Chiming in on the “Meta” of Moderation
Given the other posts on the moderateness of this site, I suppose I should add my two cents. I don’t post here as often as some of the others, but I certainly add my voice now and then. As for “moderation,” I agree with Michael and David’s sense that moderation refers to tone, not necessarily ideology or political position. Michael and I disagree on many issues, but I know that we can use this blog – along with our wonderful regular commenters – to explore these issues without devolving to partisan hackery.
As for me, I am a moderate liberal. That means that I tend to support the liberal side on most hot-button political issues. I am also a staunch partisan Democrat – mostly because of my dislike of the Republican Party. My “moderation” comes from my historical perspective. I’ve had many arguments with bona fide right wingers over the years – my father-in-law in particular – and one thing always stands out: the arguments we have are not new. Take social conservative fear mongering about cultural decline, for example. As a historian, I regularly read commentary from early 19th century religious reformers lamenting the loss of social control that resulted from the market revolution of the 1820s. Or consider the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. One reason for their severity was the deeply held fear among Puritan elites that the old Puritan theocratic order was breaking down in the face of new “Yankee” immigration. The Witch Trials were, in many ways, akin to the great reactionary social movements of our time, driven by fear of change and a tinge of economic tension. Hearing social conservatives bewail the loss of “family values” is, to me, like listening to a broken record. We’ve been down that road before.
That perspective tends to moderate my own thinking. The issue that makes me most liberal is separation of church and state. My position on this issue comes from two personal sources: my Judaism in a majority Christian country, and my lack of religiosity in a country that wholeheartedly rejects atheism (only Islam disqualifies candidates for President more than atheism to the American electorate). As such, I am deeply sensitive to claims of “Christian nationhood.” That said, I am also aware of how benign most past proclamations of, say, “the Creator” or “God’s blessing” meant out of the lips of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. What bothers me about the “put religion back in the public square” people (and why public square and not public sphere, anyway?) is that they are driven by resentment against modern-day religious pluralism. They don’t want a benign “Creator” getting mention. They want full-on fundamentalist Christianity taught in public schools, and they will work at it one step at a time. At least, that’s how I see them.
Anyway, I am rather militantly partisan, but ideologically moderate and flexible. I am so partisan because I deeply fear the religious right. And on that, I am hardly alone; the decline of the GOP in the North is a direct result of the Republican Party adopting social conservatism at the expense of pragmatism and social libertarianism. On ideology, I generally support free trade. I am not a pacifist; I opposed the Iraq war not because it was “illegal” or “immoral” but because it was unnecessary and unlikely to produce the outcome its prognosticators proclaimed. I generally support withdrawal, not because I want all our troops out of harm’s way, but because I don’t see how our presence materially contributes to our national security within an Iraqi civil war. On domestic issues, I don’t see any use in gun control. And I believe abortion is morally abhorrent (even though many deeply religious Jews disagree with me on that). So, on gays, church-and-state and the death penalty, I am staunchly liberal. On abortion, guns, foreign policy and free trade, I’m more moderate. On social welfare for the poor, I lean toward the liberal end of the spectrum, but only when I feel the recipient communities will have a real say over distribution of resources (paternalism, either voluntary or governmental, is what kills social welfare; the community-based decision-making process at the heart of the original Great Society program was abandoned in favor of Washington-centric bureaucracy). Some of my views are informed by my historical perspective. Others driven by my religious identity (confused as it is). And others just by lived experience and reflection (and race, class and gender, of course:)). In the end, I declare myself moderately liberal and I find this site to be a comfortable place to exchange my thoughts and ideas with others.
20 Responses to “Chiming in on the “Meta” of Moderation”
Just a quick question from a friendly neolibertarian – did you ever consider that, as you despise government legislation of majority morality such as in gay marriage, etc., government welfare is no less legislating morality?
You and I would both give to the impoverished, but from a purely philosophical, get-down-to-the-barebones-of-the-government type of way, welfare is no less government legislation of morality than banning gay marriage. Both views are held by a majority of Americans, and the supporters of both opinions claim that their actions are beneficial to society.
In my opinion, it’s no more the government’s right to force views on charity down our collective throat than views on marriage. The only difference, really, are the numbers.
I disagree, Andrew. I just don’t view tax revenue in the same boat as personal morality. The government does a lot of things with my tax dollars that I don’t like. But I don’t feel that my liberties are being violated in some fundamental way, just because my tax dollars are spent in a way I don’t approve.
As for government and charity, the reason I support more governmental intervention is that I think voluntarism doesn’t work. Sure, in some situations it’s better than government aid. And I certainly believe that the market provides ultimate relief to the poor…if they can get access to it. But I firmly believe that most poor people are poor because they were born that way, not because they made bad career or moral choices. I went to a wealthy suburban high school and I’ve seen many people who are now successful lawyers, but who, if they had gone to a poorer high school, would be in jail or dead. Why? Because their mommy and daddy was there to bail them out of trouble and pay their way to a good college. The poor don’t get the second and third chances that the wealthy get. They often don’t get a first chance.
