Posted on 11/29/2006 9:07:20 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
MODERATION IS a virtue in many things like eating and drinking, but it's a sin in politics and public policy. The surest way to make the next two years a waste of everyone's time is to pretend that the lesson of the last election is that policy advocates of every philosophical stripe should abandon all principle in search of some sort of weak-kneed, Milquetoast fiction called the moderate position.
Every politician and policy advocate has some sort of philosophical belief system. While loosely grouped under two parties or perhaps two broad ideological monikers (conservative and liberal), almost every belief system is more complex than that.
Politicians of whatever stripe will approach problems with different perspectives on a solution. Some would argue that each should set aside his or her beliefs in pursuit of some theoretically noble consensus position.
But consensus is a hollow ideal. No one of our time was as dedicated a leader, as passionate about change, or accomplished as much as the great Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher's opinion of consensus suggests the underlying folly of the moderate faith.
"To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead," Mrs. Thatcher wrote.
In fact, the so-called moderate path seems to be precisely an attempt by some timid politicians to avoid doing anything out of fear that someone might object. The compromise plan almost always seems to be worse than doing nothing. As Mrs. Thatcher suggests, it is something which no one believes but to which no one objects.
No one expects a compromise to work. A compromise is not a whole policy, and it includes things people think are bad policy. You can't change course because you aren't trying a whole policy, but you don't expect it to cause too much damage either.
The problem with this sort of risk avoidance is that it not only breeds cynicism on the part of voters but, much worse, sweeps the most important problems under the carpet in the hopes that someone else with a thicker skin will solve them at some later date.
If a problem is real, doesn't half a plan make it worse? There's a reason that half-hearted and half-measure are not terms of praise in the English language.
But isn't the alternative to timid consensus building years of partisan gridlock? Gridlock is the outcome only if officials and opinion leaders set aside their philosophical convictions in favor of stopping any idea, no matter the merit, because its proponent has the wrong letter after his or her name.
The right approach is for every governor, lawmaker and policy advocate to build coalitions to do what he thinks is right. Bipartisanship is not a goal in and of itself, but ignoring party labels to build coalitions for good policy should be.
In the last Legislature, Gov. John Lynch signed a pro-growth insurance tax cut sponsored by a Republican that was supported (and opposed) by legislators from both parties and initially advocated by his Republican predecessor, Craig Benson. That's a terrific model for what can happen in the upcoming legislative session.
On education funding, the biggest issue facing the Legislature, there are probably four or five different philosophical schools of thought. While there is very broad agreement that some sort of a constitutional amendment is required, there are many different views of what that amendment should look like.
In all likelihood, an amendment will be included as part of a broader funding system. At the outset, it would be wrong for Republicans to reject a plan from the governor just because he's from a different political party. Similarly, it would be just as foolish for the governor to dismiss Republican proposals for amendment language for the same reason.
Election year opponents should cooperate when their philosophies overlap. The public is best served by advocacy based on principle. But the public is ill-served by both sides abandoning belief and principle to seek some sort of virtue-free common ground characterized only by a benign blandness.
Yes, good points about not abandoning basic convictions, but it is also true that unless both sides compromise on some points, nothing is achieved. It used to be said that politics was the art of compromise. That doesn't seem to be the case today, and watch me get flamed for even suggesting this.
EXACTLY!!
There is no such animal as a "moderate"!!
Nancee
"What bothers me is the insistence of these dissident conservatives that they are devoted to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who understood the truth of the old adage, "Politics is the art of the possible." In other words you get what you can and wait for a chance to get the rest of what you want.
These people think that if they don’t get everything they want they are willing to accept nothing, but that’s not what my father stood for. My father would say if I can get 80 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent of what I’m looking for I’ll take that and I’ll go back later on for the rest of it.
A lot of conservatives who say they espouse Ronald Reagan’s values forget a whole lot of his history, and his willingness to take what he could get was an important part of that history. They should recall that he kept moving the ball ahead, sometimes by just a few feet at a time, but almost always would end up crossing the goal line. This is how great things get done, by persistence tempered by patience and realism."
~ Michael Reagan
"I look at life from both sides now..." Phhhhhhhhhhhht!!!
HERE! HERE!!!
Compelling!!! And the way to compel compliance!!!
I like it! I love it!! I want somemore of it!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.