Moderation — at least verbal moderation — is suddenly in vogue.
President Obama’s rhetoric has moderated, even if his policies and practices have not. Among Republicans, voices of moderation are warning that the party cannot win elections without having a “big tent” and reaching out to Hispanics, for example. Recently, conservative talk-show host Michael Medved has suggested that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin should moderate their attacks on Obama.
Advertisement
Moderation is fine — if it is not carried to extremes. But some moderates seem to think that it is always a good thing to tone down your words. Yet history shows that muffling your message can mean forfeiting many a battle to extremists.
No one has had more of a mixed and muffled message than Sen. John McCain, which is why Barack Obama is president of the United States.
Republican moderates warn their fellow Republicans that they need to move away from the Ronald Reagan approach, in order to attract a wider range of voters. But Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide elections — and he couldn’t have done that if the only people who voted for him were dedicated conservatives.
What Reagan had was a clear, coherent, and believable message. Even voters who did not agree with him 100 percent could respect that and prefer it to the alternative.
He didn’t have to offer earmarked goodies to each special group, in order to get their votes. Pandering can gain you some votes but lose you many others.
After the tragic murders and attempted murders in Tucson, some Democrats and the media have promoted the notion that sharp political criticism somehow provoked the shootings. There is not a speck of evidence to support that notion.
Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction, because the individual charged with the crime did not follow talk radio or Sarah Palin.
This same political game was played after the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on the “hostile” conservative atmosphere in Dallas. But the atmosphere in Dallas did not kill JFK. A bullet from a far-left kook killed him.
The “criticism causes violence” notion plays right into the hands of those Democrats who have done outrageous things in Washington, and who now insulate themselves from the outrage they provoked by equating strong criticism with fomenting violence.
Apparently some moderate Republicans don’t realize that you can’t buy your opponents’ assumptions and then try to oppose the conclusions that follow.
Michael Medved criticized Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Dinesh D’Souza for depicting Barack Obama as someone who does not love this country, and who is deliberately doing things to undermine it, at home and abroad. Medved declared, “It’s particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality and policies.”
Are public opinion polls the way to determine the truth? If so, we can all outsource our thinking to Gallup and Zogby.
Medved also cites other presidents of the past, whose errors or even sins did not mean that they were unpatriotic. But does anyone seriously believe that this tells us anything about Barack Obama, one way or the other?
Like some others, Medved seems to think that Obama’s pragmatic desire to be reelected means that he is not an ideological extremist. But Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic and that did not stop them from being extremists.
Finally, there is the argument that Republicans will have a harder time winning the next election if they are “perceived as running against the presidency.” But Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh D’Souza are not running for office, and it is not certain that Sarah Palin will be either.
And nobody is running against “the presidency.” They will be running against Barack Obama.
Are we not to consider a possibility with deep and painful implications for the future of this nation, for such feeble reasons as these? Or just because moderation is a Good Thing?
Amen! I like Medved and think he has one of the better shows on radio, but he does seem to want to just get along, even on issues he is passionate and right about. The Dems never moderate their message, pass things on a strict party line and move on. Now Obamacare is going to come back and bite them, but they are not afraid to do it and rarely are the things they pass ever removed or altered. Repubs should state and stand behind their convictions, not worrying that it might offend someone and watch and see that when they do something that will benefit the country, even if the people can't see that initially, they will get their deserved thanks. Also, how would you say that Obama is destroying the country, whether purposely or not, without it sounding negative? Bad is bad. Long live Thomas Sowell!
We cannot fall for the moderation canard being promoted by the faint of heart. When did we first notice this new wind imploring moderate speech? It was in the aftermath of the Tuscon shooting and it was used explicitly as a cynical ploy to silence conservative speech. Who was promoting the appeal to limit conservative speech? Why the very same people who took a beating in the November elections. They were defeated because of the full-throated Republican opposition that did not demure from voicing principles conservative positions. The attempt to silence dissent from liberal orthodoxy is nothing more than a ploy to achieve through stealth what Democrats could not achieve at the ballot box. For now, we need to have the courage of our convictions and trust they will see us through the difficult times ahead. The worst thing we could do is to water our message down into some bland blather that will not resonate with the American people. This is not the time to get in touch with our inner liberal.
