RSS Feed Menu“By definition, moderates can’t be brave – they don’t have opinions! … I mean, brave moderates? ‘Great Moderates in American History’? Show me that book.”– Rush Limbaugh, July 21, 2009
By this point it is becoming evident that Rush Limbaugh is not only the de facto leader of the Republican Party, he is also the most significant obstacle to its ever regaining majority power. No deep-cover McGovernite mole planted in the bosom of the GOP could do a more effective job of cutting off the party from its own heritage and from political reality itself.
Take Limbaugh’s recent statement that moderates cannot be brave or great. When I came across that statement, it so happened that I had on my desk several books about moderate Republican Senator and statesman Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and moderate Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Lodge resigned from the Senate in 1944 to become an active combat-duty soldier with the U.S. Army in World War II. Somehow I can’t see many of today’s conservative Senators following his example of bravery by resigning to take up arms in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it takes considerable gall for Limbaugh, who found reasons not to volunteer for the Vietnam War, to deny the greatness of General Eisenhower. As far as Ike’s courage is concerned, it’s always worth revisiting the statement he had prepared before the D-Day invasion in 1944 in the event it proved unsuccessful: “Our landings… have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.” Again, it’s hard to picture those words emanating from most current politicians, whose closest approach to admitting fault is the cowardly passive-voice construction, “Mistakes were made.”
But let’s suppose Limbaugh didn’t mean to impugn the military courage and greatness of General Eisenhower and the long, long list of moderate members of Congress from both parties who served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Let’s assume that Limbaugh meant that moderates simply have no opinions and stand for nothing, hence are incapable of accomplishing anything great. And to simplify matters further, let’s grant that he was talking about “greatness” within the restricted field of U.S. politics, rather than dismissing the achievers from across the entire field of human endeavor, from Maimonides to Leonardo da Vinci to Bill Gates, who might have moderate views (keeping in mind for the moment Limbaugh’s dictum that moderates cannot have “opinions”).
Moderates, it is true, do compromise and have been known to change their positions. But does this make them less brave or great? Consider, for a start, George Washington. The Father of His Country was a model of enlightened and dedicated moderation. He preached national unity, prudence, and conciliation as well as principle and firmness in achieving “a government of accommodation as well as a government of Laws.” In the absence of compromise and “a middle course,” he warned Thomas Jefferson, “the wheels of Government will clog; our enemies will triumph, and by throwing their weight into the disaffected Scale, may accomplish the ruin of the goodly fabric we have been erecting.” Gil Troy’s 2008 book, Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents, makes an excellent case that our greatest national leaders, from Washington to Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, have succeeded by hewing close to the American political center.
The greatest achievements of government in recent times – from the rebuilding of Europe after World War II, to the promotion of civil rights for all citizens, to victory in the Cold War – have come about as a result of moderate, bipartisan compromise as well as firmness and principle. Often these accomplishments required politicians to make a wrenching break with past convictions and reputations: Arthur Vandenberg abandoning isolationism to help create the post-WWII order of communist containment, Everett Dirksen curtailing his coalition with Southern segregationists to support civil rights, Richard Nixon overcoming his Red-baiting past and conservative hostility to bring China into the world community, Ronald Reagan helping Mikhail Gorbachev write a peaceful end to the Cold War.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguably the most significant legislative accomplishment of the twentieth century, owes much of its existence to determined moderate Republicans like Ohio’s Rep. William McCulloch, who had to overcome the opposition both of conservatives who thought he was going too far and liberals who thought he wasn’t going far enough. The conservative champion Barry Goldwater, who was one of only five Republicans to vote against the Act, did arguably display bravery and principle in upholding the continuation of Southern racial segregation on narrow constitutional grounds, thereby defying his party leadership and annihilating his chance of becoming president. But “greatness” involves being on the right side of history. No political stance, whether conservative or moderate or liberal, has demonstrated that it has a monopoly on historic truth, which means that fixity of dogma is not necessarily courageous or praiseworthy.
