Moderate Is As Moderate Does
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.
Yes, and from a policy perspective, and to me this is more what constitutes "moderate conservative" (but our views on this issue slightly differ; which we accept as true moderately conservatives ;)) we are not "orthodox conservative."
On some issues more conservative, on some more centrist or even liberal (me on global warming for instance).
Tone: I recognize that I am a bit aggressive at times, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It’s also important whether one criticizes one party all the time, or criticizes both parties. At this site, both parties are subject to criticism, meaning that we’re, at the very least, not partisan.
But tone overall: I think, in general, we pretty much adhere to your definition. I hope so at least. If not, it’s something we have to work on (especially me, with my 23 years of age of course; passionate and all that).
I miss you guys over at TMV.
p
Paul, if you’re still checking in here, I have a question for you. I’ve increasingly come to see that most of your positions are in line with Democratic policy that isn’t too far to the left, and your description of where you feel the center of gravity is on economic issues (something like ‘halfway in between complete nationalization/socialism and pure unfettered free markets") seems to bear that out. Is that pretty accurate? I think I also saw recently that you wrote that you pretty much agree with the Dems on most everything but you still identify as an independent because you aren’t a partisan and you don’t like the way such partisanship leads to corruption and laziness in the party leadership. Again, can you confirm if I’ve got it about right?
If so, I just want to point out that I disagree about the center of gravity part- because philosophically that midpoint (which ends up including a pretty good amount of govt regulation on the economy and business) isn’t even very close to the ‘zero’ point dividing line between liberalism and conservatism- it’s definitely skewed to the left. I guess if that’s how a lot of people like yourself, and many of the commenters at TMV, perhaps Joe and some of your co-bloggers, see the center point of American politics, then I can see why your assessment of TMV’s opinions differs from mine. If you move the centerpoint to the left, well, conservatism gets a rather short shrift, doesn’t it?
I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with calling your positions part of a greater body of centrism, but if you are being defined as the centrists’ centrist, well, it’s no wonder you feel that it’s hard to balance the scales on your back- because you aren’t even sitting at the fulcrum point. I think that’s why it felt a bit more balanced there when Michael, Jason, and Marc were there, but I won’t rehash that history any further.
Hi CStanley,
I don’t necessarily expect that the pragmatic compromise on policy falls at some mathematical midpoint along a spectrum of options.
Some situations may be already over regulated and some underregulated. I just prefer that the criteria for making that determination be based on practical standards and observations rather than ideological ones.
I suspect that for highly competitive global industries that regulations may need to be more flexible. While those businesses that deal with an individual’s well being and security such as Health, personal finance, utilities may need to be a little less flexible.
Yes my reluctance to commit to the Democratic party is that they have not yet convinced me that they will promote that Election and Campaign reforms I favor. I need to believe that the process is improving. I am willing to believe that a reconfigured GOP can become a pragmatic machine that attracts back independents if the Democrats drop the ball.
Paul,
I don’t think it makes sense to judge policies as being un-moderate based on one party agreeing with them and not the other party, since there is no moderate party, and things will always tilt different ways depending on the politics of the day.
But there is, politically, a bi-polar split on a lot of issues, and to me, whether something is centrist depends on whether they succeed in addressing both sides of the issue.
i.e.–Does someone writing a story on gay marriage, really understand the social conservative position, or do they dismiss it as religious bigotry?
i.e.–Does someone writing a story assume Clinton balanced the budget, or do they take in consideration the Republican Congress, and the economic windfall in the 90s that was helped by policies from the Reagan era; and do they take issue with the fact that the surplus was not a surplus at all but was projected?
You can’t expect everyone who claims to be centrist to be in the eye of the storm ; everyone has their own opinions on things, and nobody may agree on a ‘perfect’ position ; but on whatever day I went to visit your site, I found the right side of the discussion marginalized.
Hey, I’m new here, but have been trying to read more blogs lately that call themselves moderate.
The problem with liberal, conservative, moderate; left, right, and center, is that they are very largely subjective terms that often change. What’s liberal now may be considered extremely liberal in 20 years. What’s conservative now may be considered extremely conservative in 20 years. Or is could be the other way around.
