“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prepared before the D-Day invasion in 1944 in the event it proved unsuccessful: “Our landings… have failed and I have withdrawn the troops.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.
41 responses so far
1 Cforchange // Jul 23, 2009 at 4:12 pm
How brave can you be sitting behind glass with a microphone in one hand and a pain killer pill in the other and a security guard at the door? Hotair, hotair, hotair.
Moderates know how to focus, compromise and accomplish. The inflexible approach that has dominated DC for the last decade + is certainly the reason for few positive achievements and a downer ecomony. While rush types hold and dominate the forum in every regard, we as a party will accomplish little. It’s all babble and no action except to their own pocketbooks.
2 ESB // Jul 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The moderate gloves are off! I’ve enjoyed your previous columns, but the combination of erudition and passion here squashes the Limbaughs and Becks and Dobbses and O’Reillys like so many cockroaches. I hope it’s not true what they say about cockroaches and nuclear war.
Chris Shays could use a speech like this. Meanwhile, I hope we’ll soon be able to read *your* book.
3 barker13 // Jul 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Let me get this straight…
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
The President gave a major address last night – in prime time, to a national audience – and Geoff Kabaservice, recently a visiting assistant professor of history at Yale University, responds by… er… attacking Rush Limbaugh on NewMajority.com
OK. Makes… er… sense… I… er… suppose…
(*SPINNING MY FINGER AROUND IN CIRCLES NEXT TO MY RIGHT TEMPLE*)
You get ‘em, Geoff!
BILL
4 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“And it takes considerable gall for Limbaugh, who found reasons not to volunteer for the Vietnam War, to deny the greatness of General Eisenhower.”
Eisenhower was a moderate he was brave in war (for a General) therefore Limbaugh is questioning Eisenhower’s bravery. This suffices for logic at this site? I’m appalled. Oh wait… after a long paragraph of this irrational drivel, we get this:.
“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.”
Yeah, why don’t we assume that. It makes much more sense.
Limbaughs point is valid and this article helps validate it. Moderates lack principles and this may come from lacking the ability to reason as evidenced by this article replete with logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks.
Rush is talking about the many politicians who in fact need no principles but rely on playing a balancing game and triangulating in order to stay in office. Is the author prepared to say there are no such politicians in the Republican party?
5 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“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.”
Of course the majority the aggregate in surveys will hold moderate views but that isn’t the same as an individual defining himself as a “moderate”. Those individuals who claim they are moderates are most often people with no real principles and wish only for compromise. If they were making a stew and they had to use other cook’s ingredients they would put in more sugar to balance out the salt. We end up with the bad meal. The moderate still thinks he’s helped the situation when he really hasn’t.
6 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm
This takes considerable gall of Mr. Kabaservice to claim Limbaugh is attacking Eisenhower’s service. This is just a very badly fashioned argument that reveals a shallow thinker and/or a demagogue. I mean really, Limbaugh is talking about intellectual courage – it’s obvious. This writer Geoffry wants to make a very tenuous link: Limbaughs is saying moderates are not brave (intellectually of course – is this that difficult for Geoff to understand?) Eisenhower was some kind of hero for serving his country, therefore Limbaugh is attacking Eisenhower and his service by calling moderates intellectually cowardly. Hmmm. What Ivy League school did Mr Kabaservice attend? Pay much for your education son?
Besides, Eisenhower was a moderate in the fifties – that was a time when JFK was to the right of half of our modern Republicans!
7 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“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.”
But it’s not. The real attacks come from the left in case you are not aware and you probably aren’t. You see the media have a lot of clout and they are lefties. So you can buck your own party with little consequence, (see Spector, Arlen) or you could defy the MSM and be a conservative. (see Palin, Sara or Limbaugh, Rush)
8 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“It requires no effort to nay-say every Democratic initiative….”
When Democrats propose ridiculous initiatives that curtail freedom in our country we are supposed to offer other plans that also curtail freedom?
That basically is what you are advocating. Most often the solution is not government intervention or a new program, in fact it almost ALWAYS is not the solution. The solutions can be found in laws and their fairness. If government did its job we wouldn’t be in this economic mess. They failed us, not corporations or the free market. Government is supposed to regulate and watch these players and they didn’t do so.
9 franco 2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“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.”
Now Reagan is a “moderate” and Lincoln too! Ha! Lincoln! I don’t seem to remember where Lincoln wanted to free only some slaves, where he thought it alright for some States to succeed and where he decided not to send Sherman through the South to break the Confederacy once and for all. Just because he healed the country after the war does not make him a moderate. He could afford to be moderate after the devastating victory.