If a willingness to defy party leadership is a mark of bravery, then it takes much more courage to be a moderate in the Republican Party these days than it does to be a conservative.
Courageous moderates like Jim Leach or Mike Castle who deviate from an increasingly rigid conservative line are punished in myriad ways: undesirable committee assignments, loss of position within committees (with resultant loss of publicity opportunities), lack of campaign support, and official party indifference when the likes of the Club for Growth campaigns against any Republican showing intolerable levels of moderation or independence.
It’s easy to go along to get along with today’s conservative Republican leadership, but it’s hard to argue, as the late strategist Lee Atwater did, for a big-tent approach that would make the GOP more electable. It’s easy to sign Grover Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, but it takes courage to engage in tough negotiations with Democrats over painful cuts in spending, as economic conservatives like Bill Frenzel and Barber Conable used to do. It requires no effort to nay-say every Democratic initiative, but quite a lot of effort to come up with positive, detailed and realistic initiatives that haven’t been seen in Republican circles since Newt Gingrich’s heyday. It’s easy to play more-conservative-than-thou if you’re running in a safe Republican district, but it’s a much greater challenge to gain election as a Republican in a swing district, like Connecticut’s Christopher Shays, where a conservative hardliner has absolutely no chance of victory. And it takes more courage for a Republican to follow the example of Jack Kemp, whose wholehearted concern for African-Americans was central to his political strategy, than to write off entire segments of one’s fellow Americans on the grounds that “Those people don’t vote for us anyway.”
Limbaugh’s statement that moderates “don’t have opinions” stems ultimately from a narrowness of vision that divides the world into dittoheads and socialists, with no room in between. In this he resembles no one so much as Lenin, who knew that the way to overthrow a democratic society is to eliminate the moderate middle ground between Bolsheviks and reactionaries. But in fact, survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of Americans share moderate views, distinct from extreme positions on either side, on nearly all important political and social and cultural issues. To denigrate most Americans by telling them that they have no opinions, and add insult to injury by calling them wimps lacking greatness, is not a smart strategy for a political party that wants to be in the majority someday. Then again, Limbaugh’s ratings are best when the Republican Party does the worst.
At some point the GOP will have to make a decision. Would it rather write out moderates – including some of its bravest leaders and proudest achievements – from its history, and continue to read them out of the party? Or would it rather wait for Limbaugh’s future opus on ‘Great Extremists of the Twenty-First Century’? Show me that book.
ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:19 am
bkennedy // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:49 am
………..Usual scrambled egg of disconnected facts and arguments that totally ignores context and what definitions of “moderate” meant in all these contexts ………In the context of the US after the end of the war of independance Washington was very moderate not to say conservative which is not surprising since he was an aristocratic southern planter with vast land holdings in the Ohio valley……..By comparison with most members of his cabinet let alone the vast mass of the Republican party at the time Lincoln was very moderate in his attitude both to the south and on issues like emancipation…….In the context 1930’s European politics and Britain’s precarious world position at the time Chamberlain’s policy made entire, he didn’t know what he was dealing with so he was mistaken but he wasn’t irrational………Ripping names out of history books totally without context basically demonstrates a very shaky grasp of history and reality.
ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:22 am
barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:14 am
“Yeah? So? Your point…???
I registered as a Democrat in early 2006 as a protest against the RINOfication of the GOP.”
…………Just trying to make sure everyone understands how logical your thought processes are
RocketmanBob // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:39 am
I would remind you of a famous quote:
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
While it is true that American politics has generally been about compromise ever since the Constitutional convention, the modern far left seems intent on tering up that same constitution. Should we compromise there and let them tear it a little? I say NEVER!
Limbaugh is only a radio entertainer, and as long as moderate’s like yourself parrot the propaganda of the far left, that risable utterance that Rush is somehow the leader of the Republican party, then their psych-ops will advance with the result ultimately being that low-information voters everywhere will believe that drivel.