Nevertheless, I think there is a point with which you and I agree. I think we both believe that the poor should have a material role to play in determining how aid to them (from whatever source) is distributed and used. This, to me, was the one useful part of the Faith-Based Initiative. At least the churches knew what to do with the charity money. In many ways, this is an argument for federalism, or even localism; only the local grassroots organizations really know how to spend the money. I think the 1994 Republicans were right on this score; block the money together and give it to local organizations that know what to do with it. My model for this is Fannie Lou Hamer and the grassroots leaders in the rural civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. When they controlled the shots, they could work wonders. But when the Johnson Administration converted the Great Society programs into centralized, bureaucratic entities, the Fannie Lou Hamers lost out and the poor suffered.
So, I believe that government has an important role to play with respect to the poor. The poor are poor because they have little or no access to quality schools, affordable health care, good paying jobs or, yes, stable role models in the community. Asking me to offer my tax dollars toward their benefit is nothing like asking me to allow my children to be told to say a Christian prayer in school.
Elrod said: “As for “moderation,” I agree with Michael and David’s sense that moderation refers to tone, not necessarily ideology or political position.”
Elrod, I must say I fully agree. While I have disagreed ideologically with a number of folks here, I have been surprised how often — given the common ground of moderation in tone — we agree on issues as volatile as the Iraq war.
Perhaps I am not a exactly a doctrinaire conservative…supporting abortion rights and gay rights etc…but I feel I am pretty conservative.
But due to the remarkable moderation in tone that defines TMV, there is an opportunity for conversation and debate across the political spectrum here that I have not seen on many other blogs.
Glad you feel that way, Marlowecan. It’s hard to find blogs moderate in tone. There are moderate bloggers out there, but often the commenters are rabid ideologues. See the comments at Political Animal for an example. Drum is a superb, moderately liberal blogger. But his commenters are not moderate at all.
As for “moderation,” I agree with Michael and David’s sense that moderation refers to tone, not necessarily ideology or political position.
Wow. Now there’s something to ponder.
Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? In all its implications?
Because I, in my lifetime, and in my life experiences, have heard the most immoderate things–from across the spectrum and back again–expressed in moderate tones.
Civil discourse matters. But it’s no trump card. And in my view, linquistically and otherwise, civil is no synonym for moderate. (That’s despite my preference for civil.)
The Moderate Voice. Speaking strictly, specifically and only in terms of language here, I translated that title as “the voice of moderation.” Are you telling me that it means, instead, “the moderate voice,” as in “views phrased in moderate tones”?
Because–good, bad, or indifferent–those are two VERY different things.
The difference is in the evidence. There is little/no proof that gay marriage will be detrimental to society. Poverty, on the other hand, is detrimental to society in measurable ways. The most important being the link to crime.
Now we may disagree on whether or not gay marriage is a good thing, but I think we can all agree that crime and poverty are bad things and should be stopped.
You want charity to take on this problem, but despite the enormous wealth in this country (not to mention low taxes on personal and especially corporate income), we have yet to really attack this problem.
Shouldn’t the government step in when the rich and powerful are not?
“the voice of moderation.”
That should have been “the voice of moderates.”
Elrod I have a quick comment since I tend to agree with your perspective on the poor. I am starting to think that the libertarian/(intellectual) conservative viewpoint about the inherent “evil” of government is correct — they just do a poor job of conveying it. It’s not that it is intrinsically evil or that we are slaves because of taxes, it’s that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and all that jazz. If anything, I think the last six years has shown how big government is ripe for quick changes in disposition and how a few mistakes or radicals can drastically alter our country.
I agree that the libertarian view on volunteering is completely unrealistic, but what I’m starting to think is that it should be possible to use free market forces to help with progressive goals. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be possible to setup a non-profit health insurance company that competes with the big ones by being more efficient and friendly (while serving the poor.) I also think it’s possible to have companies recognize the value of educating the poor and giving more chances.
In short, I am starting to believe more and more that while individual and isolated charity (and more importantly, giving opportunities to those that don’t know how to get them) isn’t enough, that social structures could be developed in the private sector that could be — all without everyone deciding to give away all their possessions. I think it is well worth teaming up with libertarians to try to imagine what these would look like, instead of continually arguing about the morality of taxes.
Mikkel, I agree that using the marketplace might be a way to do some things that the government does now. It is at least something that we should look into with an open mind. My problem with government agencies is that they tend to become more interested in preserving the agency than completing whatever task they are assigned. But then again, this might be true of private companies as well, but private companies could have contracts terminated.
Elrod, have you ever read Anarchy, State, and Utopia? That book really changed the way I view government and what people want from government. I now realize that [as far as governmental services, not moral issues] there is no right or wrong, just honest disagreements on what government should do.
