Radical centrism, also called theradical center and theradical middle, is a concept that arose inWestern nations in the late 20th century. Theradical in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[1] Thecentrism refers to a belief that genuine solutions requirerealism andpragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[2] One radical-centrist author defines radical centrism as "idealism without illusions",[3] a phrase originally fromJohn F. Kennedy.[4]
One common criticism of radical centrism is that its policies are only marginally different from conventional centrist policies.[9] Some observers see radical centrism as primarily a process of catalyzing dialogue and fresh thinking among polarized people and groups.[10]
According to journalistWilliam Safire, the phrase "radical middle" was coined byRenata Adler,[22] a staff writer forThe New Yorker. In the introduction to her second collection of essays,Toward a Radical Middle (1969), she presented it as a healing radicalism.[23] Adler said it rejected the violent posturing and rhetoric of the 1960s in favor of such "corny" values as "reason, decency, prosperity, human dignity [and human] contact".[24] She called for the "reconciliation" of the white working class andAfrican-Americans.[24]
In the 1970s, sociologist Donald I. Warren described the radical center as consisting of those "middle American radicals" who were suspicious of big government, the national media and academics, as well as rich people and predatory corporations. Although they might vote for Democrats or Republicans, or for populists likeGeorge Wallace, they felt politically homeless and were looking for leaders who would address their concerns.[25][nb 4]
Joe Klein, who wrote theNewsweek cover story "Stalking the Radical Middle"
In the 1980s and 1990s, several authors contributed their understandings to the concept of the radical center. For example, futuristMarilyn Ferguson added aholistic dimension to the concept when she said: "[The] Radical Center ... is not neutral, not middle-of-the-road, but a view of the whole road".[28][nb 5] SociologistAlan Wolfe located the creative part of the political spectrum at the center: "The extremes of right and left know where they stand, while the center furnishes what is original and unexpected".[30] African-American theoristStanley Crouch upset many political thinkers when he pronounced himself a "radical pragmatist".[31] Crouch explained: "I affirm whatever I think has the best chance of working, of being both inspirational and unsentimental, of reasoning across the categories of false division and beyond the decoy of race".[32]
In his influential[33] 1995Newsweek cover story "Stalking the Radical Middle", journalistJoe Klein described radical centrists as angrier and more frustrated than conventional Democrats and Republicans. Klein said they share four broad goals: getting money out of politics, balancing the budget, restoring civility and figuring out how to run government better. He also said their concerns were fueling "what is becoming a significant intellectual movement, nothing less than an attempt to replace the traditional notions of liberalism and conservatism".[34][nb 6][nb 7]
In 1998, British sociologistAnthony Giddens claimed that the radical center is synonymous with theThird Way.[39] For Giddens, an advisor to former British Prime MinisterTony Blair and for many other European political actors, the Third Way is a reconstituted form ofsocial democracy.[40][41]
Some radical centrist thinkers do not equate radical centrism with the Third Way. In Britain, many do not see themselves as social democrats. Most prominently, British radical-centrist politicianNick Clegg has made it clear he does not consider himself an heir to Tony Blair[16] andRichard Reeves, Clegg's longtime advisor, emphatically rejects social democracy.[42]
In the United States, the situation is different because the term Third Way was adopted by theDemocratic Leadership Council and other moderate Democrats.[43] However, most U.S. radical centrists also avoid the term. Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's introduction to radical centrist politics fails to mention it[44] and Lind subsequently accused the organized moderate Democrats of siding with the "center-right" andWall Street.[27] Radical centrists have expressed dismay with what they see as "split[ting] the difference",[34] "triangulation"[27][45] and other supposed practices of what some of them call the "mushy middle".[46][47][nb 8]
Michael Lind, co-author ofThe Radical Center: The Future of American Politics
The first years of the 21st century saw publication of four introductions to radical centrist politics:Ted Halstead andMichael Lind'sThe Radical Center (2001),Matthew Miller'sThe Two Percent Solution (2003),John Avlon'sIndependent Nation (2004) andMark Satin'sRadical Middle (2004).[48][49] These books attempted to take the concept of radical centrism beyond the stage of "cautious gestures"[50] and journalistic observation and define it as a political philosophy.[5][26][nb 9]
The authors came to their task from diverse political backgrounds: Avlon had been a speechwriter for New York Republican MayorRudolph Giuliani;[52] Miller had been a business consultant before serving in PresidentBill Clinton's budget office;[53] Lind had been an exponent ofHarry Truman-style "national liberalism";[54] Halstead had run a think tank called Redefining Progress;[55] and Satin had co-drafted theU.S. Green Party's foundational political statement, "Ten Key Values".[56] However, there is agenerational bond: all these authors were between 31 and 41 years of age when their books were published (except for Satin, who was nearing 60).
While the four books do not speak with one voice, among them they express assumptions, analyses, policies and strategies that helped set the parameters for radical centrism as a 21st-century political philosophy:
Such thinking cannot be divorced from the world as it is, or from tempered understandings of human nature. A mixture of idealism and realism is needed.[65] "Idealism without realism is impotent", says John Avlon. "Realism without idealism is empty".[2]
North America and Western Europe have entered anInformation Ageeconomy, with new possibilities that are barely being tapped.[66][67]
In this new age, a plurality of people is neither liberal nor conservative, but independent[68] and looking to move in a more appropriate direction.[69]
Nevertheless, the major political parties are committed to ideas developed in, and for, a different era; and are unwilling or unable to realistically address the future.[70][71]
Most people in the Information Age want to maximize the amount of choice they have in their lives.[72][73]
In addition, people are insisting that they be given a fair opportunity to succeed in the new world they are entering.[73][74]
A commitment tomarket-based solutions in health care, energy, the environment, etc., so long as the solutions are carefully regulated by government to serve thepublic good.[81][82] The policy goal, says Matthew Miller, is to "harness market forces for public purposes".[6]
A commitment to provide jobs for everyone willing to work, whether by subsidizing jobs in the private sector[83] or by creating jobs in the public sector.[84]
A commitment to need-based rather than race-basedaffirmative action;[85][86] more generally, a commitment to race-neutral ideals.[87]
A new political majority can be built, whether it be seen to consist largely of Avlon's political independents,[89] Satin's "caring persons",[90] Miller's balanced and pragmatic individuals,[61] or Halstead and Lind's triad of disaffected voters, enlightened business leaders, and young people.[91]
National political leadership is important; local and nonprofit activism is not enough.[92][93]
Political process reform is also important – for example, implementingrank-order voting in elections and providing free media time to candidates.[94][95]
A radical centrist party should be created, assuming one of the major parties cannot simply be won over by radical centrist thinkers and activists.[71][nb 10]
Along with publication of the four overviews of radical centrist politics, the first part of the 21st century saw a rise in the creation and dissemination of radical centristpolicy ideas.[5][26]
2015 panel discussion at theNew America think tank in Washington, D.C.
