What It Means To Be a “Moderate”

What does it mean to be a “Moderate?” What ideological approach do “moderates” adhere to? What does it mean to moderate on your principles? Why has it become so desirable for Republicans to moderate their political and moral principles?

“Moderate” Republicans have recently come forward with the charge that in order for the Republican Party to remain relevant and in-touch with the American public, Republicans must become more moderate in their views/ideology. Although it is true that politics does routinely involve negotiation and posturing, “moderate” Republicans have come forward with a philosophy of compromise and moderation as an ideology and political strategy by which to govern. In order to evaluate the validity of such a strategy, it is necessary to consider what a “moderate” claims his principles and values are and how the principle of political moderation can and will affect the American people.

As a general matter, a principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other principles depend.” A man of principle is a man that has a framework or foundation of core values and concrete concepts by which he can set goals and determine the viability of a given proposal. However, “Moderates” have articulated a self-righteous ideology that requires one to compromise with an opponent on anything in an effort to be “practical.” In an effort to be politically “practical,” Moderates have been relegated to a role of responding to policies, as they are proposed by liberals, rather than leading by principles.

Over 45 years ago, Ayn Rand wrote a defense of capitalism (“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”) in which she addressed the issue of moderation and the effects moderation would have on capitalism and the political direction of the United States. Although this blog posting is not directly discussing the moral and societal benefits of capitalism, Rand’s analysis of moderation provides an excellent explanation of how the concept of political moderation results in unacceptable costs to the representative party and society.

Rand offered three rules about the relationship of principles to goals:

(1) In any conflict between two groups who hold the same basic principles (conservative Republicans and supposedly Moderate Republicans) it is the more consistent one who wins. The group holding a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage

(2) In any collaboration between two groups who hold different basic principles (liberals and Moderate Republicans), it is the more evil or irrational who wins because a group that pursues mixed goals will find that its bad/compromised principles drive out the good principles. Compromising basic principles results in a slow slide further to the political left with no possible return to one’s previous principled position.

(3) When opposite basic principles (conservatism and liberalism) are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side but when they are not clearly defined, it works to the advantage of the irrational side – in order to win, the rational side of any controversy requires that its goals be clearly understood and defined, not hidden or confused.

Applying the rules above, it shows that a philosophy of political moderation would result in a Republican Party lacking any direction or leadership. Republicans would be relegated to responding to liberal policies/legislation by saying “no” or “me-too’ing” any program initiated by Democrats while claiming they seek to achieve “the same ends as Democrats,” but by different means. Does this strategy sound familiar? A similar strategy to John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other “moderate” Republicans?

The goal of most liberal/statist politicans is to “change” the country through the means of a welfare state by using “single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles.” The overall effect of the liberal policies was to create statism by “slow rot.” Apparently, the goal of moderates is to merely retard this process by a series of compromises in which certain statist policies are accepted in exchange for some specified concession. This shows the primary reason liberals like/promote “moderates:” they know they can incrementally wipe out the relevancy of moderates through a policy of bargaining and compromise in which the ultimate result is voluntary compliance to the statist.

So what is the safely undefined, indeterminate “moderate” middle? It is “a moderate amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a moderate amount of government handouts to the poor – with a moderate respect for rights and a moderate degree of brute governmental force – with a moderate amount of freedom and a moderate amount of slavery – with a moderate degree of justice and a moderate degree of injustice – with a moderate amount of security and a moderate amount of terror – and with a moderate amount of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.”

What can one say about a man with “moderate” integrity? Only truly uncompromising virtue can be properly termed as virtue. “If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as ‘extremism,’ then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth – any man of integrity.”” There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. “

What can Republicans expect if “moderates” define the party with their compromising philosophy? “A docile, pliable, moderate Milquetoast who never gets excited, never makes trouble, never cares too much, adjusts to anything and upholds nothing. . . the best proof of an intellectual movement’s collapse is the day when it has nothing to offer as an ultimate ideal but a plea for moderation.”

