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.”