Severalthink tanks are developing radical centrist ideas. By the early 2000s, these includedDemos in Britain; theCape York Institute for Policy and Leadership in Australia; andNew America (formerly the New America Foundation) in the United States. New America was started by authorsTed Halstead andMichael Lind, as well as two others, to bring radical centrist ideas to Washington, D.C. journalists and policy researchers.[55][nb 11]
In the 2010s, new think tanks began promoting radical centrist ideas. "Radix: Think Tank for the Radical Centre" was established in London in 2016; its initial board of trustees included formerLiberal Democrat leaderNick Clegg.[99] Writing inThe Guardian, Radix policy directorDavid Boyle called for "big, radical ideas" that could break with both trickle-down conservatism and backward-looking socialism.[100] In 2018, a policy document released by the then four-year-oldNiskanen Center of Washington, D.C. was characterized as a "manifesto for radical centrism" byBig Think writer Paul Ratner.[101] According to Ratner, the document – signed by some of Niskanen's executives and policy analysts – is an attempt to "incorporate rival ideological positions into a way forward" for America.[101]
In Britain, the news magazineThe Economist positions itself as radical centrist. An editorial ("leader") in 2012 declared in bolded type: "A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth".[114] An essay onThe Economist's website the following year, introduced by the editor, argues that the magazine had always "com[e] ... from what we like to call the radical centre".[115]
Parag Khanna speaks on his bookHow to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance[116]
Many books now offer radical centrist perspectives on specific topics, including foreign policy, the environment, agriculture, race, women and men, bureaucracy, economics, international relations, political dialogue, political organizing, and personal action. Some examples:
InEthical Realism (2006), British liberalAnatol Lieven and U.S. conservativeJohn Hulsman advocate a foreign policy based on modesty, principle and seeing ourselves as others see us.[117]
InFood from the Radical Center (2018), ecologistGary Paul Nabhan proposes agricultural policies intended to unite left and right as well as improve the food supply.[119]
InWinning the Race (2005), linguistJohn McWhorter says that many African Americans are negatively affected by a cultural phenomenon he calls "therapeutic alienation".[120]
InTry Common Sense (2019), attorneyPhilip K. Howard urges the national government to set broad goals and standards, and leave interpretation to those closest to the ground.[122][nb 13]
InThe Origin of Wealth (2006), Eric Beinhocker of theInstitute for New Economic Thinking portrays the economy as a dynamic but imperfectly self-regulating evolutionary system and suggests policies that could support benign socio-economic evolution.[124]
InHow to Run the World (2011), scholarParag Khanna argues that the emergingworld order should not be run from the top down, but by a galaxy ofnonprofit, nation-state, corporate and individual actors cooperating for their mutual benefit.[116]
InThe Righteous Mind (2012), social psychologistJonathan Haidt says we can conduct useful political dialogue only after acknowledging the strengths in our opponents' ways of thinking.[125]
InVoice of the People (2008), conservative activistLawrence Chickering and liberal attorney James Turner attempt to lay the groundwork for a grassroots "transpartisan" movement across the U.S.[126]
In his memoirRadical Middle: Confessions of an Accidental Revolutionary (2010), South African journalistDenis Beckett tries to show that one person can make a difference in a situation many might regard as hopeless.[127]
In Australia,Aboriginal lawyerNoel Pearson bases his ideas on an explicitly radical centrist movement among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[132] The movement is seeking more assistance from the Australian state, but is also seeking to convince individual Aboriginal people to take more responsibility for their lives.[133][134] To political philosopher Katherine Curchin, writing in theAustralian Journal of Political Science, Pearson is attempting something unusual and worthwhile: casting public debate on Indigenous issues in terms of a search for a radical centre.[128] She says Pearson's methods have much in common with those ofdeliberative democracy.[128] After prime ministerMalcolm Turnbull's rejection of the call for a referendum aboutIndigenous constitutional recognition contained in theUluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, Pearson wrote that he had finally ended his "long game" of developing an agenda for the "radical centre", calling it "a long and dirty experiment that failed".[135]
Shireen Morris, director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab atMacquarie University Law School, a mentee of Pearson, wrote that theIndigenous Voice to Parliament (which failed in areferendum in 2023) was developed as a radical centrist solution to the problem of constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. It attempted to synthesise progressive concerns that constitutional recognition must involve structural reform and not "mere symbolism" with conservative concerns that any change must not limitparliamentary sovereignty and "minimise legal uncertainty". However, in her view, the conservative history behind the Voice campaign was overtaken by the left, with theAlbanese Labor government leading the push for the yes vote.[136][137]
While not using the term formally, the political partyScience Party is founded on principles that are typical of the radical centre.[138]
In the late 2010s, Brazil'sMarina Silva was identified byThe Economist as an emerging radical-centrist leader. Formerly a member of the left-wingWorkers' Party, by 2017 she had organized a new party whose watchwords included environmentalism, liberalism, and "clean politics".[129] She had already served six years as Minister of the Environment, and in 2010 she was theGreen Party candidate for President of Brazil, finishing third with 20% of the vote.[139]
In the late 1970s, Prime MinisterPierre Elliott Trudeau claimed that hisLiberal Party adhered to the "radical centre".[141][142] One thing this means, Trudeau said, is that "sometimes we have to fight against the state".[141]Paul Hellyer, who served in Trudeau's first cabinet and spent over half a century in Canadian political life,[143][nb 14] said in 2010, "I have been branded as everything from far left to far right. I put myself in the radical centre – one who seeks solutions to problems based on first principles without regard to ideology. I believe that it is the kind of solution the world desperately needs at a time when niggling change or fine tuning is not good enough".[144]
