All in moderation 
November 9, 2009 by Matthew Jarzen
Belonging to the political center is inconsequential
Tuesday, voters in Virginia and New Jersey sent a foreshadowing message to President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party — your days are numbered. Republican gubernatorial candidates in both races defeated the Democratic incumbents by very wide margins.
Obama went to both states numerous times to campaign for the Democrats. If the elections showed one thing, it was that the Obama’s shine has fizzled out.
But the media focused on the 23rd Congressional District in New York, where there was a special election. The 23rd Congressional District is a fairly Conservative district and usually Republican.
The local GOP bosses selected Republican assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to take over the seat given up by former GOP Rep. John McHugh, who accepted Obama’s Army Secretary position.
According to the media, Scozzafava was a moderate Republican, but in reality, she was anything but moderate. Scozzafava was actually more to the left than Bill Owens, the Democrat in the race.
Scozzafava was about as far left as our president. She was “an ACORN friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend, [pro-card check, pro-abortion, pro-failed stimulus]” radical leftist. I guess that’s how the mainstream media define moderate nowadays.
As if she wasn’t a disgrace to Republicans anyway, conservatives were further insulted when not only the National Republican Party endorsed Scozzafava but so did the architect of the conservative victories in 1994, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Conservatives all across the nation were up in arms, particularly in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Absolutely infuriated by the GOP’s actions, conservatives rose up and nominated Doug Hoffman for the candidate of the Conservative Party.
After the truth about Scozzafava came to light and her record came under even more scrutiny, she dropped out of the race and surprise, surprise — she endorsed Owens.
When election time came, the conservative candidate Hoffman lost the race with an astonishing 44 percent of the total votes.
But this isn’t all about Scozzafava. What’s important from this story is how the media have treated it. NPR recently invited the fake conservative David Brooks from the New York Times to discuss the race.
He claimed that by conservatives nominating somebody outside the Republican Party and rejecting the “moderate” Scozzafava, they’re creating a rift within the Republican Party because we need the independents and the moderates.
Brooks and other Democrat-like Republicans have been trying to push conservatives out of the party since the conservative takeover in the 1960s. According to people like Brooks, the only way the GOP can win in places like the Northeast is to nominate moderate candidates.
If Scozzafava was their ideal moderate Republican, I would certainly love to see what their definition of a liberal Republican would be.
I find it funny that even after Republicans gruesomely lost in 2006 and 2008, pundits are still saying the Republican Party needs to be more moderate.
What Brooks and the NPR panel completely neglected to mention was that the conservative candidate, Hoffman, won 44 percent of the vote.
Of course the Republican elite fear that conservatives are pushing moderates out of the party.
With all this talk about moderates, I’m left wondering what is so noble about a moderate? What Brooks and others don’t get is that in 2008, they got the candidate that they wanted in John McCain.
In 1996, they got what they wanted in Bob Dole and regardless of if they want to admit it or not, they got eight years of moderate-right rule under George W. Bush.
I have news for the noble moderates out there — you guys don’t win because people think you are wishy-washy. You are more ready to compromise than take a stand. People don’t care if you can compromise or not. They care about whether you can defend your beliefs.
Simply look at our culture – our movies, our literature, our heroes and even many of our presidents. Go into any library and try finding a book that talks about great political moderates or compromisers. You won’t find any because such people aren’t applauded.
Regardless of how noble moderates are made out to be or how enlightened they like to pretend they are, they too fall strongly on one side or the other. They just don’t want to admit it.
The real question is, which side do you fall on? Do you fall on the side of freedom, liberty, limited government, low taxes, strong national defense and free-market innovation?
Or do you fall on the side of a nanny-state, high taxes, weak defense, socialist economy and only the freedoms government sees fit to grant to you at the time?
Contrary to what the media or your professors may tell you, the U.S. is a center-right country.
A recent Gallup poll revealed that 40 percent of Americans are conservative, 35 percent are moderate and a laughable 21 percent are liberal.
It’s time the moderates got off that comfy fence they’ve been sitting on.
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Another great article.
In my opinion, the right has no room for moderates. Wishy- washy moderates can all go to the left. We need REAL conservatives who stand behind the principles of the conservative movement and the principles from which this country was founded.
What I don’t get about moderates is the simple fact that they’re moderates. What’s so special about being on the fence about things or holding two positions simultaneously to appease both sides.
It’s like saying, “I’m only going to compromise some of your freedom and liberty.”
Why compromise? They’re ready to make deals on my freedoms and liberties instead of standing for one side or the other.
To quickly answer your question, Peter, moderates aren’t necessarily “on the fence” about specific issues.
Many moderates, such as myself, take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of public policy and politics in general. They still often hold very specific views on certain topics; what often makes them moderates is that these views conflict with what the two parties stand. For example, I am pro-life and also support gay marriage. That puts me at odds with both the Republicans and Democrats on social issues. This is only one example, but if one’s views are similarly split, issue by issue, then it is really foolish for one to support either party exclusively.
Many moderates also don’t vote on specific issues, but rather a general sense of who will better stimulate the economy, or conduct better foreign policy, and so on. They don’t believe in the false dichotomy that you, Peter, and Matt present, and don’t care about the rancid ideology both sides sputter–Republicans say they are the only ones who support freedom, while Democrats insist they are the only ones with compassion and who support social justice. They care about what will work better for their specific situations, and not about the individual parties’ power fetishes.
I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with being moderate. As Nathan put it then tend to agree with both parties to a certain extent and it depend which pull is greater on them to determine who they will vote for. For example, moderates seem to choose fiscal conservatives over social liberals in times of financial crisis but wouldn’t choose them at other times depending on what is their main motivation factor in that election.