Will Moderates Defeat Moderation?
Nov 28th, 2011 | 25 responses
WASHINGTON — The deficit that should most worry us is a deficit of reasonableness. The problems the United States confronts are large but not insoluble. Yet sensible solutions that are broadly popular can’t be enacted.
Why? Because an ideological bloc that sees every crisis as an opportunity to reduce the size of government holds enough power in Congress to stop us from doing what needs to be done.
Some of my middle-of-the-road columnist friends keep ascribing our difficulties to structural problems in our politics. A few call for a centrist third party. But the problem we face isn’t about structures or the party system. It’s about ideology — specifically a right-wing ideology that has temporarily taken over the Republican Party and needs to be defeated before we can have a reasonable debate between moderate conservatives and moderate progressives about our country’s future.
A centrist third party would divide the opposition to the right wing and ease its triumph. That’s the last thing authentic moderates should want.
Let’s look at the record, starting with the congressional supercommittee’s failure to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the fiscal deficit. It’s absurd to pretend that we can shrink the deficit over the long term without substantial tax increases.
No matter how hard policymakers try to trim spending on Medicare, its costs will go up for many years simply because so many baby boomers will be retiring between now and 2029. Moreover, employers will keep cutting back on coverage for their workers as long as the price of insurance continues to go up.
However we manage it, in other words, government will be required to pay an ever larger share of our nation’s health care bills. That means the government’s share of the economy is destined to rise — unless we decide to leave a large part of our population with little or no protection against illness.
The least we can do under those circumstances is to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under President George W. Bush. Yet the only revenue conservatives on the supercommittee put on the table involved $300 billion from ill-defined tax reforms — in exchange for lower tax rates on the rich and making something like $3.7 trillion worth of tax cuts permanent.
Progressives have already made clear that they are willing to increase revenue and cut Medicare costs. The Obama health care law did both, and it was attacked by Republicans for doing so. Democrats on the supercommittee offered substantial entitlement cuts. But they rightly refused a deal that would squander years of future revenues in the name of keeping taxes low on the wealthiest Americans.
What might a reasonable budget argument look like? Progressives would propose fewer spending cuts in exchange for tax increases that would fall mainly on the wealthy: higher rates on top incomes, capital gains and estates, along with a financial transactions tax.
Conservatives would counter with larger spending cuts coupled with taxes on consumption rather than investment. Out of such a debate might come a sensible deal, based on a shared acknowledgement that long-term balance requires both thrift and new revenue.
In the meantime, there’s agreement among a broad range of economists that America’s sputtering jobs machine needs a sharp and quick jolt. It is unconscionable that in the face of mass unemployment, Republicans continue to foil measures to spur employment, including an extension of the payroll tax holiday. How can conservatives declare simultaneously that (1) it would be a terrible crime to raise taxes on the rich in the long term, and (2) it is an act of virtue to raise taxes on the middle class immediately? Has class warfare ever been so naked?
Then there is immigration. Common sense says there is no way the United States can or should deport some 11 million illegal immigrants. But when Newt Gingrich spoke of this reality — and suggested that conservatives ought to worry about how deportations would break up families — he was said to have committed a gaffe that will end his ride as the Republican front-runner. In today’s GOP, it’s becoming dangerous to be sensible.
We need moderation all right, but a moderate third party is the one way to guarantee we won’t get it. If moderates really want to move the conversation to the center, they should devote their energies to confronting those who are blocking the way. And at this moment, the obstruction is coming from a radicalized right.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
25 Responses to “Will Moderates Defeat Moderation?”
E.J. Is right, sadly. So how DO we take our country back from the brink of madness? We’ve got to disempower the nihilistic, conservative power in this country. It is ruinous and will continue to be ruinous and shows no sign of abating.
There is no doubt that Republican “borrow and spend” fiscal philosophy is far inferior to the Democrat “tax and spend”. At least with tax and spend your bills are paid.
Together with these truths revealed of late, coupled with Republican intransigence regarding doing anything at all in congress, I’m quite sure the Republican party is self destructing before our very eyes.
The best evidence of the Republican “lost in space” persona, can be easily seen in their gaggle of idiotic candidates, their never-ending childish debates with moronic answers to serious questions.
Another dud by Dionne. Instead of creating and supporting moderate candidates he wants us to focus on fighting Republicans. In a two-party system this will of course have the effect of strengthening Democrats, which by golly just happens to be the party Dionne supports.
DaGoat: I think the point of Dionne’s post is neither the Dems nor the Mods can defeat the GOP single-handed. I have to agree, based on polling of actual, engaged voters (partly Obama’s fault, for he has alienated much of his base by non-action on some of their key issues).
