The Radical Center

It isn’t difficult to determine those who will get things done

There seems to be an emerging discourse both for and against moderation and the political center. There are those who claim that moderates have failed to mitigate and resolve issues that are in need of both. Others insist that radical alternatives to pressing issues are the only way toward dealing with them. And, of course, there’s the tedious nonsense from left and right ideologists that centrists do not have meaningful principles and values.

Alternatively, others note that the lack of moderation is undermining a wide range of issues from being rationally addressed and functionally improved. There is a long list of centrist, bipartisan accomplishments that represent how much more effective governance used to be overall. I’ve noted previously that the combination of refusal by Republicans to work with Democrats and their increasingly rigid ideological demands that were non-negotiable not only created partisan gridlock but encouraged citizens to do the same.

One can make a very compelling case that those furthest from the political center have created most of the dysfunction governance of the past quarter-century by resisting moderation and compromise. Indeed, a survey of the political realities in many democracies reveals increased radical demands from far right zealots, answered in turn by those on the far left. Of course, the back and forth repetitious shift from leftish or rightish is common to the politics, opinions and voting choices of citizens as they become dissatisfied with what they perceive to be a lack of progress.

The problem is that democracy is a political system based on the will of the people — with majority rule. It works only because a majority of the electorate is within the center-left to -right middle. Lots of disagreements, but also lots of compromise and agreements that create positive change and improvement. No democracy does well, or perhaps will even survive, without this widely accepted reality. Tyranny of the minority is not going to be a viable answer.

It has been obvious for many years that increased divisiveness and political gridlock, combined with marginal leadership, have been undermining rational, practical political functionality. And not just in the US. As a result, at this time and point, it has become more widely accepted that moderation would — ironically — be the “radical” change most likely to overcome dysfunctional governance and all the chaos it creates when those at the farthest reaches of the political spectrum are refusing to abide by essential processes inherent to true democracy.

This reversal of what radical might represent is confirmation that things are not working…literally. Friendships have been broken and families divided into warring camps as a result of ever more antagonistic disagreements. It is supremely ironic that the result is a return to not talking about politics — not a result of politeness but simply to avoid endless confrontations. At this level of dysfunction — political and personal — those least often participants in politics and voting recognize the need to become involved.

I have been talking and writing about pragmatism for a very long time. By definition, centrists/moderates are pragmatists. It’s not that pragmatism magically fixes problems with perfect solutions. Pragmatists, after all, have the same quirks, idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies that typify human foibles and nature. But ideological beliefs are countered with sufficient reason and rationality to create consensus and build compromise.

The processes for resolving and mitigating problems are only as complicated as the problems are. Am I stating the obvious? Depends on who you ask. Individuals who are functionally pragmatic will agree with what is already obvious. Those who are possessed by ideological dogma are typically restricted to repeating principles and values regardless of how applicable they are not. It wouldn’t be difficult to determine those who will get things done and those who will just recite talking points. The pragmatists are obvious.