In 2017,The Economist described Chile'sAndrés Velasco as a rising radical-centrist politician.[129] A former finance minister inMichelle Bachelet's first government, he later unsuccessfully ran against her for the presidential nomination and then helped establish a new political party.[129] According toThe Economist, Velasco and his colleagues say they support a political philosophy that is both liberal and egalitarian.[129] LikeAmartya Sen, they see freedom not just as freedom-from, but as the absence of domination and the opportunity to fulfill one's potential.[129] LikeJohn Rawls, they reject the far left's emphasis on state redistribution in favor of an emphasis on equal treatment for all with special vigilance against class- and race-based discrimination.[129]
Finland's Centre Party has been generally viewed as a radical centrist party, with wide-ranging views from the left and right-wing political spectrums, such as supporting lower taxes for businesses and lowering the capital gains tax, while also encompassing strong welfare and environmental policies and legislation. The Centre Party's former chairmen and Finland's former Prime Ministers,Juha Sipilä andMatti Vanhanen as well as former PresidentUrho Kekkonen have been viewed as radical centrists.[145]
Several observers have identifiedEmmanuel Macron, elected President of France in 2017, as a radical centrist.[146]Anne Applebaum ofThe Washington Post says Macron "represents the brand-new radical center", as does his political movement,En Marche!, which Applebaum translates as "forward".[147] She notes a number of politically bridging ideas Macron holds – for example, "He embraces markets, but says he believes in 'collective solidarity'".[147] A professor of history, Robert Zaretsky, writing inForeign Policy, argues that Macron's radical centrism is "the embodiment of a particularly French kind of center – the extreme center".[148] He points to Macron's declaration that he is "neither left nor right", and to his support for policies, such as public-sector austerity and major environmental investments that traditional political parties might find contradictory.[148]
U.S. politician Dave Anderson, writing inThe Hill newspaper, says that Macron's election victory points the way for those "who wish to transcend their polarized politics of [the present] in the name of a new center, not a moderate center associated with United States and United Kingdom 'Third Way' politics but what has been described as Macron's 'radical center' point of view. … [It] transcends left and right but takes important elements of both sides".[149]
Writing at The Dahrendorf Forum, a joint project of theHertie School of Governance (Berlin) and theLondon School of Economics, Forum fellow Alexandru Filip put theGerman Green party of 2018 in the same camp as Emmanuel Macron's French party (see above) andAlbert Rivera's Spanish one (see below). His article "On New and Radical Centrism" argued that the Greens did relatively well in the2017 German federal election not only because of their stance against the "system" but also as a result of "a more centrist, socio-liberal, pro-European constituency that felt alienated by the power-sharing cartel" of the larger parties.[150]
Yair Lapid addressing supporters on election night in 2013
In an article forIsrael Hayom in 2012, conservativeKnesset memberTzipi Hotovely named Israeli politicianYair Lapid and hisYesh Atid (There Is a Future) party as examples of "the radical center" in Israel, which she warned her readers against.[151] In 2013,Yossi Klein Halevi – author of books addressing Israelis and Palestinians alike[152][153] – explained why he voted for Lapid, saying, in part:
He emerged as the voice of middle class disaffection, yet included in his[party] list two Ethiopians, representatives of one of the country's poorest constituencies. ... Yair has sought dialogue. ... Some see Yair's Israeli eclecticism as an expression of ideological immaturity, of indecisiveness. In fact it reflects his ability – alone among today's leaders – to define the Israeli center. ... These voters agree with the left about the dangers of occupation and with the right about the dangers of a delusional peace.[154]
In 2017, Lapid and his party were surging in the polls.[155] In May 2020, following three elections, Lapid was named leader of the opposition in Israel.[156][157] A month prior, Lapid had written an essay in which he described his version of centrism as "the politics of the broad consensus that empowers us all. Together, we are creating something new".[158]
According to journalistAngelo Persichilli, ItalianChristian Democratic Party leaderAldo Moro's call for a"parallel convergence" prefigured today's calls for radical centrism.[159] Until being killed by theRed Brigades in the late 1970s, Moro had been promoting a political alliance between Christian Democracy and theItalian Communist Party.[159] Moro acknowledged that the two parties were so different that they ran on parallel tracks and he did not want them to lose their identities, but he emphasized that in the end their interests were convergent – hence the phrase "parallel convergence", which he popularized.[159]
According to the Dutch opinion magazineHP/De Tijd, the Dutch political partyD66 can be seen as radical centrist.[161] Radical centrism is a possibility in another Dutch party as well. In a report presented in 2012 to theChristian Democratic Appeal (CDA) party, CDA member and former minister of social affairsAart Jan de Geus recommends that the CDA develop itself into a radical centrist("radicale midden") party.[162] The D66 has been seen as the more progressive and individualistic of the two parties, and the CDA as the more conservative and personalistic / communitarian.[161]
The political scientistRichard Sakwa describedPutinism as radical centrism as late as 2015, noting its radicalisation with regard to the pre-2012 classical stage,[166] when it represented "typical centrism" by eschewing extremes of left and right, and promoting a strong state that would oversee economic development in the national interest.[167]
South Africa's Referendum Party (RP) identifies as a radical centrist and separatist party. It was formed out of frustration at South Africa's traditional liberal-centrist Democratic Alliance (DA) perceived inability to systemically change the status-quo. RP advocates forCape independence,Non-racialism and a Western-orientated foreign policy outlook for the Cape region of South Africa.[168]
In Spain,Albert Rivera and hisCiudadanos (Citizens) party have been described as radical centrist byPolitico,[179] as well as by Spanish-language commentators and news outlets.[180] Rivera himself has described his movement as radical centrist, saying, "We're the radical center. We can't beat them when it comes to populism. What Ciudadanos aspires to is radical, courageous changes backed by numbers, data, proposals, economists, technicians and capable people".[179] Rivera has called for politics to transcend the old labels, saying, "We have to move away from the old left-right axis".[160]The Economist has likened Rivera and his party toEmmanuel Macron and his partyEn Marche! in France.[160] Rivera's party has taken on the established parties of the left and right and has had some success, most notably in the2017 Catalan regional election.[181] In the subsequent years, though, Ciudadanos became almost irrelevant in Spanish politics, leading to Rivera's resignation as party leader.
