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
bluntandcranky 