Go conservative or stay home. Why do conservatives listen when told to shut up? Liberals don't have that handicap. The only time liberals shut up is when they have won a massive, destructive victory that most people do not yet realize the potential for damage, (as in Don't Ask, Don't Tell being abolished in our military). Now is the time to get fired up and spread the news that our country is going bankrupt while Obama and the Democrats are quickly, yet quietly, pushing our debt past the point of no return.
The tactics used by the left to silence Foundational Originalism are the tactics of a bully. Bullies are really coercive cowards who will falter when subjected to a metaphorical punch to the mouth.
"Michael Medved criticized Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Dinesh D’Souza for depicting Barack Obama as someone who does not love this country, and who is deliberately doing things to undermine it, at home and abroad."
Michael Medved is not making things up.
The politics of conservatism does not have to be the politics of selfishness, but by and large it is adopted as a cover for just that. And because that's the case, conservatives feel obliged to employ tactics such as ascribing to anyone who disagrees with them the vilest of motives. Your typical conservative talking head can't get deep into a monologue about anything without accusing the other side of being corrupt or evil in the Lex Luthor, comic-book, "I want to destroy the world!" sense that the Medveds and the MikeBs can't help but notice.
There are plenty of principled, consistent conservative arguments for just about everything being discussed on National Review. But they don't get articulated much. National Review is perhaps the leading conservative journal in America, but it's about 1% market theory and 99% "liberals are evil and corrupt."
Mr. Sowell, I just loved you line about extreme moderation!
For decades Conservatives have consented to moderation of their ideas and ideals. What has it gotten us? A 14 trillion dollar debt, a society devoid of a conscience, a government entwined in every aspect of private life (to the point of imposing 1 gallon flush toilets, those energy saving lightbulbs, ObamaCare...), and private companies and land being confiscated by the government. In short, a Nation on the verge of collapse thanks to extreme moderation.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me for decades, form a Tea Party and try to solve the mess you created.
The difference between speaking a plain truth and being immoderate appears to be a finer line than it used to be. This is the result of too much appeal to moderation (politically correct speech). Sadly, it afflicts both sides in any debate.
MikeB, I think you've hit the nail with your point about "selfishness." To the conservative, a strong self-interest IS a guiding principle. To the liberal, self-interest has become "selfishness" or "self-centeredness." The two things may appear the same, but they are not. Self-interest is a good foundation for a free society because it leads to healthy balance in decision-making. Only a sound and healthy (in all senses of the word) self is a good leader. Any psychologist will tell you that.
Yet another rambling incoherency from Mr. Sowell. This article seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for... what I'm not sure, he seems to want to encourage more venomous rhetoric among conservatives because otherwise extremists will win. The only way to beat extremists is to out-extreme them, right? Throw in a direct comparison of Obama to two of the most evil murderers to ever exist, some Reagan hero-worship, and some non-sequiters about two famous assassinations and apparently the battle against extremists is won. I tend to think that if you can't make your argument without fallacious ad hominem attacks (Hitler+Stalin=Obama!!!!) then you probably don't have much of worth to say. It's a sad state of affairs when the loudest bigot is the one everyone listens to, but Sowell proves that he cleaves to that idea whole heartedly. It's unfortunate that Sowell mistakes moderation of tone in public discourse as "muffling your message." The only way that is true is if your message is hateful rhetoric. I think history shows that some of the people that we view as positive societal forces used the most judicious language and stuck to their message, and not to playground name calling.
Ever notice how many of the "vicious attacks" on Obama involve things like his apparent mistrust of individual liberty and free markets? If Obama is framed as "evil", it's typically by someone who's defining liberty as "good".
1. "Moderation — at least verbal moderation — is suddenly in vogue." But it's not. Talk about "moderation" is in vogue, the thing itself surely isn't, unless "moderation" means immoderate attacks on your opponents' view, rhetoric, and motives. But then, like Sowell, I am old enough to remember 1964. This is nothing new.
