Archives for posts with tag: centrism

Here’s one core belief of a Radical Centrist: “Revolutions suck”.  Extremists like Teabaggers are so bloody stupid, they WANT a revolution, and they WANT to violently overthrow our Constitutional government.  They say so themselves:

“[Obama] will finally know that his time has come to leave his perverted, Islamic concept of Mecca, our nation’s hallowed capital,” Klayman concludes. “I do not advocate violence, but it is time we show Obama that we mean business. He would be well advised to ride off into his Islamic sunset, link up with 72 virgins and party on at his expense – not ours!”

In case you didn’t pick it up: The “72 virgins” are a misquoted reference to the Islamic afterlife. This means that Mr. Klayman wants Obama dead.  Yes, he is threatening the life of the President.

Of course, most people would never dream of following a child molester into battle, but Teabaggers are showing themselves willing to do so. Yes, Klayman is a child molester, as judged by a real court of law (not one of his phony ones): 

The fact that one of the main voices calling for a revolution in this country is a failed lawyer who molests his own children should be enough to alarm America in and of itself. But that’s not the only issue: revolutions kill people, usually the poor and powerless. Teabaggers like that idea, too. Revolutions lead to a breakdown in law and order. Teabaggers think they love that idea.  

So a lot of extremist loons want to follow a preeve into a battle that will wreck the country and kill a lot of defenseless innocents?Yeah, right.  If ever you needed an example that proves  Centrism is rational, just look at this alternative.

Revolutions suck. So does anybody and everybody who wants one.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

John Lennon, as he so frequently did, nailed it to a tree in this lyric. And while he may not have agreed with this writer on political matters, this line effectively points out one underlying premise of Centrism: the renunciation of extremism, and the violence that extremism requires to achieve its ends.

People often demonize Centrism as “ill-defined” or “meaning nothing”. This is no more true of Centrism than  is of Liberalism or Conservatism. The plain and simple truth of all political “isms” is this: none of them are monolithic, and all of them have as many variants as they have adherents. Put another way, Dennis Kucinich and Abbie Hoffman have both been described as “extreme Left” or “Liberal”, but they aren’t going to agree on everything. Bush The Dumber and Dick Cheney didn’t agree on everything either. The Cranky One  almost never agrees with the DLC Dimbulbs with whom he is automatically associated when he describes himself as a Centrist.  Labels are useful tools, but like any tool need to be used properly: when misused or overused, they create more harm than good.

Your humble correspondent  describes his political philosophy as follows: antidisestablishmentarianism, maximum personal freedom, keeping his nose out of other people’s private lives, and contributing to the overall good of our society. Except for the first point, he figures most Americans are on board with those concepts to a certain degree. So let’s look at that first point (the one Mr. Lennon so perfectly captured).

Antidisestablishmentarianists, of course, come in various shapes, sizes and degrees: some are ossified individuals who reflexively cling to the status quo, regardless of whether or not it works. Others (like this cranky writer) see it as an incrementalist approach to change. One thing to remember: Martin Luther, often depicted as a revolutionary, was in fact an antidisestablishmentarianist: that is why he proposed a reformation, rather than a revolution. So it goes in politics.

Revolutions kill people. They destroy lives and the works created by those lives. They burn away the good along with the bad. And rebuilding from a revolution is far harder and  more costly (in all respects) than implementing a plan for gradual, consensus-driven change.

Yes, sometimes thick-headed jackasses make revolutions necessary: King George, for example. But had he pulled his head out of his extremist, orthodoxy-addicted, ideological, narrow-minded, blinkered arse, the revolution need not have happened at all.

And that, friends, is why your Radical Centrist, contrarian, curmudgeonly correspondent keeps braying away from his position on the Political Compass (bang on the center of the L/R axis, and far away from the Authoritarian pole on that axis. See the link below to chart yourself.). He brays, hollers, and throws bricks upside the heads of the extremist community at every opportunity, hoping to get his point across. (“Maybe being nice would be a better approach”, you might say, and that’s a fair point. But he’s tried it and failed, so he’s going the blunt route these days.)

Far too many extremists are willing to “break eggs to make an omelet”. Those “eggs” are human beings with lives and loved ones. The idea that anyone could see the inevitable destruction of the lives and loves of their fellow Americans simply as a “cost of doing business”  is truly vomit-inducing. Particularly coming from the political Left, who are allegedly devoted to the betterment of mankind.

Anyone who advocates revolution when their people and country  are not in imminent danger of being killed en masse is a sociopathic mother***er who views his fellow Americans as disposable resources to be destroyed in the pursuit of his or her ideological Utopia.

And people like that are worth fighting. This Radical Centrist stands firmly for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Revolutionaries do not. If they did, they would not advocate measures that would strip us of all three.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Mr. Blunt and Cranky 

Most days of the week, your humble correspondent crankily arises and goes off to earn his keep. He goes to The Place At Which He Shall Be Paid If He Does What He Has Agreed To Do, and does what he has agreed to do. After having done so, he gets paid. Pretty normal, you’ll agree. Very few of get paid for doing nothing all day (Randy Bachman’s tongue-in-cheek lyrics notwithstanding); in fact, we often mock those who think they should get paid for doing nothing.

For well over thirty years, though, our government has paid people in the hopes that they might do something someday: the current name for these peeps is “Job Creators”. The Supply-Side idea says that if we give them a break on taxes, they will create jobs and all of us will benefit. A fair notion, and one that seems reasonable, at first glance anyway.

However, no one actually required that the payees ever provide proof to the payor that they had done what they had paid to do. Nor do the current proposals to increase the amount that we pay to these folks (in additional tax cuts and such) require any proof of job creation in order to get the green and folding. In short, these people are being paid whether they deliver the goods or not. Put another way, some of the recipients may very well be getting paid for doing nothing.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky proposes that Washington do what most local governments already do: require proof that the tax benefits provided to Job Creators led to the actual creation of jobs. And if no jobs were created, take the money back and give it to someone else who WILL do something useful with it.

Mr. B & C