Until my dying day I will resist the effrorts if the liberal Democrats to turn our nation into a Euro-weenie, socialist, “workers paradise”. And, if it takes vpicing strong opinions and supporting others who do the same then so be it…
After all, one can see just how well McCain did in the last election, moderate that he is…
MarkD // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:54 am
With Mr Kabaservice leading the way, we’d still be a British Colony. It wasn’t moderates who ended slavery. I would bet Mr K never served, either.
Cforchange // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:57 am
All this babble is perfect hotair.
My father was a lifelong USAF moderate Republican who served in several conflicts but never blatted period. He always stood up when called but didn’t voice opinions about what others should do with their personal lives and never bragged about his career which by the way delivered you loud mouths the cushy freedom you enjoy today.
All the offensive noise above is responsible for voters leaving our party in droves. Please show some proof that you folks are successfully recruiting – I do not see any signs of that. In fact my teen who will be registering to vote soon, after reading about the Young Repulican’s election wondered in dismay how could he register as a Republican. Oh but yes, someone will respond here- who cares, who wants him! So please, tell us who and how many are you are recruiting. No fluff here, just numbers. How about a web link that accurately portrays results – especially in non Southern states.
If the party were growing, there would be little need for this discussion. The GOP by the reports I’ve read appears to be contracting. In my state it isn’t entirely due to demographics. The leftovers have no ability to reason hence behave like dictators. If you don’t agree, you’re asked to leave. That claim is supported over and over – look above. Democrats don’t do this to each other – the academics coexist with the blue collars. I’m surrounded by them, I never hear them ask each other to leave. I never hear them demand that one group controls the other.
You’ve killed the party with your obstinence. You should all be drafted so we can test your metal. Boot camp for Rush could be a reality show – instantly we could wipe away the deficit with the profits.
Great new cite for Dumbass Dougie Mataconis and Loudoun Insider « Smash Mouth Politics // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:06 am
[...] jUSt caN’t MAkE tHis SHiT uP! A new “moderate” Republican website where an author claims: “Gil Troy’s 2008 book, Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make [...]
ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 10:15 am
Cforchange // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:57 am
” My father was a lifelong USAF moderate Republican who served in several conflicts but never blatted period.”
………….Ditto…….except my old man was in Italy during the war as was my father in law in the Royal navy……both thought it extremely bad form to talk about it
sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm
barker13 sez: “I registered as a Democrat in early 2006 as a protest against the RINOfication of the GOP.”
That would be like a hawkish American defecting to the Soviet Union in protest against Carter’s dovish policies, during the Cold War.
sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
During the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats deliberately fielded moderate “Blue Dog” Democratic candidates, and even “Fighting Democrat” candidates with strong military backgrounds, to win contested seats away from Republicans. Staunch liberals like Daily KOS approved of this, even though they were liberal doves themselves. Because they knew that doctrinaire liberal peaceniks could not win these seats, only perceived moderates could.
The GOP, in contrast, doesn’t know how to field moderates to win seats away from Democrats in moderate or liberal areas of the nation. They keep waiting and waiting for the entire country to turn so far to the right that they won’t have to.
Given the demographic trends, they’re going to be waiting an awful long time.
sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
folderol: Hey, if you think that moderates don’t belong in the GOP, they’re starting to agree with you. The exit polls in 2006 and 2008 showed a major defection of Independent voters from the GOP to the Dems.
The GOP will be left with that one-third of the voters who still adore Cheney, who still think the Iraq War was a wonderful idea, who think that birth control and embryonic stem-cell research are moral abominations. And the GOP will never win another election again.
Until it figures out that 2/3 or more of the nation doesn’t agree with the GOP base on a whole lot of issues.
barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Re: Cforchange // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:57 am –
“All this babble is perfect hotair.”
Well… DUH…!!! (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Yes, CfC, I’m pretty sure that even OTTO realizes that our blog chatter her at NewMajority changes nothing. (Except I do hold out hope that we educate each other to a certain extent via sharing idea, facts, and source material.)
(*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm –
“That would be like a hawkish American defecting to the Soviet Union in protest against Carter’s dovish policies, during the Cold War.”