There is a difference, Geoffry between being a moderate and being a principled politician who compromises when it is required. This is a crucial distinction. Please, rent a logic module for your brain.
10 Jim_M // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Hmm…seems their’s a disconnect. IF you have listened to Rush’s program regularly for at LEAST six weeks, you would. He’s not talking about good Republicans, Democrats or for that matter Independents. He is talking about those who wait, and wait quietly until the popular person, place or thing “happens”. That’s when moderates jump aboard. If you still struggle with this one needs only to see who resides a 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A very popular man. FWIW…
11 rohall // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Moderate = let me appear to be smarter than everyone else by not making up my mind until someone tells me what to do.
12 Doh // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“NewMajority.com is a site edited by David Frum, dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”
Obama shill Frum lead site, nuff said.
13 siorno // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Wow, just wow. I really think you moderates believe you have have the answer. Geoffrey, you sound like a closet liberal, which is OK but…………at the end of the day, you have to be hot or cold when it comes to which side you are on. Lukewarm doesn’t cut it. We are in a battle for the soul of this country and Rush has a pretty good batting average of pointing out the foolishness of the squishy middle and looney left.
I think Geoffrey and his ilk are a bit jealous of that Golden EIB mic.
14 journeyman // Jul 23, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Moderates = Those who stand in the middle of a highway at rush hour and do their best not to get run over.
15 folderol // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:08 am
“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.”
I remember hearing the same thing in 1993-94. From Carville et al.
“Then again, Limbaugh’s ratings are best when the Republican Party does the worst.”
Limbaugh’s show began at the tail end of the (Republican) Reagan administration and at the beginning of the (Republican) Bush I administration. He did pretty well after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, which was NOT a moderate victory. Moderates just don’t do “victory” very well. They’re best at either snarking at those conservatives who do take a stand and blame them for defeat, or else following in conservatives’ wake after they’ve won.
16 folderol // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:15 am
Here’s a thought, though: why don’t those brave moderates who are so sure they have the secret to electoral victory form their own Moderate Party? Then they could free themselves of those embarrassing troglodyte conservatives like Limbaugh — about whom they can’t seem to make up their minds. On the one hand he’s an irrelevant entertainer who (add the usual ad hominem details about weight, drug use, divorces, etc here); on the other, the dangerous de facto head of a party of knuckle-draggers.
17 OnYourSix // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:29 am
Mr. Kabaservice: You don’t get it…. you never will….. Not like we ( me & thousands of other small biz owners who employ a BUNCH of taxpayers ). As one other poster said, a moderate waits and waits until it’s SAFE to take a position…..
Rush wasn’t talking about Eisenhower or Lodge….
And your reference to Reagan as a “moderate” ??
Sure…. he was SO moderate that Iran thought it best to turn loose our hostages about 5 minutes after he became President [ taking over from that Peanut-brain dipslit ( rhymes with ) ], because he was SOOOOOOO moderate and accordingly might MODERATE Iran into a bunch of GLASS….
( …that’s sand, which has gotten VERY hot, Mr. Kabaservice… )
Listen to Rush for about 3 months….
Then, RISK ALL YOU HAVE to form your OWN SMALL BUSINESS, making many decisions along the way which exemplify EXACTLY how you will know a moderate when you see/hear one…
Then write about Rush again…… and apologize ….. to him AND to us…..
18 BKennedy // Jul 24, 2009 at 2:49 am
Your premise is fairly laughably.
George Washington a moderate? He was general of an army whose mission, if it failed, would leave every last soldier and Washington himself hanging for treason. The “moderates” of the American Revolution were the ranks of soldiers who couldn’t decide between the royalists and the rebels and cast their lot with whoever was in power at the time.
Abraham Lincoln? Surely you can’t mean the man people can’t seem to decide is a hero, a tyrant, or some combination of the two. You can’t really be more divisive then having half the country secede to start a civil war. While its true Lincoln’s primary goal was to preserve the union above all else, there were principles on which he would not compromise. His position was not “Hey Jefferson Davis, let’s grab a drink and talk about this. I don’t really appreciate the whole secession thing… can’t we all just get along?”
Same with the aftermath of the World War II. The Nazis were the only moderates there, after being beaten into submission by the allied forces. You only compromise from a position of weakness. Getting your hat handed to you has a way of moderating your ambitions. Neville Chamberlain was the great pre-war moderate, always willing to appease the dictator and not make any waves. Needless to say a book citing Neville Chamberlain as a great historical moderate doesn’t sell as well as one that invokes Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan.
