Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Over the past month, Mitt Romney has aggressively appealed to moderate voters. President Barack Obama, for some reason, hasn’t. But, in what he thought was an off-the-record interview with The Des Moines Register, Obama laid out a pretty moderate agenda for his second term.
It occurred to me that this might be a good time to describe what being a moderate means.
First, moderation is not just finding the midpoint between two opposing poles and opportunistically planting yourself there.
The moderate starts with a political vision, but is not ultimately committed to an abstract idea. Instead, she has a deep reverence for the way people live in her country and the animating principle behind that way of life. In America, moderates revere the fact that we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream—the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise.
This animating principle means that we have a tradition of conflict. Over the centuries, we have engaged in a series of long arguments around how to promote the American dream—arguments that pit equality against achievement, centralization against decentralization, order and community against liberty and individualism.
The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping the opposing sides balanced. In most great arguments, there are two partially true points of view, which sit in tension. The moderate tries to maintain a rough proportion between them, to keep her country along its historic trajectory.
Americans have prospered over the centuries because we’ve kept a rough balance between things like individual opportunity and social cohesion, local rights and federal power. At any moment, new historical circumstances, like industrialization or globalization, might upset the balance. But the political system gradually finds a new equilibrium.
The moderate creates her policy agenda by looking to her specific circumstances and seeing which things are being driven out of proportion at the current moment. Immoderate people often know what their solutions are before they define the problems.
For a certain sort of conservative, tax cuts and smaller government are always the answer. For a certain sort of liberal, it’s tax increases for the rich and more government programs.
The moderate believes tax cuts might be right one decade but wrong the next. Tighter regulations might be right one decade, but if sclerosis sets in then deregulation might be in order.
Today, inequality is clearly out of whack. The information age, family breakdown and globalization have widened income gaps. Government spending and government debt are also out of whack. The aging population and runaway health care costs have pushed budgets to the breaking point. There’s also been a hardening of the economic arteries, slowing growth.
Just as the founding fathers tried a mixed form of government, moderates like mixing and matching from columns A, B and C. They try to create harmonious blends of policies that don’t, at first glance, go together.
Being moderate does not mean being tepid. It will likely take some pretty energetic policies to reduce inequality or control debt.
Moderation is also a distinct ethical disposition. Just as the moderate suspects imbalance in the country, so she suspects it in herself. She distrusts passionate intensity and bold simplicity and admires self-restraint, intellectual openness and equipoise.
The many moderates in this country have done a terrible job of organizing themselves. There are some good history books that describe political moderation, like “A Virtue for Courageous Minds” by Aurelian Craiutu, a political scientist at Indiana University. But there are few good manifestoes.
If politicians are going to try to pander to the moderate mindset, they should do it right.•
• Brooks is a New York Times columnist. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.