Heck, even the definitions of what is a conservative, for example, has changed. I’m only 21, so I might be getting some of this wrong, but the old time conservative considered themselves fiscally responsible, and relatively willing to let the economy to get on of its own accord. Now you’d be hard pressed to call the Republicans of today (and especially the Bush administration) conservatives if all you based their membership to that ideology on was economics.
What they spend their time on has even changed. For the conservatives in 2004, it was the value issues, while they might have focused more on taxes 20 years ago. For the liberals, it was the environment and the war, while 20 years ago, it might have been the death penalty and welfare, lets say.
So, center is largely defined by where those two are. In my opinion, it seems that both left and right have moved more toward the extremes since I began following politics, possibly leaving a larger gap for the center. Perhaps that’s why some of the so-called moderate sites seem either more liberal or conservative, because there’s more area for them to cover.
I call attention to what Jason says above, and I also wrote a blog post on this issue not too long ago. He mentions that maverick Republicans like Hagel are called moderates while maverick Democrats like Lieberman are called "neocons or traitors". I mostly agree with this analysis, though I’d argue that depending on who you ask on the right, people like Hagel and McCain would be called liberals or party traitors just as much. I think I might be argued with on McCain, given his support for the war, and I’d say that both have different focuses in their maverick attitudes. Note McCain and torture.
So, to wrap it up, I think that a moderate or centrist is defined by where left and right are, and think that at this point in time, centrists simply have more territory to cover. Also consider that old time mantra, that what was considered very liberal 200 years ago (end of slavery, anyone?) is considered a very moderate view now. So, these things change over time. Finally, keep in mind that 150 years ago, the Republicans were today’s Democrats on many issues and the Democrats were today’s Republicans on many issues.
I’ve shared Jason’s test for some time now. I’ve been called an idiot and other worse names by both lefties and righties.That’s a really good sniff test. Anyone can say they’re a moderate or a centrist, but if they always say good things about one side and bad things about the other, then the best you can qualify for is being a reasonable partisan instead of a blind partisan. If what Chris says is true, it seems it’s a shame that TMV splintered so that the conservative voices bailed. Centerfield lost most of its conservative voices when Stubborn Facts came to life, but it wasn’t rancorous or anything. And we’re not a dem echo chamber by any means. We’re equal opportunity eviscerators.
And I think I can speak for Michael also in saying that we miss you also, Paul. The same goes for Pete Abel, who was never anything less than respectful, both in agreement and disagreement.
It is also nice to see Centerfield here. I had a logon given to me to post at Centerfield way back when, but I could never get it to actually work.
michael,
it is subjective, but what all of the discussion about the subjectivity of what moderate is, sometimes distracts from the point; that the public at large holds certain views as moderate, and that the only reason why policy doesn’t settle on these is because of partisan fighting.
for instance, abortion is a very easy issue to discuss this on. there are two main camps, pro-life and pro-choice, and either can go to extremes to defend their position. Some pro-life people think abortion should be banned from the moment of conception. Some pro-choice people think it should be allowed until the moment of birth. (And some, even more extreme positions still).
Of course, there are many ways to approach this issue;
One is the actual policy of it. Most people agree, policy-wise, with the decision in Roe v Wade, that second trimester abortions should have restrictions and third trimester abortions be banned except in extreme circumstances.
However, since Roe v Wade, further court decisions have been pushed the law further to the left , and the vast majority of the public supported things like bans on partial birth abortions and parental notification laws. Moderate Democrats agreed, and helped pass these laws. Democrats further on the left warned that these things were ’stealth issues’ that the right would use in the courts to erode abortion rights, and that the greatest amount of leeway should always be extended to the child with the pregnancy. Most people did not agree.
Then you can also talk about Roe v Wade as a legal decision, or you can talk about abortion vis a vis the states rights issue. and you have similar points on this where people can share some common ground. Some people think that abortion should mostly remain legal, as decided by Roe v Wade, but the court ruling was dangerous because it created a new right out of scratch. Others think that the Constitution allows judges to create new rights, but the proposition is iffy.
So my point is, that discussing the subjectivity of ‘moderate’ misses the that there are policies considered moderate, that are able to be moderate because they skip some of the histrionics of political extremes and try to find common ground.
