Redstate

The majority of Americans are moderates - either moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats.

It's just the bases of both parties tend to make the most noise, bang the most pots, and get out to vote that suggest (falsely) that we're an extremely polarized nation.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it's the people who make the most noise who tend to attract all the attention.

Our country has never been more ripe for a credible 3rd Party. But one can only dream ...

that a lot of people may be moderates not because they are squishy on everything and anything but because they are all over the map on different issues. On some matters they may stand with the conservatives, on others with the liberals, which is possible without incoherency or self-contradiction because on the whole panoply of public issues there really is no single logic that determines what is liberal and what is conservative; in many cases it's simply a matter of historical accident. In such cases the person with "diversified" views (which may actually be quite logically consistent internally) nets out to being a moderate.

Maybe I should have made it more clear that what I meant by "moderation" in my diary is the type of "moderation" in politics that is celebrated in the Press today i.e. when a Republican breaks publicly with the GOP on an issue and stands with the opposition. It's the type of "moderation" that is lauded in this AP article from yesterday (H/T: Jay Nordlinger)

The type of moderation you describe above needs no quotation marks. It's all about knowing when to compromise and when to stand fast. It's knowing how to get most of what you want and setting the situation up so you can come back and get the rest later. That's just smart politics. And by and large refers to the process of achieving political goals as opposed to the goals themselves.

"Moderation" on the other hand is more often than not, the refuge of political cowards. Compromising on how to achieve a goal is no sin, but compromising on a goal and the ideals and principles behind it is what enrages most of us - and this is precisely what GOP "moderates" tend to do. A "moderate" in this context stands for absolutely nothing. In the AP article above, "moderates" are described as "fiscally conservative" ... yet can anybody point out any of the more popular (with the Press) "moderates" with an actual live fiscally conservative voting record?

Most of these so-called "moderates" simply do what the Press instructs them to do for no other reason than to have the New York Times' editorial page commend them for their "bravery" and join them in lamenting their "suffering" at the hands of those troglodyte Republican "Right-Wing Extremists™" who are incomprehensibly upset that a man with a R behind his name keeps voting for tax hikes and against spending cuts.

I continue to be amazed that Leftists can say with a straight face that Jim Jeffords was "courageous" when he turned his coat and joined the Democrat Party. What exactly did he have to fear? The man was lionized 24/7 for months on end, and his defection was taken as proof positive by the Press that the GOP had become so "extreme" that uber-"moderates" like Jeffords no longer felt welcome.

I feel that a huge part of the reason why Republican legislators continue to disappoint us is this fetishization of "moderation", "centrism" and "bipartisanship" in the popular Press. Everyone, especially the largely apolitical middle who get most of their news from the MSM, wants to believe they're not "extremists" and therefore will not vote for "extremists". Most want to believe they're "independent" which is mostly used interchangeably with "moderate". Politicians want to get elected and re-elected, and so they tend to do stuff they are led to believe would make them more popular to the largest number of people. It's much easier to go with the flow of Press coverage as opposed to actually do what is right, explain your reasoning and work to change people's minds.

Quite frankly, the thing with "moderation" is that it's a play on language as a campaign strategy - analogous to the Press' consistent use of the phrase "Domestic Spying" to refer to the NSA's surveillance of terrorist international communications - of which some may terminate, originate or transit through the CONUS. "Domestic Spying" sounds a great deal more negative than "Terrorist Surveillance", doesn't it?

No matter how far to the Left a Democrat is, if he finds himself in a competitive general election, he would be feted as a "moderate", "pragmatic", "common-sense" Democrat by his friends in the Press. Witness the myriad of attempts to sell Hillary Clinton's voting record as "moderate" by so many Press organs.

On the other hand, for a Republican to be awarded the "moderate" label, he/she has to stand against the party not just once, but over and over again.

And unfortunately, once one partakes of the heady drug of media adulation and the fawning attention to every word one says, it's extremely hard to give it all up and get back to standing together with the "extremists". The newly discovered and celebrated "moderate" may have come to the Press' attention because he/she came down on the Press' (i.e. Left's) side on an issue, but by and large, soon, our "moderate" starts ignoring everything that made him a Republican and simply becomes a Press sock-puppet.

