The Radical Democracy Movement

Sunday, March 31, 2019
First Aired: 
Sunday, July 3, 2016

What Is It

Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent. Radical democracy, on the other hand, tries to build consensus around difference, and challenge oppressive power relationships. But what are the risks of radical democracy? Is it really possible to have a democratic nation state without social conformity? How do we ensure both freedom and equality for all citizens in a society? And how does the anti-colonial tradition help us rethink what a modern democracy might be like? John and Ken join the struggle with Stanford historian Aishwary Kumar, author of Radical Equality: Ambedkar, Gandhi, and the Risk of Democracy, in a program recorded live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.


Comments (2)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, March 10, 2019 -- 1:03 PM

I get a lot of my news on

I get a lot of my news on public radio. Old fashioned, maybe, but effective enough for my information needs. This morning, before six am, I heard about a new bunch of roustabouts in the hate speech-rabble rousing genre. They call themselves 'cowboys', and claim to be a fraternal organization. They like to get drunk and start brawls. Part of the story focused on Portland, Oregon. The cowboys like Trump. Many folks in Oregon apparently do not and did not vote for him. A Portland person said, essentially, the cowboys ought to stay out of town. It appears they won't,though. So much for free speech. I guess it is OK---even when the aim is to incite mayhem. Somehow, I do not think this was the aim of the 1st amendment...

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 -- 3:27 PM

I would like to make a few

I would like to make a few remarks about the humanists. Only because they are, in my humble opinion, overstepping their stated objectives. I am not an advocate for, or supporter of, the current administration. That said, I believe the stated humanist support for certain proposed legislation is, at best, misguided. The border situation is, uh, out of control. The humanists' position is either misguided or misinformed or both. I have previously questioned their motives, vis-a-vis, whether they are, or are not, supporting a religious agenda. They have said they do not. If current news reports are accurate, it seems clear to me that we cannot sustain the influx of people seeking asylum at our southern border, Trump and his nonsense, notwithstanding. For some reason or purpose, unknown to me, the humanists do not appear to recognize this. But, maybe I am missing something---maybe their message is not suitably clear?