Talk:New America Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Touché. I still wouldn't call them centrists, they're not moderate and they're not looking for a consensus. If they were finding any consensus in the centre they wouldn't be so controversial. Real environmental issues, such as climate change, a common concern of both liberals and conservatives, are conspicuously absent. This fits with a corporatist or neoconservative ideology. Most environmental issues on the site relate to corporate investment and corporate solutions (and where money can be made).
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=issues&IssueID=8
For example, their item about fuel subsidies for hydrogen-powered cars focuses on terrorism and finance surrounding oil. There is not a scrap of concern about the pollution oil causes at all. Additionally it focuses on getting the government to subsidize "a similar federally sponsored project" to the 90% subsidization of National System of Interstate and Defense Highways "to build a hydrogen-distribution infrastructure". The article is asking for taxpayers to solve the problem through money without regulation. The idea is neither a correct nor incorrect solution, but it is definitely far from a moderate liberal idea, which centrism is supposed to include.
So either reply with your thoughts on this or I'm taking out the "Ironically part". I don't think the views show they are centrist, I think the views show they are pandering, generally to the right, and definitely to private business and corporations. I thought I was being fair by including Neoliberalism in there, since they are fairly libertarian too (which also fits into the corporatist category). :\
- I think they would certainly agree they are not moderates. I supposed it depends on whether you think the term 'radical centrist' has any meaning at all (I guess bare 'centrist' is confusing, so I'll amend that). While some of their proposals are certainly right-leaning, others - like universal trust funds - are very leftist. And their call for universal service is very anti-libertarian. So I don't think its accurate to pigeonhole them just because -some- of their proposals favor the right. Would you like to see more concrete examples of their anti-right proposals?Drernie 17:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I just don't understand how "radical centrist" is defined. They don't really fall in the middle of a left-right political spectrum, so to me, that's not any type of centrism, radical or not. But, now that I think about, I can kind of see where the moniker "radical centrist" comes from. To me, their "radical centrism" isn't really in the left-right spectrum (like centrism is), but is outside of that spectrum (being 'radical'), and draws from both sides (being 'centrist'). Maybe "radical centrism" just needs a better definition. It just bugs me that "centrism" and "radical centrism" are very different in key ways, yet they share a name which suggests they are working towards the same things (like moderation and consensus), only one of them "radically" so, which I don't think is the case here. Like if I said I was a "radical liberal", it's pretty obvious what I mean, I'm really far on the left. If I said I was a "radical centrist", well, it just doesn't make sense, because I can't get any more in the middle. You could only intuit that I hold my ideals of centrism strongly. Really, I think NAF are "radical" and draw ideas from all sides to form political ideas that are neither left, nor right, nor "centric" they way "centrism" is defined. By calling themselves "centrists" they are actually trying to define the centre of a left-right politcal spectrum. But, since they are radical and aren't looking for moderation and consensus, they are doing no such thing, and are more independent. I suggest they be called "radical independents" which sits much much better with me.
- Maybe, but I think that is par for the course. Most people on the Left and Right hate being identified with their radicals, so why should centrists be any different? :-) Besides, the term has been around for a while, so whether you like it or not is the common understanding. At any rate, we should probably continue this discussion on the Radical centrist politics article, where I'll try to incorporate your comments.Drernie 03:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Aaagh. I'm saying that they aren't centrists at all, by the definition of centrism. I'm saying the nomenclature is deceptive. "Radical centrists" have no legitimate claim to centrism. Since, apparently, the term has been around for "a while" I will move discussion to Radical centrist politics.
Drernie I think that the explanation/questioning of the NAFs political name and such (the second paragraph) should be taken off, since the issues with Radical centrist politics can be better said on the actual Radical centrist politics page. Also there should probably be a direct link to the NAF site? --Ben 08:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Drernie I've taken off the explanation and questioning of the NAF. --Ben 00:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Fine with me; it was a (non-radical) centrist who complained, and I think he didn't realize the larger movement existed at that time. Thanks, I also added a high-level link. Drernie 18:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] This needs to be reworked
This reeks of a vanity piece... just awful. Cowicide 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, how about making some constructive suggestions, or even some edits, rather than just complaining? Drernie 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like someone listened to your suggestion and as a result I have restored an earlier version which removed an un-sourced and irrelevant statement. 144.89.97.30 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to slap a tag to the article yet. However, I think the article could use inline citations. Kushal 14:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