Sometimes, I think, a real middle is a little harder to find. For example, on gay marriage, a lot of people who want to come up with a moderate position, support civil unions. But most civil union proposals tend to be equal to "marriage for gays", that is, marriage by another name. There is actually a lot of conservative support for a form of civil union that doesn’t amount to that, some "pro-family" groups want to create a legal category that would allow any two people, regardless of sexual relationship, to form an economic partnership, and be allowed many rights currently restricted to marriage. Whether this is an acceptable solution is also questionable.
You can then move on from social issues, and discuss what the middle would be on economic issues. The Laffer curve is a good clue to where those discussions would go.
But either way, if there is a middle, nobody is making you agree with it. Centrist positions are not necessarily better, although, I think at this time in American politics, they are.
redish, I agree that a real center is hard to find, and that’s basically what I was trying to say.
I probably should have added this in to my post, but forgot to do it. Perhaps instead of using the term "moderate" or centrist," people who consider themselves as such should describe themselves as taking things on an issue-by-issue basis. If that’s what they believe, anyway.
MM: I think that’s a pretty good approach. It’s also what’s closest to what I mean by "moderation."
Part of the problem with being a moderate, I think, is that you have to explain yourself a lot more. "Moderate" has such a hard definition because it really describes an absence of two ideologies. Anyone who doesn’t really feel totally at home under the name "liberal" or "conservative" may be able to fit "moderate". But then that means that it will cover such a large and varied group of people that no single definition is enough.
The "both sides spit on me" test is the closest we have to a quick way of identifying moderates, but it could as easily be defined as "I can carry on a conversation with either side".
I’m attracted to the definition of moderation by style, tolerance towards other points of view, but it doesn’t always hold out. I consider myself a moderate, but not on all issues. Most people have issues that they’re passionate and very un-moderate about, even if they’re moderates overall. I’m very un-moderate on issues of freedom of speech, for instance, but consider myself a moderate overall.
Redish in #5 captured the essence of what I was trying to say.
Lots of people are saying that the center HAS moved to the left (or a variation of that, that people who are centrists are opposing the right more now because of a lousy batch of conservatives who’ve been at the helm.)
But my point is that philosophically, the center point doesn’t change-those are constants. So if you accept the premise that the center of American opinion is now somewhere to the left of the ‘magnetic north’ center, the actual midpoint between big govt solutions and small govt libertarianism, then all of the debates end up being about just how far left we should go. The center doesn’t hold when there’s no rational consideration of any ideas that are anything other than liberal or extremely liberal ideas.
I also disagree that the extremes have become more extreme; again, ideologically, these things are constants. I suppose what people mean by this is that the extremists on both sides have become more vocal or more powerful, and to a large extent I do agree with that. But there’s really nothing new under the sun; Christian fundamentalists have been around since the origin of our country, and they’ve always believed what they believe (though of course they’re reacting to changes in our social structure and climate.) Gays have obviously always been around, but they’re also reacting to changes and seeking an opportunity to be more open about their homosexuality. There’s always been a tension between free trade and protectionism…and so on and so forth.
But again, in order to counter the amplified voices of the extremists you need a strong centrist coalition- and that means having strong opinions from the center left as well as the center right (and by that I don’t mean just the less liberal Democrats, I mean also some who truly approach problems from a conservative standpoint but are willing to be pragmatic about it and willing to shift a bit to the left if the conservative policies aren’t workable for a given situation- ie, situations where regulation of industry really is necessary, or where labor really does need the power to organize to get its needs met by management.)
This is why I feel it is so important to not accept that GWB or the recent GOP majority in Congress have somehow tainted conservatism. Separate the people from the policy; and when you do that you see that those who’ve been in power often failed us because they really weren’t adhering to conservative principles anyway (or they were doing so selectively.) And once you view it that way, you see that conservatism itself still has much to offer.
C. Stanley, I disagree that there is a "magic north" of centrism. There are a multitude of examples of why this doesn’t hold. For instance, George Bush, for his views on race, gender, homosexuality and religion would have been considered a hard left radical in the early 20th century.
1- He believes men and women are equal, and that women can hold positions of great authority (see Condi)
2- He believes the races are equal and discriminating or separating on the basis of race is bad (see again Condi, Powell, Gonzalez).
3- He says homosexuals should be respected (though not given the same rights as heterosexuals).