Case in point? Chuck Hagel. Whenever Leftist TV news show hosts want to get "both sides" to comment on Iraq, they invite Chuck Hagel and some Democrat over. Both oppose the President's foreign policy agenda, but the anchor gets to say that he got "both" sides. Now, Hagel, once a rock-ribbed conservative, is a primary sponsor of the Senate Immigration Travesty that basically caves in to Ted Kennedy's demands.

It's this issue of "moderation" and his haranguing of the GOP and his promise to be a spokesman for the "moderates" in the aftermath of Jeffords' defection that also makes me distrust McCain, notwithstanding his recent attempts to make amends with the Right, even as he royally p**ses the Right off with his championing of the immigration bill. The Republican John McCain of 1996 (who endorsed Phil Gramm for President) would never have signed on to something so stupid. But PressPet John McCain of 2000 and forwards?

As I wrote before:

McCain was suddenly on front pages and on the Sunday Talk Shows as the "bravest" of "Mavericks". No Republican in history had ever been as great as John McCain, who was standing up for what was decent and right (by the New York Times' definition) against the evil Bush Administration.

It suddenly became fashionable for Left-wing reporters who had never had anything good to say about any Republican to claim that they had "always" admired John McCain.

John McCain's No. 1 constituency is the Press. The Washington Post and New York Times in particular. He would do anything to have them say nice things about him.

If he should win the Presidency, I would be terrified that he would sell everything the GOP holds dear just so Gail Collins would direct her minions to put "Maverick" before his name. I wouldn't be shocked to see him eschew campaigning for his fellow Republicans during the mid-terms right after the Washington Post writes an editorial "asking" him to be above the fray to show his commitment to "bipartisanship".

He would probably fall for editorials instructing him to be "bipartisan" and have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in his cabinet, with the Democrats getting State, Justice, Treasury and Defense. His judicial nominees would likely come from a list of people deemed "acceptable" by Harry Reid i.e. PFAW, NOW, NARAL, etc. all in the interest of "bipartisanship" of course.

End point, John McCain as President would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party.

Anyways, sorry for the long comment. For some reason, I felt like venting.

Another concept I find over-fetishized is "bipartisanship" ... Remember when that guy exhorted Minnesota Republican to put "aside partisan differences" and work to get Walter Mondale elected in honor of Paul Wellstone at the infamous Memorial rally in 2002?

When the New York Times says refers to something as "bipartisan" it usually means for Republicans to sabotage themselves like this i.e. the Senate Immigration Bill.

I mean, I would sooner have policies I like having as much support on both sides of the aisle than not, but sometimes the need for a policy to have "bipartisan" backing ends up emasculating it. i.e. NCLB, though in that case, compromise may have been needed to get a bill that at least acknowledges that there should be accountability in public education.

It's sad that the Administration never went back for vouchers. But, being cursed with worst White House communications operation in the past 50 years, it was probably wise to wait for the next GOP President to move the ball forward.

That said, this focus on pursuing "bipartisanship" at the expense of good policy is a serious problem because a piece of legislation is good or bad irrespective of whether or not all its supporters are all on one side of the aisle in Congress.

True, there are times when one most be moderate (as you define it) and simply get all you can now and make ready to get the rest tomorrow. But there are times when compromise is impossible (I can agree to mix my orange juice with your water, but I must draw the line when you bring a glass of urine) when one must stand his ground, pick up the sword and simply lay into the opposition.

I think we need to combat this strange idea that hardball politics is inimical to the crafting of good policy. There are times, more often than one may think, when it serves the greater good to slam the opposition to the ground and stomp their faces to kingdom come. There are such things as necessary fights where one side needs to win and the other must lose.

Moderation as you described it is certainly bad.

Moderation as I described it can be a virtue.

I especially like your verbal picture about the orange juice.  It's one thing to agree to "watered down" legislation, just as you might drink watered down orange juice.  It's another thing to agree to drink it mixed with urine!

As to your final point -- yes, you are absolutely correct that sometimes it is necessary to slam the opposition into the ground and stomp on their faces.  Other times, it's better to win a partial victory and come back another day.  The wisdom is to know when to pursue which tactic.  

In my job, I negotiate settlement of lawsuits that sometimes involve millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars.  To prevail, you have to be prepared, willing and able to go to the mat to litigate your case, if necessary.  And once in a while, you actually have to litigate to prove to others (and to yourself) that you have both the skills and the willingness to go to the mat.  But in the long run, you get much better results if you temper that instinct for a fight with a willingness to compromise.  I can litigate one case for a million dollars, and end up with a million dollars.  Or, in the same amount of time, I can settle ten cases for a half million dollars each, and end up with a total of five million dollars.  I'd rather do the latter.

