The Radical Centre

Amhran Nua

One of the first questions I usually get asked whether dealing with the public or with the media is "what side of the political spectrum does your party fall on"? The simple fact is that we have no allegiances to left or right, liberalism or socialism, laissez faire or regulation, so this question was a bit of a poser.

However after some discussions involving one of our guys in the UK who is working with the Liberal Democrats, he informed me that they had run into the same problem, and had come up with the phrase "the radical centre" to describe their position.

In short, this means that policies are chosen first and foremost for their utility and effectiveness, and adherence to a particular political stance or dogmatic position is a distant second or third, if it factors at all. It's a ruthlessly pragmatic approach that will equally use policies that only the far left would espouse while having no difficulty with plans which would gladden the heart of any libertarian, as long as these are the best tools for the job. In this it differs from centrism, in that centrism cannot take steps too far from the centre; it is therefore not populism, although its results might well be popular. Its not realpolitik either, which in the common understanding means dealing with partners who might be morally or ethically repugnant in order to further your own goals; an example would be the Greens bedding down with FF.

It is a rejection of dogma, a mongrel doctrine, with mongrel strength.

It is an understanding that dogma is a hindrance to effective decision making, a justification that becomes the crutch that cripples the user.

What then are the criteria one uses to select policies, and surely that would define which side of the political spectrum the radical centre lies on better than the tools used to achieve these goals? Not as much as you might think, in the same way that the means don't always justify the end, the means can in many cases define the end. In fact you could just as easily say that communists and libertarians have the same goals, they merely differ on how to achieve them. Regardless, if I had to sum it up in one word, it would be betterment for us all. When I say "us all" here I mean the people of Ireland, and that's a nationalistic stance, but we have no remit or reason to widen the scope of our endeavours at this time.

This rejection of dogma and the application of something resembling the scientific method to political decision making has led to many shall we say colourful discussions with members of dogmatic groups in various fora and in real life, but when your reliance is on deduction based on reality, it's quite hard to lose such discussions. Another element of it so I guess would be that if someone does come up with a more compelling argument, you change your position to match theirs; the radical centre is fluid, light on its feet, and will not reject ideas out of hand because they don't match some internal index of guidelines.

Now while I am sure there is a classification for this in political theory, one of the many isms, it is the first time a group espousing such a philosophy has attempted to get organised in Ireland.

This is my first attempt to express what has always been an implied underlying theme for the group, more unspoken than clearly written, so I'd like to hear what others have to say, kick it around a bit, and generally put it out there for discussion. The reactions I've received upon explaining this have varied from avid interest to one well known Senator almost fall off his seat laughing, so don't hold back.

ei.sdraob

Ah the "third way" I knew it! :P

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ah the "third way" I knew it! :P

Hrm, what the "third way" means differs drastically depending on who you ask - generally it's used to cover anything that's not left or right. So in that sense I suppose you could call it the "third way", in the same way that cars and horse drawn carraiges are both "vehicles".

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In short, this means that policies are chosen first and foremost for their utility and effectiveness...

Utility and effectiveness to what end? And based on what suppositions? A (European) liberal and a Labour supporter both believe in good education for children - the same end - but the policies to pursue those ends will be completely different (independent charter schools with school vouchers versus state run schools). Both will think their policies are best in terms of utility and effectiveness.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Regardless, if I had to sum it up in one word, it would be betterment for us all. .

Which is a completely wooly concept, with different interpretations from person to person. Is a good society one in which everyone has equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity? Maximal personal liberty? A comprehensive social safety net? To pursue the interest of the "betterment for us all" involves deciding such questions, and prioritising certain ends. This is where the political ideology comes in. Someone who thinks equality of outcome is for the "betterment for us all" is a socialist; Someone who thinks equality of opportunity is for the "betterment for us all" is a social democrat; someone who thinks maximal personal liberty is for the "betterment for us all" is a classical liberal. Each thinks he is pursuing the "betterment for us all", yet each assumes widely different policy stances.

And then there is the question of suppositions. What works? Does outsourcing hospital administration to private companies work? People are divided on that question, and the answer will determine the policies they would choose to pursue. Both the Sinn Fein supporter and the European liberal believe they are choosing policies "first and foremost for their utility and effectiveness" but come to drastically different conclusions. How do you explain that, if there is one seemingly homogeneous "radical centre"?