2. There is a distinction between attacking your opponent's motives, & his arguments or policies. The former is--even when we can know them--stictly irrelevant. It really doesn't matter whether The One is trying to save, or to destroy, our freedom. What matters is that his policies ARE endangering freedom. And, as Dr Johnson would say, there's an end to it.
Finally, a conservative columnist who hasn't been "Smerconished" and stands by his convictions instead of being wishy washy like Charlie Brown. Michael Medved, while a decent guy is not someone to listen to on the subject of how to conduct oneself to win an election. His hero John McCain ran the type of hands-off the opposition type of candidacy Medved prefers & we all know how well that worked out. Medved has some good ideas, but his policing of the speech of conservatives in the name of moderation gets very tiresome & shows Medved may still cling to some of his previous left wing ideas. Whomever the GOP nominates in 2012 will have to convince the American people why Barack Obama is not fit to be re-elected to the Presidency, not point out what a great guy Obama is, how much he really loves his country, etc. The McCain 2008 campaign strategy which Medved favors did not work in 2008 & will not work in 2012. Barack Obama is not just inept & incompetent as Medved describes him. Barack Obama is an ideologue who is trying to implement an agenda the American left had been unsuccessful in implementing until Obama took office. The Obama agenda is not making America better & all one needs to do is take a look at the economy & national unemployment figures to see this fact. Any conservative who does not criticize The President & his failed agenda does not understand what it takes to win & Michael Medved & other moderates calling for a kid gloves handling of this President, regardless of how conservative they claim to be do not understand how to win elections. Thank you Thomas Sowell for an excellent column.
George LeS, I too remember 1964, and I'm not sure what you meant by your comment #1.
As for Comment #2, there is great appeal to it on the surface. However, I don't think you can properly analyze policy without reaching ultimate motive. Why, for example, should we allow "the market" to dictate anything? Because it maximizes the delivery of goods and services viewed as a whole? What end does that serve? What end does "fairness" serve, or is "fairness" an end to itself? What happens when "fairness" and "charity" are at odds? Etc., etc.
All of my political philosophy is grounded in what I perceive to be imperatives imposed upon me by a moral force separate and distinct from me. I acknowledge that I may be misperceiving or misinterpreting those imperatives, and I further acknowledge that I may not be effectively implementing those imperatives. But that's where I get my marching orders.
I had a great back-and-forth a couple of weeks back with a very thoughtful guy about whether the Golden Rule trumps the principle of noncoercion or vice versa. Have you ever considered which principle should prevail in the event of an irreconcilable conflict -- if either?
@MikeB:
"Have you ever considered which principle should prevail in the event of an irreconcilable conflict -- if either?"
Many of us have done that, Mike. Usually in a cultural set piece sometimes referred to as the Freshman Dorm BS Session. Most of us, though, got over the misperception that such navel contemplation was as profound as we once thought it to be.
I agree.
I would like to add one thought. Most Democrats that I hear or read seem to think
that what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine. Not Good!
Medved has been on this tiresome guilt trip for some time now, and losing conservative listeners as a result. Catering to moderates makes for bad ratings. Medved's competition in my area is Hannity, who has no such qualms about attacking the president's bad motives.
I listen to Medved pretty much everyday and find his approach to be refreshing. He is still harsh in his condemnation of Obama's policies, but he stays away from attacking the guy's motives. Medved doesn't seem to be saying we should moderate our attacks on Obama, but rather that the attacks should be directed toward his policies and ideas. Your average voter is probably more apt to vote on real or alleged policy failures than whether or not they think the guy is un-American and un-patriotic or has devious designs; this is especially true in the case of Obama where he has broad personal appeal.
Moderation in everything- even moderation itself. There are times to find the middle ground and times to stand on principles, no matter how extreme certain people say they are.
And certain people, such as tk2009, seem simply loony. He calls Sowell's piece "another rambling incoherency". It must have been incoherent to him, since he accuses Sowell of saying "Hitler + Stalin = Obama", when all Sowell did was point out that a pragmatic desire to get oneself elected has nothing to do with one's ideological moderation or extremism. And pointing out that Reagan won two elections by appealing to more than the hard right is somehow transmuted into "hero worship".
The incoherence is definitely not coming from Professor Sowell.
