Just what is the "moderate" political position in America today?
Dean Esmay asked the hard question: is there a moderate position today? He concludes -righly, I think- that "moderate" is an approach or a temperament, not a political position.
On the other hand Alan, of The Yellow Line argues that centrist is a more appropriate word. But "centrist" is just as bad as "moderate." The reason being that one is still defining a political position in terms of other people's political positions, especially when you consider that Alan says that centrist/moderates "are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right." In that case, they aren't centrist anymore, because they've changed the frame of reference.
I also have to severely disagree with the definition of moderate as "socially liberal/moderate and fiscially conservative." Is that "the" moderate posistion, or is it just one of them? And just who defines moderate? Is there a central (aha) comittee for the Centrist/Moderate Party no one's heard about? Or is this some sort of alleged statistical measurement of a mean or median? If so, who measured it, and how?
What is a moderate, except someone who is willing to compromise? If so, are they willing to compromise on all issues? If that's the case, they're spineless jellyfish. There are some things worth fighting for; but as soon as you take a definite stand on an issue, whether free speech, gun ownership, small government, or the war on terror, haven't you stopped being centrist/moderate? If not, why not?
If you read Alan's post (which you should), you'll see that he explicitly defines centrist/moderates as "middle of the political spectrum," but this contradicts the rest of the article, which relates more to a moderate approach to politics than a "center of the road" moderate position.
One of Dean's questions is: what are the political principles which define the centrist/moderate position? That's a good question. Alan objects to this, and calls the reasoning "ridiculous," but neglects explaining just why this is so. He does go on to explain what centrist/moderates are not, and therein lies the clue.
Centrists in America aren't defined by what they are, but what they aren't. Listen to a self-labled centrist/moderate; what you'll hear is "we aren't..." Jack Grant takes the same (flawed) approach at Random Fate.
Listen further, and you will percieve that these people are, indeed moderate, but not politically. There's no generic "middle of the road" political position. But they are moderate in their approach to political questions.
Now, generally, this is a good thing. Certainly I'm sick of the mindless mud-slinging of "fascist!" and "traitor!" we've seen the past five or ten years. But is a moderate approach by itself neccessarily a virtue? Recall that all "moderate approach" means is that one discusses an issue in a civilized manner.
Suppose a communist or NAMBLA member tries to discuss their cherished views in a civilized manner? Does that make them moderates? I have to say "no," since one follows a corrupy, vicious ideology, and the other buggers young boys.
So a moderate approach, by itself, does not define a "moderate." And we still haven't managed to define "moderate."
I don't think we can. Why? Exactly because moderates generally define themselves in terms of other ideologies; even Alan does this when he defines moderates as "socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative."
But there is yet another clue in Alan's approach, and I've already quoted it, in part:
Centrists are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right and finding new solutions altogether. ... my solution isn't to just decry the methods of idealogues but to convince enough people that they don't have to be right or left. Politics is not a straight line. It's not either/or.
So what he's really saying is that he wants to go to the root of the problem (perception of a left/right dichotomy) for a solution. Do you know what you call someone who attacks the root of a problem?
That's right! A radical.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Alan Stewart Carl is a RADICAL!
Lock up the kids and hide the silverware....
Just don't ask me what a moderate is. :)
all right, all right, I am a radical in the most tame definition of the word--I want to make changes. Scary, huh?
Here's my whole problem with your argument, you're just playing with language. What does moderate mean? What does Centrist mean? How can you be centrist if you use words like liberal and conservative?
Who cares? That misses the whole point. I posted about this over at Dean's too but, hell, I don't know what you want me to do. I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, what would you prefer I call myself? Seriously, I'm constrained by the limits of our language and then you use those limits as an argument against me. Take it up with whomever invented English. Just because there isn't a great word to define us so-called Centrists doens't mean we don't exist.
There is a Centrist Coalition by the way. And I've spoken with hundreds if not thousands of people who agree with the concept of Centrism. We don't all agree on all the issues, but no group does, does it?
Really, if you want a decent look at what kinds of beliefs make up the Centrist belief system, read more of my blog. Then tell me what word you would use to describe me and what group I should join to best advance my causes.
Also, if you're really interested, pick up John Avlon's book, Independent Nation.
Posted by: Alan the Radical at June 8, 2005 5:22 PMJust wanted to add that your questions about Centrism are well founded--I was trying to come off glib, but I may have come off like a jerk.
