The Paradoxical Necessity of an Immoderate Moderatism

In recent months there has been a fair amount of speculation among political observers regarding the possibility of an emerging moderate movement for political independence from the Democratic and Republican parties.  The evidence is difficult to ignore.  It seems like not a week goes by without any number of articles considering possible moderate, Independent candidates for president in 2012.  As perceived moderates are purged from both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is literally nowhere for them to go, except third party or Independent.  Lincoln Chafee won Rhode Island's gubernatorial race by running as a moderate Independent alternative to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Moreover, in the very same race, the Moderate Party of Rhode Island secured enough votes to be assured ballot access in the state for the next four years.  In Maine Eliot Cutler came within two percentage points of winning the state's gubernatorial race following a very similar strategy to that of Chafee.  Earlier this year, the Centrist Party merged with the Modern Whigs with the aim of building a national moderate alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.   Jon Stewart billed his Rally to Restore Sanity as the Million Moderate March.  New groups like No Labels reject the failed politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.  And so on. 

Moderate and centrist bloggers have recently begun a discussion of the so-called "moderate brand," or rather, the lack thereof.  Late last month, at The Pragmatic Center, Nick Goebel asked, "Moderates: What is our brand?"  Goebel writes:

The biggest problem that voters have with moderates is that they seem to be “wishy-washy.”  Moderates never seem to have principles.  They sit on the fence playing politics instead of promoting the issues.  They lack character, decisiveness, and strength. . . . Conservatives market themselves as the small government, less taxes, free trade candidates.  Progressives market themselves as being on the side of the “average American” and utilizing government to help all people not just those at the top.  But what are we?  As moderates we are “wishy-washy.”  Not very appealing.  My opinion isn’t that we should “rebrand” ourselves; it’s that we never learned how to market ourselves in the first place.

In response, Solomon Kleinsmith at Rise of the Center notes that managing the perception of moderates "will be essential as the groundswell of moderates and centrist independents begins to coalesce into a movement in more places around the country."  It is difficult to quibble with Goebel's proposition that moderates cannot "re-brand" themselves because they never branded themselves in the first place.  Indeed, moderates have effectively allowed themselves to be defined by the dead-enders of the duopoly parties, the partisans of the Democratic and Republican political brands.  Self-described liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans each define themselves, first and foremost, in opposition to the other.  Secondarily, however, they position themselves against the moderates in their own parties, painting the latter as virtual turncoats, lacking character, decisiveness and strength. 

On this view, moderate Democrats are not "real" Democrats, they are Blue Dogs, Republicans in disguise.  Similarly, moderate Republicans are not "real" Republicans, they are RINOs, Republicans-in-name-only.  Insofar as the Democratic and Republican parties in particular, as well as Democratic-Republican party politics in general, are defined and controlled by their respective activist bases, this assessment should probably be considered correct.  If you consider yourself a moderate independent, for all intents and purposes, you cannot belong to the Democratic or Republican party.  How could things be otherwise if moderate independents are in fact marginalized by the process of Democratic-Republican party politics? 

If moderate, centrist independents want to rehabilitate their brand, as it were, they must cease to allow the advocates and supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties to define it for them.  They must take control of it for themselves, and, in addition, they must define their opposition.  The simplest and most straightforward way to accomplish both of these goals at one and the same time is to declare political independence from the Democratic and Republican parties and the politics of the two-party state. 

So long as Democratic-Republican party politics is definitive of politics as such, our politics will exclude and marginalize those who advocate moderation, centrism and independence.  Compromise between Democrats and Republicans does not equal moderation.  Their common solution to every problem is the further expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  The political center is not where the Democratic and Republican parties meet.  It cannot be, if only for the simple fact that the politics of the two-party state is radically decentered, because it is bipolar.  However, the partisans and proponents of the Democratic and Republican parties are unified in their opposition to moderation, centrism and political independence.  So long as moderates continue to provide political cover for the Democratic and Republican parties, until they offer alternatives to the reproduction of Democrat-Republican party government, they will in all likelihood be incapable of controlling their own political reputation, if not also their political destiny.