"Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force." - David Brooks, NYT March 3, 2009
I do believe there is a difference between being centrist to avoid confrontation and standing in the center in order to see well in all directions. Is it possible to be intense and still centrist? It seems to me it is, but it requires constant researching, seeking, questing. And that active work probably involves a certain amount of arguing or confronting less moderate positions to understand where the value lies. There often blows a strong wind in between the spaces that are more one-directional. Intensity is then required to remain standing in the middle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Perhaps the "passionate centrists" envisioned are the answer to Yeats's cry: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
But how many in the electorate even have the time/skills/temperament to hear, understand, and change their minds when they witness a centrist poking an extremist's arguments full of holes?
It's so tempting to rave on in mutual confirmation, dreaming of an impossible future, after all...
My meditation phrase of the day arising from these thoughts: "life could be so much better if it were less like life!"
Ah, but then the messiness of life is also responsible for unexpected gems like a rainbow over the lake or a newly hatched butterfly.
Sounds like democracy is dead--no time, no skills, no poking, no temperament to hear, understand, and change.
Just wondering, does the planet "called" Electorate" have life on it? Near Pluto? Or perhaps it goes by another name?
Post a Comment