On the whole, moderation has been rightfully thought of as the best path towards perfecting our Union. The better politicians understand that the further from moderation any given policy or political stance, the greater the price that will inevitably be required as payment, either in votes and subsequent offices held by the policy making party, or in the ability to garner broader support for future legislation. A thoughtful politician sees moderation as the best path forward and the key to the future viability of the party they represent.
So how do we end up with Trump? And more broadly how did we end up in a political environment were moderation appears in such short supply?
To answer this one needs to understand that moderation, as is the case for all great political philosophies, is not without its own constraints and weakness, and thus it's own enemies.
The first enemy of moderates in Congress are the politicians themselves. Each politician, whether rightly or in error seeks re-election, and in order to do this, they must, as should be obvious, convince their constituents to cast a vote in their favor. As a result of this, elected officials, as is often cited, will change their positions to reflect the values of those that vote for them. The more extreme the views of the voting populace the more extreme the stance will be taken by the both incumbent and the challenger. Much can be written as to how any voting body comes to their chosen value, whether by careful thought or by well written advertisement, but the effect is evident in the stance of their elected official.
The second enemy of moderates in Congress is directly contrary to the first and yet seems to exert an even greater affect. As alluded to previously, voters can have their minds changed on any given subject, however this requires money and lots of. Whether a politician wants to inform on a subject for an upcoming ballot question, or advertise for their own re-election, it costs money, and lots of it. Our elected representatives would drive themselves into poverty if the cost of such advertisement was born out of personal accounts, and so it falls to donors to fund such ad campaigns. Unfortunately, the largest portion of donor money comes from corporate lobbying groups, and as corporations are want to do, they want a return on investment, which pressures the moderate to accept stances that may run contrary to a moderate's inherent position.
Maintaining a moderate stance requires a quality that is observably in short supply in the halls of Washington DC. It requires that as debates are had and positions developed, there is room left for the possibility of error. It requires humility. To be a moderate means carrying a deep belief that ones own position is lacking, maybe by a little or maybe by a lot, but either way it means accepting compromise, agreeing to a solution that is not wholly one's own in the belief that a greater body of thought creates greater benefit to the governed. This character attribute known as humility seems innately at odds with career politics.
A moderate in the halls of congress must also be able to trust their opposition. Governing by the idea that if "I" give a little now, "you" will give a little next time is based on trust that has been built or diminished over the shared history. Damaging this trust erodes the ability of a moderate to function in an arena where the phrase "team player" can mean the difference between a career or the unemployment line. Trust is the currency of the moderate, and without it their is little chance of meaningful political transactions.
Moderates as a political group are not immune to the pressures of re-election, as we previously discussed. The flip side of that is that if some if that pressure could be decreased by some it would give those politicians less incentive to moderate in their policy and rhetoric. One such way the re-election pressure is lessened and thus incentive to be moderate reduced, is through gerrymandering. Politicians in heavily gerrymandered districts have no need to appeal to anyone other than their core voting block. The result is that a center line position would be rewarded with fewer votes at the polls and thus a weakened party. A moderate, even in a district heavily mapped in their favor, would face uncertain job prospects at best.
So far all of the situations that stack up against moderate politicians and the center line they like to walk, have all been by choice, either by the party, the politician, or the voter. But for the moderate who has hung on throughout all of the above obstacles, there is still one last hurdle. Not all of societies problems are limited to a "good for us, bad for them" definition. Climate change is a prime example of a situation in which a problem has outpaced a moderate'e ability to cope with. As it stands now, we're screwed, scietifically speaking. Without drastic measures, humanity is at real risk of extinction, along with most other life on earth, and much sooner than most people like to admit. The consensus is that we, the world, have 12 years to drastically change how we function. How is a moderate suppose to handle this? In this case the problem truly defines solution, drastic policy measures, covering huge sections of society and soley reliant on governance to achieve. This is what economists call a market failure. It was the free market that caused the problem in part directly, and in part by failing to entice a solution. What hope does a moderate politician have of any meaningful input into resolving such a critical issue?