Grognard,
I agree completely and I think this is particularly true for federal aid programs. There is tremendous motivation for states to qualify for more federal money, so the incentive to actually alleviate systemic problems is actually reversed (the state bureaucracy must have funding to exist and thus there is an incentive to continue the cycle of poverty and govt dependence). That is not to say that I’m opposed to all govt aid programs, but I think it is critical that we acknowledge these issues and design programs as much as possible with the correct motivators to solve problems rather than perpetuate them. I think this is what Elrod was advocating as well when he discussed grassroots rather than Washington-centric programs.
Elrod,
I sense a bit of a straw man here. Don’t you think you are lumping all social conservatives in with the extremists? Many of us don’t want to shove our values down anyone’s throat (and I would join you in fighting efforts to put fundamentalism into our schools, believe me!) We don’t want MORE Christianity in the public forum, we simply want to fight those who want LESS of it. We don’t want to be told that it is offensive for us to practice or speak of our beliefs in public. We feel that there are people who feel that simply by being in the majority that we have a greater responsibility not to offend: as though there is some sort of coercion or tyranny of the practice of our beliefs simply because we are in the majority. We simply do not feel that is so and we feel that everyone should be able to freely express their beliefs whether in public or private, whether their beliefs coincide with the majority or a minority of our society.
C Stanley,
There is a difference between expressing religion in public, and expressing it in a coercive context. Believe me, as a Jew, I see Christianity EVERYWHERE. I’m not bothered by it one bit. But I find the notion that Christians are somehow prevented from expressing their religious devotion a bit facetious. What examples are there of Christians who are prevented from expressing their beliefs? And do these examples involve potentially coercive environments (schools)? Are they acts of businessmen trying to cater to non-Christians (Happy Holidays)?
reader,
Obviously, not everybody interprets the “moderate” in The Moderate Voice the way I do. I was just offering my own take on it.
Elrod,
In your blog post you make a distinction regarding your beliefs on the separation of church and state: you set yourself apart from the extremists by stating that you see a benign place for religion in public discourse and you acknowledge its historic place. There are liberal atheistic or secularist groups who do not make such a distinction, and I imagine that your mention of this issue is an indication that you wish to not be lumped in with the extremists. I suppose I’m asking for the same privelege, for you to acknowledge that there really is a tension between religious believers (mainly Christians) and secularists in our society today, and that some who are on the conservative side of that divide are not on a witch hunt nor are they trying to establish a theocracy. I agree with you that Christians really shouldn’t put their beliefs in a coercive context, but there are also numerous examples of cases where there is no coercion (use of public property for meetings, for example, as long as all groups have equal access). I think you are an example of the reasonable liberal perspective on this issue but I just would like it to be acknowledged that there are reasonable people on the conservative side as well.
C Stanley, You’re back from the holidays I see, missed ya. I think one solution to the problem of government programs [and this would include a privatized equivalent] would be defined period of operation, perhaps with benchmarks. If we had a review, every eight years just to throw out a number, of how well an agency is working on a problem then we might avoid some of these open ended programs that seem to go on forever without any improvement in the area they are trying to help. I could be that a program would have to be dropped entirely and a fresh start made.
Another possibility is that if an agency has solved the issue it would be eligible for a new assignment, that agencies can work on problems, solve them, and instead of being disbanded go on to the next problem. The need to preserve jobs by never fixing anything goes away.
Thanks for the welcome back, grog.
I agree completely with your suggested prescriptions for solving the ills of beaurocracy, but I think most liberals are unwilling to see that the Democratic party (as it currently exists anyway) would never buy into this. Instead, we sometimes get lip service paid to the idea that programs need to be short term and then up for review, but as soon as a conservative questions the program they are demonized as “slashing and cutting” social programs, dismantling the New Deal, etc. I’m exaggerating a bit of course, but I do see this in play quite a bit. It’s not just the preservation of the jobs of the beaurocrats that’s at stake, its the reelection of the govt officials who put them there.
C Stanley,
I wholeheartedly acknowledge that many conservatives in the church-state argument do not want to ram theocracy down everybody’s throat. All I ask is that conservatives consider for a moment why members of religious minorities are so “sensitive” on this issue. If there is a compromise out there, let’s have it. Christians can and do use public meeting rooms all the time. The Courts have said, correctly, that church groups can use school property in after school hours. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I just want to hear real examples of Christians being prevented from expressing their faith.
just want to hear real examples of Christians being prevented from expressing their faith.
Let’s see- Walmart wished them Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas (tho I heard this year they switched back, probably to avoid an O’Reilly boycott, LOL! Sorry couldn’t resist being snarky. BTW, where is the Snark? I miss his irreverent posts.
Elrod,
I agree with you that by the time these cases reach the Supreme Court, generally the rulings are coming down on the correct side of the issue. But the fact remains that the ACLU is bringing these cases to the courts (against the free expression of religion in many cases) and some of the more liberal circuit courts are finding in their favor. So I’m just making the point that there is a reasonable position on my side of the fence, to oppose the extremists on your side of the fence. And despite my pulling an admission out of you that this is the case, you originally stated it as though you believe that all conservatives are extremists on these issues: