Going All the Way, or, Why Moderation is Killing America

A comment at this post got me thinking, as well as motivated to leave a reply there, about the discourse and drawbacks of “moderation.” If you’ve ever read any of my writing, you’ll now that the concept and I are not exactly bosom buddies, but I have respect for the various social and cultural ideologies that teach that it is a “good thing.” And yet- two bottles of wine a day, $200 a quarter to the Lieberman campaign, or two dozen widely read voices calling for the execution of half the populous for the “treason” of wanting and end to the war: none of these are “good things.”

In almost any quarter of public discourse one may examine, the veil of moderation obfuscates extremism at our peril. One may recall Obama’s call for “tolerance” by those of us on the left for the deeply religious. Or you could peruse various official announcements about economic indicators, which rarely are placed in the correct historical context or calculated by proper methodology, the better to hide the dire implications contained therein. There is the ridiculous “movement” proclaiming that our salvation for our fractious political times are found in third party unity, itself a concept that can only be absurd to anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the success of such attempts over the last 20 years.

Indeed, the closer attention paid to the calls for moderation, the clearer it becomes that it is truly only one side of the political spectrum which gains from them. It is ironic, as traditionally, it is the Left which is known for the diversity in composition inclusive of groups ranging from radical to moderate, in this country know best as the Democratic “Big Tent.” One of the hallmarks of being a liberal or progressive is tolerance, and the motivation to resist authoritarianism. In contrast, it is the reactionary political tradition that benefits from purges of moderates and lock-step obeisance, although of course there are radical exceptions to this rule. But this country does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have a storied and deep history of radical political dominance, nor is it likely to any time soon. A cool examination of our history shows that from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement, it is the reactionary movement which fires first, and resists change that would bring inclusion at any cost, protecting the rights of its core at the most extreme expense, and only forcefully brought into the modern projects of opportunity and freedom for all.

As a polemicist, I take great personal pleasure in making claims about the dire nature of our times- what good is the gift of gab if there is nothing to talk about? Although this may sound like a disqualification to talk rationally about moderate discourse, in fact, it enables me to understand better what it is that the other side is doing, and how well their methods work. I know extremist rhetoric when I see it, even the carefully camouflaged kind.

The key and critical difference in our times has to do with scale. I am a poor, black woman with an audience that couldn’t fill a high school auditorium. The scores of voices on the right enjoy publication in almost every widely read national weekly or daily, and dominate the airwaves in hundreds of hourly performances, perpetually unchallenged by anyone such as myself. One literally cannot pick up a paper, turn on the TV news or listen to talk radio without encountering some representative of the far right. Nothing of the sort can be claimed by the progressive or radical left. Our only hope lies on the Internet, where already, millions of dollars have been poured into projects designed to “balance” this environment of free discourse and exchange with blatant right wing propaganda and parroted Republican talking points.

Although I cannot fathom why it should be so, these sites enjoy a high degree of popularity, and create an alternative universe in which facts may be variously interpreted, history reconstructed to suit right wing agendas, and monochromatic narratives of legions of people parroting today’s Republican talking point become “lively exchange.”

I will assume that you, gentle reader, are at least somewhat familiar with the absurdities masquerading as “fact” common in modern Republican political discourse. Some entertaining examples include the notion that the Founding Fathers were Southern Baptists, or that global climate change is an unscientific fantasy, or that a first trimester fetus is as thinking and sensate as an adult human being. Currently, the most deadly and repugnant assertion has to do with the notion that in order to bring “security” and maintain democratic freedoms, it is the sacred duty of the neo-conservative powers of this world to slaughter as many people as possible in the Middle East, while throwing billions (and soon trillions) down the maw of criminally unproductive corporations and the various organs of the military industrial complex.

It shocks and depresses me to consider just how infrequently even our “liberal” leadership speaks of patient and unflagging diplomacy, understanding and peacefully undoing the wellsprings of discontent that breed terrorism, or economic inclusion of the people unfortunate enough to live on top of “our” resources. One of the reasons for this sad state is that we have allowed the political spectrum to shift to a radically reactionary position. This has occurred because at almost every step, those who object to such a shift have been (insert ironic icon here) shouted down with calls for “moderation.”

I’ll use an anecdote to get to a greater point. I have a couple of friends who are truly, by an historically understood definition, moderate in their political views. They are in favor of reproductive, civil and homosexual rights, generally believe in a business-friendly form of conservation, and prefer a kind of isolationism in foreign policy with exceptions in places like Rwanda or in World War II. They are staunch capitalists, but they have respect for the socialist nations of Europe, as they travel there often. They have true and honest contempt for today’s Republican party, and share my view that Bush as done more to besmirch the good name of conservative values than any other American leader. Perhaps most importantly, neither of them hold any kind of religious views, despite coming from families in which religion, and fundamentalist religion, are very important to many members.

I have had exactly no success in convincing either one of them that there is a critical imbalance in political representation and discourse today. They consume their news and political information from a wide range of sources in the mainstream media, and consider themselves well informed, and I generally concur. But the arguments I receive from them, when I point out example after example of this country’s slide into reactionary extremism, are maddening. “Political trends always go back and forth in this country, this is a logical reaction to Clinton.” “There is always a Democrat on Sunday talk show panels, so there’s fair balance.” “There are plenty of liberal outlets out there, like the New Republic, and NPR.” “People on the left are just as extreme.”

I have come to near-argument with them upon occasion, not because I lose my temper (believe it or not I’m a very reasoned public speaker), but because there is a deep-seated resentment that no amount of carefully presented fact can dislodge. They become angry not with my views or that I argue them, but because they do not want to believe that the moderate center doesn’t hold steady the two opposing ends of the political spectrum. Like fundamentalists, they are wholly intolerant of claims that the God of Moderation does not exist.