Following the 2010 election,Nick Clegg, then leader of theLiberal Democrats (Britain's third-largest party at the time), had his party enter into aConservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement to form a majority government.[182] In a speech to party members in the spring of 2011, Clegg declared that he considers himself and his party to be radical centrist:
For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre.[183]
In the autumn of 2012, Clegg's longtime policy advisor elaborated on the differences between Clegg's identity as a "radical liberal" and traditionalsocial democracy. He stated that Clegg's conception of liberalism rejected "statism, paternalism, insularity and narrow egalitarianism".[42]
Ross Perot was an early proponent of radical centrism.Political independentJesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998.[59]
Some commentators identifyRoss Perot's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign as the first radical centrist national campaign.[34][184] However, many radical centrist authors were not enthusiastic aboutPerot. Matthew Miller acknowledges that Perot had enough principle to support a gasoline tax hike,[185] Halstead and Lind note that he popularized the idea of balancing the budget[186] and John Avlon says he crystallized popular distrust of partisan extremes.[187] However, none of those authors examines Perot's ideas or campaigns in depth and Mark Satin does not mention Perot at all. Joe Klein mocked one of Perot's campaign gaffes and said he was not a sufficiently substantial figure.[34] Miller characterizes Perot as a rich, self-financed lone wolf.[188] By contrast, what most radical centrists say they want in political action terms is the building of a grounded political movement.[189][190]
The phrase "militant moderates" was used by national media during Perot's 1992 groundbreaking presidential campaign. One of Perot's most intriguing contributions to American politics is his challenge to the entire paradigm of "left-center-right." He claimed at a meeting of the national Reform Party in 1995 that the paradigm was no longer operative and that left-center-right was being replaced. The replacement was a "top versus the rest of us" paradigm, and that the very wealthy like himself, could choose to be with the people at the "bottom, like most of the American people." This brand of "militant moderation"—a form of populism—is what endeared Perot to his ardent followers and was not traditional "centrism."
Also in the 1990s, political independentsJesse Ventura,Angus King andLowell Weicker became governors of American states. According to John Avlon, they pioneered the combination of fiscal prudence and social tolerance that has served as a model for radical centrist governance ever since.[59] They also developed a characteristic style, a combination of "common sense and maverick appeal".[191][nb 15]
In the decade of the 2000s, a number of governors and mayors – most prominently, California governorArnold Schwarzenegger and New York City mayorMichael Bloomberg – were celebrated byTime magazine as "action heroes" who looked beyond partisanship to get things done.[193] A similar article that decade inPolitico placed "self-styled 'radical centrist'" governorMark Warner of Virginia in that camp.[194]
In the 2010s, the radical centrist movement in the U.S. played out in the national media. In 2010, for example,The New York Times columnistThomas Friedman called for "aTea Party of the radical center", an organized national pressure group.[195] Friedman later co-wrote a book with scholarMichael Mandelbaum discussing key issues in American society and calling for an explicitly radical centrist politics and program to deal with them.[196] AtThe Washington Post, columnistMatthew Miller was explaining "Why we need a third party of (radical) centrists".[197][nb 16]
In 2011, Friedman championedAmericans Elect, an insurgent group of radical centrist Democrats, Republicans and independents who were hoping to run an independent presidential candidate in 2012.[107] Meanwhile, Miller offered "[t]he third-party stump speech we need".[201] In his bookThe Price of Civilization (2011),Columbia University economistJeffrey Sachs called for the creation of a third U.S. party, an "Alliance for the Radical Center".[202]
While no independent radical-centrist presidential candidate emerged in 2012, John Avlon emphasized the fact that independent voters remain the fastest-growing portion of the electorate.[106]
In late 2015, theNo Labels organization, co-founded by Avlon,[203] called a national "Problem Solver" convention to discuss how to best reduce political polarization and promote political solutions that could bridge the left-right divide.[204] A lengthy article inThe Atlantic about the convention conveys the views of leaders of a new generation of beyond-left-and-right (or both-left-and-right) organizations, includingJoan Blades of Living Room Conversations,David Blankenhorn of Better Angels,Carolyn Lukensmeyer of the National Institute for Civil Discourse andSteve McIntosh of the Institute for Cultural Evolution.[204] Following the2016 presidential election, prominent U.S. commentatorDavid Brooks praised No Labels and other such groups and offered them advice, including this: "[D]eepen a positive national vision that is not merely a positioning between left and right".[205]
By the mid-2010s, several exponents of radical centrism had run, albeit unsuccessfully, for seats in theUnited States Congress, includingMatthew Miller in California[206] and Dave Anderson in Maryland.[149]
According to a January 2018 article inThe Washington Post, West Virginia SenatorJoe Manchin greeted newly elected Alabama SenatorDoug Jones with the phrase, "Welcome to the radical middle".[207] Both senators have been regarded as moderate and bipartisan.[208] In March 2018, the political newspaperThe Hill ran an article by attorneyMichael D. Fricklas entitled "The Time for Radical Centrism Has Come".[209] It asserted that theomnibus spending bill for 2018 jettisoned spending proposals favored by both political "extremes" to obtain votes of "principled moderates", and that its passage therefore represented a victory for what SenatorSusan Collins (R-Maine) calls "radical centrism".[209]
