We've all seen it before: the media pundit who speaks glowing platitudes about moderates and the virtue of consensus to "get things done." Now don't get me wrong, I've been accused here at Sound Politics of being the resident liberal for at times being willing to bow a bit to political reality in the hopes of getting some part of a conservative agenda enacted, rather then than none. And moderates do obviously deserve a place in our body politic (think suburbs, for starters).
But sometimes, enough is enough.
Never mind the fact such praise for "moderate" GOPers from some left-of-center pundits is often nothing more than polite code for "a Republican who I don't think is crazy." In the bigger picture there is a general problem with consensus uber alles.
Sometimes compromise is necessary and effective. Certainly there are times where elected officials on both sides of the aisle become too entrenched in their favored position and/or too wedded to harsh rhetoric. But simply splitting the difference between Republicans and Democrats on certain issues is not only really bad politics at times, it can also lead to incoherent - and thus ineffective - policy.
National press corps dean David Broder is perhaps the leading advocate for this "split the difference" approach to politics. He loves moderates and he loves compromise - and in fairness, he drives activists on both sides of the aisle bonkers.
Take Broder's latest column appearing in Sunday's Seattle Times. Broder seems to believe that it's a bad thing for Mitt Romney to not be endorsed by a man who endorsed John McCain in 2000, did likewise for John Kerry in 2004, who is drawn to McCain again because of his Kyoto-like thinking on global warming, and who doesn't have nice things to say about Bush 43.
Last I checked, Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination for President. He should be concerned over not getting this man's endorsement because...why?
We've had a local example recently in an Everett Herald editorial that was noble in intentions but short on practicality. There are some fair points to be taken from the opinion, but in reality a grand collection of moderates have a great pow-wow of consensus just reeks of excessive idealism.
Idealism is nice; it has its place. But it doesn't come to fruition in the real world very often for a reason.
UPDATE: time stamp fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Email ThisYou have made yet again another post in your unrelenting effort to save Mitt Romney -- I predict tomorrow you'll attack John McCain again.
While the topic of "moderates suck" is always good for a few angry posts from the same old crowd it has almost nothing to do with what Broder wrote and it has even less bearing on Mitt Romney's future.
Broder tells the story of the elder Romney's one time Lt. Governor picking McCain over Mitt. The ONE paragraph that bears on your rant here reads:
"Milliken is in some respects a throwback to a vanished generation of Republican moderates. But he is hardly alone in wondering about the many shifts in policies and tactics that have marked this Romney campaign."
Which sums up nicely the reality that conservatives and moderates alike can't help but feel that Romney's unusually numerous and acrobatic flip flops on key issues means he lacks either sound judgement or honesty. Or both.
While you can whack at McCain all you want he is steadfast in his beliefs which are rather more conservative than Romney's --even after the flip flops.
Posted by: A more careful reader on January 14, 2008 11:36 PM"Now don't get me wrong, I've been accused here at Sound Politics of being the resident liberal for at times being willing to bow a bit to political reality in the hopes of getting some part of a conservative agenda enacted, rather then none."
Here is a helpful link for you:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__Then_vs_Than
Posted by: pbj on January 15, 2008 01:37 AMBelieve what you'd like, though how my thoughts at this blog will do much of anything to "save" Mitt Romney's candidacy given the state contests before our own is beyond me. If Broder were lamenting Fred Thompson not picking up the endorsement of a squishy moderate in Tennessee I'd have the same reaction.
Moreover, I never said anything close to "moderates" suck. I come from a moderate Republican home. I've been accused quite often of being a moderate, or worse. And I think moderates have an incredibly important role in both parties.
But one gets the impression that the David Broders of the world would view life in politics as just ducky if the Republican party consisted of a bunch of Nelson Rockefeller clones while the DLC took over the Democratic party in full.
That's not going to work.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 15, 2008 06:40 AMPlease more carefully read what it is like to try to work with McCain behind closed doors in the Senate: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDllYTY5NzA2OTk2YzNhZTIyZGUwYzU5OTc4MzVhZDY=
McCain's defenders on the right say he leans to the right. McCain's defenders on the left say he leans to the left. I say he just leans in front of the TV cameras, whichever direction that happems to be at the moment.
Posted by: TB on January 15, 2008 06:48 AMSocial Security, for instance (nationally). Everyone admits it has problems and will be a mess starting in 10 years. But since we can't please everyone, we do nothing. And let the problem get bigger and bigger.
Consensus is a value when your positions aren't very far apart to begin with, and you have rational extremes. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury. So you have to have what's called leadership, to just get the problem solved.
The slogan I had above my warehouse door when I had a business in WA:
The wrong action is better than no action.
