What is a Moderate?

With the sudden turn into the moderate lane this last Tuesday the discussions we are all having are obviously about how the moderate wing of the Democratic Party coalesced around Vice-President Biden to take control of the nomination process.  The big “Mo” is on a roll. (“Mo” usually means momentum but this year it has a double meaning.)

My question that no one seems to be able to answer is how, exactly, do we define what it means to be a “Moderate?”

I do not believe that Moderates are defined by their stances on policy.  A very large percentage of the country, including Republicans are in favor of Healthcare (even single-payer) reform, Climate Change actions, addressing drug costs, education costs, voter reform, fair tax laws, racism, and etc.  As all the candidates have said during the debates this year, they agreed on the issues that need to be addressed, it was only the nuances of how to get there that set them apart.  When you try and put all Moderates into a single bag on policy, you will find they will not all fit into the same bag when it comes down to implementation of those policies.  Everyone has different ideas on how much change should be implemented; how much we should pay for the policies; and what the priorities will be.

Perhaps you would argue that the main difference between Biden and Bernie has to do with moderate change versus revolutionary change.  That could be, maybe.  But doesn’t the legislative process dictate the rate of change more than a President’s agenda?  Isn’t that what Elizabeth Warren was trying to say when she “stepped back” from her Medicare for All stance and said it would be a process that would take years to implement?  The reality is that no matter how radical an idea, it takes legislative support to implement that idea.  By the time it does become law (if it becomes law) it will be a compromised version that the majority of Congress agrees to.  With this in mind, how likely is it that Bernie’s vision would pass muster and come out looking anything like Bernie’s vision?

There was worry that with Bernie or Elizabeth on the ticket, down-ballet races would be more difficult to win.  First of all, Trump and the Rs are going to paint all Democrats as Socialists.  That will be their number one assault; an accusation that we all will need to defend unceasingly.  Second, the election of Trump himself is evidence that down-ballet elections were not affected by the radicalization at the top of the ticket.  In their primary season leading up to his election, Rs were constantly arguing that having him on the ticket would harm their chances everywhere in the country.  NOT!  They took control of everything.  No harm, no foul was the rule of that November day.

My main argument against this internal Democratic battle between Moderates and Progressives is that by having these debates we are fulfilling the Republican talking points for them.  Bloomberg even called Bernie a Communist on the debate page.  I could hear a cheer of support go up throughout the entire Republican world in response.  As we work our way towards November 3^rd, Republicans are going to attack and slander our candidates.  Then media will pick up the message, no matter how wrong or insane, and push our candidates to respond.  Republicans have been controlling the branding and messaging of our candidates for decades.  If you disagree, just talk to your fellow Dems about Hillary.  At least half of them will tell you that Hillary was too close to Wall Street.  They may even use the phrase “Crooked Hillary.”  These were Republican talking points, disseminated by Russian bots, that Democrats across the land bought; hook, line and sinker.

Finally, there is the argument that we are simply tired of all this arguing and yelling in a do-nothing Congress.  “We need to reach across the aisle to our Republican colleagues to calmly negotiate reasonable laws that we can all agree to.”  We are all tired of the drama and the hateful spewings of Trump.  We also, to a soul, hate watching committee meetings where nothing is accomplished except yelling and partisan bickering.  I understand we do not like that Congress is such an absurd battleground.  In our own lives we learn to get along, negotiate, and respect one another.  Why not Congress?  Perhaps, the argument goes, if we elect Moderates, they will be better at getting Congress back to a good place where everyone is agreeable to negotiate and pass laws, hand-in-hand, while smiling at the camera, kissing babies, and celebrating everything that is good.

I hate to bring this to your attention but the U.S. Congress has never been this way.  It is a partisan duopoly by design.  It thrives on dispute, self-righteousness and division.  Drawing everyone together in a meaningful way is bad for business.  How could a party, (either one, it doesn’t matter) raise the amount of money they raise if they didn’t have an evil, democracy-threatening adversary whose threat inspires people to donate millions of dollars?  If everyone agreed then why send them money?  If there is no threat or worry then people would stop watching the network news, reading the newspapers or paying attention to anything going on in Washington.  The political machines along with the media would go bankrupt.  The whole machine runs on discourse, hate and fear.

Even if, a more moderate Congress were elected and diligently reached across the aisle to negotiate legislation, who sits on the other side with open arms waiting to negotiate?  Obama, in spite of the Fox News depictions, was a moderate Democrat who tirelessly tried to reach across the aisle with reasonable requests of Congress.  In his last term, he was unable to get anything accomplished.  He could not even get them to have hearings for his Supreme Court nomination Merrick Garland – a moderate judge. 

The Harvard Business School published a very extensive study on this topic.  I have to admit that I have only read 24 of the 80 pages so far.  I do not claim to understand most of what they report and I’m certain that what I have gleamed so far was collected by a naïve and sophomoric brain.  However, on page 18 of the study there are two graphs that illustrate the percentage of moderates in each house from 1951 to 2015.  That just happens to be my exact life span, but I don’t think I can take blame for the results.  The decline of moderates as a percentage of the House and Senate has been in steady decline throughout those 64 years with Senate moderates at 4% and House moderates at 1% in 2015.  Like I said, who is there across the aisle to work with?

I agree that Congress would be more effective if things were in balance.  Having two extremes, however, is one way to balance the books.  Having one extreme and one moderate does not balance the books.  It tips the scales in favor of the extreme.

I guess we can all provide an answer to my original question, what is a Moderate?  I think my real question should be: “Why be a Moderate?”  What do we achieve by being moderate?  Obama proved that the answer to that question is: “NOTHING!”