I am uncertain as to which category of topics this subject best fits, so I’m submitting it here. It may be moved to another topic category. But what I am seeking are political views others might have that would constitute what I am calling the Radical Middle.

I come from a faith tradition that is often referred to by others as the Radical Middle. It is a tradition that first began in 1983, and today, includes thousands of churches around the world. We are called the Radical Middle because we are orthodox in our theology, yet “radical” in the means by which we put into practice our theology. We borrow extensively from many Christian and even non-Christian traditions, as we choose. For example, we take the best from the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, without any of the sensationalism and showmanship most often found in these traditions. We borrow from the best of the evangelical traditions, without any of the legalism most commonly associated with the evangelical branch of the Church. We borrow from the Moorman tradition their sense of community. We borrow from the Catholic tradition their sense of service and charity. We endeavor to borrow the best, while leaving the “not so good” behind. To date, we have made significant inroads in planting churches in very non-receptive areas, such as Western Europe, much of the US and the Middle East. Fact is, the only real growth in Christianity in the past 20 or so years has taken place in the Southern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere Church has declined significantly.

So, if you were to conjure up what the Radical Middle would look like in the political arena, what would it be?

When answering, please keep in mind the word “Radical.” Radical and “Moderate” are opposites. There is no mush, moderation, owing to special interest groups, or compromise in the word radical. It means a set of core convictions, beliefs and practices that guide and direct everything you do. What would these core convictions, beliefs and practices be? What would they look like? And secondly, the word “Middle” is used to communicate that these convictions, values and beliefs are orthodox and inclusive of the majority (or at least a significant portion) of people in the US. They are not the values and beliefs of only the political fringe.

Lastly, the means by which these convictions are practiced is where the rubber really hits the road. In the church example, we call it “Doing the Stuff.” Doing the stuff is what it is all about. Talking about the stuff is pretty meaningless. Doing the stuff is what energizes us. How would the political Radical Middle best “Do the Stuff”?

I believe there is a longing in the hearts and minds of a vast number of folks for a Radical Middle political movement within our nation. Like traditional churches, many have grown tired and weary of traditional politics. Again, like many traditional churches, traditional political parties are often out of touch with people, communicate in an arcane language, and rarely ever get around to actually Doing the Stuff.

Your comments would be most welcomed.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Barney, this probably belongs in Political Opinions. I'll move it there.

As to the topic, would you be willing to go first and list the beliefs that you think constitute the Radical Middle, and how those beliefs would be put into practice?

__________________
Man up.

even though I have no real answers. First and foremost, it seems to me a value that should be right at the top of the list is authenticity. By that, I mean to say a desire to distance ourselves from anything that is contrived, and is put forth purely for "show." What is so wrong about being authentic? What is so wrong about being transparent and forthcoming? What is so wrong about saying, "Here's what I believe and stand for. If you agree, I welcome your support. If you disagree, my opponent would welcome your support."? What is so wrong about being faithful to ones convictions, expressing them, and simply leaving it up to the people to decide whether they agree or disagree?

That would be a radical departure from conventional politics, but one the vast majority of voters would embrace, I believe.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I agree; people should say what they believe and let the chips fall where they may.

However, there are other values that may conflict with that:

1. Representing your constituents;

2. Compromise.

Arguably, #1 is part of your job. I have a great deal of respect for people who tell their constituents, "Look, I know you disagree with me, but I'm going to go with what I believe is right." That, arguably, is the lifeblood of "representative" democracy. But unless their votes mirror their constituents' preferences more often than not, I won't bet a lot of money on their continued presence in Congress.

Practically, #2 is necessary to get things done in a democracy. And that's probably as it should be; laws that are passed need to, as much as possible, reflect the needs of the entire society, not just the desires of the majority.

So I'm fine with authenticity as long as it isn't accompanied by an inability to compromise.

My turn. How about stewardship? Writing bills and casting votes based on what you think is best for the country, not trading votes based on how much pork or personal gain you can get out of it.

__________________
Man up.

I think what y'all are talking about is integrity. But, most people can't toe the party line AND have integrity. They have no chance of being elected if they don't toe the party line. Look at what Lieberman had to do to be VP nominee. He had to sell his soul. The nomination process should be overhauled. That's the place to start, IMO. I think Bush is/was pretty popular with the grass roots, but Kerry wouldn't have a chance in hell if he wasn't chosen by the far left party faithful. There are good guys in both parties - you just wouldn't know it by looking at their top dogs.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

That's what I'm suggesting--that being a person of integrity IS toeing the Radical Middle's party line. Not being a person of integrity means not being a part of the Radical Middle. That's why it's radical. And given the opportunity, most people would rather do the right thing than be compelled to follow a group that does not practice integrity.

So, being the radical middle means we are persons of integrity.

Now, if I could shift our focus some; will we be a boundary party or a centered party? A boundary party is defined by its party's platform. So long as you are inside the boundaries of the platform, you are in. Stray outside the boundaries, and you're out. For example, if a party had in its platform a position of being pro-choice, then anyone who argued the pro-life position is unwelcomed. A centered party, on the other hand, has only its center. There are no boundaries. The goal of the party is to move people, from wherever they may be, ever closer to the center. Assuming the idea of having a centered party is more attractive than a boundary party, what is the center? What does the center look like? What is the single, most important hub of the party, from which everything else revolves? What is it that we are all endeavoring to move closer to? Is it freedom? That's not a bad choice. Is it economic prosperity? How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What is at the center of the American experience that nearly all would attest and confirm?

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I don't know, Barn. Once you get past the Bill of Rights you start losing people.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

That is one of the fundamental problems with our system. Instead of leaders all we end up with is robotic sheep towing the line. Even if it's blatantly hypocritical and illogical. I admire John McCain and Joe Lieberman because they are among the precious few who will actually stand up and say their party is dead wrong. I may not agree with them, but at least they are not among the dickless wonders in DC. They have integrity. And oddly, both are centrists in their party.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I believe the vast majority of people agree, which is what motivated me to begin this topic. If that is true, then why on earth is it so rare? It should be the minimum requirement for serving in politics, and yet, it is so very rare and untypical. Perhaps this should be the Radical Middle's center--Integrity. People of integrity can freely disagree without lobbing bombs at the opposition like I hear coming from the Senate floor--names like "dictatorship" I heard in one sound bite this morning from a Senator.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

It's controlled entirely by special interests and the big $$$$$ they bring to the table. It robs people of their integrity by ensuring that the only goal is being elected again to collect more $$$$$ from People for Whatever. To be elected you need to make the other guy into the "bad" guy, which then turns you into a dickless sheep inhabiting the DC cesspool. You do what they say to get elected. And who is "they"? Directly it's your party, but indirectly it's the $$$$$. I guarantee half the people in DC haven't formed their own opinion on anything in decades.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.