Of course much more can be said or written on the varied topics discussed, and indeed much has been. But these are my thoughts, at least for today.
So how do we end up with Trump? And more broadly how did we end up in a political environment were moderation appears in such short supply?
To answer this one needs to understand that moderation, as is the case for all great political philosophies, is not without its own constraints and weakness, and thus it's own enemies.The first enemy of moderates in Congress are the politicians themselves. Each politician, whether rightly or in error seeks re-election, and in order to do this, they must, as should be obvious, convince their constituents to cast a vote in their favor. As a result of this, elected officials, as is often cited, will change their positions to reflect the values of those that vote for them. The more extreme the views of the voting populace the more extreme the stance will be taken by the both incumbent and the challenger. Much can be written as to how any voting body comes to their chosen value, whether by careful thought or by well written advertisement, but the effect is evident in the stance of their elected official.
The second enemy of moderates in Congress is directly contrary to the first and yet seems to exert an even greater affect. As alluded to previously, voters can have their minds changed on any given subject, however this requires money and lots of. Whether a politician wants to inform on a subject for an upcoming ballot question, or advertise for their own re-election, it costs money, and lots of it. Our elected representatives would drive themselves into poverty if the cost of such advertisement was born out of personal accounts, and so it falls to donors to fund such ad campaigns. Unfortunately, the largest portion of donor money comes from corporate lobbying groups, and as corporations are want to do, they want a return on investment, which pressures the moderate to accept stances that may run contrary to a moderate's inherent position.
Maintaining a moderate stance requires a quality that is observably in short supply in the halls of Washington DC. It requires that as debates are had and positions developed, there is room left for the possibility of error. It requires humility. To be a moderate means carrying a deep belief that ones own position is lacking, maybe by a little or maybe by a lot, but either way it means accepting compromise, agreeing to a solution that is not wholly one's own in the belief that a greater body of thought creates greater benefit to the governed. This character attribute known as humility seems innately at odds with career politics.
A moderate in the halls of congress must also be able to trust their opposition. Governing by the idea that if "I" give a little now, "you" will give a little next time is based on trust that has been built or diminished over the shared history. Damaging this trust erodes the ability of a moderate to function in an arena where the phrase "team player" can mean the difference between a career or the unemployment line. Trust is the currency of the moderate, and without it their is little chance of meaningful political transactions.
Moderates as a political group are not immune to the pressures of re-election, as we previously discussed. The flip side of that is that if some if that pressure could be decreased by some it would give those politicians less incentive to moderate in their policy and rhetoric. One such way the re-election pressure is lessened and thus incentive to be moderate reduced, is through gerrymandering. Politicians in heavily gerrymandered districts have no need to appeal to anyone other than their core voting block. The result is that a center line position would be rewarded with fewer votes at the polls and thus a weakened party. A moderate, even in a district heavily mapped in their favor, would face uncertain job prospects at best.
So far all of the situations that stack up against moderate politicians and the center line they like to walk, have all been by choice, either by the party, the politician, or the voter. But for the moderate who has hung on throughout all of the above obstacles, there is still one last hurdle. Not all of societies problems are limited to a "good for us, bad for them" definition. Climate change is a prime example of a situation in which a problem has outpaced a moderate'e ability to cope with. As it stands now, we're screwed, scietifically speaking. Without drastic measures, humanity is at real risk of extinction, along with most other life on earth, and much sooner than most people like to admit. The consensus is that we, the world, have 12 years to drastically change how we function. How is a moderate suppose to handle this? In this case the problem truly defines solution, drastic policy measures, covering huge sections of society and soley reliant on governance to achieve. This is what economists call a market failure. It was the free market that caused the problem in part directly, and in part by failing to entice a solution. What hope does a moderate politician have of any meaningful input into resolving such a critical issue?
Of course much more can be said or written on the varied topics discussed, and indeed much has been. But these are my thoughts, at least for today.
Comments