Political Ideology for 21st Century America

`The Future of Politics` is a subtitle of this book, which is titled on its cover `The Radical Center.` My first encounter with the book came in spring this year. One of my friends, who often looks at the New York Times book section for something to read, told me that it was worth trying. To me, it was refreshing yet logical and insightful like `The Paradox of the American Power` by Georif Nye.

`Center` means being in the middle. So the expression `radical center` seems quite intriguing. It is common to put `radical` before `leftist` or `rightist,` but `radical center` looks all new. The authors of this book, in fact, ask readers to get used to something new something radical.

The 1960s was an era for the leftist and the 1980s for the rightist, they suggest, then people will see the rise of the centrist at the dawn of the 21st Century. The authors are working for a private think tank called `The New America Foundation,` which is neither leftist nor rightist, likewise neither Democrat nor Republican.

Today we live in an era of ultimate competition, and the competition is not just for technology. It is also for institutional arrangements. America, the world’s probably most advanced country, is also caught between the existing institution and the ever-changing reality. Authors argue that America has not even moved an inch from the institutional framework of New Deal.

The most-votes-win system centering on two major parties is a case in point. Unlike France and Germany, America adopts the `whoever gets the most votes is to win` system, which is fine when there are only two candidates.

The rub is that whoever wins the most votes wins even in a race among three candidates. It happened in the 2000 presidential election. Most supporters for consumer advocate Ralph Nader must have backed Gore without him, but with Nader taking away a significant portion of Gore votes, George W. Bush could win in the end.

Likewise, senior Bush lost to Bill Clinton in the 1992 as Ross Perot took some of his supporters away. If America had had a voting system reflecting what people want in a more precise way, it must have been senior Bush in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000 to win.

The trap is here in Korea, too. In the 1997 presidential election, Kim Dae-jung became president after winning some 30% of votes. And the failure of his government for the last five years has much to do with a minority’s winning power.

Recently, there was controversy over forming a coalition between Roh Moo-hyun and Chung Mong-joon. Before taking the issue with political manipulation, however, we need to think about having a government backed by a majority.

That’s why the authors advocate the run-off system. The run-off election effectively prevents from a far-leftist or a far-rightist from taking office since the system requires a party to win a majority to claim a victory.

The authors are even more radical when it comes to tax, primary, middle and high school education, medical care and pension. They are radical not by moving far left or right, but by going beyond the frame. Their attempt is for the new economy in a new environment, which has changed a lot from the era of New Deal.

Those Americans interested in current affairs must find their suggestions quite familiar. They sound convincing because they make suggestions in the context of American history.

For instance, to suggest a way to cope with the growing gap between the haves and the not-haves in the current new economy, they go back to the past to show how the country has dealt with the problem of the gap between the rich and the poor. There were Homstead Bill in the 19th Century and tax credits for housing mortgage in the 20th Century. Then, what kind of a program will work for American in the 21st Century?

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Riech wrote in New York Times column about the book, ˝This book gives an useful insight into the American System that has started collapsing from the bottom.˝

Pyoung-In Song pisong@donga.com