A Moderating Force?
I just wanted to point our two posts about the CT primary that were posted yesterday. Rich Harwood, as always, does an excellent job of tying last week's primary to the larger political arc of the last decade and a half. I know Rich appreciates comments as much as I do, so if you want to respond, please feel free.
Peter Levine also has a great post on Moderation, and whether that's what we strive for in American Democracy. The concept of the "centrist" is something that really hits at the heart of American Democracy, as most citizens tend to think of themselves as middle of the road (of course, who really sees themselves as extremists?). One of the main problems I see with how we define "moderates" is that it usually involves some sort of linear arithmetic rather than a complete picture of the political leader.
For instance, if someone is a supporter of the Iraq War, for Universal Healthcare, in favor of social security privatization (or whatever that's being called this week), and pro-choice it's likely that person would be termed a moderate, even if they strongly held each of those views. We see two "conservative" positions, add to that two "liberal" positions, and decide that that person must be a "moderate." It's a politics on a sliding scale that ignores the values that underlie a person's position and paint a much clearer picture of the candidates as an individual. Of course, it's much easier to see (and write about) candidates that are caricatures of the "typical" members of their party rather than to tease out the nuances of their various positions and value system.
Peter Levine also has a great post on Moderation, and whether that's what we strive for in American Democracy. The concept of the "centrist" is something that really hits at the heart of American Democracy, as most citizens tend to think of themselves as middle of the road (of course, who really sees themselves as extremists?). One of the main problems I see with how we define "moderates" is that it usually involves some sort of linear arithmetic rather than a complete picture of the political leader.
For instance, if someone is a supporter of the Iraq War, for Universal Healthcare, in favor of social security privatization (or whatever that's being called this week), and pro-choice it's likely that person would be termed a moderate, even if they strongly held each of those views. We see two "conservative" positions, add to that two "liberal" positions, and decide that that person must be a "moderate." It's a politics on a sliding scale that ignores the values that underlie a person's position and paint a much clearer picture of the candidates as an individual. Of course, it's much easier to see (and write about) candidates that are caricatures of the "typical" members of their party rather than to tease out the nuances of their various positions and value system.
For the media, "moderate" becomes a label for anyone who doesn't cleanly conform to our preconceived narrative of Red-Blue division. Lieberman certainly transcended our traditional notions of Red and Blue, and for that he has my respect, but despite moderating his position on some issues when running for the Vice Presidency (such as school vouchers) I would never mistake him for a moderate.
posted by Patrick at 6:33 AM
1 Comments:
There simply aren't any other names for someone who orders a la carte from both the Republican and Democrat menus. To continue this Restaurant Week-appropriate analogy, today's political system is NOT a buffet. It's a prix fixe menu. And if you don't like either one of the two meal options, you have to eat somewhere else.
Only, the problem is that there is no "somewhere else" unless you move to another country, and maybe not even then. Americans are not encouraged to think critically and form their own opinions, and I think this is a byproduct of the two-party system.
It's much easier to vote a party ticket than to make decisions, research candidates, and vote your conscience. And if there's one thing that people like to do, it's the easy thing, especially if the right thing is going to take a lot more time and energy.
Another factor that complicates this further is the rhetoric of religion that envelops our nation's political debates. Western religion tells its that there is one way, God's way, for a righteous life. But even the most revered Biblical scholars could quibble about the finer points of the Bible for the rest of their lives. So why is it that politicians feel that they need to foist their interpretations of religious matters onto the electorate?
Political discourse has moved to a place where ad hominem attacks are no longer the last resort. Nobody is agreeing to disagree anymore, and nobody seems to really want a solution.
I have always felt that I am ok with God, as I order the salad and dessert from the conservative menu and the entree and appetizer from the liberal one. I want the appetizer with the sauce from the conservative side.
But if I try to order it that way, the current political climate wants to make me feel like a waffler, a milquetoast, and a traitor to God and country. If I even harbor something that resembles a nuanced opinion, I am wrong. And if that isn't discouraging, I don't know what is.
Post a Comment
<< Home