Radical Centrism

  Jon Huntsman and Redefining Political Discourse:The Radical Center

     Jon Huntsman presents the most exciting Presidential candidacy since Ronald Reagan.  He also stands as the best chance for a Republican to win in the general election against the Obama machine.  He has the polish, poise, positions, and resume to be the two-term President who leads America back from the Obama malaise.  This candidacy, however,  stands on the brink of obscurity, and needs to differentiate itself from Romney  as a new brand of political centrism.  It also needs to provide enough room to pivot where necessary in the general campaign. 

     The vehicle for Jon Huntsman to gain ground within the approaching black hole of Republican primaries is to re-define the discourse.  He has clearly elucidated a series of common sense approaches to many of the top issues confronting America.  In so doing, he has straddled the long-held political divide that the media has created and in which the same media machine has a half century of self-serving narrative invested. 

     Regardless of the topic, the story that the media wants to perpetuate is one of drama and extremism.  The media exists both for and because of stories which expose the far reaches of  a liberal-conservative continuum.  Because wacky soundbites and even wackier attention paid—via a postmodern circus of talking heads shouting at each other—to the colorful commentary around them keeps the moderate middle entertained, we cannot fault the media for providing the programming Americans demand.  The heightened drama of our political process can be as entertaining as “Snookie versus The Situation” or “Bill Belichick versus Rex Ryan.”  The media has fed ideology with attention and the attention seekers have, as a result, sought out ideology.  Thus, we have in American politics, a binary that pits radical conservatives against radical liberals:  what some commentators describe as “wing-nuts.”  The importance of the ideology is secondary to the stories that swirl around them. 

     Of course, this binary is an oversimplification of the reality that underlies American political discourse, but the reality—despite a twenty four hour news cycle—matters little to the dominant narrative. The narrative has little room for nuanced positions of (for example) progressivism or libertarianism, but rather describes and focuses upon instances of ideologically-entrenched absurdity and how these characterize extremist positions.  With little ability to distill the positions of single-issue political stances such as anti-FED(eral Reserve)’ism, Life, second amendment advocacy, or gay rights, the media simply (and somewhat arbitrarily) defines  these groups—based on demographics more than ideology—into the far reaches of one end or the other.  Of course, what makes the two ends of this drama seem so interesting is their relationship to the middle, where (probably more than) 80 percent of the American electorate resides.  The recent emergence of the “Occupy” movement plays perfectly into this binary, providing a liberal foil to the Conservative Tea Party.  Notably, Occupy rhetoric defines its position as “the 99 percent,” stretching the Bell Curve to the statistical limits of its absurdity.

     Certainly, a story about one’s neighbor, with whom one agrees on a vast majority of “common sense” issues is not nearly as titillating as one about Michelle Bachmann claiming gays are possessed by the devil or Joe Biden likening Tea Partiers to terrorists.  Thus, the media seeks out the absurd, distills and minimizes it and feeds it to a middle that needs entertainment.  This same morsel is handed back to the extremists themselves to bloviate over.  The current system of discourse, then, is both the product and the source of circularly- entertaining, spiraling absurdities that have little to do with solutions.  The narrative formula for the media model depends upon radicals, radical positions, and radical ideology.  The radical left and the radical right are perfect for the narrative structure the media demands.  Much like the 1 percent of our population (our movie and sports stars) that entertains us on movie screens, coliseum floors, and in vast stadiums, the ideologically-entrenched “activists” and commentators that comprise a small percentage of our actual electorate dominate the discourse.

     Americans shouldn’t anticipate the media being able to, or having any impetus to, change the structure of this binary construction.  It requires a continuum flanked by radicals and a moderate (middle) center.  In the current system, different gradations along the continuum are permissible, but only in relation to the two extreme ends.  The moderate center is comprised of a vast spectatorship which is just as likely to be excited by their favorite football team as they are for a Presidential candidate.  This group ultimately turns out in small numbers for elections since the issues and discourse are so off-putting (though eminently entertaining) to their unaffected centrism. If the coverage of this issue is not merely “off-putting,” it may take on the appearance of complexity because of its overexposure.  The media has come to exploit this group, and even name it:  “Independents.”   Some segments of the webosphere like to identify this vast and boring middle as “purple,” a combination of the red and blue colors the media indoctrinated the spectator-Americans to accept as Republican and Democrat—visual representations of the stark ends of the political continuum.

     In the last Presidential election, the media worked alongside the Obama campaign machine to “mobilize” the (middle) center.  It was a successful campaign, but has led to a stalemate because it largely denuded ideology in exchange for celebrity and entertainment.  Obama revealed that the current paradigm, by appealing to the laziness of the media which has no interest in re-defining the nuanced positions along the existing “right-left” political continuum, can be exploited and manipulated to win elections.  Maintaining the current continuum—regardless of the economy or war or gay rights or abortion—means that no Republican has a chance against Obama in 2012.  Not unlike Karl Rove and George Bush’s mastery of the current binary in the first decade of this millennium, Obama has the full force and momentum of the media behind him.  The middle of the existing continuum can, he has shown, be mobilized. 