On discussion boards across Internet political communities, I have noticed that this same peculiar religion has many adherents. I consider myself widely read when it comes to liberal political sites, and it’s been a very interesting year, in a lot of ways. Relevant to this essay, it’s my belief that this year is a watershed, one in which those active in progressive politics are finally starting to turn their faces from the belief system that says moderation is a virtue. The obvious space to explore this is the Lieberman campaign.

In one of our history’s oddest turns, a former genuinely moderate liberal politician has become a reactionary warmongering extremist, hounded there by a fascinating combination of his own inflated ego, and the trenchant and vigorous unwillingness of his constituents to accept that their opinions about the direction the war has taken the country are “extreme.”

Although it’s not completely certain that the voters will turn out the “independent democrat” in the fall, it seems likely that he will at least face an incredible challenge of reinventing himself (again) in the hopes of pleasing a majority. As the primary shows, that majority, assuming he can get one, cannot be formed in any part by what the pundits are calling “the anti-war left.”

As many have argued, this is a ridiculous label for several reasons. The very term is a loaded one, meant to reduce the complexities of the many issues that confront a nation at war into a single narrative of being “for or against evil.” There is no small irony that those most vocally supporting the seemingly never-ending slaughter of a people in order to “save” them believe themselves to be on the side of good. But for once, this small mindedness works in favor of the progressive movement.

The absurdity of the war has become writ large in a hundred domestic realities. If only for the crassest of personal concerns, very few can now doubt that the hundreds of billions spent on the war are billions wasted, and in the face of increasing social and economic need. As others have pointed out: national health care? college education for all? significant reduction of the national debt? All have been spilled out on the sands of Iraq, and we only have trebled gas prices and a civil war likely to result in a Shia superstate to show for it.

Thus, we find ourselves in a fascinating moment of political and social history. People will be given only two choices this fall: they may choose to support the party that offers an end to a Pyrrhic conflict that has brought about the transformation of a formerly prosperous land of liberty and opportunity into a quasi-totalitarian security state; or they may choose to continue down a path which can only culminate in permanent reactionary extremism. Listening to the increasingly shrill justifications for support of the war, it will be painfully obvious to those who want to believe that the pro-war party is comprised of reasoned individuals who only differ in degree in their beliefs in “conservatism,” that this is no longer the case. Conversely, it will be equally uncomfortable for those on the left to embrace notions of “bipartisanship,” witnessing as they are what happens when appeasing “Democrats” are forced to choose between their party and their war. The moderate middle truly no longer exists.

Returning to Internet discussion communities, I have assuredly seen this transformation. Longtime members of popular communities seem to me to have gelled, and taken on a singularity of voice not seen in the six years I’ve been reading and participating in discussion. These people seem more and more ready to speak in clearly defined terms, energized and unwilling to “take it lying down,” less interested accepting the labels of “crazy” and “traitor,” and more motivated to respond in kind.

As this group is the vanguard of the movement that threatens to retake control of the political process from the Republicans, I consider it a good early indicator of what will happen in the fall (even as it’s worth recalling that Americans are notorious for being influenced in election choices by last-minute campaign ads more than anything else). Anyone who followed the Internet element of the Lamont campaign could see how they were the enablers of the newly progressive-ized discourse, one that a majority of voters proved to hold in the primary itself. The short version: voters spoke very clearly, saying “I’m sick of this and I’m not going to be told to just take it any more.”

I should express my dismay in the political conditions of these times, for I don’t want this to be an essay against moderation in general. Indeed, as an historian I am well aware that the greatest good for the greatest number is to be found when societies enjoy balance and moderation of ideologies; opportunity likes stability, and liberty likes peaceful prosperity. But I have long held, for over six years now, the belief that we are experiencing a kind of cold civil war, one that my side has been losing. Moderate language would call this the “culture wars” and “neoliberalism,” but as our current reality demonstrates, these pleasant terms fail to describe the true costs, which are steeped in blood and suffering, and which reach into the future well nigh to our grandchildren’s time.

Let me conclude by pointing out an unfortunate fact that at the same time offers promise to us at this time. There is a tasteless way of describing people who don’t follow the political process closely, as “sheeple.” As much as I wish it weren’t appropriate, it is the case that many in the electorate will go along with what they perceive as the ascendant or dominant movement, uncritically. As I have argued elsewhere, it is only a small number of people who actually “make a difference” in the political process, although that number is increasing thanks to the nature of open source politics.

Even so, by crafting a “Fighting Democrat” narrative, those involved in demanding an end to the war and the failed policies of this administration are going to do what has needed to be done for some time. They are going to expose the falsity of the narrative of the power and uses of the “moderate middle,” and create a visible alternative to the extremism of the other side. The “sheeple,” conditioned to go along with whatever is “new” and “fresh” and “strong” are going to respond, and analysts all over the place are predicting strong gains by the Democratic party in almost every quarter. If I have any complaint, it’s only that it took so long for so many to see what those of us opposing the war predicted at the start.

If I were better at poetry, I’d quote some poignant, embittered British foil of empire here. Instead I’ll enjoin you, the next time someone tells you to be more “inclusive” and sensitive to the concerns of the politically moderate, you remind them that now is not the time. The forces in power currently have demanded a discourse that is polarizing and reductive, and if this is the only way they will have us, then so be it. The alternative to engaging in this messy discoursive world is something you don’t, I promise you, want a radical like me to describe.