I really dislike this notion of "pragmatic" politics because it is almost invariably used to parade some percieved moral superiority on the part of the adherent. In reality those pursuing it are just as biased as everyone else. Amhran Nua (the party) believe that government has a role in promoting culture (compulsory Irish; Taitlean games). That is an ideological stance, whether you like it or not. Amhran Nua wants the government to pursue certain ends, like economic investment. That is an ideological stance.

The only difference between the so-called "pragmatists" and everyone else is that the latter have the honesty to admit that they're biased.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Utility and effectiveness to what end? And based on what suppositions? A (European) liberal and a Labour supporter both believe in good education for children - the same end - but the policies to pursue those ends will be completely different (independent charter schools with school vouchers versus state run schools). Both will think their policies are best in terms of utility and effectiveness.

Exactly the point I made above.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Which is a completely wooly concept, with different interpretations from person to person.

Nonetheless true, regardless of where you're coming from on the political spectrum.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Is a good society one in which everyone has equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity? Maximal personal liberty? A comprehensive social safety net? To pursue the interest of the "betterment for us all" involves deciding such questions, and prioritising certain ends. This is where the political ideology comes in.

I would say that the concept of betterment is a fairly simple one in the common understanding. Protect the weak and encourage the strong, allow everyone to reach their potential without hindrances inbuilt into the system. There are mechanisms to achieve both ends within Libertarianism and Communism. Meritocracies are optimal, but the ultimate cost of failure is entirely up to a humane society to decide.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And then there is the question of suppositions. What works?

This is where using an approximation of the scientific method comes in, and the rejection of dogma really shines - there are many, many examples of different problems that various governments around the world have faced, with varying degrees of success. It's not that hard to pick the best ones and see can they fit into your particular problem, or use them as the basis to come up with new ideas, independent of dogma.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Both the Sinn Fein supporter and the European liberal believe they are choosing policies "first and foremost for their utility and effectiveness" but come to drastically different conclusions. How do you explain that, if there is one seemingly homogeneous "radical centre"?

There isn't one homogenous radical centre. I would contend however that there is one reality, and that the radical centre attempts to work within it far more than any of the dogmatists.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I really dislike this notion of "pragmatic" politics because it is almost invariably used to parade some percieved moral superiority on the part of the adherent.

Yes, but you are a dedicated dogmatic libertarian, I wouldn't expect the idea to appeal to you. In fact I mentioned the colourful discussions in the op.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Amhran Nua (the party) believe that government has a role in promoting culture (compulsory Irish; Taitlean games). That is an ideological stance, whether you like it or not.

On the contrary, these are entirely pragmatic stances. Irish culture has a proven appeal on the international level, and all of its artifacts therefore have value, including the language. It may be a "mystical, woolly" value, but that still translates to hard currency. The Tailteann Games is another example of leveraging the culture to its maximum extent in order to gain the most benefit from tourism with a minimum of expenditure. Eminently practical.

All of the policies were worked out on a similar basis, we are pressing for the privatisation of the health system, primarily because it is currently non optimal, and aiming for something that is recognised as being more optimal. As an added benefit, the mountainous layers of sweetheart contracts in the health services can then be looked at again, quite legally. On the other hand we want the nationalisation of the telecoms infrastructure, because penetration and data rates are a serious handicap to the development of the national economy.

One policy is entirely abhorrent to the left, the other repugnant to the right. Yet they are the most sane and realistic policies available.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The only difference between the so-called "pragmatists" and everyone else is that the latter have the honesty to admit that they're biased.

All too often are lies framed as frank honesty to give them a veneer of reality. Many of our politicians have quite mastered that art over the last ten years, without naming names.

simplistic2

How can any one person know what is best for on other person, let alone millions of people. All you know is whats best for you and that is to get into power. Every party that wants power will do whatever it takes to get it. The best way to get it is to have no principles so you cannot be judged from your foundation. There is sizable grandiosity in claiming that you know whats best for millions of people. How can you possibly know?

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Nonetheless true, regardless of where you're coming from on the political spectrum.

