On ‘Moderate’ Republicans

My friend Dennis Sanders of NeoMugwump is upset with Ross Douthat’s portrayal of ‘moderate Republicans’:

What are Moderate,Centrist, Progressive, Rockefeller or whatever they are called Republicans good for?

That’s the question that is on my mind this morning and it has probably been the question many in the GOP are asking. In many cases, the answer is that we are good for nothing and that we should join Arlen Specter in leaving the GOP.

By now, I am familiar with the epithets lobbed at us: we are RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only), wishy-washy and willing to leave the GOP for the cozy confines of the Democrats when things get rough.

Dennis is a self-identified ‘moderate Republican’ himself, so I can see why he is miffed. He feels like his subgroup of conservatism is being shut out of the party and Specter’s defection as just another push towards the Democratic fold.

I guess the best place to start is regarding labels, which as readers know is a favorite topic of mine. Dennis calls himself a moderate. Fair enough. But what is a ‘moderate’? I must say that in recent weeks I have left a few comments around the Internet that reflects my relative disdain for the term. This past Sunday that disdain was catapulted into outright opposition when our pastor read this paragraph from Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

If there is a more damning case against ‘moderation’ I haven’t heard it. When I think ‘moderate’ I also think of inaction, fear and apathy. I think of someone whose primary goal is to not rock the boat and let change happen at a snail’s pace. From what I know of Dennis, none of those words can be applied to him. He is a guy who is trying hard to move us forward. So in my mind, even though I know he means something else, he is no moderate.

In recent years the term ‘moderate’ has also been made synonymous with the word ‘Centrist’ which is a poor linkage in my opinion. So we ask, ‘What is a Centrist?’ Daniel Larison offers one definition that seems to fairly applicable:

As a rule, someone earns the name “centrist” in our political discourse by simply endorsing a major goal of the other party.

I think this definition is heading closer to what Dennis has in mind when he calls himself a moderate. While on some topics, like fiscal policy and national defense Dennis may hold a conservative opinion, there are other issues like gay marriage where he veers noticeably Leftward. Like myself Dennis sees his opinions as not always in-line with the ‘official’ platform of the party and so he chooses a modifier that he believes describes his different opinions.

My question for Dennis is, would you say the more ‘liberal’ positions you hold are the same as the Democrats, or some sort of liberal/conservative hybrid? A lot of self-styled Centrists like the idea of compromise. Ideally Centrism is the default compromise position between the Right and the Left. You usually wait for them to state their positions first and then you just draw a line at roughly the half-way point and push for that. The problem with Centrism is that sometimes one side really has a better idea than the other and it’s worth fighting for.

Dennis says there is nothing wrong with deal-making:

The other problem is that I thought deal making was part of American politics. I thought democracy was about dealing with competing interests. This isn’t a parlimentary democracy where the opposition doesn’t have any say in the making of law. The minority can work with the majority to change legislation that is more suited to their tastes or block the legislation.

The problem of course is that the status of Centrists as ‘deal-makers’ gives them an inordinate amount of power. As swing votes they can demand a lot in certain situations. It’s one thing to be a swing vote on a particular issue…it’s quite another thought to make a career out of it.

At the end of the day I think that this addresses a point I’ve discussed before which is that maybe the best thing would be if we moved away from labeling people and more towards labeling issues. Then there wouldn’t be the danger of being stigmatized on one’s voting record. I think Specter wanted to keep the (R) after his name, but in our current climate too many (D) votes are hard to ignore. For someone like Dennis who I believe is highly principled and inclined towards liberal positions at times, perhaps the label that is most fitting is ‘Independent’. My wife calls herself an Independent and for her the label is very fitting. She takes pretty conservative opinions on some issues and pretty liberal positions on others. Still on others she’s downright libertarian. Being an Independent doesn’t mean you have to look for the compromise position. You can cherry pick your issues and no one says a word. Of course the downside is that there are very few elected Independents in our government today.

Let me be clear – I don’t want anyone to leave the Republican fold if it can be helped. But labels do matter and we have to choose the one that fits us best.