TheForward Party, apolitical action committee created by former presidential candidateAndrew Yang in October 2021, was critically described as a radical centrist movement by the American socialist magazine,Jacobin.[211] Two days after the creation of theForward Party, Yang tweeted, "You're giving radical centrists like me a home."[212]
Even before the 21st century, some observers were criticizing what they saw as radical centrism. In the 1960s, liberal political cartoonistJules Feiffer employed the term "radical middle" to mock what he saw as the timid and pretentious outlook of the American political class.[213][214][nb 17] During theRoss Perot presidential campaign of 1992, conservative journalistWilliam Safire suggested that a more appropriate term for the radical center might be the "snarling center".[22] In a 1998 article entitled "The Radical Centre: A Politics Without Adversary", Belgian political theoristChantal Mouffe argued that passionate and often bitter conflict between left and right is a necessary feature of any democracy.[215][nb 18]
Some 21st-century commentators argue that radical centrist policies are not substantially different from conventional centrist ideas.[9][218] For example, US liberal journalistRobert Kuttner says there already is a radical centrist party – "It's called the Democrats".[217] He faultsMatthew Miller's version of radical centrism for offering "feeble" policy solutions and indulging in wishful thinking about the motives of the political right.[219] Progressive social theoristRichard Kahlenberg says thatTed Halstead andMichael Lind's bookThe Radical Center is too skeptical about the virtues of labor unions and too ardent about the virtues of the market.[220]
Others contend that radical centrist policies lack clarity. For example, in 2001 journalistEric Alterman said that theNew America Foundation think tank was neither liberal nor progressive and did not know what it was.[55]
Politico reports that some think Spain's radical centristCiudadanos (Citizens) party is "encouraged by the Spanish establishment" to undercut the radical left and preserve the status quo.[179]
Thomas Friedman's columns supporting radical centrism are a favorite target for bloggers[9]
By contrast, some observers claim that radical centrist ideas are too different from mainstream policies to be viable.Sam Tanenhaus, the editor ofThe New York Times Book Review, called the proposals in Halstead and Lind's book "utopian".[26] According to Ed Kilgore, the policy director of theDemocratic Leadership Council,Mark Satin'sRadical Middle book "ultimately places him in the sturdy tradition of 'idealistic' American reformers who think smart and principled people unencumbered by political constraints can change everything".[218]
Some have suggested that radical centrists may be making false assumptions about their effectiveness or appeal. In the United States, for example, political analystJames Joyner found that states adoptingnon-partisanredistricting commissions, a favorite radical-centrist proposal, have been no more fiscally responsible than states without such commissions.[221] In 2017,The Economist wondered whether Latin Americans really wanted to hear the "hard truths" about their societies that some radical centrists were offering them.[129]
Radical centrist attitudes have also been criticized. For example, many bloggers have characterizedThomas Friedman's columns on radical centrism as elitist and glib.[9] In Australia, some think that Australian attorneyNoel Pearson – long an advocate of radical centrism – is in fact a "polarizing partisan".[222] In 2012, conservativeKnesset memberTzipi Hotovely criticized Israel's radical center for lacking such attributes as courage, decisiveness, and realistic thinking.[151]
Conservative journalistRamesh Ponnuru, who has criticized radical centrist strategy[223]
Some observers question the wisdom of seeking consensus,post-partisanship or reconciliation in political life.[9] Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues that American democratic theory from the time ofJames Madison'sFederalist No. 10 (1787) has been based on the acknowledgement of faction and the airing of debate, and he sees no reason to change now.[9]
Other observers feel radical centrists are misreading the political situation. For example, conservative journalistRamesh Ponnuru says liberals and conservatives are not ideologically opposed to such radical centrist measures as limiting entitlements and raising taxes to cover national expenditures. Instead, voters are opposed to them and things will change when voters can be convinced otherwise.[223]
The third-party strategy favored by many U.S. radical centrists has been criticized as impractical and diversionary. According to these critics, what is needed instead is (a) reform of the legislative process; and (b) candidates in existing political parties who will support radical centrist ideas.[9] The specific third-party vehicle favored by many U.S. radical centrists in 2012 –Americans Elect[224] – was criticized as an "elite-driven party"[9] supported by a "dubious group of Wall Street multi-millionaires".[217]
After spending time with a variety of radical centrists, Alec MacGillis ofThe New Republic concluded that their perspectives are so disparate that they could never come together to build a viable political organization.[225]
Some radical centrists are less than sanguine about their future. One concern is co-optation. For example,Michael Lind worries that the enthusiasm for the term radical center, on the part of "arbiters of the conventional wisdom", may signal a weakening of the radical vision implied by the term.[27]
Another concern is passion.John Avlon fears that some centrists cannot resist the lure of passionate partisans, whom he calls "wingnuts".[226] By contrast,Mark Satin worries that radical centrism, while "thoroughly sensible", lacks an "animating passion" – and claims there has never been a successful political movement without one.[227]
Some radical centrists, such as theoristTom Atlee,[64]mediator Mark Gerzon,[228] and activistJoseph F. McCormick,[64] see radical centrism as primarily a commitment to process.[64][229] Their approach is to facilitate processes ofstructured dialogue among polarized people and groups, from the neighborhood level on up.[64][230] A major goal is to enable dialogue participants to come up with new perspectives and solutions that can address every party's core interests.[64][231]Onward Christian Athletes author Tom Krattenmaker speaks of the radical center as that (metaphoric) space where such dialogue and innovation can occur.[10] Similarly,The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex, and Power in the Real World authorKaren Lehrman Bloch speaks of the radical middle as a "common ground" where left and right can "nurture a saner society".[232]