     From a politically ideological perspective, positions that appeal to the center are represented by compromise, as a dilution of the two extremist (radical) positions.  Thus, a position in which instances of abortion are minimized but the rights of mothers also respected becomes an acceptable compromise to a great number of Americans.  Thus, a position in which Civil Unions respect the rights of gays to do something similar to marriage, with most of the civil rights related thereto while still respecting man-woman marriage, is acceptable to the great vast center.  Thus, we cut federal spending by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion or zero.  These hybrid, purple solutions become the accepted middle after much festooning and drama on the radical poles.

Current political continuum:

RadicalLEFT<-Mobilized/Entertained/”CommonSense”CenteràRadicalRIGHT

     Regardless of the ideology that underpins either of the political positions of this continuum, high-stakes drama keeps Americans entertained and ultimately unsatisfied.  The unfortunate result of good compromise is that nobody is ever completely happy.  This, of course, plays perfectly into the increasingly self-perpetuating drama required by the far ends of the continuum and of the media that feeds them.  In the end, the compromise is presented by the media and accepted by the middle.  Neither end of the continuum is pleased, so the drama continues ad infinitum.

     The solution, then, is to radicalize the center.  Rather than the mere mobilization in the name of political gamesmanship that yields non-sustaining political compromise designed by the radical ends of the current binary, re-define the continuum.  The media will conform, because the narrative structure remains unchanged:  it is still binary.  This is the position that Huntsman can thrive in.  He has provided common-sense solutions that are attractive to the vast (middle) center.  Unfortunately, he is seen as a candidate of compromise.  On the surface, he appeals to the same middle where Mitt Romney has perched himself for the past half-decade.  There is no drama, there is nothing entertaining. 

     Instead, the centrist positions need to take on a sense of ideology unto themselves.  If a centrist position becomes a radical position, delineated as a position on the far end of the continuum, then it will get attention.  The media will act with complicity because it is a new drama to perpetuate.  The proponent of such a position will get the attention of the media.

     More succinctly, the American political center needs to be radicalized, not merely mobilized.  The eighty percent (or more) of folks watching political discourse unfold from the sidelines need to be empowered as players in the game.  They need to believe that their “common sense” compromise positions are not merely “purple” dilutions, but that they are right—that they have ideological vigor— in and of themselves.  The emerging description of a Radical Center is one that presents “sustainably improving choices.”

Such a new continuum would look like this:

RadicalCENTERß-Moderate APATHY-àExtremist positions on the Left and Right

In such a new binary, Centrism becomes a radical position and it stands in opposition to Extremism.  Positions held by the Radical Center are no longer boring solutions forged in the midst of great political drama.  Instead, positions of the Radical Center are the prima facie starting point, a foil to, extreme ideological positions.  In short, this concept of a Radical Center that Huntsman can exploit means moving off of the current  Right-Left/Republican-Democrat/Conservative-Liberal continuum onto a completely new one.  On this new continuum, a radicalized center leaves the new center open to true “Apathy,” a position that will never be mobilized or vocal. 

     It appears that Huntsman has already recognized this, and already assumed the position on the new continuum.  As evidenced by his recent statements about evolution and climate change, his stance on civil unions, and his experience as both an executive and a diplomat,  he has leaped full-forcedly onto the new continuum. Nobody gets it. The media is intrigued but can’t sensationalize the candidacy or its positions because it doesn’t fit into the pre-defined narrative formula.  He has to tell Americans  what he is doing.

     The next step is to get the media on board.  Huntsman needs to begin socializing this new paradigmatic continuum.  While the term “Radical Center” has a healthy ring to it, there are already advocates for this position that may be offended by his co-opting of the term.  Though Huntsman is in a position to tactfully adopt the existing phrase as it is so nascent in common American political parlance, he may instead coin a similar phrase, “Extreme Center” as the position that he  is taking. 

     The media, sensing little disruption to its current narrative structure, should buy it pretty quickly, especially if it feels it is given the opportunity to help define it.  Halstead and Lind wrote about it early in the millennium.  Friedman has started circulating it in the NY Times (July 23 op-ed) and an internet-based grassroots organization is attempting to give it form.  Huntsman has an opportunity to co-opt it and make it his.  To make this work, it is imperative that he describe, advocate, and embody a radical shift in the definition of the continuum, rather than merely a re-naming of the “squishy” or “moderate” middle of the current continuum.

     Besides giving him footing in both the primary and general election, he has an opportunity to shape the next decade of political discourse by making common-sense compromise a radical position and relegating both conservative and liberal extremists to the same side of an always-already binary continuum.

Jason Leclerc is a PhD candidate in Texts and Technology at University of Central Florida

He received his Undergraduate degrees from Florida State University in Accounting and American Studies and holds an MA in both Economics and Literature. 

He is a strong supporter of the Jon Huntsman message.