The Radical Center

brianlux · April 20

Let's step outside the box for a moment.

In his most excellent memoir on page 395, Surrender, Bono (aka Paul Hewson) wrote the following regarding his efforts to continue working with some of the members of the Jubilee activist group after it broke up. This small remaining group wanted to continue the work of reducing poverty in the poorest of countries, and seeking help for early victims of AIDS/HIV:

"Bobby, Jamie, Lucy, and I not only liked working together but we also had a strategy we believed in, of not playing the left off the right or the cool of the uncool. We were inhabiting a space where it didn't feel like we had much company, a space critics might dismiss as a compromised middle, but I imagined as a radical center."

That brief passage struck me as something I haven't been quite able to fully define in my own independent way of thinking- a different way of being. And isn't this what we need more than anything right now? The radical right claims to be creating this space, and the left often assumes it already has, but even those on the left like Cory Booker and especially Bernie Sanders have talked about how both of our political parties need to go through a great deal of change in their outlooks and ways.

I don't claim to know exactly what a broad Radical Center looks like, but I know it is a lot different than the far left or the far right, and I know it is much more vibrant, hopeful, and truly progressive than a compromised middle.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this (but not your infighting here, please.)

Tim Simmons · April 20

Radical Center is such a Bono-ism.

TBH Radical and Center are an anathema to each other. To me Centrism is where both sides and coalesce to appeal to as many as possible. It’s slow and steady and dependable.

The radical factions exist because the whole doesn’t seem to be solving the real problems that the public faces and find it easier to take up culture war totems as policy and act like they are solving real problems.

brianlux · April 20

Tim Simmons said:

Radical Center is such a Bono-ism.

TBH Radical and Center are an anathema to each other. To me Centrism is where both sides and coalesce to appeal to as many as possible. It’s slow and steady and dependable.

The radical factions exist because the whole doesn’t seem to be solving the real problems that the public faces and find it easier to take up culture war totems as policy and act like they are solving real problems.

Good point, Tim.

It has also been said elsewhere that the radical factions have been manufactured as a way to keep people divided. Democracy was at its strongest in America at times when both sides of the isle worked together a lot more frequently.

The 60 second animated graph in this link illustrated divided congress has become over the last several decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

That chart really illustrates where we are. I don't really know how this can be corrected. At this point, I think the starting point is to try to understand how we got here.

gimmesometruth27 · April 20

i don't believe the center, by definition, can be radical. because its in the center of the spectrum.

benjs · April 20

gimmesometruth27 said:

i don't believe the center, by definition, can be radical. because its in the center of the spectrum.

If you would go to radical lengths to acquire what you're after politically, does that make you a radical, or is it only radical based on the specific views? Not being a smart-ass, honest question

HughFreakingDillon · April 20

I think Bono's point is likely that thinking critically and trying to compromise to get to solutions (instead of tribalism), which is centrist, is the new radical.

gimmesometruth27 · April 20

benjs said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i don't believe the center, by definition, can be radical. because its in the center of the spectrum.

If you would go to radical lengths to acquire what you're after politically, does that make you a radical, or is it only radical based on the specific views? Not being a smart-ass, honest question

"radical center" was a right wing talking point that 2 now banned posters here would blather on about during the obama years. one called obama a "radical centrist" and they got lampooned because the center cannot be radical since it is in the fucking center and not to the extremes.

i think radical is based on the specific views.

how many moderates are out there doing mass shootings, or burning teslas, or blowing up abortion clinics?

Tim Simmons · April 20

That’s why it’s such a Bono-ism. Trying to Appeal to the most amount of people is not radical. It’s a normal thing. The extremes are still radical. They are not the norm contrary to what maybe a poster or two here believe.

mickeyrat · April 21

Tim Simmons said:

That’s why it’s such a Bono-ism. Trying to Appeal to the most amount of people is not radical. It’s a normal thing. The extremes are still radical. They are not the norm contrary to what maybe a poster or two here believe.

maybe we in the center need to be more vocal to drown out the fringe on either side.

its a downside to anti-social media. the fringe voices gain traction in a variety of ways, appearing to be the consensus for a particular demographic, so therefore all of that demographic thinks and feels a particular way.

Halifax2TheMax · April 21

Could the radical center have won the last election? What is happening is certainly “radical” and not “normal.” Guess it depends on your perspective?

brianlux · April 21

gimmesometruth27 said:

i don't believe the center, by definition, can be radical. because its in the center of the spectrum.

