The title of one of Jim Hightower's books is There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos. The attitude is generally shared even by those on the opposite extreme from Hightower: to be "moderate" means that you don’t believe in, or stand for, anything very strongly.
There is another definition of "moderate." A moderate is interested in solving a problem, not in winning a debate. A moderate places the common good above what is good for any one political party or any other faction. A moderate cares about people and doesn't give much of a fig for ideology. A moderate can see faults in allies and virtues in opponents. Like anyone else, a moderate thinks he's right, or he'd be thinking something else already; but a moderate is willing to find out he's wrong, and change his mind, if the evidence warrants it. A moderate is able to step out of his own viewpoint long enough to listen to and understand a different one. A moderate knows that honest people can honestly disagree, and still have common goals and interests that they can work on together.
A moderate can get angry. A moderate can get tired of being whipsawed between extremists, and say "a pox on ALL your houses!"
The founders of the American system of government spent a lot of time and great intellectual effort on how to forestall any one group, on whatever extreme, from gaining all power and running away with it. They divided and distributed power among different branches and levels of government so that in any conflicts, neither a majority nor a minority could ride roughshod over everyone else; we would all have to negotiate with the people who disagree with us.
And ever since then, extremists have tried to erode that balance of powers and collect all control in the hands of those who see things their way.
Polarization shuts down brain cells. (See Michael Shermer's article in Scientific American: The Political Brain.) The more people you see as your enemies, the more easily manipulated you are by your "friends." Fortunately, both polarized extremes of American politics seem to be losing their credibility. More and more elections depend on the vote of independents who are not arbitrarily aligned left OR Right – who have to be convinced case by case. Less and less independents are stampeded by being told that one party is the one and only force for Good and one party is the one and only force for Evil. An increasing number of voters demand practical results in domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare, instead of bigger and louder political slogans.
Books like Jim Hightower's (and, on the other end, Ann Coulter's diatribes about Godless Liberals) are hot sellers these days. On a promising note, so are these:
- Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America presents evidence that the supposed polarized culture is a myth, perpetuated by politicians and the media for their own purposes.
- In One Nation, After All : What Americans Really Think About God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigration, Homosexuality, Work, The Right, The Left and Each Other, Alan Wolfe analyzes an extensive series of interviews across the county to find that we agree on more than we disagree.
- Edward Brooke, the first black U.S. senator since Reconstruction and a Republican elected from the liberal and Democratic state of Massachusetts, has written an autobiography, Bridging the Divide: My Life, covering four decades of American politics.
- John Avlon, author of Independent Nation: How Centrism Can Change American Politics, argues that centrism, "the rising political force in modern American life," also offers the best chance for America to prosper.
- Barbara Sinclair documents the genesis and consequences of increasing partisan polarization in national policy in Party Wars: Polarization And the Politics of National Policy Making.
- Senator John Danforth has directly confronted the combination of religious and poltical polarization with Faith and Politics: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.
I would like to paraphrase Senator Danforth in a word to the Moderate Majority:
For a long time, the Radical Right & Radical Left have chanted their messages incessantly, while everyone else disdained the tactic of repetition, repetition, repetition. It is time for a clear statement of what we believe, a statement we repeat relentlessly and a statement that expresses the strength of our convictions:
- We believe in government of the people, for the people, and by the people, for the common good – not a government of cliques and cronies who sacrifice the welfare of the many to the profit of the few.
- We believe that all human beings are fallible, including ourselves; therefore no human being has the right of authority over another's conscience. The power of law should only limit the actions of individuals to the extent necessary to preserve the equal rights of all.
- We believe that government by the people must and will embrace conflicting opinions, even on hot-button issues, even of people with whom we vehemently disagree.
Citizens who support the common good over ideological partisanship should express ourselves clearly and forcefully as the alternative to those who favor divisiveness.
Eralier in this article I referred to brain research showing that partisan political responses involve areas of the brain dealing with emotion, not any of those dealing with cognition. Emotion is, of course, part of all of us. Emotion is not grit in the gears of human intelligence, it is an integral part of reasoning. If you had no emotions, you could make no decisions: you would have no preferences, no priorities, and all choices would be equal. A moderate is as emotional, as passionate about values and principles, as any partisan.
According to other brain research, the thinking of teenagers is dominated by the emotional circuits of the brain, and part of the maturation process is the cerebral circuits becoming increasingly active. The emotional circuits are never completely cut out of the thinking process; in what we call more mature thinking, however, the cerebral circuits play the dominant role.
A moderate is as emotional, as passionate about values and principles, as any partisan. A moderate, however, can still think, and listen, even when passionate.
Perhaps it is time for us all to just grow up.


Comments: 8
The first step in having an honest disagreement is, as Lisa says, understanding what the other person is saying. You can't even honestly say that you DO disagree, until you know what the other person is saying!
When someone does not take the time to make sure they understand the other person's point, before arguing with it, I don't think they are really interested in resolving the conflict, or even in solving the problem under discussion. What they are interested in is power, period: gaining, or maintaining, power. They are going after it with force instead of with reason.
I will agree, Cinbad, that nobody likes to lose anything important to us; I do not think that the majority of human beings value Winning over all other values.
On the question of abortion, for instance, most people classified as "pro-choice" AND those classified as "pro-life" value the rights and lives of babies (including the unborn) AND value the rights and lives of women. Real reductions in the number of abortions can be accomplished in ways that also reduce the numbers of prenatal deaths from other causes, along with infant mortality in general and maternal mortality too.
Life is not a zero-sum game. Nobody HAS to lose in order for somebody else to win. We just have to be honest about what we really want -- and be willing to let somebody else have what is important to them, too.
The more I think about it, the more I think you are spot-on with the point that "moderate" gets discounted because it does not come with a recognized set of pre-established positions.
I also think that is the problem with the political dialogue today. Identifying with a recognized set of pre-established positions freezes brain cells. Some, at least, of our founders recognized the problem; they called it "partisanship" and said it would be the death of democracy.
In order to dialogue, you have to be able to question your own position, and be willing to find out that the other guy is right. You have to be able to do that issue by issue, and not feel like changing your mind on one subject is going to demolish your whole self-identity and get you booted out of your Tribe.
It is indeed hard to dialogue moderately on issues you feel very strongly about. I still heat up when I hear arguments like the one you describe so well, and then I do not sound at all moderate.
There are indeed people who become so anxious about any possibility of condoning murder that they must campaign constantly against abortion. The problem I have with that is that while they are protecting their own tender consciences from any touch of guilt, they are not saving any lives.
Babies are being murdered daily, all over the world; in war, in domestic violence, in despair, even, in some countries still, in culturally-approved infanticide. I don't hear peep from the anti-abortion crowd about the innocent children killed in war. I don't hear peep from the anti-abortion crowd about the innocent children killed by their fathers, from slugging Mom in the stomach because he doesn't want a baby to shaking the little child so hard it dies.
When I do hear about those things first, and then hear from the same person that they are against abortion, I respect their position. The majority of such people that I have met, however, take the position of "I am against it; I will argue against it; it is not right to legislate against it." The people who want legislation against abortion almost always care more about their consciences than about real living children, and I cannot respect that. If that loses me my "moderate" credentials, so be it.
I would also be interested in seeing your views on abortion published to a separate article; you make engaging and articulate points which deserve a thorough discussion.
This should be the basis of laws, and, indeed, was what the people who created the United States had in mind.