Put a Label on it

I do not consider myself "radical", & yet much of my thinking definitely is. I juts don't like the label; more specifically, I do not like the negative connotations that people associate with that label. De Bono long ago pointed out how the words that we use gather meaning in certain contexts that make them thereafter unusable. He pointed out otherwise harmless words like "superficial", which has now been associated with terms like "slipshod", implying that no real effort was applied - just scratching the surface of a problem. From his medical background, a superficial wound, for example, is a relatively good thing, though.

Similarly, radical. There was a political movement in England in the 1800s that tried to be independent of the two major parties. They still have that problem there, & we in Australia have it now. The two major parties try to paint themselves as diametrically opposed, yet both trying to cover the middle ground of the "undecided" voter. The reality is that the middle ground is the silent majority who have no possible allegiance to either of the major alternatives, but are trapped in a political system that simplifies government into politics, & politics into two-party-preferred. In the US, the system is geared even more towards the two major alternatives, to the point where it is very difficult for an "independent" (anyone else) to be even recognised. In Fiji, I asked locals what differentiated the major parties, & was told that one was conservative & the other socialist. Asking deeper questions revealed that the division was actually racial - one was Indian-dominated & the other Native-dominated. It's just in the label.

I am not a radical, & yet I believe that these things should change. The radicals of the past also believed that, which is what was so threatening to those diametrically opposed parties. It is interesting to note that those two parties have changed over time, even been replaced by other parties, but there are still two of them vying for the popular vote.
Those in power - & by this I do not mean those in government, but those in politics - do not like to give up their power. They somehow think that they have the right to be in government because they are very good at politics. I don't agree. To me, this disqualifies them, on the basis that they spend all of their time differentiating themselves from their opposition. If that's the chief aim of both parties, then they are effectively the same.

A valid political alternative is one that sets policies based on government, rather than opposition. A government needs to make decisions for the good of the people, not the re-election of the party. This cannot be done within the confines of the current system.
It is truly radical to believe that change is possible. It is even more radical to want to cause such change. Without change, we get stuck with the labels that are meaningless, misapplied, destructive, regressive & often dishonest.

To move forward, we have to divest ourselves of the labels. We have to think outside of the box we have been placed in. We have to be more than a little radical.