Talk:Centrism

From dKosopedia

A problem with this theory is that it appears to require a conspiracy. If so, I think a little consideration of what conspiracy means may be useful. Some think of a conspiracy as a hidden agreement. Actually it's more specific that that: it's a hidden agreement to do harm. I'll come back to that in a couple of paragraphs.

The formation of a clique is not that unusual. Cliques are closed to outsiders, so doesn't every clique conspire? Well, yes and no. Some are just interested in exclusivity for its own sake more or less, e.g. for discussion of those outside the group. Most, though, are to exclude those lacking a certain kind of knowledge, or at least to exclude those unable to use the associated language sufficiently well.

Occasionally, a clique will gain power or influence of some kind. If others are trying to obtain that as well, they will be challenged. If the clique has consistency, the response to this is at best an agreement to defend the clique, at worst an agreement to harm the opponent; a conspiracy.

Now, within a political party there are various cliques or factions. If one group is to rise to prominence, it must network with the other groups, i.e. some of its members must be within those other groups (whilst remaining loyal), or relationships must be established with influential members.

Further, each of these groups tends to map to a demographic of the population at large, though note that the obvious groupings within a party are not the only ones that exist. And these mappings are from the inner party to the outer party; those that influence the party's policies and those who are influenced by the party to advocate those policies.

Hopefully this will begin to clarify the thought underlying the hypothesis and show that the notion of a conspiracy can be moderate and reasonable. I caution against unfounded assumptions of conspiracy.

Mememe 03:33, 6 May 2006 (PDT)