In 1992 Ross Perot peeled away support for the GOP and turned the election to Clinton. Now, a 3rd party will peel away support from the Dems & turn the election to the GOP.
Put another way, the GOP drummed away all the moderates. They have either disconnected from politics or are begrudgingly supporting the Dems. There are very few left who are loyal to the GOP. Therefore, any moderate party will draw more strength away from the Dems than the GOP.
Normally I’d say “so what”, but at this point the GOP has so poisoned the process they need to be defeated by any workable political strategy out there, even if it means siding with the Dems.
Ugh, now I feel I need to take a shower …
DaGoat, the Republican Party will not for the foreseeable future support moderates. They have shown this repeatedly over the last few years and the trend shows no sign of changing. Even if a few moderates did make it through the primary they would only be overwhelmed by the current GOP leadership. So no, Dionne didn’t write a dud, he just pointed out the truth. Show me a moderate Republican who isn’t being pressured from the right wing of the party and constantly under serious threat from primary challengers.
Jim and Barky, Dionne is right today’s GOP will not support moderates. Where I disagree with Dionne is his solution, namely voting for Democrats instead of moderates. Does anyone really think if Democrats gain control of the House plus a filibuster-proof Senate majority they are going to embrace a moderate approach?
Read back through posts here the last few years. Many if not most Democrats hate the moderates in their own party, let alone the ones who aren’t. When Obama floated the idea of entitlement reforms in the debt ceiling talks, what was the response from the left?
As long as 60% is considered a simple majority in the Senate and and a minority of ideologues can control the house, I believe the definition of our Republic is seriously flawed. The oligarchy that runs our legislature and thus our laws has propagated impotence rather than solve our problems.
Our problem is extra-political, and seeing it as one party or the other simply demonstrates how well have the super-rich masked their agenda behind sound byte politics tainted by the legal bribery of the lobbyist system.
Every election is about abortion, or guns, or war, or any other emotional cause that deflects the voting public away from the fact that vast profits are filtered up to fewer and fewer people.
The current bone is deficits, and the primary argument is that reducing corporate taxes will increase sales and thus produce jobs. Has anyone actually analyzed this line of thought? Taxes only come from profits made by a company. Taxes only occur after those profits are made. It is a logical non sequitor to reorder this economic formula. If taxes were reduced to zero, the above logic would mean that corps would make infinite profit regardless of demand. Does anybody actually buy the crap?
At some point the people need to realize they are being played for fools, and even here, we let them. Make all the astute partisan analysis you wish, just realize you are addressing the smoke screen, not the fire.
Yes, the author seems to telling moderates to not try and break out of the partisan system because it will damage his side in the partisan war.
Then he gives the usual partisan spin on why his side is “moderate” and the other side is “evil”. Independents have long grown tired of partisanship redressed as moderation.
Well, if you look at the article (and the author’s previous articles on the subject), you will notice he defines “moderate” as being the platform of the Democrats. Politicians have noticed that “moderate” is what voters want. In typical partisan fashion, rather than actually moderating their behavior, they simply try and redefine “moderate” to claim they have done it without changing anything.
Well there is cause to favor one side over the other. The GOP has shown they have really bad ideas that favor very few americans. The Dems are at least trying to implement agendas that will benefit the majority of Americans and make us far stronger down the road. The GOP has basically made taking their ball and going home the center of their playbook, even in the face of considerable ground given by the Democrats. I have seen the president and democrats try to negotiate with the GOP, and the GOP takes everything offered, and gives back only plans to not tax the wealthy. As mentioned its pretty naked class warfare. I know where I stand, therefore I know who to vote for.
The decision is rapidly moving away from, and in fact already has, right vs left. It is now a choice between what will work and what won’t. We have seen the GOP plan implemented and it does not produce the results they say it does. It produces the results that their detractors say it will. Namely, that money accumulates much more rapidly at the top, while median income stays flat, which keeps the economy at a slow crawl back to recovery while our deficits pile up. This is not fuzzy math or wishful thinking on the part of those who don’t vote GOP, this has been in practice for the last decade and the results are in. The GOP plan for this country does not work and I will not support them. Especially since they have made it blatantly obvious throughout Obama’s term that they are merely going to hobble him as much as they can then blame him for getting nothing done. I don’t think that political manipulation of the voters should be rewarded.
And to speak to the article, I also think a 3rd party is not a good idea. What a third party will do is just put one of the two existing ones in the drivers seat for the forseeable future. Better that we make it know to our leaders that we expect THEM to come to the center. They need to start behaving like statesmen instead of schills for whatever particular interest group they represent. They need to advance the ball when we are in crisis, not freeze everything until the next election when maybe they will come back to power. A third party will simply muddy the waters and ensure that we are dominated by one ideology over the other.
