What is "True?"

In my work, and expressed in the novel structure of Momentitiousness, I ask readers to ponder with me the meaning of truth. Further, is "truth based in reason," as we've been trained since the Renaissance, the right goal for society? How different would society look if we sought beauty instead of truth? This is the same task that some of my favorite writers like Walt Whitman and Henry David Thoreau sought.  

Musing on Momentitiousness

Momentitiousness is a book of poetry disguised as a book of short stories.  It isn't exactly verse, but it is prose written by a poet. What does this mean? It means I'm not so concerned with narrative (internal, explicit) story as I am with with capturing the beauty of individual moments. I am not so concerned with linearity as I am with tangential relationships. I am not so concerned with seeking "truth" as I am with seeking beauty.  Rather than saying, "if this, then that," I prefer to offer a whole bunch of "this, this, this," and let readers make the connections that matter to them.

New Website

Welcome to my new blog.

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.

The Affair Part One of Three

1. The Affair


Disclaimer, Local Politics: While I believe that local politics more closely resembles the democratic myths we hold about ourselves as Americans and therefore implore my civic-minded friends to pay close attention to their local political issues, I also believe that the administration--the man or woman-- that holds control of the White House sets the message and priorities for our nation. As much as any other time in our history, federal priorities affect local democracy in the form of funding, taxing, and spending. All politics are, indeed, local.

Up until tonight, I held myself out as steadfastly undecided in the presidential race. Anybody that knows me can attest that my vacillation has been sustained, not by apathy or dearth of information. Rather, my struggle has been informed by a complete immersion in the primary sources of information about the presidential race. Even as I retreated into a “summer hiatus” in which I denied myself a voice in political debate, I continued to consume information and data, to study history and theory, to listen to the voices of the candidates and their supporters.

I subscribe completely to the theory that power resides in the president’s “bully pulpit.” The narrative for our understanding of local issues is constructed at the national level. Our local politics are where federal agendas find action and reflect our larger ideologies and myths. This election is about those ideologies and myths. It is about our soul. It is about our shared history and our fragmented future rooted in the common belief that we are one nation of three hundred twelve million individuals. We are a schizophrenic people, oscillating between fear and hope, state and soul, federal and local, liberalism and conservatism. Flipping and flailing between ideology and pragmatism: we are all poets and economists.

In this frame, whom we choose as our president means far more than policies and budgets. When the history is written about these times, it won’t be about you or me, it will be written about a people led by a man. It will be about an America that approached doom and survived. It will be about sacrifice.

On January 20, 2009, I sat by myself, hushed and misty-eyed, in a restaurant bar and watched the forty fourth president take the oath of office. On January 20 , 2009, I accepted that the half-black son of a Kenyan academic had defeated the staid pragmatic ideology of the “greatest generation.” On January 20, 2009, I fell in love with a man who stood for an idea about what America could be.

My poet ascended.

I have carried on a tryst for which I am not embarrassed. I have carried on a quiet affair for which I am, in fact, proud. As quickly and earnestly as I have just disclosed it, it has evolved toward completion. To save the spirited memory of passion that tickled my every synapse on January 20, 2009, I must turn away from the relationship and toward the memory of it.

Up until tonight, I held myself out as steadfastly undecided in the presidential race. The truth is, I was having an affair with Barack Obama. My heart had decided long ago. I was bedazzled by a narrative of what might have been. I was showing out—masquerading—for the future historians and sacrificed my individuality for the history books that they will write.

My affair with Barack Obama has evolved toward completion, not because it was a forbidden passion, but because it has been a red hot flame that illuminated the mirror up to which I am forced to view myself. Barack Obama, with my quiet acquiescence, has fulfilled the prophecy that the future historians will need him to have filled. He has been an inspiring leader, a larger-than-life man, a brilliant and professorial comrade in thought. He has dazzled me with his vigor and swelled my breath with pride as an American. He has been the baptizer, come to heal our national wounds about race. He has been the truth and the light for a great many whose voices were heretofore quiet. Barack Obama is George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama is America, not just a simile, but a proud and iconic totem for which we can all be proud. As a candidate, he looked and sounded like America, in my mind, should. As president, he looks and sounds like America, in fact, is. My affair with Barack Obama has evolved toward completion, not because it has been a forbidden passion, but because it has been an unmitigated fulfillment.

And now, we have reached the point, in the post coital glow of our national myth-making, to reinvigorate the institutions of America’s promise so that the myth that historians will need to define this era can be perpetuated. In order for the smoldering affair with Barack Obama to have been worth the investment of time and heart, America must survive and the promise of his vision must be spread to the people who have eked along on nothing but hope for the past four years. It is time for the eking to end and the unrestrained quest for selves and success to erupt. Words and hope must become actions and results.

