
type of socio-economic discussions we should be having.
True, neither, on its own, suffices; together they are
(near) perfect: the effective rises up, perpendicular to the affective and
provides a wide and comfortable slope upon which the #RadicalCentrist may
revel. If my generation is to put stock in the next
generation (both Buttigieg and Shapiro were born in the early eighties), these
two provide an exhilarating connection. Both are patriots. Both are mind-bogglingly smart. Each has
risked his life for our nation’s ideals.
They don’t directly contradict each other; rather they
complement (dare I say, Sine and Cosine?) each other. The Adjacent rises from
Opposite.
Shapiro speaks to my Poet: champion of the core ideals that
invigorate the American experience, the metaphysical underpinning for American
(human) Rights, their context, and their preservation.
Buttigieg speaks to the Economist: champion of rational, reasonable,
data-driven solutions that are measured by results that support the
practical experience of citizenship in an
America that achieves the most when cooperating toward shared ideals.
Their point of tangency is their shared optimism that,
together—as a whole— fuse poetic idealism with evolutionary pragmatism.
We need to reframe our discourse—to escape from the shackles
of the Congress-media-POTUS cross-shooting mis-triangulation—of this current political
moment. We need opposite and adjacent Buttigieg and Shapiro to speak freely and
often: to frame the wide hypotenuse for optimistic,
American, RadicalCentrists to reclaim.
And we need, with protractors and compasses ready, to join
in.
Comments
Post a Comment