4- He holds other religions to be worthy of respect, and was one of the first voices warning people not to discriminate against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11.
Any way you cut it, he would have been painted as a lefty radical not so long ago. The "center" most certainly has shifted.
I’m certainly not as well read in economic history, but it’s not hard to imagine that attitudes have shifted in that respect as well. The role of federal government has been growing for ages. Things many "limited government" conservatives take for granted, like universal public school, federal prison systems, the FBI, probably wouldn’t have enjoyed such passive acceptations in the founders days.
Personally, centrism isn’t very important to me, but moderation is. I can accommodate and am eager to debate a wide range of views, provided that it is done with a modicum of respect. And as my own position on immigration and my support for Obama demonstrate, I deviate extensively from the center (and not in the direction that some of my most vocal critics would claim). But when moderation is sacrificed on the alter of what I call "required thought", even forums that claim to be "moderate" wind up becoming anything but moderate in practice.
And that was why I felt compelled to respond to Paul Silver’s post. My intention was not to reignite old vendettas (as has become the case on the comments thread on TMV — I am resisting the urge to respond to those people directly but I will state here for anyone interested that their claims about what went on last year are flatly untrue), but rather to post a reminder (to myself as much as anyone) as to the difficulties and hidden pitfalls of maintaining a commitment to moderation in political debates.
Claudia, on economic issues there certainly is a midpoint- it’s the point at which we stop approaching issues from the laissez faire, free market aspect and instead apply govt interference or regulation on the economy. I’m not denying that we have moved to the left of center, but that debates on economic (and size of govt with respect to economic interventions) should always center at the true midpoint, or else conservativism gets completely thrown by the wayside.
The social issues, yes, that’s a bit different, although I’ll bet it’s possible to also define a centerpoint between govt allowing complete individual liberty and govt interceding on the behalf of certain social mores and values. I agree this is a lot trickier and I’m willing to accept that we don’t have to find that midpoint, as long as we recognize that extremists on these issues exist because those whose positions are more centrist simply don’t care that much about the issues. To that end, one way that centrists can help mediate and modulate the extremism is to acknowledge that which is important to people who reside on the left and right (or as redish said, to stop marginalizing those people.) I think a lot of centrists believe that the opposite is the goal- to ignore the extremists and they will go away. Instead, I think centrists should help negotiate between the two sides by figuring out what is essential to each side and finding the ‘third way’ approach. For example, on abortion that might be to work toward more assistance for pregnant women (and adoption opportunities) as well as working for more education and access to birth control, in order to reduce the number of abortions. On gay marriage, a centrist might work toward legislation which preserves ’sanctity’ of marriage for those heterosexuals who enter into a covenental marriage, while also providing for civil unions that are open (and equal) for gays and heterosexuals. Of course the extremists still aren’t going to accept these solutions easily, but centrists could work to convince people that those on each side have to compromise while also holding to some core values or goals that are most important to them.
Addendum to paragraph 1 in #17: What I’m saying is that just because we’ve moved to the left in accepting govt solutions on issue 1, 2, and 3, doesn’t mean we should start to the left of center when we discuss each new issue. That seems to be a common thread in your discussions, Claudia, like when you say that accepting a nationalized health system shouldn’t be such a big deal because we’ve long moved past the discussion of public education being a given. For one thing, this makes presumptions that just aren’t true (as I argued yesterday, that there are significant differences in the ability to limit healthcare provisions as compared to limiting education that falls under the govt domain); and for another, whether consciously or not, you’re trying to claim more ground for ‘your side’ than it should legitimately have. And that’s exactly why progress is impeded when conservatives feel the need to put brakes on in order to prevent falling down slippery slopes. You in fact are arguing that the slippery slope should be a reason to enact the types of programs that you favor- while we’re saying that each new idea or program MUST be only considered on its own merits (of course there’s also the fact that even the programs you use to justify the creation of new programs aren’t proving their own merits, as in our ever-growing and ever-decreasing-in-quality public education system.)
Jason, just ignore those people. they’re idiots.
As for Paul’s post - I have to say that of all the people in the blogosphere, I think that, generally, Pete Abel and Paul are among the most ‘truly Centrist’ people out there… normally. Paul seems to be more left now, not sure whether he was always like that, but he is, still, a moderate. His approach is at least.