Yes. But you're clearly trying to position the "radical centre" as some overarching best way to do things that ignores ideological considerations. But the reason we have ideologies is because different people have different ideas about what constitutes "good", "best", "fair", "equal" etc. You're pretending as if there is one answer (the "radical centre") to these considerations when there clearly is not. Out of curiosity, why do you think the Left-Right spectrum and ideological positions even exist?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Protect the weak and encourage the strong, allow everyone to reach their potential without hindrances inbuilt into the system.

You can't achieve that. Want to protect the weak? Introduce social security. Then you're going to have to raise taxes, to pay for it. You've just introduced a hindrance to people who earn money: they now have to work more to realise the same level of disposable income.

The Left-Right divide, in this regard, is about describing how different ideologies balance social aims with individual aims. You can't have all of both, just as you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It's not that hard to pick the best ones and see can they fit into your particular problem, or use them as the basis to come up with new ideas, independent of dogma.

You can't view polices is isolation. The US government's general lack of intervention in the healthcare system (compared to Europe) means the US government spends less, which means the country can sustain itself on lower taxes, which means it can preserve its entrepreneurial "American dream" ethos whereby hard work is (ideally and theoretically) rewarded.

It would be lovely if we could have high levels of social security, and 0% tax. We can't.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, but you are a dedicated dogmatic libertarian, I wouldn't expect the idea to appeal to you. In fact I mentioned the colourful discussions in the op.

I'm actually not as dogmatic as some posters here think - perhaps if they stopped shouting so loud (and eased off on the personal abuse) they'd find that out.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

On the contrary, these are entirely pragmatic stances.

Regardless of their "pragmatism", they're still ideological. You believe the government has a role in preserving and promoting a certain Irish culture. That is an ideological position, I'm afraid. You think these policies are "pragmatic" only because they are a good means of arriving at ends you desire - but those ends are firmly ideological.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

All too often are lies framed as frank honesty to give them a veneer of reality. Many of our politicians have quite mastered that art over the last ten years, without naming names.

Amhran Nua, you believe the government has a role in a promoting culture, and this is an ideological position. Your party is trying to pretend that its above ideology when it's quite clear it isn't.

Cannibal Ox

I'm picking on little pieces that struck me, but I think they're important points.

In short, this means that policies are chosen first and foremost for their utility and effectiveness....

Utility and effectiveness are two different things. For example, if you wanted to design a piece of legislation that curbed alcohol abuse through raising the minimum age of purchase it might be very effective in its intended effect, but its value in terms of utility would, most likely, be negative. Particularly with regard to your chances of re-election.

I spent the next odd paragraph wondering how'd you square the circle in terms of who makes decisions, but I'll come back to that at the end.

Regardless, if I had to sum it up in one word, it would be betterment for us all. When I say "us all" here I mean the people of Ireland, and that's a nationalistic stance, but we have no remit or reason to widen the scope of our endeavours at this time.

It strikes me as an odd form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as the doctrine dictating actions should be for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people possible.
Couple of basic questions about this:
A) Who are the people of Ireland?
Who decides who the people of Ireland are?
C) What does betterment mean?

...the application of something resembling the scientific method to political decision making has led to many shall we say colourful discussions with members of dogmatic groups in various fora and in real life, but when your reliance is on deduction based on reality, it's quite hard to lose such discussions.

I had a feeling this would be your answer to the decision making problem. This is how the Soviet Union decided policy. In fact, this is what lent Marxism under the Soviet Union it's dogmatic aspect, the retreat to science as having the true answer to the problems of men and women. You haven't dodged the problem of ideology or dogma in how decisions are made, you've just mirrored a particularly unpleasant strain of dogma.


I'm pretty certain you've just inconsistently re-created various ideologies based on individual pragmatic choices of what you, and maybe a hand full of others, believe is right. I'm not entirely sure that's an altogether successful foundation to build on and I have a lingering suspicion it could possibly be at root nihilistic.

More importantly, I think it is lazy. You've tried to avoid all the problems that have plagued politics and society for over two thousand years by "rejecting" any form of ideology, dogma or belief system.

Denerick

Your 'party' is in reality a diverse group of eccentrics who have literally no public support (Or even public awareness) I advise you get back to the drawing board. You have to pander to the Irish people to do well in elections, this is why Fianna Fáil have performed so excellently since the foundation of the state, they have craftfully manipulated the innate weaknesses and cowardice of the Irish electorate for decades.

