A self-proclaimed moderate responds

Recently, in the commentary immediately below this piece, I objected to what I think are the weaknesses of the so-called moderate-Democrat stance in today's politics. I also challenged self-proclaimed moderates to answer some questions.

Dick Bernard, a brave and thoughtful activist who runs an online newsletter for people of similar bent, responded. He took excerpts from my column and answered point by point.

I've greatly truncated my own statements here, leaving just enough so that you can see what he is responding to, but a quick reading, or re-reading, of my column below might make for better understanding of this exchange.

Oh. One more comment: Some of Dick's responses, such as those on the question of torture, the Patriot Act and presidential adherence to law, put him on the liberal side, at odds with some of the self-declared moderates who control the Democratic Party. We continue to disagree about demands for a quick pullout from Iraq, however; I believe one can support such demands and still be an electable candidate for office.

jcf

By Dick Bernard

Preliminary statement: Words are troublesome creatures, especially English, which is such a complex language and whose words have many meanings, even ones with seemingly standard definitions, like “moderate.” Those on the Right have simplified the language, making words like “liberal” and “left” and “socialist” akin to evil, and have negatively painted a very large swath of opinion and thought with the broad brush of liberalism.

Maybe I'm not a “moderate” at all (a close and valued relative really seems to equate me with a communist these days -– a quite general and intentionally frightening indictment being resurrected these days.) Maybe I'm pragmatic, or a realist, or practical, but all those words bring their own sets of problems. Whatever.
Here's my best shot at trying to answer Jim's questions:

Jim said:
Self-identified moderates – sometimes “centrists” -- seem to be saying that we must not take strong stands against Bush and his allies.

From what I can make out, the supposed moderates are saying...that we mustn't take issue with any of the right's major positions nor pick a fight with their “base” or major office holders. We absolutely must not lay claim to the moral high ground.
Doesn't sound like the way to win a fight to you? To me either.

Dick Bernard's response:

American politics, like everything else, seems premised on a ‘war’ theme with winners and losers. So be it. I had a most disturbing revelation about this a year ago in a most unlikely setting: a rabbi and priest were discussing the Ten Commandments from a Jewish and Christian perspective. It develops that there are three sets of Ten Commandments: the Jewish (which is part of over 700 assorted commands); the Catholic/Lutheran version; and the other Protestants version. In the Jewish version, “thou shalt not kill” includes as a capital crime (death penalty) character assassination.

Without character assassination, American politics as presently practiced wouldn’t exist. Even peaceniks go to war over politics. Last summer a very prominent anti-war activist in the Twin Cities turned down a request to show a film on International Day of Peace because it was too ‘soft’. Apparently, anti-war and pro-peace are antonyms to some.

Jim said:
Seriously, what does “moderate” mean, in terms of a person and a position?

Dick Bernard's response:
I can only answer for myself. I try to recognize the not always pleasant reality that people don’t all think like I do, and that these others have a whole lot of power, and the best I can do is to attempt to change their minds, one person at a time.

Jim said:
Thus far, it (moderate) seems to many of us to mean a person who will not take a firm stand on any issue simply because it is the right thing to do. As a position, it does not seem to liberals to have any clear meaning other than “not liberal”...
What is the ethical or moral bottom line for a “moderate” politician or position as defined by those who name themselves moderates?

Dick's response:
See previous question. One has to try to articulate and advance an alternative vision without completely alienating the other person. This is a very imperfect process, and how it works varies from person to person. You don’t change positions by punching someone in the nose, or otherwise humiliating them (at least I don’t think that works very well), though they have to know pretty clearly where you stand. This is hard to do person-to-person. Imagine trying to do this with hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents, each with their own opinions, biases, etc., which is what political party candidates have to do.

Jim said:
We see a lot of Democrats holding their fingers to the wind (and often getting the direction wrong), checking the polls and finding out where Fox News stands on the question before deciding whether it's Tuesday or Thursday. Are there political or moral beliefs or positions on which you will not compromise or from which you will not back down? If so, what are they?

Dick's response:
In general, I would answer absolutely, I have such beliefs and positions. They are numerous, but the specifics are not relevant to this conversation. Unfortunately, in the arena of human relationships, compromise is an absolute requirement to achieving anything (think ‘spouse’)!

I once advised my sister after her election to a board in a very conservative community, that she wouldn’t have much of a chance of moving her liberal ideals if she couldn’t get someone on the board to second her motion, and ultimately get a majority of the board to approve that motion. Further, there is always a quid pro quo in political discourse: to get you have to give, and vice versa. Seasoned politicians have to do this, and know how to do it well. (I think it was frustrating for her, but she did pretty well, all things considered, and was even reelected, and might have been again, had she wanted the job.)

Jim said:
(How about) pulling our troops out of Iraq? By when?

Dick's response:
I became an activist when the bombs fell on Afghanistan in October 2001. Ninety-four percent of Americans approved of that bombing, so I was a bit lonely then. I think Iraq is a disaster and have thought that since the beginning. I’m not quite so certain, though, that pulling the troops out now is the best idea. I understand why people feel that way; I’m just not sure that it will solve the incredible mess we have created there, and might even make things worse (I don’t know that for sure, but who does, on any side of the question?)

