moderation in defense of liberty
I don’t often link to Instapundit, not because I don’t read it or find it worthwhile, but because, with a readership three orders of magnitude larger than mine, I figure that most visitors to my site have already seen what Glenn Reynolds has to say.
But I find this post particularly interesting because of its discussion of moderation. I was called a "moderate" Republican by a liberal friend recently. I said nothing because, well, I want his vote. No, actually, while I’m certainly more politically conservative than he would prefer, I think his use of the word "moderation" was aimed more at my demeanor than at my politics. Glenn addresses this idea nicely:
Moderate language isn’t the same as moderation in ideas, of course. My ideas . . . aren’t particularly moderate at all, at least on an opinion-poll basis. . . I try to use moderate language in part because I disagree with pretty much everybody on something big.
I would also add, that I also can usually find something to agree on with just about everybody.
One of the good things to come out of September 11th was that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, Americans of all colors, creeds, and political faiths recognized that we have far more in common with each other than we are different. I hate that it takes a bloody attack to make that obvious.
Read the whole thing over at Glenn’s place.
(Updated for an embarrassing misspelling in the title, which just goes to show that I shouldn’t post before my second cup of coffee.)
February 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
You won’t be getting my vote, Krummy, because I don’t live in your district.
I will say this: you aren’t rabid. Maybe that would’ve been a better description. “Well, at least you aren’t rabid.”
February 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” — Oscar Wilde
Frequently.
Extremes (polarization) beget extremes (polarization) in order to recapture equilibrium, where answers lie usually somewhere in the middle, I think. I’m a fan of the Middle Path, but I find “moderate language” on many critical issues gutless and maddening. Better cold than lukewarm. (I’m not referring to civility.)
February 17th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
TV, That’s because I just got my rabies booster. I’m good for another year.
Donna, “Civility” is probably the better word. There’s a definite lack of civility out there these days.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Bob–Nothing wrong with being a moderate. The far right and the far left are the same, other than the obvious political differences. Neither advances a meaningful dialogue where things might actually done as opposed to total gridlock. (Think Ann Coulter and Cindy Sheehan–oh…they really help…NOT)
Russ Feingold is a pretty good example. There’s no question he’s a liberal, but he also has no trouble reaching across the aisle like he did to work with McCain.
Rudy Guiliani–a good Repubican who is pro choice and pro gay rights.
I think after 8 years of Bush, the country won’t tolerate extremes again.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Misspelling the title!!!! For shame!!!;-)