No. (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
It would be exactly what it was.
In any case, Sinz, we were talking about what you and “the moderates” should do to help the GOP and serve the best interests of the nation. I believe my 8:55 am and 8:59 am posts laid out a pretty good case concerning that. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:24 pm
sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“During the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats deliberately fielded moderate “Blue Dog” Democratic candidates, and even “Fighting Democrat” candidates with strong military backgrounds, to win contested seats away from Republicans”
………..And many of those fighting democrats are pretty radical actually like Webb and Sestak…….quite apart from all the demographic issues the GOP is married to a set of ideas that are basically doomed…….Max Weber said the story of modernity is the bringing of more and more activities under the rule of rationality……If ever a prophecy was true it was that one…….so does anyone really think the articles of faith that constitute Republican and conservative belief (just list them mentally) can really withstand the embrace of rationality……sure there will always be an increasingly isolated of the totally irrational on matters of science and good government but it’s hardly a base for a governing party is it.
ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm
barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 1:09 pm
” I’m pretty sure that even OTTO realizes that our blog chatter her at NewMajority changes nothing.”
……..Of course but I’ve a serious allergy to misinformation particularly when so many need a prolonged stay with Mr Gradgrind.
BKennedy // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ottov:
A simple challenge:
Define “moderate.”
For me this is a simple task because moderates are always history’s indecisive sideliners. Or, for moderates who actually do take action, they tend to be double-agents and turncoats. People trying to bring together rebel and royalist were thus moderates. Nazis trying to save face and not have Germany ground back down to post WWI levels necessarily moderated their tone, aided and abetted by Allied forces not wanting to let the same conditions that lef to The Third Reich to repeat themselves. Moderates exist to be the unprincipled dregs of society waiting for something fashionable to latch onto. Somebody, after all, has to be the useless load that others must carry.
All of the men Mr. Kabaservice mentioned were taken from their historical roles as polarizing, animating, and powerful figures and fit into the cookie cutter mold of the “moderate” with zero explanation. Moderates do not leave an imprint on society. By definition they seek a third, often incoherent garble between two opposing positions that taken as a whole within themselves are both more intellectually thorough and consistent than moderation.
Here’a the real stinging difference between moderates, liberals, and conservatives:
When moderates go on scathing political condemnations and spectacular personal crusades, nobody cares.
Rush Limbaugh matters because he has actual principles that follow a coherent internal logic.
Ditto with Jon Stewart.
When some self-proclaimed moderate whines about either or excoriates them, people don’t listen because they can’t respect the opinion of someone whose strongest argument for their existence is that all other systems have flaws and someone must stick around to criticize them. The very existence of moderates is a powerful argument for closed primaries. After all, it isn’t as if moderates ever *do* anything.
ottovbvs // Jul 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm
bkennedy // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ottov:
A simple challenge:
Define “moderate.”
“For me this is a simple task because moderates are always history’s indecisive sideliners. Or, for moderates who actually do take action, they tend to be double-agents and turncoats.”
…………To which I would say give me the context because yesterday’s Michael Collins is today’s moderate who was assassinated for forging a “moderate” peace settlement with the British govt which granted Irish independance……..Anwar Sadat was killed for similar reasons ……..Unfortunately as your grossly simplistic view of history illustrated, to you everything is black and white and is settled by extremists when in fact history is a mass of greys and is usually settled by people who are “moderate” by inclination or move there which I’ll loosely define as being in the middle most of the time………If you want a few names TR, FDR, HST, Konrad Adenaur, Churchill, Washington, Jefferson, De Gaulle, LBJ, JFK, Helmut Schmidt, Lloyd George, Disraeli, Lincoln, none of them “did” anything of course. You need to develop a more reality based view of the world and how it works.
Yes Rush, Moderates Make Great Presidents — and Book Subjects « Gil Troy // Jul 27, 2009 at 2:36 am
[...] whether they also make for great books, although I appreciate Geoffrey Kabaservice’s suggestion on the New Majority Blog that my book may be the right text to prove Rush [...]