Organizations seeking to catalyze dialogue and innovation among diverse people and groups have includedAmericaSpeaks,[233]C1 World Dialogue,[234] Everyday Democracy,[235] Listening Project (North Carolina),[236] Living Room Conversations,[204][237] Public Conversations Project,[64][238]Search for Common Ground,[239] and Village Square.[204] Organizations specifically for university students include BridgeUSA[240][241] andSustained Dialogue.[240] The city ofPortland, Oregon has been characterized as "radical middle" inUSA Today newspaper because many formerly antagonistic groups there are said to be talking to, learning from and working with one another.[10]
In 2005,The Atlantic portrayed Egyptian Islamic clericAli Gomaa as the voice of an emergent form of radical Islam – "traditionalism without the extremism".[242] In 2012, in an article entitled "The Radical Middle: Building Bridges Between the Muslim and Western Worlds,[234] Gomaa shared his approach to the dialogic process:
The purpose of dialogue should not be to convert others, but rather to share with them one's principles. Sincere dialogue should strengthen one's faith while breaking down barriers. ... Dialogue is a process of exploration and coming to know the other, as much as it is an example of clarifying one's own positions. Therefore, when one dialogues with others, what is desired is to explore their ways of thinking, so as to correct misconceptions in our own minds and arrive at common ground.[243]
^For an extended discussion of neoclassical American pragmatism and its possible political implications, seeLouis Menand's bookThe Metaphysical Club.[12]
^An international evangelical movement, theAssociation of Vineyard Churches, describes itself as "radical middle" because it believes that spiritual truth is found by holding supposedly contradictory concepts in tension. Examples include head vs. heart, planning vs. being Spirit-led, and standing for truth vs. standing for Unity.[14]
^In the 1980s, Satin's own Washington, D.C.-based political newsletter,New Options, described itself as "post-liberal".[19] Culture critic Annie Gottlieb says it urged theNew Left andNew Age to "evolve into a 'New Center'".[20]
^Warren's book influencedMichael Lind and other 21st century radical centrists.[26][27]
^Two years later, another prominent futurist,John Naisbitt, wrote in bolded type, "The political left and right are dead; all the action is being generated by a radical center".[29]
^Subsequent to Klein's article, some political writers posited the existence of two radical centers, one neopopulist and bitter and the other moderate and comfortable.[35][36] According to historianSam Tanenhaus, one of the strengths ofTed Halstead andMichael Lind's bookThe Radical Center (2001) is it attempts to weld the two supposed radical-centrist factions together.[26]
^A 1991 story inTime magazine with a similar title, "Looking for The Radical Middle", revealed the existence of a "New Paradigm Society" in Washington, D.C., a group of high-level liberal and conservative activists seeking ways to bridge the ideological divide.[37] The article discusses what it describes as the group's virtual manifesto,E. J. Dionne's bookWhy Americans Hate Politics.[38]
^In 2010, radical centrist Michael Lind stated that "to date,President Obama has been the soft-spoken tribune of the mushy middle".[27]
^Shortly after the four books appeared, economist Leonard Santow and historian Mark Santow summarized the perspective in a book for policy analysts: "[A]n interesting way of thinking has emerged in some quarters, offering the notion of a politics of the 'radical middle'. Articulated most persuasively by Michael Lind and Mark Satin, this politics seeks to go beyond the 'left' and the 'right' by drawing on the best of both of them. … The primary concern of such a politics would be to work through and improve our basic institutions of representative democracy and capitalism in order to provide a fair start in life for all citizens … [and] grapple with big, long-term challenges".[51]
^Matthew Miller added an "Afterword" to the paperback edition of his book favoring formation of a "transformational third party" by the year 2010, if the two major parties remained stuck in their ways.[96]
^Peters used the term "neoliberal" to distinguish his ideas from those ofneoconservatives and conventional liberals. His version of neoliberalism is separate from what came to be known internationally asneoliberalism.[103][104]
^Howard summarizedTry Common Sense in an article entitled "A Radical Centrist Platform for 2020."[123]
^By the end of the 20th century, some mainstream politicians were cloaking themselves in the language of the radical center. For example, in 1996 former U.S. Defense SecretaryElliot Richardson stated: "I am a moderate – a radical moderate. I believe profoundly in the ultimate value of human dignity and equality".[192] At a conference in Berlin, Canadian Prime MinisterJean Chrétien declared, "I am the radical center".[40]
^In 2009, onThe Huffington Post website, the president of The Future 500[198] – following up on his earlier endorsement of the "radical middle"[199] – made the case for a "transpartisan" alliance between left and right.[200]
^According to journalistJohn Judis, sociologistSeymour Martin Lipset used the term "radical centrism" in his bookPolitical Man (1960) to help explain European fascism.[35]
^Mouffe also criticized radical centrism for its "New Age rhetorical flourish".[216]
^abMiller, Matthew (2003).The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love. New York City: Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group. p. 71.ISBN978-1-58648-158-2.
^abHalstead, Ted, ed. (2004).The Real State of the Union: From the Best Minds in America, Bold Solutions to the Problems Politicians Dare Not Address. New York City:Basic Books. pp. 13–19.ISBN978-0-465-05052-9.
^Solomon, Robert C. (2003).A Better Way to Think About Business: How Personal Integrity Leads to Corporate Success. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-538315-7.
^Menand, Louis (2001).The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Part Five.ISBN978-0-374-19963-0.
