More on Moderates

I've said some unpleasant things about moderates, especially moderate politicians and pundits. This doesn't mean I have anything against the concept of moderation, nor do I think all moderate human beings are squishes. Many people moderate their drinking, shopping, emotional responses, sexual conduct, their time spent working, their gambling in places like Vegas, their food consumption, etc., and this is admirable -- however, I'm not convinced the virtue is transferable, necessarily, to politics.

The problem I have with the Thomas Dewey-like moderates is that they are okay with government intervention as long as it's paid for. The term "moderate", in politics, is troublesome -- some moderate Republicans even refer to their political designation as "progressive" Republican. Is this a Teddy Roosevelt progressivism? I also wonder what is the difference between moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, and if "progressive" is thrown into the mix, the lines are blurred to the point of being senseless.

I often hear pundits say that moderate Democrats are separating themselves from liberals on a given issue -- if the moderate Democrats are not liberal then this also begs the question -- what makes them different from the moderate Republicans? Does it all boil down to how much debt is acceptable? In other words, is statism acceptable to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives with the only difference being how much statism and debt each group is willing to accept? I suppose, if this is true, that at some point a line is drawn separating the moderate Republicans from the Democrats, therfore distinguishing which party the moderates fall within. We know that the liberals and progressives fall within the Democrat Party, but the line is blurred with moderates from each party.

But even this is not clear, because Republican moderates also claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so which really defines them, if they accept that a certain amount of statism is acceptable? Don't moderate Democrats claim the same thing -- that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Is it really just a matter of degree? This doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to justify different party designations, because even within the Democrat Party there are disagreements among moderates over how much government intervention is acceptable, so Republican moderates, like Arlen Specter used to be, could fit right in, just as Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others could blend right in. It appears the Blue Dog Democrats and the Republican moderates are all in the same political group with marginal disagreements over how much statism is acceptable. The particular local issues are not that important when looking at the difference between parties -- here, I'm more concerned with political philosophy in a broader sense, as between statist and anti-statist.

As a libertarian-leaning thinker, I can understand fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, but where I separate from the moderates, and the liberals and progressives, is their willingness to use government intervention in the economy and for the greater good of society, especially after the performance of the state since the turn of the 20th century. Moderates aren't working for a limited government and private realm solutions to social problems, and they appear to see the Constitution as fluid according to the needs of the time. So, who is left to defend the classical liberal principles on which America was founded, or have we moved past our beginning into a more global political philosophy, or anti-philosophy, of socialization and internationalism?

Most libertarians still uphold the classical liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, charity, and self-determination, and the conservative movement is presently re-embracing these principles, although many in the base have always embraced these principles, they've just been too willing to use statsism to achieve socially conservative ends, and the conservative choice of Bush in 2000 showed a statist weakness in the Republican Party.

The moderates might be right when they say that if the Republican Party is to re-gain power it will require moderate support, but what good is the Republican Party in power if it advances statism? The Democrats are doing a better job of advancing statism, if that is the goal -- the Democrats just need to get spending under control, and the moderates in the Democrat Party are working on that -- the Republican moderates can join them and give them more fiscally conservative firepower. The question is who is going to fight against statism? Are the libertarians and conservatives enough? Will the libertarians and conservatives split over social issues? Is the independent movement a new, anti-statist, political formation?  

Next, as a follow-up, I'll write about the concerns I have surrounding the liberal/progressive definitions. The current babble regarding political designations is simply too confusing.

Something that's sadly funny and ironic

It might take a political leader to lead the country back to freedom, and to teach the country how to utilize the private sector so as to avoid tyranny in the future.

Historically, great men and women have risen when there's a great need. Sadly, it will most likely take someone with political influence to, ironically, lead the nation away from government dependence. The public doesn't seem to hear the voices in the private sector calling for a libertarian turn -- they think it's merely capitalists trying to trick them into allowing businesses to run the country. You know how tricky those capitalists can be.

The reason this is funny, as well as sad and ironic, is that Americans should know that freedom is our best route to the future, but it will take someone in politics to teach this to a public that has forgotten or was never taught properly -- there's something humourous about a politician saving the nation from politics. Whoever this leader is, he/she will have to be persuasive, reasonable and patient. Actually there's a great opportunity for the right person, for someone who has the confidence to stand up to statism and unwaveringly hold firm to libertarian principles. Once the public understands that the private sector has the power to provide everything government is attempting to provide, and the capability to provide it more efficiently and productively without coercion, it will catch on.

Most people will believe this is impossible but I envision a technologically advanced society understanding and embracing the concepts, especially once government begins to show signs of collapse, which may be in the very near future. Disgust with both parties will increase the liklihood of a third party rise which captures the independents, which now almost outnumber Democrat voters, and do outnumber Republican voters, although this leader could arise in either party. If the trend continues of both parties losing support, in a few years independents will be the largest voting bloc. There is also a possibility that the millions and millions who never vote will become politically active and join the independents in a new direction toward freedom -- this could change everything.

I predict this leader will show up on the national scene within the next ten years and that independents  will flock to the call. By this time media will have changed drastically and the influence of the MSM will be weakened significantly. Government is overreaching and it will take time for public awareness to sink in and create a backlash -- and when the backlash happens, it's not a given that Republicans will be the beneficiaries. It's time to get out of the vicious loop we've been in going in circles with Democrats and Republicans spiralling downwards. Remember you read it here.