Look To The Moderates To Save America!

Everything in moderation is a familiar adage. I am sure all of us have heard and used that phrase as well as other similar sentiments, like “don’t work too hard” or “don’t stay out too late” and “don’t eat too much.” The implication is moderation is a good and healthy approach to our lives. Those who do not adopt a moderate approach can be labelled, rightly or wrongly, as extreme. Merriam-Webster defines Moderation as “the condition of being reasonable, not extreme.” When someone is referred to as workaholic or an exercise fanatic; it is at the very least, a description with a hint of disapproval. There is something about regularly taking things too far that we all know is contradictory to our well-being and possibly to our self-preservation. It is quite possible that nearly every behavior or lifestyle pursuit that ignores the concept of moderation will result in a net negative on a person’s life and in the most severe form may result in some type of addiction. Hence, what appears to make sense in every aspect of our life is ignored in politics; to be a Moderate is to be shunned. Are we becoming addicts to the political extremes?

Washington politics has become Salem, Massachusetts of the 1690’s. If you want to destroy or silence an adversary; simply point and yell “ESTABLISHMENT” and as in Salem, once accused you are as good as guilty with no defense against the charges.

In the current landscape such labels as Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Populist and Establishment are spoken more so than even referring to the traditional Party titles of Republican and Democrat. It is an interesting metamorphosis in 2016. Liberal has been moved to more of an adjective for beliefs than as an overall political grouping of individuals. Today you will hear people say, “I am a Progressive” in describing their political ideology. From a branding perspective it is an excellent transition as Progressive tends to give the impression of a more forward and enlightened thought process than the term Liberal. Conservative can have negative and positive connotations, but within the Republican Party and even among Independents, being Conservative speaks of a solid set of principles that guides one’s decision-making. It alludes to a level of dependability. Those who welcome the designation of Populist claim that they truly represent the feelings and will of the people. I would put forth that Populism can also be a very clever way of manipulating the exhaustion of the people, playing up fears or offering a host of services through oversimplified solutions to very complex problems.

Seeking Bi-Partisan legislation on major issues is a “swim at your own risk” zone.

I did not list the term Moderate in the previous paragraph because that term is heard less and less and has been replaced with Establishment and The Establishment encompasses more than just those that we would historically label Moderate. It has quickly been discovered that affixing the label Establishment to a rival is far more effective at diminishing an opponent. I dismiss the term Establishment as it has become so broad in its approach. It is bestowed on anyone who offers disagreement with Populist sentiments or wants to find compromise. Washington politics has become Salem, Massachusetts of the 1690's. If you want to destroy or silence an adversary; simply point and yell “ESTABLISHMENT” and as in Salem, once accused you are as good as guilty with no defense against the charges. The only way to purge your political sins is through joining in and pointing out other people as Establishment. Those who you would see as Political Moderates were easily swept in this frenzy.

If our country enters a pattern of electing the candidates that are only committed to their most core or extreme beliefs our nation will be like a person who goes from one bad relationship to another and then complaining as to why things never work out.

Moderate politicians, unfortunately, are victims to their own commitment of considering the various sides of an issue and understanding that compromise is to be part of the process. Seeking Bi-Partisan legislation on major issues is a “swim at your own risk” zone. Political Moderates are seen as having a lack of principles, selling-out, capitulating and maintaining some irresponsible status quo. As a way of illustrating society’s emotional response towards a Moderate politician it can be said that Moderates are the minivan of politics. Minivans are not exciting. No one turns their head when you drive up in one. Purchasing one is usually out of necessity and responsibility; not out of desire. Despite our demonstrative outward disdain of minivans, they are a very efficient way to serve a variety of populations: Families, Special Needs Individuals, Animal Lovers, Painters, Workmen, etc. The same can be said for Moderates as they want to successfully serve and represent various populations and constituencies, considering all points of view. I reject the notion that Moderates are not grounded in a sense of beliefs or values. It is the confidence in their principles that allows them to not be threatened by listening and even implementing another’s idea. Moderates understand that effective governing must be holistic, open to other’s viewpoints and most importantly, that even a really good idea that is implemented at the wrong time will result in bad policy.

