Does the future of the GOP belong to those who call themselves moderates? Two of the Republican Party's current moderates, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, think that it does:
The Senate once was a comfortable home for GOP centrists, with household names like John Warner of Virginia, Alan Simpson of Wyoming, John and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and three Oregonians: Bob Packwood, Mark Hatfield, and Gordon Smith.
Another moderate, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, famously defected from the GOP in 2001 and restyled himself an independent. Jeffords declined to run again in 2006. Snowe felt the 2006 losses personally; she carried Maine handily with 74 percent of the vote, but two neighbors in the Senate's Russell Building went down, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee. And when Oregon voters threw Smith out in 2008, the three states on America's "Left Coast" lost the only GOP senator they had. "It's devastating, really, when you look at the totality of the picture and the imbalance it has created in our party," Snowe says. "Somebody wrote to me recently and said, 'If Republicans don't watch out, we'll have the smallest tent in history for a political party.' "The stimulus vote demonstrated the clout Collins and Snowe wield with Democrats short of the 60 votes needed to advance controversial bills. But their outsize influence has done nothing to tamp down their real worries about the future of the Grand Old Party.
A pivotal figure in negotiations on the stimulus, Collins was bombarded with about 100,000 E-mails in the days leading up to the vote: about 13,000 from Mainers, who were split on the issue, and the rest from mostly angry out-of-staters who condemned her "in very personal terms," Collins says. National politics can be as much a contact sport as ice hockey, something Mainers know a thing or two about. But what's curious about the anti-Collins campaign is who she thinks was behind it. Though she won't name him publicly, she blames a fellow GOP senator for unleashing it.
It used to be that the Republican Senate caucus, which has shrunk to 40 lawmakers, was much more collegial. But while she is "disappointed" by the sharp elbows, Collins worries more about the broader implications of the dwindling number of GOP centrists. And her concern is echoed by Snowe. They say the loss of moderates is bad for the GOP, bad for their region, and bad for America. And they fear that the party ultimately could cede turf to moderate Democrats, jeopardizing hopes of regaining congressional majorities and putting the GOP at risk in future presidential contests.
I can find a lot of things to say about this, but I'd rather ask a few questions and open a discussion: what does it mean to be a "moderate" in terms of either political party today?
An old snarky definition went something like this: a moderate Republican is a Republican who is committed to keeping abortion legal, while a moderate Democrat is any Democrat, however liberal, who has actually won a national election.
As a conversation-starter, here's what I see:
(more)
I think that for a Republican, "moderate" pretty much does equal, "liberal on social issues," which means that they're in favor of abortion, opposed to abstinence education on principle (leaving aside questions of how well it works), in favor of gay marriage or, if not quite there, willing to champion gay civil unions, and inclined to think that the "culture war" issues are a waste of time. But it's more than that--I think Republican moderates are also more concerned about the environment, more willing to propose big-government solutions to certain problems, and less concerned about how Wall Street is doing than more conservative Republicans are; they are also willing to join with Democrats to vote against their own party on as many occasions as seem necessary to them.
Now, here's where it gets tricky, because you'd think that by those criteria a "moderate" Democrat would be a pro-life social issues person who is fiscally more conservative than the rest of his party, and thus willing to vote on the Republican side of these issues--that "moderate" would mean a bit more to the center compared to each party's natural orientation (Republicans toward the right, Democrats toward the left). But that's not how it usually works, is it?
It's not, for instance, that there aren't pro-life Democrats, but they're hardly looked at as the "moderate" wing of the party most of the time. It's as though supporting Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton is, for either party, a litmus test of one's "moderate" status, despite the fact that many Americans, even those who are pro-choice, would limit abortion more than those two court decisions allow--if they even understand how those two decisions and the definition of "health" in them work together to create a right to abort through all nine months of pregnancy. The same is true about the other social issues; "moderate" doesn't mean a willingness to examine one's own party's stance on any of them, or even to reflect public opinion, but an automatic toeing of a line that keeps being redrawn (e.g., where it was once "moderate" to be mildly in favor of civil unions for gay couples, it will soon be the case that the "moderate" position will be defined as the willingness to work for gay marriage laws to pass, etc.).
