Yes, Rush, There IS Such A Thing As A Moderate.
Recently, on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh declared that there is no such thing as a moderate. If that is so, then this is a much scarier world than I thought. One in which life is viewed through a black/white prism. Not only is this a dismal way to view the world, but it ignores the very real shades of gray and rich complement of colors that are so much a part of the modern, complex society in which we live. To suggest that there is no middle ground anymore, that one must choose between two extremes is overly simplistic, irresponsible…and dangerous. By virtue of being “in the middle”, moderates hear both sides of an argument, allowing them a deeper understanding of issues and an objective point of view when it comes to decision-making. Personally, I WANT the leaders of my country to have these characteristics. It’s certainly preferable to ideologues making policy in a knee-jerk way based on some random litmus test that has nothing to do with the difficult issues that plague our nation today. We had enough of that in the last Administration.
This all begs an important question. What exactly IS a moderate? There’s been a flurry of op-eds recently by conservative columnists maligning moderates, saying they “don’t stand for anything.” I take offense at that notion. I also think they are wrong. Ironically, moderation, defined by showing restraint and taking a measured approach to crises, has long been a hallmark of true conservatism. So-called “moderates” like Colin Powell and Jim Baker before him, and like George H.W. Bush by the way, saw the world in shades of gray. They were realists when it came to foreign policy. They were intellectual conservatives; men who weighed the pros and cons, who viewed the world in a balanced way. These men did not act on emotion but took a practical approach to policymaking. Unlike his father’s administration before him, George W’s did not exhibit intellectual conservatism. His brand of “neo-conservatism” is based more on emotion and religion than reality. Powell had the misfortune of being a lone voice on Bush II’s foreign policy team. Perhaps if he had served under the first George Bush, we might not have gotten ourselves embroiled in seven years of war and racked up a deficit that has almost bankrupted this nation.
I understand that neo-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are fighting for their very existence after a humiliating defeat in November. The tidal wave of Obamamania left republicans flopping around on the beach starved for oxygen; lost, dazed and confused as to why they were left high and dry by the American people. More telling is the fact that they were abandoned by their OWN people. In Pennsylvania alone over 200,000 republicans switched parties last year. Chester County, long a bastion of Republican leadership, enjoyed a 97,000 majority just two years ago. Today, that majority is a mere quarter of what it once was. Instead of trying to figure out WHY this happened and reach out to these people in an effort to bring them back into the fold, some “leaders” in the Republican Party like Rush Limbaugh seek to marginalize, even vilify moderates saying “good riddance.” So short-sighted is this viewpoint that it cannot be seen as anything more than a desperate effort on the part of the right-wing of the GOP to hold onto the stranglehold its held over this Party for eight years.
If the Republican Party wants to be a national party and regain its footing in the northeast, instead of a regional party representing pockets of the deep south and Midwest, it’s going to have to open its doors to moderates and independents. Period. It cannot afford to marginalize a whole sector of voters like that. Statements by Rush Limbaugh that there is no such thing as a moderate or that moderates don’t “stand for anything” only pushes these voters further away. This is NOT a prescription for success for any political party. Political parties exist in order to win elections. Yes, they incorporate certainly commonly-held beliefs but the operative word here is commonly. If they allow their ideological differences to get the better of them, then they are doomed to fail. That is where our party stands today, on the precipice of an ideological war.
Why can’t we agree to disagree on social issues and unite behind those principles that were the foundation of our party at its inception? A commitment to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, the promotion of individual initiative and ingenuity, support of judges who uphold the constitution instead of legislate from the bench and ensuring a strong national defense are REAL issues. ALL Republicans can be proud to “stand for” such beliefs. Furthermore, they are issues that many Americans support, especially now in the face of such overwhelming spending and growth in government. Now is the time when ownership of these issues can catapult the Republican Party back into the game and insure landslide victories in 2010.
If we allow ourselves to listen to negative forces like Rush Limbaugh and others in the neo-conservative wing who seek not to unite this party, but to further divide it, then we should get used to being in the back seat of history for the forseeable future. So…yes, Rush. There IS such a thing as a moderate, and you’d be wise to start listening to them.