^Solomon, Robert C.; Higgins, Kathleen M. (1996).A Short History of Philosophy. Oxfordshire, England:Oxford University Press. pp. 93, 66, 161, 179, 222, 240, and 298.ISBN978-0-19-510-196-6.
^Jackson, Bill (1999).The Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard. Vineyard International Publishing, pp. 18–21.ISBN978-0-620-24319-3.
^abSafire, William (14 June 1992). "On Language: Perotspeak".The New York Times Magazine, p. 193, page 006012 in The New York Times Archives. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
^Adler, Renata (1969).Toward a Radical Middle: Fourteen Pieces of Reporting and Criticism. Random House, pp. xiii–xxiv.ISBN978-0-394-44916-6.
^Warren, Donald I. (1976).The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation. University of Notre Dame Press, Chap. 1.ISBN978-0-268-01594-7.
^Ferguson, Marilyn (1980).The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s. J. P. Tarcher Inc./Houghton Mifflin, pp. 228–29.ISBN978-0-87477-191-6.
^Naisbitt, John (1982).Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. Warner Books/Warner Communications Company, p. 178.ISBN978-0-446-35681-7.
^Wolfe, Alan (1996).Marginalized in the Middle. University of Chicago Press, p. 16.ISBN978-0-226-90516-7.
^Author unidentified (30 January 1995). "The 100 Smartest New Yorkers".New York Magazine, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 41.
^Crouch, Stanley (1995).The All-American Skin Game; or, The Decoy of Race. Pantheon Books, p. 1 of "Introduction".ISBN978-0-679-44202-8.
^abcdKlein, Joe (24 September 1995). "Stalking the Radical Middle".Newsweek, vol. 126, no. 13, pp. 32–36. Web version identifies the author as "Newsweek Staff". Retrieved 18 January 2016.
^abJudis, John (16 October 1995). "TRB from Washington: Off Center".The New Republic, vol. 213, no. 16, pp. 4 and 56.
^Burns, James MacGregor; Sorenson, Georgia J. (1999).Dead Center: Clinton-Gore Leadership and the Perils of Moderation. Scribner, p. 221.ISBN978-0-684-83778-9.
^Ray, Paul H.; Anderson, Sherry Ruth (2000).The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World. Harmony Books/Random House, pp. xiv and 336.ISBN978-0-609-60467-0.
^Satin (2004), p. 10 (citing "big-picture introductions" by Halstead-Lind and Miller).
^Leonard Santow and Mark Santow,Social Security and the Middle-Class Squeeze: Facts and Fiction About America's Entitlement Programs, Praeger Publishers / Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, p. 4.ISBN978-0-313-36189-0.
^Miller, Matthew (2003a).The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love. Public Affairs / Perseus Books Group. Paperback edition, pp. 263–88.ISBN978-1-58648-289-3.
^Satin (2004), pp. 22–23 ("Franklin to Peters to You").
^abCarlson, Peter (30 April 2001). "Charlie Peters: The Genuine Article".The Washington Post, p. C01. Reprinted at the Peace Corps Online website. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
^Peters, Charles (May 1983). "A Neoliberal's Manifesto".The Washington Monthly, pp. 8–18. Reproduced onThe Washington Post website with a differently spelled title. Retrieved 31 December 2016.
^"Articles" page. New America website. Retrieved 31 December 2016.
^Testa, Jessica (6 October 2025). "How Bari Weiss Won".The New York Times, fifth paragraph. Retrieved 9 October 2025. Print version appeared as "How a New Media Upstart Shot To the Top of CBS's Crown Jewel", 7 October 2025, p. A1.
^abKhanna, Parag (2011).How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance. Random House.ISBN978-0-6796-0428-0.
^Lieven, Anatol; Hulsman, John (2006).Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World. Pantheon Books / Random House, Introduction.ISBN978-0-375-42445-8.
^Nordhaus, Ted; Shellenberger, Michael (2007).Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Houghton Mifflin, Introduction.ISBN978-0-618-65825-1.
^Nabhan, Gary Paul (2018).Food from the Radical Center: Healing Our Land and Communities. Washington, DC:Island Press.ISBN978-1-61091-919-7.
^McWhorter, John (2005).Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America. Gotham Books / Penguin Group, Chap. 5.ISBN978-1-59240-188-8.
^Howard, Philip K. (2019).Try Common Sense: Replacing the Failed Ideologies of Right and Left. W. W. Norton & Company, Introduction.ISBN978-1-324-00176-8.
^Beinhocker, Eric D. (2006).The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. Harvard Business School Press, pp. 11–13 and Chap. 18 ("Politics and Policy: The End of Left versus Right").ISBN978-1-57851-777-0.
^Haidt, Jonathan (2012).The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books, Chap. 12 ("Can't We All Disagree More Constructively?").ISBN978-0-307-37790-6.
^Chickering, A. Lawrence; Turner, James S. (2008).Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life. DaVinci Press, Part V.ISBN978-0-615-21526-6.
^Beckett, Denis (2010).Radical Middle: Confessions of an Accidental Revolutionary. Tafelberg.ISBN978-0-624-04912-8.
^abcChuchin, Katherine (2013). "Discursive Representation and Pearson's Quest for a Radical Centre".Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 256–268.
^Halevi, Yossi Klein (2001).At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. William Morrow.ISBN978-0-688-16908-4.
^Sifry, Micah L. (2003).Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America. Routledge, Section II ("Organizing the Angry Middle").ISBN978-0-415-93142-7.
^Friedman, Thomas L. (24 March 2010). "A Tea Party Without Nuts".The New York Times, p. A27. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
^Friedman, Thomas L.; Mandelbaum, Michael (2011).That Used To Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pp. 353–368.ISBN978-0-374-28890-7.
^Kahlenberg, Richard (19 December 2001). "Radical in the Center".American Prospect, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 41. Print version d. 3 December 2001. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
^Curchin, Katherine (December 2015). "Noel Pearson's Role in the Northern Territory Intervention: Radical Centrist or Polarising Partisan?"Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 576–590.