It is interesting that any Republican running for office always compares themselves to Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan showed he could be Moderate and worked very well with Tip O’Neill. On the opposite side Bill Clinton also saw that he had to take into account the entire country and worked with Newt Gingrich to achieve legislation and keep the country moving forward. Why did being Moderate fall out favor over the past 10 years? Following the 2008 election the country, for various reasons, began a process of polarization and this polarization is approaching a dangerous level. The electorate is continuing to seek out politicians that represent extreme views of either Party. If our country enters a pattern of electing the candidates that are only committed to their most core or extreme beliefs our nation will be like a person who goes from one bad relationship to another and then complaining as to why things never work out.

In this election cycle, more so than recent ones, there is a lot of chatter about a third party candidate. Let me calm Libertarians down before they read any further because whenever the concept of a third party is floated the Libertarians get very excited, but like the other Parties, you are still open to extremes within the Libertarian Party. The group No Labels seems promising and one of their founders, Daniel Arbess, indicated during an interview on Bloomberg that in the next election cycle there is a good possibility of a candidate or even a new party that embraces a coalescing of beliefs, however, what do we before then and that is still a fairly large IF that such a candidate or party emerges. Also, the seed of hostility has been implanted and will that attitude have taken such a strong hold in the voting public that it will greatly hinder the outlook necessary for effective governing today and in the next election cycle? What will need to occur to realize that polarizing politics limits achievements not enhances them?

There are hints of what our society can devolve into if we do not make it a point to demand more from those seeking office. We need to disregard politicians who make absurd promises and market in unrealistic solutions for today’s challenges. Everything cannot be free nor can we ban entire religious sects or bring back 20th Century jobs for a 21st Century economy. Have we not learned that making promises that can’t happen or fail to include the list of qualifying circumstances in order to happen only alienates the citizenry? To be fair, as the public we must take some of the blame. Why are we so gullible and why do we allow such a great suspension of belief in the election process? Political Rallies have taken on the appearance of the Roman Colosseum where blood is demanded, literally. This is not just angry rhetoric, it is hostility and hostility can easily turn into violence. Continuing to embrace anger and in some cases manufactured anger, will lead to significant problems in our society. Consider how this primary season has called into question and impacted the lives of individuals in our Press; like Megyn Kelly, Amanda Carpenter and Michelle Fields. Regardless of what you personally think of any of them, do they deserve the amazing amount of hatred that has been directed at them? If it has been allowed and encouraged to happen to them, who will be targeted next and how much further will the hostility carry? Additionally, will the new norm of our society become this perpetual state of anger for the losing side? Each election will the non-victorious side clutch to anger, advanced by pundits and politicians in that they seek to control the national discourse in the very least an uninformed way and at its worst, a Machiavellian style? A country that continues to allow its leaders to use the most antagonistic tone and divisive approach will continue to see their society devolve.

Abraham Lincoln is one of the few leaders that is continually praised by both the Left and the Right. Every candidate wants to illustrate their Lincoln traits of bringing people together and in Lincoln’s case bringing an entire country together. In one of Lincoln’s speeches he famously reiterates the New Testament Scripture that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It is wonderful that today’s leaders and the electorate are still inspired by the vision and leadership of those like Reagan and Lincoln. It is interesting, however, because they did not govern from the extremes. They knew that all of our society has to be included in the process and that hyper-partisanship and vitriol is a tremendous detriment to the greatness of our country. It is noble that those seeking the highest office in the land refer to these strong leaders of the past, but they need to do more than just refer to them, they need to look to them for guidance; we all need to look to them for their example of leadership. Words alone will not unite our country, so I ask any of you reading this to take action. Where you see division seek to find that common ground, respectful debate and actionable solutions. Do not elevate those that wish to divide us, but reproach such attempts because it insults the character of our nation. I do not care to which Political Party you belong, but all of us need to make our Parties better. Even if we do not have any Party affiliation all of us have a voice and all of us have some form of an audience that we can encourage, influence and inspire. Our Ideology should be a guide to identifying solutions not a barrier. We have to stop encouraging small slogan, inflexible politics and seek candidates that are committed to and campaign on solution-based governing. Refer back to the Merriam-Webster definition of Moderation, “the condition of being reasonable…” Let’s face it, we have to come to the realization our country needs a minivan, at the very least an SUV with a third row seat.