During this tryst, I sat quietly. I have quietly rejected arguments that were devised to undermine the legitimacy of our man, of our time:

Obama is a Muslim.

Obama is a Communist

Obama wants to destroy America

Obama wants to cede American sovereignty to the United Nations

Obama is a liar with no regard for the truth.

Having endured my affair and come out on the other side a changed man, I will no longer passively tarry in the residue of these abominations.

If being Muslim were somehow a detriment to the spirit of humanity, or to the ability of an American to lead this nation, I would call it. Rather, being Muslim means believing in a truth beyond a single man; it means accepting that humanity is subservient to a higher power. Some of us may call it the Law or Nature. Others of us may call it Jesus or Muhammed. All of us should celebrate faith in a power beyond our own skin. If Barack Obama were Muslim, I would celebrate it. I do not believe that he is Muslim. I do not believe that people who describe him accusatorially so—dwelling on the actions of those who confuse hatred with faith—have the spirit they claim to.

Without diving into the history of America’s relationship with Communism, I can say with certainty that Barack Obama is not a Communist; perhaps he is a Marxist. We long ago rejected and defeated the totalitarian state that was embodied by our twentieth-century enemy, the Soviet Union. We long ago embraced progressivism, populism, liberalism and the celebration of the American worker that are at the heart of classical Marxist historiography. Obama stands as firmly against totalitarianism, Nazism, Leninism, Maoism, and anarchy as any of America’s greatest patriots. He also channels the ideals of equality and democracy and fairness in ways that have not been clearly articulated in half a century.

Obama has no designs on the destruction of America. He is no Manchurian candidate. He is not an operative placed by insidious outsiders in a position of power only to hand over our sovereignty. He is come to build and strengthen. Hands and arms outstretched, he wants only to embrace and—in that totemic hug—free us to enjoy the liberties that our forebears hinted at and protected in our founding documents.

Obama is a pragmatist. He may have broken promises, but he has not misrepresented his intentions. We have known that he favors peace over war. We have known that he favors transparency over opacity. We have known that he favors equality of outcomes over fairness. We have known that he favors broad government over free-enterprise. We have known that he favors words over actions. We have known that he will make decisions that he thinks are right—in spite of his ideology—at critical moments. We know that each day he is forced to sacrifice a little bit more of his legacy—of the future myth of who he was—for the mundane workings of the world’s most powerful nation.

And it is precisely because I know this icon intimately—because I am part of what makes it up—that I wish to protect it. Because I cherish the time I have spent with Barack Obama, I can no longer sit quietly.

During our quiet tryst, I was caught in the middle of a loud and gruesome debate characterized by absurd rhetoric, propagandist sloganeering, hateful diatribes, and personal attacks from friends, family and countrymen. For what seemed like ambivalence, I was hated. In moments that allowed for the transparency of my oscillating allegiances, I was misunderstood. My poet and economist, and their tangencies with the outside superstructures that weigh upon the soul which they comprise were at constant odds; they were in perpetual crosshairs. My poet and economist have been in constant battle.

If our children are to remember Barack Obama, America’s smartest president, as the man who embodied the grand experiment in his mind:

If our children are to remember Barack Obama as the man whose vision of diplomacy won him the Nobel Peace prize and not as the man who unleashed anarchy over the Middle East:

If our children are to remember him as the prophesied first African American president, the son of a Kenyan, and not as the man who drew new social demarcations among Americans:

If our children are to remember him as the man who cared about the health of our people so much that he engineered the passage of a law that guarantees healthcare as a right, and not as the man who crushed the world’s greatest doctors and medical community:

If our children are to remember him as the man who ended the war in Iraq and not the man who abandoned a fledgling democracy:

If our children are to remember him as the man who saved America and its industries from certain economic collapse, and not as the man who saddled them with six trillion dollars of national debt:

If our children are to remember a man who stood up from the Oval Office and said that there is no difference between a gay man and me, and not as the man whose words and actions betrayed each other and a whole genus of Americans:

If our children are to remember a man whose very election changed the way Americans can think about themselves in the context of history and the cosmos, and not the man whose failed policies—whose grand experiment upon the American world—pushed us from superpower to obscurity:

If Barack Obama is to be remembered as a mythic hero and not as a footnote of failure:

We must choose, for a moment between our poets and our economists.

If we are to retain our Barack Obama, we must make more difficult decisions. If he is to preserve his place in history—and ours—if he is to prevent the nibbling away at the legacy of our time by the ordinariness of pragmatism, we must turn control over to an administrator whose skills are wrought in the mundane workings of politics and economics. Moving “forward” on the current trajectory means obliterating the snapshot of who we wish to be: who we will wish to have been.