Is Moderation Dead?

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”   Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Senator Goldwater, the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, believed that.  This was a part of the attitude that led to the greatest blowout ever in a Presidential election - For President Johnson. 

55 years later, if you don’t believe in extremism, don’t bother running for office. 

Last weekend, Presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren spoke to the California Democratic Convention.  She might not agree with Sen. Goldwater’s politics, but she agrees with his no-nonsense-full-speed-ahead approach:

“Some say if we all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses. . . . But our country is in a crisis. The time for small ideas is over.”

Most of the people running for President - including President Trump - agree.  Any candidate - heck, anyONE - who advocates any moderate position must be a RINO (Republican in Name Only), a DINO (Democrat etc.), and/or a dumbass.

Bipartisanship is suffering.  Great, according to Goldwater, Warren, and a host of others.  Sen. Warren is correct: Republicans will not “come to their senses” according to Democratic standards any more than Democrats will “come to their senses” according to Republican standards.

I always hesitate to divide people according to beliefs, particularly in a simple manner.  (OK - That’s a lie.  Any ink-stained wretch worthy of the name creates false divisions.)  

So my division is:

20% of voters are rock-solid conservatives.  (By the way, I flipped a coin to see who I picked on first.  The conservatives “won.”)  They think that President Trump can do no wrong.  They think that Secretary Clinton (and other Democrats) are evil and can do no right.  They believe that the 20% rock-solid liberals are traitors and that the 20% sort-of-liberals are Fifth Columnists for liberalism. 

20% of voters are sort-of-conservative (aka RINO’s.)  They believe largely in President Trump (etc.) regret it a bit, and think that Secretary Clinton is largely wrong. 

20% of voters are rock-solid liberals.  They think that Secretary Clinton (etc.) can do no wrong.  They think that President Trump is evil and can do no right.  They believe that the 20% rock-solid conservatives are traitors and that the 20% sort-of-conservatives are Fifth Columnists for conservatism. 

20% are sort-of-liberals (aka DINO’s).  They believe largely in Secretary Clinton (etc.), regret it a bit, and think that President Trump (etc.) is largely wrong.

Oh, and the rock-solid conservatives AND the rock-solid liberals both think that they have far more than 20% and that 60% of Americans will vote for their party.  The only difference is that liberals think that President Trump stole the election and conservatives think that Secretary Clinton nearly stole the election. 

OK, we have 20% left.  Who are they?  We don’t see these folks.  They don’t go on TV, because they are DULL.  They are moderates.  They are the “silent citizens.”  (Not a “silent majority,” that passed with Vice-president Agnew.)

But the middle 20% are who the parties fight over.

The parties (1) mobilize their base to turn out an vote.  What counts in an election is a vote.  Voters cannot weight their votes, as in vote more heavily for a candidate they REALLY believe in as opposed to someone they are reluctant about. 

Parties (2) (slowly) expand their base by persuasion and inclusion of people who didn’t vote before.  

They also (3) try to exclude the other party’s voters. 

This is basic.    Both sides do it.  They always have.  In the past couple of decades, the Republicans have been better at exclusion.  That’s what requiring ID’s at the polls, counting non-citizen residents, and part of purging the voter roles was all about.  Democrats have tried to keep up with purging, and seem to be catching up with other schemes to deny the Republican vote.  They do have a long way to go.

To win, a party has to get 10% of the middle 20%, plus one vote. (That’s not EXACTLY true - A winner has won the electoral college five times without a majority of the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824 as a Democratic-Republican, predecessor of the Democratic party, but so old that it defies comparison; Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, both Republicans in a party so old that it defies comparison; and modern Republicans George Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.)

Our political system is now set to oscillate, based on negative feedback.  Get the 20% mad at the current party in power and they put a different gang in power.  The farther the parties are in different beliefs, the more politics tends to oscillate out of control.

There has long be oscillation in politics.  In the 20th and 21st centuries, that has happened in 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000 and 2008.  But the parties have never been this far apart. 

Is moderation dead?

Climate change is the latest victim of the death of moderation.  There are climate-change-deniers.  (I think they are wrong.)  There are ban-all-fossil-fuels people, and they are unrealistic.  But when people talk about any moderate position, they automatically pooh-pooh it.

Moderation has worked.  People may not like it, but the fact is, moderate positions have worked.  Sometimes, the trend has been that the extreme position was ill-considered, and the moderate position has been abandoned.  Sometimes, the moderate position has worked so well that a more drastic position became wise.  

What’s wrong with moderation on the climate change?  It will work; or it won’t.  We’ll have to see.  It beats taking your ball and going home.

Any number of things are amenable to moderation.  It has WORKED in the past. 

In Eisenhower’s administration, Democrats controlled both houses of Congrees for 6 our of the 8 years of his administration.  Progress was made.  This was partly because of the moderating influence of House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.  They wanted to move the country forward - if not on their precise terms, on any terms which - in their judgment - progressed the nation. 

Democrats continued to control the Congress through the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.   Things were done.  The Democrats were split between the South and the North.  But things got done.  In the Reagan administration, Democrats controled both houses for two year.  Bush 41 - All 4 years.  Things were done.  With Clinton, the Republicans controlled both houses for 6 years.  There was peace in the world, welfare was reformed and the Administration and Congress - though they didn’t like each other - found grounds for compromise.  In Bush 43, the Senate was in Democratic control for 2 years. Things got done.    Even with Obama, the House was split.  Things were done, but the seeds were planted for a slow-down.

Let me harken back to the split between the North and South Democrats.  When Kennedy was assassinated, his Civil Rights bill was stuck and going nowhere.  Johnson swore to get it passed, and he expended his “political capital” to do so.  His phone conversations were recorded, unbeknowst to anyone who spoke with President Johnson.  In talking to Senator Russell and other Southern Democrats, he referred to the Civil Rights Bill as “that [n-word] bill.”  And he got it passed.  It was impolitic polically to refer to it that way, but that started Congressional recognition of civil rights.  President Johnson did what it took to get the job done.

So Congress is stalled now on immigration, tariffs, the Middle East, Europe, China, the climate, taxes - and much else. 

Might there be a moderate response to get America moving - and not hating - again? 

Mizpah!