Shifting the Centre - Why Activist Shouldn't Moderate Themselves

A statement of encouragement for both moderate and radical voices within activist movements, stating things as we see them and rolling with the metaphorical punches of debate regardless of who throws them.

There is a belief held - often unconsciously - by some activists I've worked with in Aotearoa that making strong statements about an issue, connecting it to larger issues or engaging in confrontational campaign tactics scare off "middle NZ" and put mild reformist campaigns in jepoardy. The importance of being mild seems to increase in their eyes the closer they believe they are to achieving a reform. By being mild I mean propogandizing on different issues in careful isolation, keeping protest action safe, bland and uncontroversial and pitching your message at the 'political centre' and some stereotypical conception of the 'average person on street' - a stereotype that is generally a lot more meek and conservative than kiwis really are.

The people of these islands are a diverse lot. Each of them holds some views activists would perceive as revolutionary, some radical, some conservative, some irrational. Each person is different and their different life experiences influence the formation of their distinct worldviews and the arguments by which they reconcile the contradictions we might see in them. Most of the kiwis I have met are intelligent, passionate, caring people with strong views on a wide variety of subjects. It would be arrogant in the extreme to automatically assume they are wrong about everything because some or most of their views differ from the status quo position of the activist mileu but this is so often what we seem to do.

It is my opinion that this belief in the lack of political sophistication of the 'average kiwi ' and the accompanying stereotypes of apathetic, beer-nursing, rugby-watching, lawn-mowing, home-handymen and clothing, chardonnary and interior-decorating-obsessed ditzy women is a prison for the activist mind. One that limits our effectiveness and often causes unneccesary tension and mutual antagonism between members of different activist tendancies involved in the same campaign.

As an attempt at an anti-venom I propose the following theory. That the more diverse positions we can occupy on this perceived radical-conservative spectrum the better. That increased radicalism actually shifts the centre - that is the expression of 'extreme' or 'radical' interpretations of an issue by small groups or individuals within a campaign actually makes the more moderate views being expressed by other groups more credible and easier to integrate. For example the presence of deluded marxists championing Cuba's right to nukes in an anti-nuclear march makes even the anarchists with their "no war but the class war" analyses seem worth fair consideration.

Basically I don't believe watering down our politics makes them more appealing to the faceless masses. In fact I think the opposite is true, that is just makes us easier to pass off as boring and out-of-touch. I believe and have observed that even the staunchest 'right-winger' has respect for a coherent and thorough argument no matter how far out of left field it may come. No matter how much they may disagree, at least they can feel they are being treated as equals, as adults, as fellow members of society, rather than troublesome children who need to be mollycoddled into accepting the right ideas. I might even be so radical as to suggest that the more we take other people and their ideas and beliefs seriously, the more likely they are to extend the same courtesy to us.