God knows the "what the hell is a Centrist" debate is a frequent one even on Centrist websites. It's a concept that's been around since at least Teddy Roosevelt but it's new as an idea for a movement.
Posted by: Alan at June 8, 2005 6:39 PMYou can't have gray unless you have black and white first.
IJS.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan at June 9, 2005 12:27 PMThat's not true.
Posted by: Truthy at June 10, 2005 4:47 AMI think you can see that I differentiate between "moderate" and "centrist" in a later post, here:
http://www.randomfate.net/archives/001351.html
I hope it clarifies that my definition of "moderate" is of an attitude, not a political position.
Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2005 3:16 PMCONSIDER THE MIDDLE
Air America has come out fighting. Fed up with conservative distortions, name-calling and outright lies, liberals have gone to the offensive, determined to fight fire with fire. For them it’s a necessary response to an intolerable situation. For me, it’s just doubling the number of fires.
On the whole, I have little faith in the adversarial approach to solving problems. For me, adversarialism means the Sharks and the Jets and we know how that ends – Tony gets killed. Not that I identify with Tony. Tony was the leader of a gang. But sometimes, you can just be a member of the gang, maybe standing near Tony, and the other gang can take a shot at Tony and hit you.
Adversarialism can be dangerous. And it rarely breeds solutions.
Then why is adversarialism so popular? Because it’s fun. You have buddies. You have enemies. You get jackets. It’s also been known for fellows burning with the ideological passion to draw the attentions of issue driven groupies. All good things.
Another good thing? Adversarialism gets you attention. Pat Buchanan comes out with incendiary opinions, the ideological equivalent of lobbing Molotov cocktails, he’s on television every day. (Sometimes I think he sleeps in the studio; I keep seeing the same suit.) Of course, the Left is at no loss for agenda junkies of its own, Gloria Allred coming to mind. Differing in their opinions, the common denominator is their approach: extreme, adversarial and uncompromising. Fireworks guaranteed. But it won’t get you peace in the valley.
On the other hand, there are people who think about things and come to conclusions based on a thorough evaluation of the facts. You never see them. They’re invisible. Why? Because television thrives on the “Clash of the Opposites” Grudge Match. It’s: “Tonight, a wild-eyed liberal takes on a fire-breathing conservative…” Sure-fire entertainment. But how do you package a moderate? “Tonight, an even-handed middle-of-the-roader explains in a fair-minded and objective…” Click.
Detractors see moderates as wimps, unwilling to take a stand, even though they are taking a stand, it’s just not either/or. Moderates are perceived as sell-outs, morally bankrupt and weak. And the biggest sin of all, boring.
Not surprisingly, my view is more positive. First of all, moderates aren’t moderate about everything. Granted, on many issues, our views fall comfortably along the continuum, but on others, we can be as extreme as anyone. But if you add all the views together and divide them by the number of issues, on aggregate, it comes out moderate. Hence the label.
Moderates are happily free from issue cluster. Issue cluster refers to the requirement by your group that you be consistent in your beliefs, not in terms of logical consistency, but in terms of that group’s inflexible lock stepping laundry list. The Right has one; the Left has a different one.
Moderates are free agents. Moderates can be passionately opposed to capital punishment but lukewarm to affirmative action. Moderates can be vigorous advocates of gun control and ‘eh’ on “No one’s better or worse, just different.” Moderates can believe in Canadian-style health care but not in the unquestionable evil of the Commander-in-Chief. How can we do that? I don’t know. We just can.
Moderates are at home with the stops along the road, wary of but not immobilized by the slippery slope. Moderates can say, “You know what? We need those stem cells, and we won’t allow a single religious perspective to make the laws for the rest of us.” At the same time, and without contradiction, we can say, “Wherever I pass a Nativity Scene, I always stop and look at the baby.” I know the First Amendment says “No”, but come on, it’s Christmas.
I know there were places where moderates wound up in camps. They said, “What’s the big deal?” and then they found out. But that wasn’t here, and our commitment to freedom makes it unlikely it will be. But I understand the concern. The tyranny of the majority is a worrisome thing. But would it kill the minority to give them a break once in a while? We’re all in this together and it’s best that we acted like it.
So if the extremes leave you queasy, you may want to give “Moderate” a try. “Moderate” – home of the open mind, immunity from issue cluster, and the watchful but generous heart. We may not be flashy, but when you think about the things you truly believe, you may discover that “Moderate” is the right place…
No. It’s too hard sell. You know what? You guys do what you want.