What is a Moderate, Really?

kw: book reviews, politics

I really hate politics. I find that it brings out the worst in almost everybody. It takes a really great leader to rise above politics, and none has done so consistenly. The two who come to mind, who came the closest to doing right consistently, regardless of political influences or ideology, were Churchill from 1938 onwards, and Lincoln from 1860.

I sometimes say, "Politics is forcing people to do what most of them would do anyway." Politics is about power, and make no mistake, power corrupts, always, everybody. I think of myself as a good man (but who doesn't?), yet when I was given power I abused it. I had to give it back to prevent further abuse. I have never known anyone to use power without abusing it. The best among us abuse it only a little, but be clear, nobody has wielded power free of abuse.

These thoughts were triggered by reading Christine Todd Whitman's new book, It's My Party Too: the battle for the heart of the GOP and the future of America. I read the large print edition by Thorndike Press. Mrs. Whitman, past Governor of New Jersey and most recently past Director of the EPA, is a moderate Republican...and I can't avoid the quibble, "whatever that means."

I am a Republican. That's how I usually vote. Now, I must ask myself, what kind of Republican am I? Am I conservative, neo-con, moderate, liberal, Lincolian, Reaganesque...?

Early in the book, the author lists a few items that define the moderate Republican stance:

• Financial reponsibility and prudence
• States-rights advocate with respect to "choice" and the definition of marriage
• Environmentally responsible (what Teddy Roosevelt would have called Conservationist)
• Cooperative rather than belligerent foreign policy

Sounds good. Even better, she quotes Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2004 speech: "If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...if you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group...if you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does...then you are a Republican."

She also quotes Jefferson, "That government governs best that governs least." And, defending her pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage stance, she quotes Goldwater's qualification of Jefferson, "...and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality." Stay tuned for a separate rant on this stupid statement.

I personally prefer a very conservative foreign policy coupled with a somewhat liberal domestic policy. I believe the best defense is a strong offense, so I am in favor of the wars we have carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we must, I am in favor of war with Iran and North Korea. I am in favor of defending the sovereignty Taiwan even if it means war with China. On the other hand, I don't believe we will succeed in the state-building side of our Iraq policy. We can't nursemaid the world. So superpower is super enough to do that.

Domestically, I believe first in personal responsibility, based on the Biblical words, "Whoever is not willing to work, do not let him eat," meaning don't feed a deadbeat. But that is not all the Bible says; Jesus said, "The poor you always have with you," meaning there are some whom we must care for. Therefore, while I am in favor of caring for our poorest, I believe every social welfare program must be coupled with education and training, as a requirement for receiving benefits.

Another of my proverbs, quoting Mark Twain: "Someone who is unwilling to learn has no advantage over someone who is unable to learn." Those unwilling or unable to learn belong in an institution where they are totally controlled. Those who find this an "attitude adjusting" adventure and decide maybe learning isn't so bad, should have every opportunity to do so, to become independent citizens.

I came to the book prepared to deplore it. I came away very much impressed. Mrs. Whitman has it exactly right, that both parties have been taken over by radicals. The political process has become so polarized that disagreement has been replaced by demonization. Well, that happens about every second generation. You oughta read some of the stuff people wrote about Lincoln in 1862-4...and some of the stuff he and others wrote back! And don't even mention how the British Parliament carries on, particularly in Commons.

For some reason, we in America tend to cycle between collegial debate and mad-pitbull slathering. I think the Brits do it better. Of course they have a half a millenium head start on us, learning how to have energetic debate, ranging from the occasional flash of logic to ad hominem and other fallacious attacks, rambling around a generally warm level of discourse, all the while getting the business of government done.

Oh, well. What does our own history show us? Three recent Presidential elections were overshadowed with the public's disgust:

• Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter mainly because Richard Nixon had so besmirched the GOP.
• Carter lost to Ronald Reagen for first defining the "misery index" then showing us how to drive it sky-high.
• George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton mainly because he was perceived as a betrayer: "...read my lips..."

But the others in my memory showed that the public tends to prefer the more moderate candidate. My main political philosophy is that people prefer to be left alone, and aren't long enamored of anything that may mean they need to work harder. Note to politicos everywhere: Don't stir my passions, just show me how I can live better and raise more fortunate children. About 70% of the populace will vote for whoever they percieve is least extreme.

Wise candidates know they must run in the primary as rather liberal Democrats or rather conservative Republicans, but in the general election as more moderate. Some today consider Ronald Reagan as a moderate. That is just because he is being compared to Sean Hannity. In 1979-80 Reagan was generally perceived as a flaming conservative, but there was no way most of us were going to let Carter have another whack at us. In 1959, Jack Kennedy was viewed with much alarm, but Dick Nixon was seen as even worse. Today Kennedy is seen as a conservative! In spite of the fact that his surviving brother is the leading Socialist in Congress—fact is, Teddy K. is more socialistic than any of the avowed Socialist Party members who have run for Congress.

The upshot is, I very much sympathize with Mrs. Whitman. But I still happen to like George W Bush better than any of the "moderate" Republicans who might nurse Presidential hopes. Think about this: if Dubya were REALLY conservative (as currently defined, primarily by the Religious Right), we'd already be drilling in ANWR, Roe vs Wade would be on its way out, state legislatures would already be debating the merits of a "heterosexual-only marriage" amendment, Biology teachers everywhere would be jailed if they breathed the word "evolution," and the Department of Education would have been disbanded. Oh, yeah, and our airport security would resemble that at El Al.

Have no fear, Mrs. Whitman. By 2008 or 2012 the public will tire of the Religious Right and the GOP will shed their influence like a torn glove. And, most likely, the "hate Bush" crowd, finding itself without a target, will finish imploding and the Democrat party will similarly shed the neo-Clintonians. You, Mrs. Whitman, seem to know how to be forceful without stridency. I hope you run for President.