I have a thing against moderates, in part because I don't understand how one could be anything other than a flaming liberal, but in larger part because I don't know what a moderate actually is.
Perhaps most predominantly, self-described moderates see themselves as free thinkers, unbound by a political party and its dogmatic platform. Is a moderate anyone who devises opinions on individual issues independent of a party? That makes me a moderate, which is like saying Liberace was on the fence about his sexuality. No one with a brain agrees entirely with one party's platform.
Are moderates people with both "left" and "right" views? I'm one of those, too, then, to a minor extent. (Don't get me started on immigration policy.)
Does a moderate look at what Democrats say, look at what Republicans say, and choose to agree with one party half the time and the other party the other half? Or does he hold an opinion on each issue that's a square compromise of both parties' platforms? Is that even possible?
Along those lines, can we use "moderate" and "centrist" interchangibly? Of course I would argue that the political spectrum is in fact a political Cartesian plane or even a three-dimensional (or eight-dimensional) political sphere, so there is no such thing as a center position, thus no such thing as a centrist. So I'll ask this, too: What the hell is a centrist?
Maybe "moderate" has been confused with "willing to work toward bipartisanship." Somehow the ability to compromise has been construed into its own set of political beliefs.
Or maybe moderates just, more often than not, adhere to inoffensive beliefs. That's why everyone wants to pretend to be one.
Though I don't have any substantial evidence to support my hunch, I sometimes feel that moderates go out of their way to be moderate; they enjoy moderation for moderation's sake. They might agree with a more radically-leaning view at first, but, just to be a good sport, they give that cozy middle a test drive instead.
The biggest problem with moderatism, though, is that, rather than breaking down the partisanism and devisiveness of the extremes, it simply accepts that there are two sides to every story, and that both sides probably have some merit. What this attitude fails to address is that seeing the world as a dichotomous polarity is both inaccurate and ineffecient. Instead of refusing to recognize the value of radicalism, it validates it by sitting smugly in the middle and pretending to satisfy both sides. It seems a little counter-productive.
Ultimately the word "moderate" is substantively meaningless and usually an attractive cover for being apolitical, nonconfrontational, or a panderer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As far as I can tell, those calling themselves moderates are ones looking for a label that does well in focus groups.
I think you're definitely right about many "moderates" claiming the title because they "enjoy moderation for moderation's sake"; I think it makes them feel fair-minded. Sort of a variant on the "Aren't I great for having a black/gay/poor/HIV-positive friend?" theme.
I also think people are often labeled as moderate in virtue of their lack of conviction, or at least the appearance of it. You're too ill-informed to know where to stand on an issue? You're a moderate! You don't care enough about your position to be energized or motivated by it? You're a moderate!
If politically passionate people make you uncomfortable, you might be a moderate.
I once heard sommeone try to define moderate as in "moderate tone". Meaning, I suppose, someone who comes to his positions via thought instead of just following partisan dogma. Or maybe he meant someone who keeps a moderate tone when discussing politics. Either way, trying to define the word that way puts you in a losing battles against the English lanauge.
I find it clearer to define moderate as "someone who advocates incremental change". In a way I suppose that's just "procedural conservatism".
Look, you can define a term however you want. Define moderate to mean "person who likes ice-cream" if you want. But given a specific criteria - say, definitions which will help me communicate my ideas better – it can be a bad definition.
My criteria are usually a balancing act between "what people understand when I say it" and "what helps us think more clearly". So for example, regardless of how I define communism, I’ll be misunderstood if I define it in a way that excludes Soviet Russia. That’s the “understanding” criteria. On the other hand, if I define communism as “an oppressive system run by leftists” that won’t help me think about the subject clearly.
Now, that being said, there’s nothing universal about my criteria. You once explained a criteria for the true definition of “tragedy” that seemed to draw on how ancient Greeks used the word. In context, that’s certainly a useful definition for understanding the Greek plays.
So in conclusion, I feel that “moderate = person who comes to his/her opinions out of solemn contemplation away from the maddening crowd of partisanship” fails my criteria. It’s not a definition that fits with how most people use moderate. It’s not a definition that helps me understand politics better.
Thanks buddy.
So... What's the difference between positive and normative evaluation? I'm not asking to be coy. I really don't know how you're using those terms.
Post a Comment