All of your ideas will come to nought if johhny mc jim mc joe, grandson of local war of indepedence hero and arch fianna failer of the village of timmymcgee doesn't know about you. (Thats how I interpret the average Irish voter; shrill patriotism, silly opinions, value placed on dynasty etc. etc.)

Anonymous1987

The notion of a "radical centre" would seem to be an oxymoron. You are centrist in that you seek a compromise between the traditional left right axis in political theory and seek moderate institutional changes reflected in policy and hence are not "radical" rather moderate centrist. Otherwise you support a range of both radical right and left wing political positions depending on the issue at hand which is not a "centrist" position rather a range of "radical" positions varying by the side of the political spectrum. An explicit statement of "radical" political motives or a compromise between right and left are both idealogical though.

While I would be somewhat sympathetic to moderate or centrist policies, this would from the point of view of gradual change to institutions being generally favourable to radical change given the often unforeseen consequences of radically altering institutions and/or policies.

My greatest concern for those who profess to be ideologically unaligned are their susceptibility to interest groups, look no further than our own Fianna Fail to see how a centrist party devoid of any real left-right idealogical divide can manifest itself into machiavellian realpolitik. Without any guiding principal or belief of society should be organised your concerns quickly turn to trading one interest group off another to maintain your political base. Sound familiar?

Anonymous1987

Denerick wrote: »

Your 'party' is in reality a diverse group of eccentrics who have literally no public support (Or even public awareness) I advise you get back to the drawing board. You have to pander to the Irish people to do well in elections, this is why Fianna Fáil have performed so excellently since the foundation of the state, they have craftfully manipulated the innate weaknesses and cowardice of the Irish electorate for decades.

All of your ideas will come to nought if johhny mc jim mc joe, grandson of local war of indepedence hero and arch fianna failer of the village of timmymcgee doesn't know about you. (Thats how I interpret the average Irish voter; shrill patriotism, silly opinions, value placed on dynasty etc. etc.)

I agree, although I think you apply the mentality of the Irish voter to any voter. We might have a particular brand of tribalism in Ireland but political dynasties aren't exactly exclusive to Ireland, the US has both the Bush and Clinton dynasties, with a touch of nepotism, JFK had his brother appointed Attorney General not to mention their own political dynasty. Even libertarians have their own dynasty with the Ron/Rand Paul political force.

While many Irish people inherit the civil war tribalism from their parents, many US teenagers tend to follow the same political position as their parents also.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Regardless of their "pragmatism", they're still ideological. You believe the government has a role in preserving and promoting a certain Irish culture. That is an ideological position, I'm afraid. You think these policies are "pragmatic" only because they are a good means of arriving at ends you desire - but those ends are firmly ideological.

If you don't mind I'd like to deal with the Tailteann games individually because it really encapsulates the core issue here, if you'd like I'll go back over the rest of your points in a subsequent post. I don't expect to reach consensus, do I'll just put across what I'm trying to say.

The case for the Tailteann games is a strong one. A revival of a sporting event that dates well back into the BC, part of the ancient traditions of Ireland, it sells well. By combining those elements of Irish culture with proven appeal, you can cut down on costs as well - for example, although some might call it a bit twee, the Riverdance show and its associated productions have been viewed by four times the population of this country, it's wildly popular.

This is a fact regardless of how you personally feel about Irish culture, and fact is what we deal in.

So according to your dogma, someone should just go find investors with hundreds of millions, make the case, and launch the production, right? Except we're in the middle of a severe global contraction, investors of any sort are like hen's teeth, especially those willing to take a chance on a new major sporting event, and the country needs an influx of capital and job creation now.

Also another factor to consider is that the benefit would not be entirely or perhaps even in the majority for the investors, but rather for the country as a whole. The games would raise the profile of the country, increase contact with the Irish diaspora, diplomatically and for related tourist endeavours it's gold, and on and on and on. Likewise most of the spending of tourists might not go to the actual operators of the games, but on hotels, bars, other entertainment, shops, restaurants, flights and so on. So why would investors bother?

Enter the government, elected by the people of Ireland to represent the people of Ireland (and this is a place where I find most libertarians completely fall flat, the government has this thing called a mandate). Since the majority of the benefit will go to the economy as a whole, the representatives of the country as a whole should be involved if not entirely in charge of funding and directing it.

