Moderates and Last Night’s Primaries

One of the most memorable things I remember my father ever saying was, “You’ll never see a book written entitled The Great Moderates of History.”  I’m pretty sure he got it from Rush Limbaugh.  Having thought about this premise for the past several years, I think my father (and Rush) is largely correct.

Of course there are exceptions to every general statement made.  Some, for instance, may consider America itself as the example of moderation in a world given to political extremes.  Perhaps some would argue that our first President fits the characterization.  And yet, the majority greatest figures remembered in American history – people such as Martin Luther King Jr., Paul Revere, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Harriet Tubman, and FDR – good or bad, were known for bold and decisive action, particularly when the stakes were high.

The same is true in world history.  We remember heroes like Churchill and villains like Stalin, and try our best to forget the naiveté of a moderate like Neville Chamberlain.  We are drawn to the stories of Joan of Arc, the struggles of Gandhi, and the conquests of Alexander the Great.  And no figures triggers as much debate and division as the least moderate of them all, Jesus Christ.

Everyone has a different definition of what a moderate is.  In American politics, the term can both be positive, i.e., “The majority of the American people consider themselves to be moderate,” and negative, “Senator [insert name here] is such a moderate and should be voted out the next chance we get.”  The definition I’m using is closer to the latter, that is, a figure that tends to try to sit on the partisan and ideological fence, is focused more on pragmatism than principle, and whose compromises are generally not driven by conviction, but by self-preservation (in many cases, re-election).

For whatever reason, the media considers defending these individuals part of its jobs.  How often have we heard about the plight of the Republican moderate or the moderate Blue Dog Democrat?

Last night’s Senate primaries should dispel the myth that fence-sitters and pragmatic self-preservationists is what Americans want.  In Arkansas, Sen. Blanch Lincoln (D) was forced into a runoff by Lt.Gov. Bill Halter (D).  Lincoln was the political establishment’s pick, while Halter received substantial support from unions like SEIU and outside organizations like MoveOn.org.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul (R), son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and endorsed by many in the tea party movement, defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson, endorsed by the political establishment in the Senate primary to replace two-term Sen. Jim Bunning (R).

Finally, in Pennsylvania, perhaps the epitome of a moderate, Republican turned Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter was denied another term by the more liberal Rep. Joe Sestak (D) who was endorsed by far-left organizations like NoW, MoveOn.org, and Democracy for America.

On both sides of the aisle last night the story was the same.  Contrary to the media narrative about the unfortunate plight of the political moderate, voters sent a clear message to candidates that principle, conviction and bold action is preferred over fence-sitting, self-preserving, tentative leadership.  Mediocrity has never been in the greatest nation’s blood.

The views expressed are solely the author’s and are not necessarily representative of Douglas Price’s current or previous employers.  The post is an academic analysis of the American political system and should not be construed as an endorsement for any political party and/or candidate.