Over at The Moderate Voice (TMV), Paul Silver posts what amounts to an advertisement for TMV as the exemplar of the moderate blogosphere. In doing so, he calls into question about what really constitutes a “moderate” form of politics. And I honestly cannot agree that TMV represents it within the blogging world. More important, however, the false advertising of “moderate” says something broader about our dysfunctional political culture.
First, we have to define a couple of terms, because moderation and centrism are often confused. Centrism best refers to orientation on issues arrayed on some kind of spectrum, usually the traditional left/right version that has become the standard by which American liberal vs. conservative politics are driven. Moderation is more about style, a way of expressing political commitments while avoiding the demonization of the other side.
Unfortunately, TMV fails to fulfill its advertising on both fronts. Because it is difficult to find any articles praising of conservatives or critical of liberals (except occasionally for not hating conservatives enough), it is not possible to classify TMV as an exemplar of centrism. And because TMV features several authors who say some of the most outrageously demonizing things towards those they disagree with (even going after them personally in grudges), it is not possible to accept the site as an exemplar of moderation.
But does it matter or is this just petty blogwarring? Perhaps it could be seen as petty — I don’t claim to be exempt from personal prejudices — but when a site bills itself as “The Moderate Voice”, it seems to adopt some kind of responsibility, however informal, to at least attempt to be, you know, moderate. And consistently angry partisanship, blacklisting and personal vendettas don’t really seem to me to fit the bill.
More important, however, is how this kind of thing functions more broadly in American politics. “Moderate” is not usually used analytically, but rather as a partisan tool to differentiate the “good” people from the “bad” people. Thus, dissenters from Republican orthodoxy (i.e. Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel) are often seen in liberal circles described as “moderates” while dissenters from Democratic orthodoxy are described as something worse, like “neocon” or “traitor” (just ask Joe Lieberman). “Moderate” also serves to present oneself as the image of reasonableness while concealing underlying biases. In short, “moderate” is used as a marketing term, not a genuine reflection of commitment to a moderate or centrist politics.
And “The Moderate Voice” is useful as an easy to access demonstration of this larger problem.
Of course, this begs the question of whether we here at PoliGazette live up to our own claim to be “moderately conservative”. I think the best we can say is that we try to. We try to avoid demonization and name-calling towards those we disagree with. We try to avoid the extreme characterizations of others’ motives as evil and malign and vicious. We try to focus on what actors DO. And we sometimes fail at it and then try to move on.
We don’t blacklist those that criticize or disagree with us. We don’t assume they are all bad people. We argue back. We think that is “moderate”. You be the judge.
©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.
.