I've heard some people refer to this as having an iron fist inside a velvet glove.  Or Teddy Roosevelt called it speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  My concern is that too often we forget the speaking softly part, and only remember the stick.

is value-neutral.  It is the context in which it is applied that renders it positive or negative.  For instance, I believe that while compromise on abortion is repugnant if it can save a single life it is an indignity that we ought suffer.  A great deal of what animates us is necessarily governed by compromise and moderation, eg the contradictory imperatives of liberty and security.  But on some issues, compromise is potentially fatal.  Take Iran; there is no compromise that allows Iran to obtain nuclear weapons that is viable in the long term.  As Jonah Goldberg said in his column yesterday, sometimes it is a bad idea to jump a canyon in a single bound, but that does not make it a good idea to do so in two bounds.  

I would label this more "pragmatic" than "moderate."

diary, and your insight on the differences between the philosophy from which we operate and the day-to-day work to reach those goals is on the money. But I believe that your last paragraph is the key to settling the issue of the term "moderate".

"Maybe this is all a matter of semantics.  Maybe the term "moderate" has been so maligned and redefined by the MSM that it's not worth saving."

There you've hit on it, Sam. Because the left can't win over the average Jane and Joe on the merits of their argument, they instead redefine words and then use them to villify or marginalize those who oppose their position. In this way they change the debate and position themselves as "mainstream" and over time, sway society closer to their side.

The word "moderate" has, through it's implicit and explicit use by the MSM and the Dems over numerous years, come to mean a person who's position lies between conservatives and liberals. It connotates a moderate philosophy, which in turn is meant to imply a conservatives' philosophy as extreme and out of the mainstream.  

Even the Supreme Court has recognized the new meaning of "moderate", as shown in the recent comment by Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia:

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"

Conservatives themselves have recognized and accepted the new meaning of "moderate", and have struck back to even the playing field by casting moderates in a negative light. We've invented our own name for them; "rhinos", who are neither donk nor pachyderm.

Once a word has been co-opted and debased, it is impossible to reclaim it. Who today would describe their lighthearted, delightful spouse as "gay"? It has become a euphemism, with a specific meaning that permeates society. We should take care in how we use these terms.

For the sake of communicating our ideas and arguments accurately (which is difficult to do in the best of circumstances), and to save valuable time debating word meanings, we should find a term that replaces what used to mean "moderate", such as "pragmatic". It is not necessarily a philosophical term, but a practical one, and differentiates nicely between philosophy and practicality, denoting "political acumen". Thus, a person could be a "conservative pragmatist", who stands solidly on sound principle and is also a political expert who knows how to work with other people and the system to accomplish as much of his goal as he can. Pragmatism is amoral; a tool neither good nor bad except as an extension of the person using it.

As opposed to what most of us now think of "moderates", such as Achance's recent remark:

"Right down the middle with the yellow lines and the dead skunks!"

Well put, Achance.

Using our new word in your last line seems to work nicely in conveying your thought, with which we all agree:

"Maybe our society has become so politically polarized that compromise and moderation are impossible.  But in my book, true pragmatism, in the pursuit of conservative goals, is a virtue."

Good diary, Sam.

I agree that Iran getting nuclear weapons is not something we can compromise on.  But there is still the decision about how to prevent it, which is where moderation (or as Zuiko suggests, pragmatism) comes in.  For example, war is and should be the last option.  I suspect if diplomacy doesn't work in the next year or so, we may need to use that option.  But even if we think the chance for success in negotiations is small, it is worth trying.  If negotiations fail, well, then, it will be one of those times where, as Martin McKnight says, you have to defeat your enemies and stomp their face into the ground.

you came up with my term while I was writing my response. I'd like to think this is a case of

"Great minds think alike."

but its probably more accurate to say

"You wrote while I dusted out the cobwebs" :)

Thanks for your kind comments.

You are probably correct about the term "moderate" already being too far gone to resurrect.  Perhaps I am still mourning the co-opting of the term "moderate" by the liberals and the MSM.  To me, its a shame, because all of the other possible replacements have negative connotations, too.  "Pragmatic" often connotes being willing to give up on your ideals, rather than to moderate how you achieve them.

