The way that the Health Care Reform’s debate ended shows what it means to be a modern moderate. Senator Nelson of Nebraska is often labeled as a “moderate.” In Nelson’s case, moderate means taking a stance until one gets a gigantic payoff. In exchange for his vote, his state of Nebraska, will get 100% of Medicaid expansion, paid for by the Feds. Nelson represents one kind of self serving moderate, but there are others.
In my State of Utah we have one Democrat in Congress. Rep. Jim Matheson is a moderate in that he has voted against several of the expansions in spending, such as the House Health Care Bill. Matheson votes this way so he can continue to be reelected. This sort of moderate is less dishonest than the Nelson type, because Matheson at least represents his State most of the time. He rarely gets bought off, while still being passively Liberal enough to be acceptable to the most left leaning districts in his State. The Matheson branch is annoying to both sides but at least he is relatively honest about his intentions.
The intention to be acceptable to other elites, represents another form of being moderate. The Elitist Moderates take stances that are generally liberal, because those in their circle are liberal. Then the Elitist, who don’t like the label “liberal,” call themselves moderate to make themselves comfortable with their stances. Elitists are generally found in academic circles or around large cities that are full of liberals. I’m sure that most of us have met one of these people. Their entire perspective on politics, military, social issues or any other manner of issues, is always balanced by how acceptable their views will be to their peers. The myth of these “moderates,” is that they are the truly open minded. They like to think of themselves that way; but, they see Conservatism as simple, bellicose, unsophisticated and unpalatable. They see Liberalism, which as I mentioned before they generally agree with, as an uncomfortable side of the fence to be on. These moderates are as dishonest as the Nelson type, except Elitists are lying to themselves, while they believe that they are being principled.
Are their principled moderates? Only in the way that a Chameleon is monochromatic. This analogy is appropriate because a Chameleon has one color at a time until it needs another color. The point? A moderate’s principles are constantly in flux. Nancy Pelosi is a committed Liberal. This is comforting to both sides of the aisle, because she generally doesn’t put on a moderate face to appear more acceptable to Conservatives. She just has disdain for those on the right. However she is, more or less, principled. She is unmistakably Liberal and pushes for policies that are Liberal. Her hatred of the right is based in principles. In contrast, moderates attempt to repackage left leaning policies in a convoluted way, to make them more palatable to everyone. While moderates look down on the right, they would never admit it, they simply try to undermine conservatives in a passive aggressive way, like Nelson did, saying that they have stood on principle. In private conversation, moderates sound, act and do their best to be acceptable to Liberals. They don’t, however, have the principle to say that they are in the same camp as the left.
The point is that whether a moderate is self honest or not, they are a washed version of someone who takes a stand. They benefit neither the left or the right and are entirely self serving. Leaders are not found amongst them, because no one knows where they will go next, while they follow whatever leader can advance the moderate’s career, or social standing. Senator Nelson is really only the latest in the pitiful tale of moderate flip-flopping. He will not be the last, because there will always be those sheep who see something meritorious about being in the milky middle.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
