I wish Kathleen Parker would stop prattling on about “moderation.” At least she realizes that moderation is a state of mind and not a location on the ideological spectrum. But she never reacts accordingly. There are plenty of Democrats and even a handful of Republicans in Congress who are capable of using “an open mind, a willing ear, an unjaundiced eye” when discussing public policy. But that willingness is meaningless when one party embarks on a scorched earth strategy of total obstruction.
I’m a progressive and a moderate at the same time, but in the current political atmosphere the following doesn’t resonate with me at all.
First, we must recognize moderation once again as a virtue, both in our public and private lives. Those who shun political moderation view its practitioners as traitors to some higher cause, spineless and weak.
I don’t consider people who are moderate in their tastes and style to be weak. I consider them well-formed, sane, reliable, and virtuous. But there’s nothing moderate about cutting a deal with a crocodile like Mitch McConnell. We’re trying to craft an energy policy with a party that pretends to disbelieve in climate change. We’re trying to reform the health care system by working with a party that talks about death panels. We’re trying to pass a surface transportation bill with a party that thinks bicycle paths are an insidious plot by the United Nations to strip our country of its sovereignty. We’re trying to address our long-term structural debt with a party that thinks math is for snobs. The GOP controls one half of one branch of government and yet they are behaving as if they have a mandate to totally rewrite the last 80 years of American political history.
The moderate in me knows that the way our government is structured means that progressives, Democrats, and people on the left generally, have to work with people on the right to craft policies. I don’t expect to enact laws that look like what I would create unilaterally. But there are no partners for crafting anything at all anymore.
I suppose there is a small infinitesimal benefit to Kathleen Parker’s bleating, but it would be better if she would be a lot more specific about why we’re having a complete breakdown in Congress.
Look to the party that is attacking women’s contraception in the name of religious liberty. Leave the Democrats out of it.
There are plenty of Democrats and even a handful of Republicans in Congress who are capable of using “an open mind, a willing ear, an unjaundiced eye” when discussing public policy.
That’s silly. You can’t name me one Republican.
Sure I can. Most of them are retiring or facing a stiff primary challenge. But it doesn’t matter because they aren’t given much freedom to operate.
Lugar, for one.
there are a number of laws affecting small brewers that are bipartisan in nature (sorry to be an elitist).
And on the state level there are plenty of reasonable republicans: here in Philly there are people like John Featherman and Al Schmidt, for one example. Chuck McIllhenny is another.
the real problem is in the US House of Reps.
And in the Senate, where Republicans of moderate inclination (e.g., Lugar, Snowe, Collins, even Hatch) will, when push comes to shove, vote for extremist Republican policies and against moderate policies crafted by Democrats.
The people of Wisconsin likely disagree that the problem is limited to the U.S. House.
Bullcrap!! What has Lugar ever voted for besides Nuclear Arms Reduction treaties? I mean bills, not cabinet and judge confirmations.
DREAM Act, Bush’s immigration law, and an overall better foreign policy than a lot of Democrats. And I just checked, and he’s got a D+ with the NRA. Granted, that probably means he voted against them just once, but still.
No, we’re trying to craft an energy policy with a party that does disbelieve in climate change.
Not really. Not the leaders of the party. Only a small handful of elected officials are actually that stupid. They are mostly pretending.
I guess if you want to narrow it down to the party leaders, I’d still say there are more than a handful but will grant you that point. But even the ones who are pretending are doing so because the grand majority of the party’s base actively and vehemently disbelieve in it, so it ain’t changing anytime soon.
there is no moderation with sociopaths.
and a time for peace. And I’m getting pretty close to being okay with war right now. Conflict is sometimes a necessary strategy for destroying the power of an opponent who just won’t deal honestly.
“Moderation” is neither a virtue nor a definable term, at least not in politics/ideas. Moderation applies to quantity, not quality: you can eat moderate amounts of potatoes or spend a moderate amount for rent. Politically, the term has no meaning that I’ve ever detected. I wish someone would explain for once what it means, other than a virtuous-sounding platitude that makes an acceptable substitute for thought.
In politics, philosophy, and other opinions, honest people believe what they think is true. How does “moderation” enter into that? Allowing other people the freedom to believe and act on their beliefs has nothing to do with “moderation”. People like Parker and all the other moderation bleaters apparently confuse it with compromise, which is not the same thing at all. Compromise is just pragmatism — knowing that sometimes it’s better to get some of what we want than nothing, or than causing intolerable collateral damage.
We don’t need some fantasy called moderation in our public discussion, we need curiosity — an overriding interest in comparing our own notions with those of others, and being prepared to modify them as a result. What science does at its best, in other words. Scientists listen to criticism and evaluate their theories in light of it. Not because they are “moderates” — quite the contrary — they want to find out what’s true, not to justify their wrong perceptions. (I guess that’s the big difference between science and law.)
I wish everybody would just stop prattling about moderation, at least until they know what it means.
Kathleen seems to be confusing moderation with actual governing. Governing is doing the people’s business, whether it is enacting laws to meet the people’s needs, collecting taxes sufficient to pay the bills, paying the bills, or confirming appointment.
When you don’t compromise, liittle of that gets done an what does get done looks little like anyone really wants it to. Accepting the vote but refusing to actually serve is a self absorbed betrayal and perversion of public service .