This comment especially made me laugh out loud:
LOL. Yeah that’s it. We wanted to shut down opposing voices. We hate people who disagree with us. In fact, if we could legally do so we would shoot them. First torturing them, then shooting them of course.
Hilariosu stuff.
Interesting to see that Cosmo forgets to mention that he’s angry with me because I deleted his comments accusing me of being a Nazi and holocaust denier, etc.
It seems like forever since a discussion like this has kicked up, but it generates no less dialogue today than it did a year ago.
Jason said:
I agree with that for the most part. When the tone is belligerent, it really doesn’t matter much what the underlying substance is. OTOH, there are views on both the extreme left and right that, no matter how moderately couched, keep me from engaging. The starting point for debate is just too close to the edge.
So is TMV moderate? I think it is, for the most part. Is it centrist? Some writers are, and some are not. But I don’t see anybody hanging their ideological pens off the edge of the cliff there, any more than here.
Polimom: great to see you comment. One of my co-bloggers told me to invite you to get on board here, but I didn’t ask you because you’re writing for TMV. People: PoliMom is also one of the few, good moderate voices on the internet. Be sure to visit her site.
Discussions, IMO, are poisoned by the current obsession with labeling opinions and the people who express them according to where they fall (as per the subjective interpretations of responders) on the political curve. If discussions could just stick to the issue at thand, without worry about the political tribe someone belongs to, we could go much further in understanding both the issue and our society in general much better. If someone’s expressed thinking makes sense, what does it matter if the writer is moderate, a centrist, or a political agnostic? If the problem is finding a way to cross a river, we should not be obseessed with trying to determine whether the proposed bridge is a conservatve bridge, a liberal bridge or a centeist bridge. All we need to assess is whether the bridge will safely support our passage to the other bank. How we assess the proposed bridge will naturally express political biases, but, in the end, it’s the bridge that’s in question, not its label and not the label thrust on its designer.
All i’m saying is that common ground positions do exist.
The reason the center is so important in modern politics, is because politics is about finding common ground. Its about mediating different parties and creating policy based on stable, permanent coalitions.
Claudia,–
the thing is the points you make which make out Bush as a hard leftist in the early 20th century, is that its interpretation also. Most people in America at least agreed in the early 20th century that we needed to move towards greater suffrage rights, for instance. Even the South, in defending slavery, deplored it as a moral evil, but argued that power differences were a always present and necessary condition of mankind, and that Northern factory workers were oppressed also. The South, however, was obstinate to the fact that historic circumstances would have to change through war. Womens rights too became an issue just because the role of women in society changed; they were no longer bound to housework and started engaging in social work and politics at a non-voting level. Historical change is what changes politics; politics doesn’t change by act of will.
However, there were a lot of changes done in the name of abolishing slavery that we still are dealing with the wreckage of. States rights vs federal power. Positive liberty vs negative liberty. Objective theories on race and culture vs. cultural and racial relativism.
There is still wreckage from the push for womens rights that we’re still dealing with; like the role of men in decisions on abortion and custody, the status of prostitutes with legal protection.
So, I think people are sometimes not keen to the fact, that whats changed are institutions more than values. And politics always changes to clean up the problems we created in the last generation, because each new change creates new issues to deal with.
And I think this is a big mistake when people try to compare gay rights politics to black civil rights. Our laws may change in the future, but the reason the country is split on the issue, is because its about sexuality, and sometimes people are more conservative on sex and sometimes more liberal. The reason we’re split on abortion, is because its also another wedge issue, because it defined as life-and-death and its a matter of opinion when to mark the beginning of life (though there are rational, practical boundaries).
And the way you apply this to Bush for instance; is characterizing him as supporting less rights for gays than straights. Conservatives don’t consider marriage in terms of a basic right for individuals, they consider it in terms of a social institution, that has social purpose, not individual purpose.
Which is what I mean. To understand what the common ground is, you have to understand why each side chooses different positions; (instead of dismissing one side as idiots); and then, from there, understand where government should be involved and where it should not be involved.
This is always refined over the course of history, and some things are never resolved, but we have points in time where we have a social discourse that can bring us to understand why we’re dealing with the issues we’re faced with in the first place.
I liked Paul’s post, personally. I just wish I could find the site he’s writing about.