Hey buddy, no math here. I'm not that good at geometry.

Spiritual_Chaos · April 21

The big strides towards social safety nets and turning Sweden into a decent and fair place to live in for "everybody", that happened in Sweden didn't come from "radical centrists".

It was getting people on board with decency and taking a big swing towards it.

brianlux · April 21

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think Bono's point is likely that thinking critically and trying to compromise to get to solutions (instead of tribalism), which is centrist, is the new radical.

Thinking critically, I'd say, is definitely part of the equation. But I'd have to say not so to compromise. Perhaps more like highly compassionate and driven, possibly even to a minor fault. The memoir is long enough (560 pages) to cover the groups musical progress quite well, but also give a lot of detail about Bono's work separate from the group to try and influence positive changes. And what's cool is he's not smug about that. At one point he says, "In recent years since, I have often regretted that we [the Jubilee group] didn't stop to think a little more carefully about what right we had to take on this work, to barge our way into corridors of power. We took it for granted that because the problems of global inequality were mostly created by the Northern Hemisphere, it fell to those of us in the north to solve them. I recognize now how arrogant this position was."

Ouch. But good on him to admit it. I think he learned a lot in the process. And I like the work he did nevertheless, and his convictions and drive are catching.

gimmesometruth27 said:

benjs said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i don't believe the center, by definition, can be radical. because its in the center of the spectrum.

If you would go to radical lengths to acquire what you're after politically, does that make you a radical, or is it only radical based on the specific views? Not being a smart-ass, honest question

"radical center" was a right wing talking point that 2 now banned posters here would blather on about during the obama years. one called obama a "radical centrist" and they got lampooned because the center cannot be radical since it is in the fucking center and not to the extremes.

i think radical is based on the specific views.

how many moderates are out there doing mass shootings, or burning teslas, or blowing up abortion clinics?

Tim Simmons said:

That’s why it’s such a Bono-ism. Trying to Appeal to the most amount of people is not radical. It’s a normal thing. The extremes are still radical. They are not the norm contrary to what maybe a poster or two here believe.

gimme and Tim, I get where your coming from, but what I read into Bono's concept of Radical Center has to be something quite different from any MAGA concept of that same term, and I thought it would be interesting to explore what that concept might look like today. And I think that's a worthy thing to think about because we are getting smothered inside the box.

Also, if Bono's strategy has been to reach as many people as possible, then even more important is that his desire has been to have as much influence for positive change as possible. And he generally didn't reach out to the masses in that line of work anyway. His work outside of music has been focused on meeting key people he sought out. For example, he went to a hospital in Africa some 20 plus years ago that was at 300% capacity and where almost all the patients there were dying of AIDS. He said none of those people know who "the rock star" was, and that was actually a good thing. He just wanted to talk to the Sister who was head of the hospital do find out what he could do to help. It was a very un-glamorous situation. And it appears that many of his meeting with various people in power were anything but a chill photo op. Quite the opposite.

Also, just a couple of points of clarification: Any relationship of Bono to this topic is about his work outside of the music, not the band. I don't think it's very well understood how separate those parts of his life have been. So this is an AMT and not Other Music, even though I am a fan of U2's music. But that's a different story.

And besides, Bono's words were meant to be a jumping off point. I'm more interested here in concepts that are outside the box. Greater division will serve no one (besides a very few) well in the long run. Most people will struggle more and more in highly divisive times.

And I don't think any of us can change how others think to a great extent. But at one time, you could find one or two things your opponent and you could agree on and you could make a little progress, and a little progress is better than none and much better than regress. Of course, non of this is simple, easy, or comfortable.

The other thing to consider is that outside that box, a lot of different concepts (not just one like a "radical center") can happen at the same time and work well together or off each other. Change needs all sorts- warriors, mediators, peace makers. An anger as well as joy. But not so much hate... if at all.

brianlux · April 21

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The big strides towards social safety nets and turning Sweden into a decent and fair place to live in for "everybody", that happened in Sweden didn't come from "radical centrists".

It was getting people on board with decency and taking a big swing towards it.

Sounds a bit simplified, but OK, simple can be helpful.

Radical centrism calls for the fundamental reform of institutions. It's also been defined (borrowing a term from John F. Kennedy) as "as "idealism without illusions". It's one of those concepts that has varying flavors. And multiple good ideas can work in concert.

In any case, I think the general concepts of Radical centrism would compliment the practice of "getting on board with decency" quite well.

The Radical Center

Comments