against moderates

At the beginning of the year I got an email asking me to "join" an exciting new political action committee. They meant "donate to" but I knew that request would come later in the email. This bold (and unsolicited) endeavor invited me to rise up! For moderation! For too long, the message claimed, Seattle's politics have rocked between two extremes. But now we finally have a chance to stand up for what's right: the middle.

“We believe collaboration and dialogue beat purity tests and echo chambers every time,” the email said. In a followup email, the PAC's founder wrote:

"In simple terms, moderate is rational. It means starting with evidence, tradeoffs, and limits, not ideology. Moderates believe progress comes from testing ideas, fixing what doesn’t work and scaling up what does, rather than jumping to moral certainty or sweeping solutions. We believe in working within constitutional boundaries toward incremental reform. We favor pluralism, rather than purity and wisdom over outrage."

Right off the bat: moderates can't claim the concept of scientific inquiry solely for themselves. Who doesn't take in the evidence around them to make the decisions they think are right? There are also plenty of qualifiers in the sentences above. Staying within constitutional boundaries. Choosing only incremental reforms. They will fix what "doesn't work" without explaining how or why they should be the ones to do so. They don't ask who has tried to fix things in the past and what (or whom) kept them from succeeding. They don't consider why we should be forever duty-bound to a centuries-old document written by slaveholders.

This PAC isn't the only entity that claims a centrist righteousness. Third-party presidential candidates often put themselves between the parties' two extremes. Bill Clinton may have risen to the white house with his centrist Third Way-inspired campaign. Democrats in red states often push a moderate approach to governance. When two people argue about something, someone will stand between them and claim to be right.

who's in the middle?

Moderates pride themselves on having a flexible ideology. But it can be hard to know what about their views will flex and what won't. They express being open to idea and dialogue, but that can come with unspoken constraints. What is and isn't off the table? The decisions they make are rational in their minds. But even people we disagree with consider themselves to be rational. Each of us, not just moderates, filter what we perceive through the values we hold.

Moderates claim that neither side of an issue is "right"—the truth must lie somewhere between. It's convenient to believe that the best course of action is one that neither extreme wants. They push compromises where neither side gets what they want. Only the moderate does. By staking themselves somewhere along a spectrum, they get to decide what is the middle. But the middle ground isn't fixed. The Overton window is malleable to public pressure and shifts often. Sometimes that's for no reason, other times it's because of heavy lobbying and ad buys.

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. had this to say about moderates:

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

The appeal of moderation comes down to one thing: power. Moderates are rational. They with cooler heads get to decide what doesn't affect them. Moderates are neutral. They seek to "moderate" the gulf between the oppressor and the oppressed. But moderates aren't neutral. They have biases and privileges like we all do. They choose this power because they can dictate terms that benefit them the most and harm them the least. To paraphrase Dr. King, moderates can say they agree with you and still act against you. As I like to say, racist folks in the south will tell you if they're racist. Everywhere else, you have to figure it out on your own.

What the moderate doesn't seem to want is a true discourse of ideas. Instead they crave the position of correctness. While those of us slug it out with our ideas and hopes and dreams and visions, the moderate rests. They "hear" ideas that align with their own sense of morality. Then they declare a winner.

you're not a moderate

I don’t believe people can "be" moderates. There is no clear middle between two extremes. The extremes aren't fixed. They're limited to our own worldviews and thoughts about an issue. No matter what position we hold, it isn't a moderate one any more than it's a natural one.

We all have skin in the game. We all have a point of view. Moderates can't call themselves the only rational thinkers across the entire political spectrum. Moderates in the halls of congress face huge public opposition. We see what one party is trying to get away with. We can't meet with compromise the destination they want to take us to.

If you consider yourself a person whose politics straddle two extremes, decide where you stand. Describe your values, what you believe in, what you want the world to be like. Be honest about your goals and the experiences that shape them. Claim your positions without claiming the higher ground by default. Most of us believe we’re being rational. Almost all of us consider evidence, tradeoffs, and limits. But we’re not politicians. We don’t need to take a middle road with our opinions. If you have something to say, say it. But don’t call it the moderate position. And don’t expect everyone else to agree that it’s moderate.

“Moderate” is as vague a description as “liberal” or “right-wing” is. That’s because the values underneath each of those descriptions change. Humans are malleable, persuadable, even when we think we’re not. Garfield teaches us that no one is immune from propaganda!

I too make decisions intending to be rational and thoughtful. I agree that collaboration and dialogue are essential to whatever we do together. But I'm not a moderate. Nobody is.