You can recover from a wrong action, and you learn what NOT to do next time. Doing nothing leaves you no better in either position.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 15, 2008 07:25 AMWe don't necessarily differ in the ideas of the right (or left), but more on wholesale change. Let me give a couple of examples from my point of view. First the social "Right" issue of abortion. As a moderate, I see the Supreme Court ruling as not stating a pro-choice argument, and being pro-life, I think this is where to start. The Roe-vs-Wade, and our current state law, put the standard as viability as determined by doctors. Well this is a good start, what government needs to do is force the doctors to come up with a viability rule to stick with. We know that babies can survive after 24-26 weeks, so there should be no general public disagreement, since viability is already the ruling, for not allowing third trimester abortions. From there, one would work on second semester abortions restrictions (e.g., the exceptions cases). It would be hard, though, in a pluristic society to get everyone, however, to agree on the religious right's definition of life at conception. However, this doesn't mean we can't work our way to where abortion is extremely rare. As it is less and less performed, we change the attitudes of doctors as to why it is even necessary and come up with education and other plans to eliminate the need for it at all. This approach is a pragmatic approach, that gets to the eventual goal, yet respects the pluristic nature of our society.
Now for a "left" issue with regards to the environment. There is disagreement between the left and right with regards to global warming data. This doesn't negate the fact that it is still pragmatically wise to get off our dependence of oil (for political reasons), and to reduce carbon emissions (so we can see the mountains in the summer instead of having the smog). So let's start there. We can look at driving more efficiently, including raising gas mileage goals. We can look at how to make alternative, renewable energy more cost effective. We can make sure automobile makers have low emmission cars (Honda seems to have no problem making them). We can also look at making sure industry doesn't pollute water supplies so that we have clean drinking water and clean water for the animals. This benefits everyone, both left and right, and given American ingenuity, so be easy goals for us to reach. Just like the space program, it can also, generate innovation that could bring further advancement of society.
The bottom line, is moderates, who are the majority in this country, are sick and tired of both ends not getting things done. It seems both sides want to talk a lot, but when it comes to action, they dig their heels in because they think it is a win-lose battle. The people who lose in this is society.
Posted by: tc on January 15, 2008 07:28 AMFred Thompson
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
If you rate it based on what the candidates are saying they will be:
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
You are correct in that incremental solutions are frequently the way to go, and there are plenty of cases in which finding the common ground and acting on it has no downside. But I would strongly disagree that this is always the case. Moderates prevailed in Munich in 1938, and look at how well that worked out.
Or, continuing merrily along with that theme, consider:
- Extremist Adolf Hitler proposes liquidation of six million Jews, based upon their Jewishness.
- Extremist Jews propose that no Jews whatsoever should be liquidated based upon their Jewishness.
- Moderates come along, and propose liquidating half of the Jews, issuing wallet-sized permanent exemption cards to the other half, and setting up a governmental agency to oversee and regulate this process, funded by a Torah Tax.
It all depends on how acceptable you find all of the possible compromise positions, and how willing you are to dig in and fight.
Posted by: TB on January 15, 2008 08:36 AMI admit I'm on the other side of the game, being a leftist and all, but Earling's comments about Broder really ring true for me. Finding the centerline, the subject of many a Broder column, is ultimately a fool's game.
But I totally disagree with the desire to just get something done.
Biofuels are the perfect example of the just-do-something-without-carefully-thinking-it-through attitude that has infected both sides of the political spectrum.
We did something and grain prices are going up, the Amazon forest is coming down, and the taxpayer is paying two or three ways already.
Government can fail to act and the market will still begin to resolve various problems. If people had really wanted a biofuel industry, in the way they want, say hybrid cars, they could have got the industry going without mandates and subsidies that force crazy ideas on all the rest of the consumers.
Thanks all,
new left conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on January 15, 2008 01:43 PM**************************************
Troyer said Tuesday that the deputy, a married Iraq
war veteran who has been on the force about a year, is
suspected of having sexual contact with an intoxicated
woman after giving her a "courtesy ride" home last
week.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/256066.html
The 'Wacko Vet Myth'
January 16, 2008; Page A12
Most journalists consider it bad form to mention the
race or ethnicity of a criminal defendant without a
compelling reason. But racial and ethnic groups are
not the only ones who take offense at such
stereotypes. As early as World War I, the American
Legion passed a resolution urging reporters "to
subordinate whatever slight news value there may be in
playing up the ex-service member angle in stories of
crime or offense against the peace." In 2006, Veterans
of Foreign Wars magazine bemoaned the "wacko-vet
myth."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120044156451392637.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries