Moderation in Politics? Fooey!

Pundits are ever telling us progressives (defined simply as those who have faith that we can do better) to be moderate. I say “fooey!” How can you be moderate about choosing a better world.

Most progressives since Reagan and the Republican southern strategy have moved to the Democratic Party away from the party of Lincoln, the radical Republicans, and the Roosevelt Progressives. So, mainline pundits fearing progressives might be too radical and blow their chances of defeating the extremism of Trumpism urge Democrats to move to the center.

To be centered is the advice of the wise and the holy. Centered to them means whole and integral. But there are two ways to get to the center. One is to avoid the extremes, e.g. of left and right. The other is to grasp the extremes and hold them in tension.

To the first way, the holy book says “So, because you are tepid, neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you from my mouth” (Rev 3:16). Being moderate is being wishy-washy. It usually means avoidance, without passion and commitment. Moderation is staying out of the trouble of speaking and acting out against oppression. It avoids the risk of being radical, getting to the roots of problems, because sometimes mistakes are made. It also avoids admitting mistakes and changing course when it is called for. Moderation plays it safe. It is simple two-sided thinking. It wants to reduce polarities by choosing one or the other, but not too vehemently.

Being centered by dynamic tension means engagement in many polarities. Being stretched in many directions. Trying to hold them together by identifying the relational communities (or communal relations) in all of them.

What are those polarities? Ancient and contemporary thinkers have identified that human existence is a tension between 1) the interiority of consciousness and the external world, 2) memory of past and anticipation of future, 3) individual creativity and social interaction. These tensions are discovered in the phenomenological experience of presence —being here, now, with.

These tensions are often articulated and elaborated differently. Nevertheless they can be said to be universal because together they constitute the drive of human existence towards progress or regress in all places, moments, and communities.

In biological terms, human existence is the drive to life and/or to death. In psychological terms, it is the drive to actualization and/or to nihilism. In sociological terms, it is the drive to a peaceful just community and/or a state of violence. These drives correspond to the ancient philosophers’ findings of the human propensity to 1) life, 2) meaning, and 3) respect which correspond to the realms of 1) economy, 2) culture, and 3) politics. And the dynamic tensions of human being are within and among all these realms.

Economy: the realm of life with its tension between individual wealth and commonwealth.

Culture: the realm of meaning with its tension between tribal identity and civilizational pluralism.

Politics: the realm of power with its tension between authoritarianism and democracy.

So in the light of the dynamic tension of human being, let’s reflect on the political situation which many of us have been trying to understand since 2016. I’ve read the books by and talked with the economic experts that show how capitalism has created the class inequities and how socialism has threatened free markets which are linked with progressive liberalization. I’ve reread the history of the struggle between exclusive religious and cultural identities and inclusive ethnic and belief traditions. And most of all, I’ve interacted with practitioners for a democratic republic who value the equality of all human persons over against authoritarians who serve whom they consider the chosen race or highest class.

Instead of going for moderation — the wishy-washy land between those who value creative individuality and those who value social justice, between those who value marketplaces and those who value health and safety, between those who value authority in organization but limited by accountability through free association.— we can strongly hold these values in tension. We can choose those policies and practices of a dynamic tension.

At this center, we are passionate that all people have the necessities of life including health, shelter, nourishment and at the same time are free to express themselves, to act in concert to modify public institutions, and to choose how they want to live, worship, think, and believe in private. We can advocate for diverse moralities and social ethics, inclusion of diversity and the rule of law. We can uphold the authorities of bureaus while maintaining the direct and representative democracy that holds leaders and ourselves accountable.

Instead of tagging people and policies as conservative and liberal, left-wing radical and right-wing reactionary, capitalist and socialist, nationalist and globalist, atheist and religionist, libertarian and traditionalist, we need to search out, propose, and critique political proposals in so far as they practically achieve the goals that enhance the dynamic tensions of our human being. We need to stop the naming, the blaming, and the defaming that put each other on unreconcilable sides. At the same time we need to advocate strongly not for what we don’t want, but for what we do; not out of hate for those we fear, but out of hope for who we all might be.

Instead of trying to save capitalism or advance socialism, push patriotism and deny our place in the world, affirm our gods and deny others, sanctify our approach and demonize others, might we just focus on the people in our circle, try to understand and care a bit more about people beyond our circle, and do what we can so that we might all live well.

Why instead of naming and blaming people, don’t we listen to what they want and need to be happy. In economy, instead of dividing people into capitalists and socialists, why cannot we together advocate for a truly free market economy and at the same time ensure that everyone has what she needs for an adequate, secure, healthy livelihood.

In cultural matters, why cannot we welcome people of multiple lifestyles, belief systems, languages, ethnic origins, sexes, sexual orientations, religious traditions in the private realm and at the same time agree on the rules and customs that govern the public realm that unify us without taking away our diversity and individuality.

And in political matters, why cannot we be passionate about our positions without denigrating either pole of the tensions we are holding together — conservation of ideals, traditions, values, and the institutions, public and private, that maintain them; and radical democracy, inclusion of and accountability to all people, workers and consumers, citizens of the nation and citizens of the world, through those conservative institutions which can always do better. We are all conservatives and we are all progressives. All of us have faith in our capacity to do better.

As Charles Atlas and Lao Tsu taught, it is not in moderation but in dynamic tension that we become strong.