The Republican Party Solution: Become a Broader Party by Being a Purer Party

Is the Republican Party dead? If you listen to the media and political pundits, the resounding conclusion is that not only is the Republican Party dead, Reaganism and traditional conservatism is dead. In fact, many political “experts” now say that the only way the Republican Party can experience resurgence is to learn from Arlen Specter and other “moderates” by adopting liberal stances on many social, environmental and economic issues. Is this true? Jeb Bush recently stated that “it’s time for Republicans to give up ‘nostalgia’ and look forward, even if it means stealing the Democrats’ winning strategy.” Are Republicans doomed to an existence of lukewarm conservatism?

Republicans that feel their party is doomed should look back at history and feel some reassurance. For at least a century, Republicans have had an internal debate regarding whether the party should moderate its conservative principles. You only have to look back 50 years to see the most recent example of the “moderation” debate that is occurring today. Barry Goldwater ran for President against LBJ in 1964. LBJ won the election in a landslide (6th most lopsided election in American history) by carrying 44 of the 50 states. LBJ’s victory was decisive (22.6% margin of victory and 61.1% of the national popular vote). Many Republicans (i.e. Nelson Rockefeller and other “Rockefeller Republicans”) understandably analyzed this defeat and similar electoral defeats during this time as a sign that Republicans must become more and more “moderate” in order to remain relevant. However, Goldwater and other principled conservatives understood that the American people lived their lives based on conservative principles and understood that Republicans must remain true to those principles. Otherwise, Republicans and conservatism becomes nothing more than watered-down liberalism. Goldwater and other conservatives pressed forward with their conservative message by laying the groundwork for Reagan’s gubernatorial and presidential elections. Imagine if Goldwater and other true conservatives had decided to throw in the towel and give up their conservative principles? What if they decided to moderate their views by adopting New Deal/Great Society, welfare, and other entitlement programs? What true legitimacy would they have had and would the Republican Party have ever been relevant again?

This brief history lesson illustrates that Republicans must not “jump the gun” when it comes to decisions to abandon conservative principles. Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans should not abandon their philosophy comes in the form of polls showing strong support for conservative principles and the example of President Barack Obama’s public perception campaign he has been waging since his election. Although polls continue to show a high approval rating for President Obama related to his job performance, polls show a lack of support for a number of policy and ideological stances taken by the President: a majority of voters believe the economic stimulus and auto bailouts were a bad idea and a large percentage of voters believe a smaller and limited government are more beneficial for our country. Additionally, Pres. Obama’s April 29th press conference illustrated his understanding that the American public still adheres to conservative principles (at least as related to economic principles and the size of government). During a portion of Pres. Obama’s speech he mentioned that he did not want to run auto companies and banks and that he wants a smaller, leaner and more efficient government. It is obvious from the President’s policies that he believes in growing government and allowing government to take a larger role in the lives of its citizens. So why say this? President Obama is attempting to play the role of the thoughtful and “sober centrist,” while underneath enacting radical policies in an attempt to transform America through an ever-growing federal government. Obama can read the polls and knows that America may like his personality and demeanor (as shown by his approval ratings), but the gap between personality and policies/ideology shows Americans do not believe many of his radically liberal policies are good for America.

Republicans must take full advantage of this opportunity to show the American people the distinction between Pres. Obama, the personality and rhetoric, and Pres. Obama the ideologue and liberal. After all, what value does a President provide to the People if he is not judged by his policies and ideology? Republicans must remember that the “moderate” candidate, John McCain, was a failure and lost the election precisely because he presented the American people with watered-down conservatism. Why should Republicans water down conservatism even more? Why do Republicans think that will somehow result in victory? The Republican Party can become a broader party by being a purer party – the goals are not mutually exclusive. Liberals are not apologizing for their views. Similarly, conservatives have no reason to apologize for being conservative by diluting the conservative message and philosophy by adopting liberal tendencies. Conservatives must boldly reclaim their position by articulating what it means to be conservative and how conservative policies differ from Obama’s radical liberal agenda. Conservatism can win the battle on substance; where conservatism is lacking is in form and perception. Conservatism doesn’t need defenders; it needs articulate and charismatic mouthpieces to voice conservative philosophy. By remaining true to conservative principles and unashamedly remaining a purely conservative party, Republicans can broaden its base of support and reclaim its influence.