The Role of Moderates in American Politics

If you get a chance, read this post by Tom Schaller at fivethirtyeight.com about Evan Bayh and the hypocrisy of "moderates" in the Senate. I think it sums up very well the role so-called moderates such as Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, or Joe Lieberman should play in our legislative process. This goes for the guys on the other side of the aisle as well, although they seem to keep their "moderates" in line better, partially because they have far fewer of them.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a moderate. Granted, my idea of moderation sits far to the left of what Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, or Evan Bayh would call moderation. My views and ideals run well to the left, and on things such as GLBT issues and the first amendment I am very adamant about my positions. However, from an operational standpoint I am flexible on most issues.

What the Republicans seem to understand better than the Democrats is the value of a perception of uniformity. That isn't to say that every body must toe the party line, or not try to influence policy. What it means is that those on the fringes in a party must respect the will of the majority. It is one thing to argue for, and get, concessions or changes to protect your viewpoint or your constituency. It is another thing entirely, however, to expect your position to be the majorities postion, and torpedo their efforts if you don't get your way.

Above all, once a decision has been made, or a bill is in place, it is your job as a moderate to get behind it. Support it enthusiastically yet honestly. Be willing to explain that it isn't your idea of perfect, or possibly even great. But also explain how it is best for the nation at large, while also saying why it helps your constituents. Never go on Meet the Press, Hardball, or any other bloviation station, unless it is to offer your support for the measure. I am sure that if "moderates" such as Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln had taken this approach, real health reform would have been done well before the debacle in Massachusetts happened. Of course, that assumes these senators actually care about real reform, and not just the perception of reform.

To sum it up, a moderates job is not to bend the will of the majority to his point of view, but to smooth out the edges of that majority and stand as a check against government overreach and for transparency. A moderate who calls out his colleagues in public and stands in the way of effective government is not a champion of "bi-partisanship" or "post-partisanship". He's not a profile in courage, or someone to be admired. He is nothing but a hypocritical obstructionist, hell-bent on protecting the interests of his one man party, even at the detriment of his larger party or his nation.

* As if most Democrats in the Senate were wild eyed leftist extremists.

Democracy in Action: Demand Question Time

Last week, President Barack Obama visited the House Republican Conference in Baltimore, Maryland to answer questions. It was an excellent meeting, with mostly thoughtful questions from the representatives, and even more thoughtful answers by the President. It was without soundbites, without too much political preening, and thoroughly refreshing. You can view the remarks at CSPAN.

This is something that shouldn't be rare in a supposedly democratic society. Unfortunately this is not a regular part of Washington life, but hopefully this can change. If you are believer in real change, and a believer in better government, or just a fan of the UK Prime Ministers Question Time, please visit the Demand Question Time website.

As Nate Silver explains in this post about the subject, there are an awful lot of questions about how this would work. I agree that it would need to be random, if only to prevent what happened at Obama's meeting with the Senate Democrats this week. In that meeting, all of the questioners were Senators who just happened to be facing reelection this November. Thus, the questions weren't quite as frank as one would hope, and were far too concerned with politics instead of governance.

Will this become a part of our national calendar? I can't tell. Obviously a lot of powerful people on both sides of the aisle would stand to lose out in this scenario. However, the people that should truly matter, all 300 million plus and counting, would win out big. I figure if it can happen, this would be the President to do it.