Moderation In the Defense of

Moderation In the Defense of Liberty... - The Moderate Republican blog minces no words about its mission:

This is blog for an endangered species-the old Rockefeller Republican.

As a Reaganite, I should add "late and unlamented", but that's neither true nor nice.

Today, Dennis has a posting on the constantly-brewing inter-party fight:

Sometime during the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans should never speak ill of other Republicans.

Well, we were the minority in both houses for much of that period. We did have to stick together.

I think that's an important difference.

On the surface this seems a good attempt at civility, but these days I wonder if it is really a way of silencing dissent. If you look at groups like the Council for Growth and their attacks on moderate Republicans ( remember their slur, "Franco-Republicans?") you can see this rule is not being honored by the far right. Reading this Salon story about the brewing fight in the Democratic Pary makes me think that dissent is not always bad. Back in the 1950s the GOP always had strong debates between conservatives such as Robert Taft and moderates and liberals such as Dwight Eisenhower.

Back in the fifties - years as closely removed from the New Deal as we are from the Reagan Years today, if you think about it - conservatism was a decided minority opinion. There were indeed debates, but they were essentially moot - at the polls, the "moderate" (and, let's not forget, war hero) Eisenhower trumped all debate within the party. He essentially stamped out conservative Republicanism for a generation.

Sure, the Boll Weevils began their drift that culminated in their breaking from the Democrats in '72, and Barry Goldwater maintained his lonely vigil for genuine conservatism. But the "debate" in the GOP in those days was akin to the "good old days of Minnesota Nice" that so many pine for here in Minnesota these days: "moderates" got their way, "conservatives" kindly shut up and sat in the corner.

That changed nationwide in '80, and twenty-odd years later, in Minnesota as well.

The "civility" of the fifties was the civility of imbalance; "We'll talk, You listen".

Things, obviously, changed:

These days moderates are considered traitors to the GOP and are driven out.

There's a difference, though; in the fifties, "moderate" and "conservative" Republicans agreed on some key things; economic growth and anti-communism being key among them (and the Democrats weren't that far removed in those days, either). Today, there are more key issues - and wider differences.

Any moderate that is pro-choice or pragmatic is considered not a "real" Republican and targeted during the primaries.

Which left us, in the 2002 elections, with Governor Brian Sullivan.

Oh, wait. You mean the pragmatic (on social issues) Pawlenty actually overcame and won the nomination against the opprobrium of the baaad conservatives? How could that have happened?

We have become a party of yes men. It would be nice if there were some debate in the party, but there is none. And the moderates that remain are too scared to stand for what they believe in. Debate, not obedience, is an important part of democracy.

I'd love to know what district Dennis caucuses at.

In my district, the battle seems to be between

• social conservatives, on the one hand, and
• Fiscal conservatives and social libertarians on the other.

"Moderates" - pseudo-DFLers - are much less in evidence.

So I'll reiterate the big question: If you oppose holding the line on government spending, and oppose getting government off the backs of the citizens, and think government should have a bigger, more intrusive role in society, then precisely why not join the DFL? Because they already believe these things!

Posted by Mitch at July 17, 2003 07:40 AM