Reclaiming the American Narrative

Oxford English Dictionary describes a moderate as someone who is not extreme, radical or partisan, but this is misleading. What seemed extreme just 30 years ago could be accepted as moderate today. Too many political pundits hide their convictions, or lack of convictions, behind moderation and centrism. The center no longer holds -- however, being non-partisan is an admirable stance if a person has developed a combination of reasonable positions, refusing to accept certain aspects of Republican or Democrat platforms simply out of party loyalty -- this is a principled stance. But to pose as a moderate based on a rejection of extremes is not necessarily an admirable stance. We've been taught that extremes are bad, but this a simplistic message which needs reevaluation, because it all depends on the issue at hand. Extreme kindness can't be bad -- extreme prosperity would be good about now. Extreme and radical rejection of tyranny can't be bad from a Constitution-lover's perspective.

 

In order for moderates to be taken seriously, cards must be on table, choices made, so that judgement is possible. A person simply stating that he/she is a moderate tells us nothing. Moderates have recently criticized both left and right without establishing a judgeable position themselves.  I've been frustrated with the lack of clarity from a few well-known, self-described moderates whose position regarding the conservative base comes across as bitter and condescending. I can understand disagreeing with tactics, but the contant refrain regarding lack of intellectual rigor is empty in light of the intellectual weakness coming from the moderate camp. Where's the brilliant synergy from the moderates? To say that the conservative base is simply trashing the state, when in fact, the moderates claim, state intervention can be beneficial, is no more helpful than trashing the state. It would be helpful if these moderates would give us an idea of what combinations of left and right are beneficial and necessary. Lindsey Graham is calling for compromise regarding cap and trade, hoping to get Democrat support for nuclear energy, but he wants the government to subsidize the nuclear effort. Why? Just remove the regulations and let the market decide. We don't need a tax program like cap and trade. Plus, Mr. Graham, what do you think of the science which shows man is insignificant when it comes to climate change? Why do we want to turn more power over to the government in the area of energy? 

  

 I don't know if the moderates agree with most of the progressive agenda and want to get their 2 cents in, or if they oppose the progressive agenda. I'm really not sure how hard any Republican is fighting to oppose the progressive agenda. Yesterday, I heard Sean Hannity, a partisan despite his objections, complaining about those who say there is no difference between the parties -- Hannity poorly made his case for a difference by showing how some conservatives in congress are resisting the progressives -- how they resisted the stimulus, which happened -- how they resisted the bailouts, which happened -- how they are resisting healthcare reform, which will happen. Healthcare will happen with Republican support, just as cap and trade is likely to happen with Republican support. So what if some conservatives are resisting all these acts of statism -- they are happening, and it appears each statist advance will have just enough Republican support when it's needed.

 

What we're witnessing is a government advance of statism based on progressive ideology, and it has little to do with the fact we have two parties. This is battle between the government and the private realm -- the free market is being dismantled. Unless the Republicans unite and fight this battle for the private realm with courage and principles, then I say the Republicans are complicit -- CYA tactics of some Republicans aside.

A certain faction of Republicans have been corrupted by power. They bemoan the lack of intellectual rigor among conservatives yet offer no examples of intellectual leadership, just tired proposals of shared power, compromise to slow the growth of progressivism, civil discourse to win progressive cooperation in two party governance and an obsessive disdain for the conservative base. This is the same old same old, not intellectual leadership or plans for change.

 

We don't need shared power so much as we need limitations placed on power. The center has moved left, so anything slightly right of center is still left. But, let's worry less about right and left and worry more about limited government and individual rights -- these should be the two things on which both sides in American can agree! The current extremism of progressive intervention is steadily advancing, so that resistance and rolling back power are the only options for an opposition movement. It's not just saying no to progressive policies -- it's proclaiming a resounding yes to free market and limited government principles.

The moderate Republican power players are caught up in Washingto D. C "arrangements" to get legislation done, still believing that productive legislative activity is doing the people's business, that getting your name on a bill proves relevance. The State has become so powerful that it needs axe taken to it, and this is where the moderates fail. The paradigm has changed and the moderates are still stuck in a political class mindset disconnected from public discontent with an over-reaching government and corrupt politics. Bailouts, stimulus, cap and trade, healthcare, pay limits, two wars, ownership of private companies, radical czars, propaganda, attempts to silence a news organization -- it's all too much, and the Republicans appear impotent to stop it. You don't compromise with this type of autocratic onslaught -- you oppose it -- you stop it -- you roll it back and make sure it never happens again.

 

The private realm has to take control of the narrative and give an intellectual accounting of the opposition's view. The true intellectual weakness is within the moderate faction -- they lack the intellectual vision and courage to risk opposition, because political ostracism is too much of a gamble -- they've become weak, resting in political comfort, the D.C. status quo, in or out of power - the sharing has lulled them into a false sense of connectedness to power, and now the progressives, who've never wavered or given in, are moving beyond the two party system in an attempt to establish a permanent majority. The progressives have a national political machine and the necessary corporate and public welfare systems which manufacture votes -- they no longer need the moderates. But the moderates could use the private sector if they truly want to stop extremism. 

 

Specter has already gone to the Democrats, and it won't be long before Snowe folds. The mistaken idea that the progressive narrative is the accepted story of America has weakened the opposition, caused them to hide their ideas under a cover of pragmatism-without-principles for political survival. Too much time spent in Washington D.C. has softened the moderates and dulled their intellects -- the story of America has been revised by progressives, told in universities, in media, in Hollywood, in political organizations and in inner-city neighborhoods across the country. But the story is the same Big Lie told by other states with the taste for domination throughout history.

 

The American story was created and experienced as a story of freedom, innovation, diversity, ingenuity, economic growth, opportunity, charity, prosperity, failures and successes. This story doesn't end in domination -- no, actually, it's just beginning. 

Comments

[d.eris]

"let's worry less about right and left and worry more about limited government and individual rights -- these should be the two things on which both sides in American can agree!"

Democrats and Republicans, so far as I can tell, do not care one bit about limiting the power of government or protecting, let alone expanding, individual rights and liberty. They see the limitation of government as the limitation of their power. They see the empowerment of the individual as a threat to that power. They are, in many respects, enemies of liberty, agents and facilitators of the surveillance society and the creeping police state.

With respect to moderates, i.e. their weakness as you mention in the second to last paragraph, I think you correctly identify the problem early on, when you write that the moderate position is "based on a rejection of extremes." Thus this is a purely reactionary moderation. it's positions are not determined as moderate from themselves, defining themselves by what they stand for, but rather in reaction and rejection of some so-called extreme.

Good post.

[Mike Farmer]

Thanks.