As for Reagan? Surely the man maligned by everyone left of Joe Lieberman is no moderate. Surely the man who demanded “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” against the advice of bold moderates that advised against it and edited it out of his speech multiple times is no moderate himself. Moderate must mean “an amorphous characteristic that can apply to any political leader the user fancies because said leader wasn’t entirely one-dimensional.”
Penultimately, riddle me this:
What are the actual policy positions of all these “moderates” I’ve been hearing about? Mostly it just seems like an untenable combination of tepid fiscal conservatism combined with government goody bag social liberalism. General Powell? General Powell? Hello?
Finally, the GOP ran the most moderate candidate it has ever run in 2008. Republican “moderates” flew into the arms of brainless slogans like “Yes We Can!” and “Change you can believe in.” Good job guys. Thanks for doing zilch in the primaries, zilch in the general election, and then voting for the Democrat. But hey, at least Palin isn’t Vice President, am I right? What a relief.
19 Jen Kuznicki // Jul 24, 2009 at 7:31 am
You know what, as a member of the grassroots of the republican party, I am sick of people like cabservice and frum knocking the men who are doing more to increase the popularity of the republican party and explaining it’s platform.
Reading your drivel is exactly like reading media matters, same content, same reasoning, same hyper-whining, same obvious jealousy.
But, as I logged in, I noticed that for a group of people who want to lead the republican party and have all the time in the day to expand their influence, your blog really isn’t very popular, so I feel better.
You moderates will be treated like the redheaded stepchildren you are come 2010 and 2012, mark my words.
20 sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:48 am
siorno sez: ‘at the end of the day, you have to be hot or cold when it comes to which side you are on.”
The point is, we’re not all on the same side on all issues.
I’m a hawk on foreign policy, national defense and counter-terrorism; pro-choice and pro-gay marriage on domestic policy; and I lean *somewhat* right of center on economic policy.
Now: Which party do I belong in?
21 barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:55 am
Re: Folderol // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:15 am –
“Here’s a thought, though: why don’t those brave moderates who are so sure they have the secret to electoral victory form their own Moderate Party?”
(*GRIN*)
No… but, close!
What we want is for the “moderates” to join the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Hey… if they’re honest, sincere moderates who are for a… er… “moderate” conservatism… then they’ll move the Democratic Party to the RIGHT from within.
That would be a win-win for the “true” Right, for the Republican Party, for the American People, and even for the Democratic Party.
If there were LESS “moderates” stabbing conservatives in the back from within the GOP then the GOP wouldn’t nominate losers like McCain as their champions while at the same time if these “moderates” were working from within the Democratic Party perhaps we wouldn’t have a situation where Barak Obama is President and Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
22 barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:59 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:48 am –
“I’m a hawk on foreign policy, national defense and counter-terrorism; pro-choice and pro-gay marriage on domestic policy; and I lean *somewhat* right of center on economic policy. Now: Which party do I belong in?”
The Democratic Party.
(*SHRUG*)
Seriously… the Democratic Party.
You’d move them Right on foreign policy, national defense and counter-terrorism. That would be GOOD! (*GRIN*)
You’d move them “*somewhat* right of center” on economic policy. That too would be GOOD. (*SHRUG*)
Sinz… the nation NEEDS you to register as a Democrat!
BILL
23 ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:02 am
franco-2 // Jul 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“Eisenhower was a moderate he was brave in war ”
……….Actually Eisenhower although an admirable person and in many ways an ideal pick for supreme commander of an allied army hardly ever heard a shot fired in anger……he saw no action in WW 1 and wasn’t really up front in any of the campaigns he was involved in………he was very much a chateau general and was continually being criticised for it by the Brits to begin with but increasingly by other American commanders………most notoriously during the German breakthrough in the Ardennes he was out on the links with his girlfriend……..I’m a fan of Ike’s but let’s not kid ourselves……..All that said a fat, blustering, draft evading, drug taking slob like Limbaugh wouldn’t have been fit to clean chewing gum off the bottom of Ike’s shoes.
24 ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:04 am
barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:59 am
“Sinz… the nation NEEDS you to register as a Democrat!”
…………But you said you were a registered democrat
25 barker13 // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:14 am
Re: Ottovbvs // Jul 24, 2009 at 9:04 am –
“But you said you were a registered democrat.”
Yeah? So? Your point…???
I registered as a Democrat in early 2006 as a protest against the RINOfication of the GOP.
In any case, how is your observation an argument against my argument regarding Sinz and other “moderates?”
BILL
26 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.
27 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
28 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…
29 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.
30 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.
31 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 [...]
32 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
33 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.
34 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.
35 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.
36 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
37 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.
38 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.
39 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.
40 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.
41 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 [...]
You must log in to post a comment.