OT
Good Read
Moderates—Who Needs Them?
by Tibor R. Machan
In ancient times the philosopher Aristotle championed a policy of moderation, meaning steering a path between two extremes — such as being a coward or being rash, which for him came to the virtue of courage. This doctrine of the mean, as it came to be known, came to be embraced as the kind of behavior we would expect from good people, from ones with wisdom and prudence.
In our time, however, the policy of moderation has gotten confused with a policy of pragmatism. That is to say, when someone is identified as a moderate, say, in Congress, what is being conveyed is that this person does not adhere to any firm political and public policy principles but vacillates between ones that happen to be in vogue in our day. Some folks believe, on principle, that taxes ought to be reduced to the minimum because the funds belong to individual citizens. Others hold, again on principle, that taxes should be increased because wealth belongs to us all and except for some personal expenses the rest of it needs to be available for public expenses.
Now comes the moderate — "Hey, let us have taxes up to the point that people will remain silent enough so we have no tax revolt, but let us not worry much about taking anything from anyone." It is all a matter of expediency.
In many areas moderation has come to mean lacking a principled position but simply trying to keep power by way of shrewd public relations. So a "moderate" Democrat is someone who rejects the principled position of committed democrats, which amounts, essentially, to following whatever policy that meets with the widest consensus throughout the country. Some restraint is justified but apart from that it is quite fine to be a majoritarian, whatever the moral quality of the majority’s position may be. A "moderate" Republican, in turn, rejects various positions of traditional Republicans, such as being pro-life, pro-business, pro-military, while not going against all measures that support these ideals.
In short, unprincipled, wishy-washy thinking is being treated as virtuous, elevated, wise, whereas thinking that adheres to ideals with diligence and vigilance is treated as dogmatic, rigid, even unthinking.
Now what would one think of applying this sort of classification to personal and social morality? Suppose someone vacillated between telling the truth and lying? Or engaging in consensual versus forced sexual relations? Or dealing with people only peacefully versus occasionally deploying physical force? Would one consider such people moderates? Would they be the level headed, sensible people amongst us? Or would they be spineless, weak-willed people who lack character and will power to do the right thing when it’s difficult?
For my money I’d rather know where a person stands on various kinds of issues so I can count on what he or she will do rather than have someone to deal with who lacks a center. In politics this means not embracing compromisers, not championing those who want to subject public policy to the arbitrary, popularity driven will of politicians and bureaucrats, but looking for people who have principles one can count upon. Then we can discuss whether those are good or bad principles, but at least we will know where folks stand.
As it is, with this adoration that appears to be bestowed upon moderates, what is being promoted, practically speaking, is not the rule of law — which requires principled commitment to live by various legal ideals — but the rule of the arbitrary will of those who happen to have power.
Throughout the world, where countries are in turmoil, the most general result is the absence of a workable legal infrastructure. There are no reliable, dependable policies and laws that can ensure that people act with an eye to long range consequences. This is why so many of those countries are in economic disarray and lack civil order — there is no stable law in effect.
One reason so many people still trust the economy of the United States of America is that its legal system has the reputation of being dependable, steady.
With the current promotion of the ideal of this warped notion of moderation, that reputation is in peril. Once it becomes evident that even in the USA politicians and bureaucrats—not stable legal rules—govern, the confidence in the country will begin to diminish. That is just one very important casualty of abandoning the ideal of principled politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com. |