Regardless of the imperfect nature of language, I remain committed to the value of compromise as long as the compromise moves us closer to our ultimate goals; and I remain distressed at the impulse of many conservatives in the blogosphere who associate a willingness to compromise with capitulation or a lack of strong convictions.

Perhaps there are not as many "all or nothing" idealogues here as we think there are.

Conceivably, some of those differences are due to varying opinions on how much we should compromise, or how much of our goal we believe we can attain given the particular circumstances. Possibly that is what we should begin to discuss; "what we think we can get" rather than "what we believe", since with most of us it has become clear where each of us stand on the issue itself.

To simply continue to debate the merits of an issue rather than what we can practically do with an issue has probably turned into the beating of the proverbial horse.

With some of us, or even with many of us, we likely stand on common philosophical ground and simply need to coalesce on a game plan.

The electorate is divided into approximately equal thirds.

Unfortunately, most moderates I know usually stand for nothing in particular, are incapable of openly displaying leadership qualities, guage every issue with their finger to the wind while pandering to both sides of an argument and tend to follow a true leader so they can say they were on the winning side.

The electorate is divided into approximately equal thirds.

That is incorrect. I'm not sure where you get that factoid wrong, but it is inconsistent with polling data over the past 30 years.

From a Fox News article:

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters' self-identification by political philosophy: "In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate," according to the report. "This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year - 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate - with remarkably little variation from election to election."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172518,00.html

I'm not sure which moderates you know personally - though I'm sure they are as you describe them - but as a generalization about moderates, you're simply way, way off.

To generalize about moderates that they "stand for nothing in particular, are incapable of openly displaying leadership qualities, guage every issue with their finger to the wind while pandering to both sides of an argument and tend to follow a true leader so they can say they were on the winning side." would be the same thing as generalizing about liberals or conservatives.

Which would be equally silly.

The reality about most Americans is that they aren't locked into a singular set of issues that would define them as liberals or conservatives, but are rather moderate - with some conservative positions, some liberal positions, and some moderate positions.

Your extolment of the virtue in moderation puts me in the mind of Aristotle's concept of virtue and doctrine of the mean. (links from a quick google).

'Moderate' seems to have become a political term (synonymous with Centrist?) for mapping folks on a political grid with four poles (liberal<->conservative, libertarian<->totalitarian).

It would be interesting if one could discover whether there is a correlation between virtue and ones political coordinates. I'd like to think that this form of virtue could be present and practiced (or not) regardless of ones coordinates.

I've taken three political survey tests that others on this site have linked to. I was surprised by the results but since they all say the same thing I am becoming convinced that I'm a dreaded Centrist (Republican people around me seem to think I'm an extremist conservative but maybe that's just because I am more interested in politics than they are).

Unfortunately I have not been able to locate a test that would rate our practice of Aristotle's moderation.

As a personal note, I feel like I am in a constant struggle to subdue my natural proclivities under moderation. (Perhaps I failed very recently in a dialogue with RightLogic). And perhaps I've offended by exporting this personal struggle onto the community at large. At any rate, virtue as moderation is a topic which transcends the purely political so thanks for bringing it up.

BTW, seems to me you serve as a pretty good example or avatar of this virtue. And the wrap I've always heard against involving the lawyers is that they entrench the opposition rather than finding a solution. So I know there must be some customers who prefer your motto.  

Thanks for the link re: Aristotle.  I had read those things from Aristotle back in college, but it was good to be reminded of them.  What's funny is that reading it again reminded me of my Mother, who would often repeat the proverb "moderation in all things" -- and by that she meant exactly what Aristotle meant.

As to your comment about lawyers, it is absolutely true that some (too many) attorneys simply entrench the opposition, rather than find a solution that is acceptable to both sides.  Often, I am the one convincing my client that it is in his own best interest to find a compromise solution.  They often tell me after the fact that they never believed it would be possible, but that they are thankful that we worked things out.  (They tell me this regardless of whether they are plaintiff or defendant.)  But both my clients and the opposition need to understand that I am willing to fight, if necessary, if negotiations fail.  This seems to me to be an extension of Aristotle's "mean" as well -- willing to compromise if possible, but having the courge to fight, if necessary.  It seems to me that this value applies to personal relationships, business, law and politics.