So what your dogma has achieved is to take a valuable asset, unique in the world, and drop it off the nearest cliff, because it conflicts with your dogma and apparently you have some sort of ideological disdain for Irish culture.

That's not optimal or practical. That's not even sane. And this is why I said:

It is an understanding that dogma is a hindrance to effective decision making, a justification that becomes the crutch that cripples the user.

Possibly one of the features that differentiates the radical centre from say the left or right is that it doesn't claim to have an overall vision for how society should eventually end up; it doesn't have all the answers, just the answers that matter. Save the navel gazing for academia, there are people's lives being affected here.

Denerick wrote: »

Your 'party' is in reality a diverse group of eccentrics who have literally no public support

What, are you upset that we booted the entryist hard left too early in the game? We've a couple of hundred reliable signatures as it stands, which is a lot more than any of the literally scores of new groups and independents that have cropped up.

Amhran Nua

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Utility and effectiveness are two different things.
...
It strikes me as an odd form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as the doctrine dictating actions should be for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people possible.

Only in philosophical circles, this is political theory, general usage in this case is where it's at.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I spent the next odd paragraph wondering how'd you square the circle in terms of who makes decisions, but I'll come back to that at the end.

Most if not all of the policies were arrived at by public and expert consultation, as well as observation of successful prior example.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I had a feeling this would be your answer to the decision making problem. This is how the Soviet Union decided policy. In fact, this is what lent Marxism under the Soviet Union it's dogmatic aspect, the retreat to science as having the true answer to the problems of men and women. You haven't dodged the problem of ideology or dogma in how decisions are made, you've just mirrored a particularly unpleasant strain of dogma.

First of all, how do you figure the Soviet Union worked from science? Lysenkoism was one of the acmes of the Soviet era, a word which is used to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives. Which would be the polar opposite of what we do. I do not think you know what you're talking about here. And second of all, would you be opposed to the scientific method (as distinct from some vision of men in white lab coats) as a method to determine decisions? Because you're reading this text on the results of the scientific method right now.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm pretty certain you've just inconsistently re-created various ideologies based on individual pragmatic choices of what you, and maybe a hand full of others, believe is right. I'm not entirely sure that's an altogether successful foundation to build on and I have a lingering suspicion it could possibly be at root nihilistic.

Could you explain which ideologies have been recreated and what particularly strikes you as nihilistic?

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

More importantly, I think it is lazy. You've tried to avoid all the problems that have plagued politics and society for over two thousand years by "rejecting" any form of ideology, dogma or belief system.

Has it ever occurred to you that many if not most of the problems that have plagued politics and society for over two thousand years were all caused by forms of ideology, dogma and belief system?

Amhran Nua

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The notion of a "radical centre" would seem to be an oxymoron. You are centrist in that you seek a compromise between the traditional left right axis in political theory and seek moderate institutional changes reflected in policy and hence are not "radical" rather moderate centrist. Otherwise you support a range of both radical right and left wing political positions depending on the issue at hand which is not a "centrist" position rather a range of "radical" positions varying by the side of the political spectrum. An explicit statement of "radical" political motives or a compromise between right and left are both idealogical though.

Ah no you misunderstand - centrist groups go for policies which do not unduly upset the left or right, so in turn they are constrained by dogmatic considerations, not even their own dogmatic considerations. The radical centre does not select purely radical policies, it selects policies that are the most effective regardless of whose dogmatic toes get stepped on. It is conceivable that at some stage radical centrist policies might exactly mirror centrist policies, if that turns out to be the best option.

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

My greatest concern for those who profess to be ideologically unaligned are their susceptibility to interest groups, look no further than our own Fianna Fail to see how a centrist party devoid of any real left-right idealogical divide can manifest itself into machiavellian realpolitik.

The electoral system of Ireland produces a hyperfocus on the local level - to a great extent national considerations are a secondary issue to major Irish political parties. Labour only bothered to put up policies a week or two ago. In that respect political capture can take place almost incidentally. One of the main policy points of the group is to reverse that situation and place nationally elected representatives at the centre of national issues, so again, I don't see how that's a concern.

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Without any guiding principal or belief of society should be organised your concerns quickly turn to trading one interest group off another to maintain your political base. Sound familiar?

