Moderate Activism: Oxymoron, or the Next Big Thing?

An activist for moderation | csmonitor.com

I'm a few days behind on noting this column by Carla Seaquist:

We moderates most definitely do not lack conviction. But, being moderate, too often we've kept our convictions to ourselves, especially since 9/11, not wishing to exacerbate the country's polarization. It's time - high time - for moderates to contend, to reset the balance to the political and cultural "center," a good place to go after things have fallen apart, as the Yeats poem implies - and where traditionally Americans have always stood. It's not conviction moderates lack, it's venues and traction.

Seaquist has been an ongoing voice in this discussion for some time and much of this take centers on (pardon the pun) infrastructure that's very much in vogue by Democratic partisans. And that raises a point to consider that I've dealt with in my own way via this blog ... for those who care more for policy than politics, there is presently a vital fight that is necessary to push back those who are peddling politics over policy. In other words, there's certainly a place for much of what Seaquist argues, in fact, I'd argue that the DLC and PPI are key among them. But, in and of themselves, they do little to no good when the other side doesn't care about policy and they represent the governing party. They have to be beaten first and foremost. All the talk and all the support for bipartisanship in the world does precious little to topple that.

Beyond that, I think it's worth underscoring the fractiousness of political moderates. We're not all in the middle for the same reasons. Simple as that. I'm not any more likely to agree with Michael Totten on a number of matters and there's no uniformity as to which one is looking at the 50 yard line from the right or left. I think Totten is too forgiving of Bush on foreign policy and too far left on some social policy matters. I think that example is somewhat true of most moderates.

The point I made in my review of John Avlon's "Independent Nation" still applies:

Avlon concludes that an "overdue realignment" is in order, just waiting to happen. I'll disagree. No such realignment need happen where agreement already exists. When the two parties fail to encompass many of the areas Avlon notes, moderate voters are often left to make false choices .... When a candidate defines himself in the realm of this middle ground, the alignment is already in place ... - ripe for the taking. It is up to the candidate to best define himself within this mainstream agenda, first by keeping in mind that the salient issues that define this group of voters changes and the risk of missing the definition is one that is easy to make .... Secondly, it is up to the candidate to state this case, often without party support, often running against intraparty challenges that attack the legitimacy of this agenda within the party context, and and often without the built-in constituencies of support that frequently go along with traditional party candidates. To define the vital center, one must put it into the context of their party (see "Moynihan, Senator Daniel Patrick") and challenge the status quo within the rank and file (see "Clinton, President William Jefferson" and "Bush, President George W."). How that message is delivered and received are separate concerns worth addressing, but I'll leave that for another day & time.