Misled by Moderation in Politics

I've recounted this exchange on this blog before, but it bears repeating.

Upon Obama's historic election in November 2008, a brilliant and earnest colleague asked a group of fellow pastors and me, "Do you think Obama's election proves a rush to liberalism for generations to come?" I spoke up first, "No, Obama got elected by appearing as a moderate, despite his statist views, and the country is largely reacting to the incompetence of the Bush years. This country is still, by and large, a conservative one."

I realize that I painted with a broad brush there, and conservatism must be qualified. Perhaps I was a little right and wrong.

I think I was right about the reaction to Bush. Obama's measurables- the ones that matter- are significantly down after a torrid start in Presidential politics. Furthermore, his "likability" is always higher than his "what do you really think about his policies?" category. On a side note, why does the first question even matter? (see my post on Neil Postman's book for the answer). In short, Obama's ideas are just not popular, which means that liberalism isn't popular.

But I think I was wrong about the influence of conservatism. After a year of Obama's governance followed by recent reactionary elections, I think I am convinced that much of America is in the uninformed mushy middle of nothingness in American politics. Christie's election to the New Jersey governorship, Brown's election of Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts (?!), and other "conservative" victories across the country in the past few months are evidence.

How could the American public elect one of the most liberal Presidents ever (liberals would likely dispute this claim) and then a year later the more liberal parts of the country are electing Republicans? What can account for such inconsistencies in the American public?

First suggestion: Americans don't read. They had plenty of opportunities to read Obama's plan. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the economy, healthcare, Palestine, and so many other issues. How can you be displeased with someone you voted for when that information was known beforehand?

Second suggestion: Americans don't have real commitments and values. We follow what is in vogue. One minute large government liberalism looks appealing because people don't have jobs, homes, or healthcare. "Wouldn't that be awesome if someone else paid for it?" Another minute we realize our civil liberties are at stake. "I don't want the government to force my hand in the commerce of health insurance."

Third suggestion: We idolize people instead of values because the television. When was the last time the more ugly candidate won in a Presidential election? Also, Scott Brown is certainly more telegenic than Martha Coakley. In sum, we are attracted to charisma, but we don't wrestle with the substance until someone starts governing.

Our inconsististies in voting is probably a result of all of the above. Political commentators would call this American voting ethic "pragmatism," and pundits on each side rush to claim the word. I even heard Dennis Prager say yesterday on his radio show that Americans vote for what works, and "we clearly know that this Administration isn't working." Obama has rushed to have the word placed upon him as well and Time Magazine couldn't be happier to oblige.

But I could not disagree more with whatever we call pragmatism. While I do think unregulated markets create more wealth than regulated markets do, that should not be our determinant in casting a vote. What we need is principle and ideals in social and economic policy, and there are too many unprincipled people out there. For instance:

Do you believe that a human life is really at stake in the womb? If you do, then you should create protections in government for human life. If you do not, then kill at will, by all means.

Do you really believe a smaller government (governments by their nature cannot be efficient, so let's stop using that word) is better to create individual and civil liberties or not? If you do, then you'll always be suspicious of a government's claims that it can do more than it really can. If you don't, then create utopia already.

Do you really believe that wealth can be built and not merely shared or re-distributed?

Do you believe that government can protect some things that are inherent rights to exist, such as the Bill of Rights? Does the Bill of Rights assume that both the Draft and abortion should be illegal?

Do you belief that luxuries and quality-of-life issues should truly be handled by the government? Is healthcare really a right?

While public policy is always nuanced, the answers to these simple questions really moves us in one of two directions. Moderation is not a virtue, then. It simply is a substitute for an uninformed or unprincipled electorate.

I say we have that debate from the core of our convictions. Let's have that debate between the utilitarian views of liberalism and the life and individual liberty ethic of conservatism. Let's have that debate between free-market capitalism and socialism. Maybe then we'll be able to answer, from a philosophical standpoint, the role of the government in commerce. Maybe then we'll see the virtue in some political positions and the evil in others.

All you people in the middle stay out of the way.