^MacGillis, Alec (26 October 2011). "Third Wheel".The New Republic, vol. 242, no. 17, p. 8. Print version d. 17 November 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
^Avlon, John (2010).Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America. Beast Books / Perseus Books Group, pp. 1–3 and 238–39.ISBN978-0-9842951-1-1.
^Satin, Mark (fall 2002). "Where's the Juice?".The Responsive Community, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 74–75. Retrieved 28 October 2025.
^Gerzon, Mark (2006).Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunity. Harvard Business School Press, pp. 4–8.ISBN978-1-59139-919-3.
^Bloch, Karen Lehrman (5 October 2017). "Toward a Radical Middle".Jewish Journal, hard-copy issue dated 6 October 2017, p. 9. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
^Gerzon, Mark (2016).The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, pp. 109–110.ISBN978-1-62656-658-3.
^Satin, Mark (1991).New Options for America: The Second American Experiment Has Begun. The Press at California State University, Fresno, pp. 209–212.ISBN978-0-8093-1794-3.
^Jandhyala, Pranav (27 April 2017). "Why I Invited Ann Coulter to Speak at Berkeley".Berkeley News, digital outlet of the Office of Communications and Public Affairs,UC Berkeley. The author identifies himself as founder of the UC Berkeley chapter of BridgeUSA. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
Chickering, A. Lawrence (1993).Beyond Left and Right: Breaking the Political Stalemate. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.ISBN978-1-55815-209-0.
Coyle, Diane (1997).The Weightless World: Strategies for Managing the Digital Economy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.ISBN978-0-262-03259-9.
Esty, Daniel C.; Chertow, Marian, eds. (1997).Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of Ecological Policy. Yale University Press.ISBN978-0-300-07303-4.
Gerzon, Mark (1996).A House Divided: Six Belief Systems Struggling for America's Soul. Jeremy P. Tarcher / G. P. Putnam's Sons.ISBN978-0-87477-823-6.
Howard, Philip K. (1995).The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America. Random House.ISBN978-0-679-42994-4.
Penny, Tim; Garrett, Major (1998).The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics. St. Martin's Press.ISBN978-0-312-18294-6.
Sider, Ronald J. (1999).Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America. Baker Books.ISBN978-0-8010-6613-9.
Wolfe, Alan (1998).One Nation, After All: What Middle-Class Americans Really Think. Viking.ISBN978-0-670-87677-8.
Anderson, Walter Truett (2001).All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization. Westview Press.ISBN978-0-8133-3937-5.
Florida, Richard (2002).The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books.ISBN978-0-465-02476-6.
Friedman, Thomas (2005).The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.ISBN0-374-29288-4
Lukes, Steven (2009).The Curious Enlightenment of Professor Caritat: A Novel of Ideas. Verso Books, 2nd ed.ISBN978-1-84467-369-8.
Miller, Matt (2009).The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity. Henry Holt and Company.ISBN978-0-8050-9150-2.
Penner, Rudolph; Sawhill, Isabel; Taylor, Timothy (2000).Updating America's Social Contract: Economic Growth and Opportunity in the New Century. W. W. Norton and Co., Chap. 1 ("An Agenda for the Radical Middle").ISBN978-0-393-97579-6.
Ury, William (2000).The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. Penguin Books.ISBN978-0-14-029634-1.
Ventura, Jesse (2000).I Ain't Got Time to Bleed: Reworking the Body Politic from the Bottom Up. New York: Signet.ISBN0451200861.
Wexler, David B.; Winick, Bruce, eds. (2003).Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Justice and the Courts. Carolina Academic Press.ISBN978-0-89089-408-8.
Whitman, Christine Todd (2005).It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America. The Penguin Press, Chap. 7 ("A Time for Radical Moderates").ISBN978-1-59420-040-3.
Brock, H. Woody (2012).American Gridlock: Why the Right and Left Are Both Wrong. John Wiley & Sons.ISBN978-0-470-63892-7.
Clegg, Nick (2017).Politics: Between the Extremes, international edition. Vintage.ISBN978-1-78470-416-2.
Edwards, Mickey (2012).The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans. Yale University Press.ISBN978-0-300-18456-3.
Friedman, Thomas; Mandelbaum, Michael (2011).That Used to be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. Picador.ISBN978-0374288907.
Huntsman Jr., John, editor (2014).No Labels: A Shared Vision for a Stronger America. Diversion Books.ISBN978-1-62681-237-6.
Orman, Greg (2016).A Declaration of Independents: How We Can Break the Two-Party Stranglehold and Restore the American Dream. Greenleaf Book Group Press.ISBN978-1-62634-332-0.
Pearson, Noel (2011).Up From the Mission: Selected Writings. Black Inc. 2nd ed. Part Four ("The Quest for a Radical Centre").ISBN978-1-86395-520-1.
Salit, Jacqueline S. (2012).Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America. Palgrave Macmillan.ISBN978-0-230-33912-5.
George, Robert P.; West, Cornel (2025).Truth Matters: A Dialogue on Fruitful Disagreement in an Age of Division. Post Hill Press.ISBN979-8-88845-170-0.
Lind, Michael (2020).The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite. Portfolio / Penguin Random House.ISBN978-0593083697.
Roberts, Anthea; Lamp, Nicolas (2021).Six Faces of Globalization: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why It Matters. Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-24595-2.
Satin, Mark (2023).Up From Socialism: My 60-Year Search for a Healing New Radical Politics. Bombardier Books, distributed by Simon & Schuster.ISBN978-1-63758-663-1.
Zivan, Yair, editor (2024).The Center Must Hold: Why Centrism Is the Answer to Extremism and Polarization. Armin Lear Press.ISBN978-1-963271188. Includes some essays from a radical-centrist perspective.
Politics portal
.jpg)
_(3).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