This sounds a bit like the idea that without religion as their guiding star, men fall to amoral ways, to be honest, which is nonsense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And this is exactly why the radical centre doesn't try to second guess outcomes. To go back to an earlier example, the health service could well be described as a giant millstone around the taxpayer's neck, so privatisation is a benefit, this much is clear. It solves numerous problems, and leaves us paying less per capita for health services, with a very well equipped, streamlined and modern health infrastructure, since you're pumping profits from the sale back into plant and systems upgrades, making the privatisation even more attractive to investors.

It is therefore optimal, at least until something better comes along.

Likewise a similar thought process goes into longer range goals - do we want better education, how can we achieve that, do we want cheaper electricity, do we want to pay less taxes, do we want a wide range of domestic export based industries, do we want ubiquitous high speed broadband penetration for all of the many advantages it brings, and how can we achieve that. Once we have identified the goals we can then apply the practical and reality based decision making process to identify and plan out the optimal method to execute them. Actually a fascinating side effect of this approach is realising how often these goals feed into one another, that joined up thinking you get when you leverage one initiative into another.

One thing is certain, the answers to all of these questions are not either "privatise everything" or "nationalise everything", and therefore the weaknesses of dogmatism become clear.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its a common misconception that the scientific method applies only to science. Similar principles can be more or less applied to any decision making process. Essentially this can be boiled down to the following steps:

• Use your experience or that of others, build on prior knowledge
• If there is no prior knowledge, make a guess and try to explain it to others
• Make a guess as to the probable outcome of your decision
• Test it

What this means is that you build on experience regardless of whether the source of that experience is left, right or middle, and act on that basis, although as William Whewell points out, "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone, and so it should be with policy decisions. It might sound like common sense when it's put like that, but as has been noted by some, common sense isn't.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But if the primary benefactor is to be the public, as I hope was clearly outlined earlier, why would it be a bad idea to use public money? Also the Tailteann games date from considerably before the concept of nation states, so they cannot be described as a nationalist tradition.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

I think it is useful to explore alternative models in other countries. I also agree that goals can feed into each other, even though this generally makes more sense where there are some basic underlying principles that shape the approach to achieving those goals. However, the claim that you are not wedded to free-market ideology or statism isn't "radical", it is pragmatic. And pragmatism seems to be one of the key underlying principles in Irish politics: if something 'works' then parties will run with it (and here is where terminology like 'works' and 'effective' become subjective!). Which is why Bertie could both crow about Ireland's low corporate tax rate and being a socialist; when it comes to political ideology, the two large Irish parties are not very dogmatic or focused on orthodoxy at all (or certainly have not been for the last 20-some years).

I think a lack of an overall vision for Irish society was one of the great problems of the last 20 years of prosperity. All of a sudden, there was lots of money available, but few guiding principles about how to actually use it, other than as pork. Having a clear governing philosophy and a vision for society isn't navel-gazing. Yes it gives pundits (and boardsies) something to debate, but it also gives investors something to consider. Most importantly, it gives voters something to think about.

I think this last point is particularly important for parties that are in opposition: if and when voters get tired of the governing party, having a clear alternative that has been consistent about its policies can help vault outsiders into power. The lack of a clear alternative governing strategy when in opposition is part of what is hampering FG and Labour today: does anyone really think they would have done anything differently from 1997 - 2007?

Ultimately, I don't really see how offering up a "we'll do what works" philosophy is useful from a voter perspective or different from a historical perspective. And arguably small parties in Ireland need to have a strong political philosophy in part because the large parties are so mushy and often hard to differentiate from each other. At a minimum, it needs to be clear what small parties stand for and what they will and will not put up with policy-wise...especially after the debacle of the Green Party in government.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you don't mind I'd like to deal with the Tailteann games individually because it really encapsulates the core issue here, if you'd like I'll go back over the rest of your points in a subsequent post. I don't expect to reach consensus, do I'll just put across what I'm trying to say.

The details of the Tailteann games are irrelevent to the discussion. The point is that this:

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Enter the government, elected by the people of Ireland to represent the people of Ireland (and this is a place where I find most libertarians completely fall flat, the government has this thing called a mandate). Since the majority of the benefit will go to the economy as a whole, the representatives of the country as a whole should be involved if not entirely in charge of funding and directing it.

is an idealogical belief. You believe the government has a role in guiding the economy and guiding some form of Irish culture. In your OP you tried to position your party as somehow above idealogy, when this is clearly not the case.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Except we're in the middle of a severe global contraction, investors of any sort are like hen's teeth, especially those willing to take a chance on a new major sporting event, and the country needs an influx of capital and job creation now.