Jim said:
What about putting an end to torture by Americans or American surrogates? How quickly and by what means?

Dick's response:
Immediately, with severe consequences to the people at the top. The Nuremberg trials focused on the big shots. That was our show, in 1946. The line troops at Abu Ghraib were just ‘modeling’ the behavior they were expected to perform. They were very wrong, but the punishment shouldn’t stop at them.

Jim said:
How about measures to seriously reduce global warming and our dependence on oil?

Dick's response:
Absolutely. But I drive too much, and I’m thus part of the problem.

Jim said:
Domestic spying?

Dick's response:
I’m old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings and House Un-American Activities Committee, and it wasn’t a pleasant time in our history.

Jim said:
Demanding immediate repeal of misnamed Patriot Act?

Dick's response:
There may be parts of the amendments that were needed and okay, but the way it was passed, without hearings and on short notice, was reprehensible. I don’t know enough about every provision in it to throw it out. My guess, though, is that most of it is very bad for anyone who cherishes ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’.

Jim said:
Requiring the president to abide by the Constitution and the rule of law?

Dick's response:
No-brainer, yes.

Jim said:
What about the $105 billion to be cut from Medicare over the next 10 years?

Dick's response:
I’m on Medicare, so….Those who applaud this now will curse the day they did so, later. Insanely short sighted.

Jim said:
Education funding?

Dick's response:
Along with health care for everyone, a strong and well-funded public education system is the bare basic of a functioning society.

Jim said:
Please: What will you take unshakable stands on, what is open to trading?

Dick's response:
Unfortunately, in our political system, everything is open to trading, and has to be. Some might say that the rigid ideologues on the Far Right have done okay on their issues, like so-called Pro-Life, etc., but I’m a contrarian. I think they have painted themselves into an increasingly uncomfortable corner, and they are marginalizing themselves from the ‘mainstream’. I think they peaked some years ago.

I remember the first local political convention I attended after Roe v. Wade. It was a Democratic convention. Neither the pros or antis could get the 60 percent required on resolutions relating to pro-life. Of course, the pro-lifers left the Democratic party in later years, and are now stalwarts of the Republicans, but not terribly welcome there of late (I think).

On the other side of this issue, I worry about the pro-Peace folks, with whose goals I completely resonate, taking unnegotiable stands, like demanding purity on their issue, which marginalize them far more than the pro-lifers, and really take them out of political play. I don’t like that we are a society that worships war; not liking it won’t get rid of it. It’s a slow process.

Jim said:
Assuming you are willing to compromise on many issues, what are you prepared to trade way, and what will you demand in return? Very seriously, do you expect to get anything in return for what you give away? How will you extract concessions from the right?

Dick's response:
I think I’ve spoken to this generally, above. These questions are really impossible to answer as posed. Much of my career was in and around collective bargaining. Our ‘side’ always went in with absolute demands, as did theirs; we normally both settled at something less than our absolute final, final, final bottom-line, and the most rigid party generally lost big-time. The most successful strike in which I was ever involved came against a superintendent who was out to break the union.

In sum, compromise is more likely to achieve a win, but almost always appears like a loss at the time. That’s the nature of bargaining. Small steps lead to big accomplishments. Refusal to take the small steps leads to nothing, I think.

Jim said:
... The right wingers who control our government do not compromise. They take, they don't give. They easily collect huge sums from corporate bigwigs and they buy lots of television advertising to persuade the public to their position and to try to crush any opposition. They will not, say, give up pursuing the legal right to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve if you agree to destroy Social Security, even though Social Security is much more important. How do you propose to change that fact of life?

Dick's response:
I think the right-wingers are wearing out their welcome, even with those who quietly cheered them on. I think they reached their zenith some years ago, and with folks like DeLay and Abramoff and Rove, they’re not looked on as positively now. Having said that, the power of label is immense. If I’ve lived my live as a Republican (speaking not as one myself) it’s a big move for me to change my mind.

Jim said:
Why do you assume the American public will not understand if the Democrats clearly define and explain the issues?

Dick's response:
Remember the famous Will Rogers quote which went something like “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat”? The strength the far right had (past tense) was that they compromised on all sorts of issues to win on what they felt were the big ones. Democrats…and Progressives…seem a much less cohesive rabble…to their detriment.

I’ve seen Labor vote against its own interests since the Reagan years. Divide and conquer has worked well. I fear it will work again – moderate (there’s that word again) Republicans will desert their party for reasonably conservative Democratic candidates, while Progressive fringe Democrats will neutralize this by refusing to vote at all, or voting for some minor party with no chance of success. Seems sort of self-defeating to me, and I hope I’m very wrong .

Jim said:
Obviously, you do make that assumption, since you don't believe Democrats should take firm public positions on the major issues between the left and right. Isn't that conceding the field to the right, which does take firm positions?

Dick's response:
No.

Jim said:
I could go on, but real answers to those questions will suffice for now...

Dick's response:
Thanks for asking.