First Principles

In this election, and in many debates I’ve had before and since, that political “moderation” is a self-evident virtue was and is often taken as, well, self-evident.  After all, “moderate” is a lot like “reasonable,” is it not?  And isn’t it the opposite of “extremist,” which no one wants to be?

I have to admit that I’ve walked that road many times myself.  But the more one thinks about it, the more you realize that moderation, at least when it’s a goal in and of itself, is rarely virtuous.

150 years ago, a political moderate would have opposed slavery “personally”, while insisting that it should be left to the individual slave owner, or the people of the several states to decide for themselves.  They would have disliked slave catchers, but could easily have tut-tutted about “extremists on both sides” and pointed at the “thieves” who acted as conductors for the Underground Railroad who were only stirring up regional animosity.  That year Republican up-and-comer Abraham Lincoln was somewhat more moderate than many in his party.  During his Senate race against Steven Douglas in their now famous debates he sought to calm these moderate swing voters by assuring them that he in no way felt blacks would or could be the full equal of whites in society.  (Fortunately, he was less wobbly about the issue later in his life, and Congressional Republicans were even less so.)

I’ve often wondered if I would have come down this middle path had I lived in 1858.  Would I have excused the evil of slavery, which was so evident to so many others at the time, because I wanted people to think I was “reasonable”?  Conservatives often have an innate tendency towards the status quo, which for some trumps political principle.  I like to think I wouldn’t be one of them.  But without tradition as my touchstone and guide, what would lead me to conclude otherwise?

Conservatives especially must be vigilant in asking “why?” when looking at something that has “always been done that way.”  Often there is a good answer – traditions don’t often survive for centuries unless they have value to add to society.  But the principles which underlie them must be understood as a primary consideration.

—

It is also worth considering the value of an adversarial system.  As a criminal defense attorney, if my first order of business was to seek common ground with the DA and then lobby my client to go along, I’d be disbarred – especially if the DA was not so willing to give up her client’s interests to find some middle ground.  Even where the primacy of my client’s concerns is opposite that of society’s, society is still served best by ensuring he has a fair trial with a zealous advocate.  Debate and conflict are often the best arbiters of truth and justice.

(There is, of course, a destructive way to do that and a constructive way.  But then, that’s the difference between a debate and an argument.)

“Moderates” who seek common ground as a virtue in its own right miss the power of an adversarial system to make even your preferred policies better – leaner, cheaper, faster, and with potential unintended consequences having been questioned and solutions provided for.  There is nothing like the forge of robust debate to strengthen our ideas.

And, of course, if a principle is just and true, what is the virtue in fighting for anything less?  While I firmly believe that the perfect is all too often the enemy of the good, there are some things over which a line in the sand must be drawn.  Slavery was one of those things.  The primacy of individual liberty and sovereignty is another.  Not all lines in the sand necessitate bayonets, but some fights must be carried to the end, no matter the tide against you.  And if those debates are lost in one battle, they must be fought out again in the next.

—

And what of the placement of the “extremes”?  I can hardly think of a worse position to be in than the Spanish Civil War.  When the fight is between the two hard left philosophies of Communism and Fascism, where do you stand between them to claim the mantle of moderation?  And even if you are able to, what good comes from taking a little evil from this side, and a different evil on that?

—

It’s not, of course, that all moderation is bad.  But I tend to think that political moderation is best when you arrive in the middle by happenstance when following your principles, than attempting to conform your principles to wherever the “center” happens to be that day.

And moderation in tone and tactics is quite another thing.  I’ll not give an inch in my belief that the maximization of individual liberty must be the foundation of any legitimate government action.  But my fight will be with words and a presumption that people who disagree with me have the best of intentions.

—

Principle must come first.  We can disagree as to what those principles are, which should take precedence over another, etc.  We can compromise on some policy in order to jointly maximize our disparate interests.

But as soon as “moderation” becomes it’s own goal, we’re truly slaves to the radicals on either side who will decide where that center winds up being.