You do realize that staging a massive event requires money, and that the government is running a deficit in the order of billions, and that to fund such a policy you would have to raise extra taxes? Have you analyzed the economic effect of this? Would the negative impact be covered by the supposed benefits, assuming those benefits materialize?

As apart of your "pragmatic" programme you seem to be dealing with issues in isolation - this is impossible. One of the fallacies of the boom years was that you could lower taxes and raise spending - and this fallacy resulted in part from a belief that the two were somehow unconnected.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So what your dogma has achieved is to take a valuable asset, unique in the world, and drop it off the nearest cliff, because it conflicts with your dogma and apparently you have some sort of ideological disdain for Irish culture.

Why do you feel the need to go on the attack? This topic is about your beliefs and your "radical centre"; it has nothing to do with my beliefs. In fact, I haven't said much here that couldn't equally be said by someone from the Left: I'm criticizing the "radical centre" without recourse to my own personal biases. It doesn't say much for your point of view if you have to attempt to discredit others to credit yourself.

Amhran Nua

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Every Asian Tiger economic model country flies directly in the face of your assertion. The highly successful Nordic states fly in the face of your assertion. Reality flies in the face of your assertion. Yes, it can be done badly, and should be approached with great caution, but it can also be done well, and with balance.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

is an idealogical belief.

I think it would be constructive to clarify the difference between ideology and dogma at this point. An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things, as in common sense. Clearly anyone with an idea about where they want to go has an ideology.

Dogma, on the other hand, which is where the radical centre has a real problem with the left or right, is the established belief or doctrine held by some group or organisation. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Would the negative impact be covered by the supposed benefits, assuming those benefits materialize?

You have to spend it to make it, and replacing expensive flash and bang with those elements of Irish culture that have proved successful is a great way to save money. A full risk analysis on it has not been run on it yet, since we don't have the resources for that, but it looks like a good idea as it combines several ideas that have worked previously into a new creature, so we will continue to promote it.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One of the fallacies of the boom years was that you could lower taxes and raise spending - and this fallacy resulted in part from a belief that the two were somehow unconnected.

We specifically state that taxes are to be raised and costs cut however. A long term goal is to reduce taxes.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to go on the attack?

I'm sorry if you feel put upon, but this is the best way to describe the difference between the radical centre and dogmatic beliefs. The very same could be said of communists and the far left.

Its no good falling back on windy Talmudic arguments referencing tomes you'd need to be half sold on anyway to crack open in the first place, there is no value in deliberately binding your own hands, shackling your own feet, and blindfolding yourself. It is a testament to the power of dogmatic political belief systems that otherwise rational beings can willingly be made to do so. For a reference list of the books the radical centre draws its knowledge from see here.

The whole idea of the political spectrum is a distraction.

Think for yourself, use your own mind, work it out for yourself, be ready and able at any time to justify yourself. The first and last word out of your mouth should be "why", this is the doctrine of the radical centre.

Amhran Nua

southsiderosie wrote: »

And pragmatism seems to be one of the key underlying principles in Irish politics: if something 'works' then parties will run with it (and here is where terminology like 'works' and 'effective' become subjective!).

Indeed, and to understand this you need to understand Irish politics to a deeper extent. What "works" for career politicians and aspiring dynasts was to get re-elected. This is not a practical goal in the sense of actually fulfilling their job description, but due to the many quirks of the Irish electoral system, they could get away with not doing their job while still holding on to their position via clientelism. This is something that urgently needs to be rectified, which goes outside the asserted "pragmatism" of most Irish political parties.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think a lack of an overall vision for Irish society was one of the great problems of the last 20 years of prosperity.

The radical centre is to a certain extent a set of tools, what it mostly says is it won't shy away from particular strategies for dogmatic reasons, and similarly won't pursue policies for dogmatic reasons. There need to be plenty of other reasons, but dogmatism won't be one of them. One doesn't have to write or study volumes of learned lore to communicate or understand that concept.