@slamfu
Better that we make it know to our leaders that we expect THEM to come to the center.
How does voting in Democrats and not voting in moderates accomplish this?
The only way to get a moderate is to vote Democrat… “Moderate Republican” is an oxymoron! The only ‘moderate’ Republican currently running is Jon Huntsman and he’s polling 1% with the Republicans. I’m surprised DaGoat felt the need to ask this question.
There are few (if any) moderate Republican politicians with jobs, those there are, are so intimidated by their Party that they’re effectively silenced… they’re invisible… and of no use to any attempt to moderate politics.
SteveK, Dionne is telling us not to vote for third party moderates. You are framing the issue as not voting for GOP which is something different.
I see what you’re saying DaGoat but I don’t think it’s different in the long run because a vote for a third party moderate in the upcoming election is a vote for Republicans.
A vote for Ralph Nader was was a vote for the Republicans…
A vote for Ross Perot was a vote for the Democrats.
A vote for a Democrat in 2012 is the ONLY way to get more moderates elected.
In 2014 and 2016 it may be different but the crazies MUST be driven from power in the Republican Party.
Keep a few ‘nuts’ on the sidelines line (like us Dems do) powerless they really are fun to watch but get them the hell out of the drivers seat.
And a vote for either a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for a system that will never give you any other choices, not matter how bad it gets.
The idea that we should just accept that “moderate” means whatever partisan position Democrats have, and line up behind them in a partisan fight, just doesn’t fly anymore.
This year… YES, the Republicans are currently anti-moderate. The Tea-Party contingent voted in in 2010 made certain of that. (argument?)
They’re all up for re-election and unless the Republicans replace them (think they will?) the only way to get rid of the crazies are by electing Democrats.
As I said before “In 2014 and 2016 it may be different but the crazies MUST be driven from power in the Republican Party.”
@ davidsummers
moreany moderates elected?I’m sorry. Neither party gives a darn about moderates. They each point at the other side and say, “look those guys aren’t moderate, so we must be”. But when it came to set up the super committed, _both_ sides systematically excluded the members of the Gang of Six, some of the few people actually working for compromise.
So in the end, they just keep saying, “the other guys are crazies trying to destroy the country, you have to vote for us or the world will end”. But I know that I, for one, am not buying. I’m probably going to refuse to vote for any Republican or Democrat.
No I don’t. However, I don’t believe for a moment the Democrats will either.
I won’t get any less elected…
Well, I prefer to work toward structural reform to break the strangle hold the two parties have placed on the system. Such as Instant Runoff Voting. But if a third party pays notice to the main party that enough is enough, then it can’t be all bad…
Excuse me, my questions were about the 1012 election cycle not ’1984′ or ’2001: A Space Odyssey’.
And actually, Democrats are moderates in this world.
And I commented that (in text you did not quote)voting for neither Republicans _nor_ Democrats is going to elect more moderates.
I did, as an aside, comment that what I think we need is voting reform. That you chose to mock that and avoid the other comments doesn’t actually increase my chances of agreeing with you on how moderate the Democrats are…
Yeah, you claimed that before. I just buy it…
davidpsummers-
Well if you remove the social liberal side of the Democrat party, the Democrats are indeed moderates compared with Republicans of late. Certainly with regard to managing the national interest.
I’m not sure what you mean by “remove the social liberal side”. I do know that when I, for example, look at the moderation efforts by the “gangs of six”, in the health care debate and in budget ceiling crisis, and how they were systematically sidelined by the parties, the attitude toward moderates becomes clear.
And telling the center that they should simply realize they were wrong to disagree with Democrats and line up in the partisan struggle won’t work. And neither will scaring them with how evil Republicans are, because both parties are pretty scary these days.
Naderoia, someone is afraid a 3rd party candidate will hurt Obama…which it would.
“look at the moderation efforts by the “gangs of six”, in the health care debate and in budget ceiling crisis, and how they were systematically sidelined by the parties”
and this is why we have this completely screwed up health care law. Had moderate Dems been brought into the process early, we would probably at least have a public option.
crazies to the left
lunatics to the right
Dionne is not, nor has he ever been, a moderate. Most everyone believes that they are moderates, and certainly believe that they’re sensible, but that doesn’t mean they’re either.
“Progressives have already made clear that they are willing to increase revenue and cut Medicare costs. The Obama health care law did both, and it was attacked by Republicans for doing so.”
He betrays his bias again.
I’ve always wondered if we had a “None of the Above” option, how many votes it would attract. It is interesting to think about the possibilities of promote “None of the Above” as a write-in alternative…