The Great UnWishy-Washed
Dean's World has a post promoting an idea fostered at a newer blog called Tutakai: the cause of the "Militant Moderate".
There's one thing I wholeheartedly agree with here. "Moderates" (militant or otherwise) are just as useful to a political discussion as "the politically disengaged".
Being "Moderate" is a cop-out. It's saying, "I want to get along with people more than I want to achieve a society that will stand for [insert philosophical concept here]." And no, that doesn't mean I'm expecting everyone to be a utopian of one sort or another. There's a difference between refusing to compromise and having some idea where you want to go and working toward it. Conversely, there's little difference between compromising because you don't want to hear the fighting any longer and having no clue in the first place.
You're never going to get people to rally to your cause unless you HAVE a cause. Pick something. Anything.
It's not that we on "the outsides" of political discussion dislike moderates or disagree with their right to pick their fights or the wisdom to do so. It's that we can't understand or trust the absence of ideology, which is exactly what they're proposing. If someone could find some way to formulate a reasonable methodology behind "moderate" ideas, we might be able to work with them. But just saying, "I reserve the right to make my own decision on any issue," is no way to gain any sort of respect in a political discussion.
You have to stand for something that makes some coherant sense. Otherwise, it's just a polite form of anarchy.
Let me give a wonderful example of a group of people I respect that are neither liberal or conservative: libertarians. Look at their policy ideas and you might think they're liberal because they want to fight the moral codes of the social conservatives. Or you might think they're conservative because they don't want to be soaked with taxes to fund liberal programs. Some might think because they side with each side half the time, they're moderates. But if you look at their methodology, they have principles that all of their policy stands are rooted in. Libertarianism makes sense, and it has parameters. We can deal with that because we can grasp how and why libertarians think that way, and we can develop strategies to work with and oppose it as needed to achieve our own goals. I can imagine the libertarian ideology, so I can imagine how libertarians view America and love their country.
If you're going to formulate a new ideology, following the example of libertarian methodology is a good place to start.
UPDATE: Dean, I saw your comment, and while I understand what you're saying, and will admit we'll then be on opposite sides, it's not because I'd think you'd gone to "the other side". No matter what you may say now, your support for Kerry would be out of respect for the office and hope for the country - just the same as you're doing now with Bush. You're a liberal in the way your subtitle suggests. It's a broader kind of liberalism and less strident than we've seen for a long time, but it's firmly liberal.
Of course, I also think modern conservatism is merely a different offshoot of the same liberal ancestry, and this blog is dedicated to calling for a return to the progressivism of an earlier day - before liberalism began to more resemble socialism.
Comments
Well the way I see it, there's "moderate" and then there's "wishy washy pansy moderate."
There's the "moderate" who merely seeks to compromise by instinct. The sort of "roll over and do whatever will make people stop yelling at each other" kind of person.
But there's another stripe, which I tend to think of myself as, which is, "I don't choose my issues based on party, but on what I honestly believe." I honestly think going to IRaq was a good idea. I honestly think we need a national health insurance reform. I honestly think we ought to let the states experiment with gay marriage. I honestly think abortion should be legal. I honestly think the left's being cockamamie crazy to call knocking five poitns off the marginal rates as a "massive tax cut for the rich" but at the same time I don't know that I actually mind that the rich pay higher rates. And so on.
But if I do believe something, I am not going to back down.
But then again, I'll also say if it's a choice between getting 60% of what I want or 0%, I'll take the 60%.
So what's that mean? Well ask me for an opinion on an issue and I'll tell you.
I guess you could say I'm sorta like McCain or Lieberman that way. Except McCain's so damned wrong on campaign finance reform I dont' know where to begin. Ha!
Posted by: Dean Esmay | July 3, 2004 04:34 AM
It's undisputable that you're liberal.
That you're willing to compromise means you're practical.
That you think the LLL's are wacko and it's a good thing we're defending ourselves? That sir, means you're sane.
I just don't think "moderate" is a status anyone should strive for in political discussions. I'm not arguing against practicality, I'm saying practicality isn't an ideology unto itself and people don't erect statues to Moderation.
Posted by: Chris | July 3, 2004 10:57 AM
I'm catching this a bit late, but I think Dean generally *is* the "good kind" of moderate. His only major serial error is that he somehow keeps typing "Rush Limbaugh" when he means "Michael Savage".
Posted by: Ian S. | July 7, 2004 03:34 PM
I'm not debating that Dean seems like a good guy Ian, hence my compliments that he's a liberal who's practical and sane. I just question why anyone would want to defend "moderate-ism" because there's no ideology that can be defined from that. The media may be in love with the concept that radicals on the edges are destroying the country, but I'm much more afraid of people who can manipulate the center by confusing them with half-baked ideas and scare mongering. I embrace the idea of framing debate in terms of black and white.
Posted by: Chris | July 7, 2004 06:48 PM
I used the time it took Pincher's Crab Shack to cook my blackened grouper lunch to make some notes defining liberals and moderates. Two pages later my food arrived. I stopped writing, but I wasn't done. And while I hate these labels, here is the short version; liberals refuse to grow up, moderates want to grow up but are not quite sure what that means.
Btw, the fish was excellent.
Posted by: Richard | July 8, 2004 03:14 PM
this blog was complete shit. your advice to pick something is absolute garbage. whoever you are..you are just like the jihadists...blind rage and feeling, a sense of moral arrogance..and you and the other die hard conservatives and liberals are the reason why our country is always in a state of gridlock and paralysis.
Posted by: varun | July 13, 2004 06:22 PM
Varun, Bravo, that's the idea. You are catching on to this idea of taking a firm stand. You will soon overcome your moderate tendencies, you are a quick study.
Now try it once without letting your emotions overcome your sense of decency, one more time without the language. Come on, you can do it!
Posted by: Richard | July 13, 2004 08:10 PM