The same's true on the fiscal issues: a "moderate" Democrat is someone who pretty much accepts the Democratic Party's views on them all, though I know there are occasional exceptions. It's as though we've redefined "moderate" to mean "a Democrat (except for a handful of far-left types), and those Republicans who agree with them," which isn't really much of a definition at all.
Bear with me. I'm really just thinking out loud in the above; what I'd like to hear is your definitions. What is a moderate? Is a moderate Republican different from an ordinary Democrat in any dynamic way? Is a moderate Democrat different from the rest of his party in a way that resembles how a moderate Republican is different from his? Who decides what the acceptable moderate position on an issue is?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Erin,
I think you are just re-inforcing the snarky definition, because you don't seem to have done any thinking on what makes a moderate Democrat by comparing to Democratic Party platform, rather, you're comparing moderate Democrats to moderate Republicans. They're not exactly flip sides of the same coin.
The problem is the "pro-life" part of your proposed definition. Here's the thing. "Moderate" Republicans are defined by how they differ from their own party (I agree with you that it usually means they are pro-choice Republicans). There is NO requirement that they support gun control. Simply if they disagree on ONE of the most important issues to Republicans (abortion) they are called moderate. For Democrats, you can't import from the discussion on moderate Republicans the issues important to Republicans (abortion) you have to look at issues that are important to Democrats (gun rights* or anti-Iraq war). What you are trying to say is that "moderate" is defined as against your party's typical position on one issue, abortion. Of course, if you only pick one issue, you can make the opposing side look more radical. Here's my question to you, are you going to be satisfied with ANY definition of "moderate Democrat" that doesn't necessarily address abortion AT ALL? Would you be satisfied with ANY definition of "moderate Republican" that didn't address gun control AT ALL? The issues that make someone a "moderate" are typcially different on different sides of the aisle.
*I should say that I think gun control is fading as a big issue for Democrats. In short, the conservative position has, if not won, captured a lot of territory in the last 15 or 20 years. Nothing permanent has really replaced it as a big issue for Democrats that is NOT a big issue for Republicans. I don't think this takes away from my point, that moderates need to be defined by what is important to THEIR party.
"Moderate" is just lazy journalism-speak for people who don't fit completely within the narrow left-right lines we draw around the two parties.
This is unfortunate, because moderation is a temperament rather than a set of political beliefs. And it's a temperament we need a lot more of in public life. A real moderate might hold either the most conservative or the most liberal possible views. But moderation will counsel working with one's opponents to achieve what is prudent and possible, rather than attempting to destroy those opponents politically and personally.
I might add that, besides the very real plague of right-left ideologues who view politics as a bloodless form of total warfare, the other big obstacle to moderation in our public life is the huge number of time-serving career politicians.
You cannot effectively moderate your views to work with the other side if you haven't established any principled positions to begin with. When blatantly careerist politicians try to effect grand compromises, their party's base usually revolts against them, perceiving the pol as unprincipled and self-serving rather than prudent and wise.
Suppose someome thinks all four of the following things:
1) Any form of gun control is bad. People should be allowed to own automatic rifles and to carry concealed handguns without permits.
2) A fetus has no moral standing. There's no moral difference between a late-term abortion and a haircut.
3) Illegal immigrants are criminals. The INS should round them up and deport them. They should not be provided any social services while they are here, aside from jail food.
4) Same sex marriage should be legalized in all fifty states and at the Federal level immediately.
If you believe these four things, you definitely are not a party-line Democrat or a party-line Republican. You also definitely are not a moderate.
I don't know if this is accurate, but I would think something like the following
Moderate Democrat
Admires Truman so favors some toughness on foreign policy
Pro-Gun
Pro-Death-Penalty
Supports the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Supports most abortion rights otherwise, but favors reduction efforts
Supports some gay rights concerns, but opposes same-sex marriage
Moderate Republican
Admires Eisenhower and Ford
Supports membership in most international organizations and treaties.
Has strong concerns about global climate change.
Highly Pro-Choice, but supports some regulations
Oriented on business, but not opposed to regulation
Socially progressive
Supports Affirmative Action but not "quotas."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.