Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Over on Pajamas Media, as Emily noted yesterday, my friend and Hoover Institution colleague Peter Berkowitz has put up a post that strikes me as--what's the mot juste?--vexing. Entitling the post "What Would a Return to the Constitution Entail," Peter argues that Republicans in the House were right to begin the new session with a reading of the founding document. Now what they need to do, Peter insists, is to embrace...moderation.
To be sure, Peter very carefully delineates his use of the term "moderation."
[P]olitical moderation, or the balancing of competing political principles, is a constitutional imperative. It is also a demanding virtue. Although often suspected, and sometimes serving, as a mask for spinelessness, the impostor should not be confused for the real thing. Political moderation, at least of the sort that the Constitution calls for, doesn’t mean selling out principles under pressure or making a principle of pragmatism. Rather, it is exercised in recognizing the weight and reach of competing constitutional principles, and adopting policies, fashioning laws, and acting, at once judiciously and decisively, to harmonize them.
Even at that I find it difficult--impossible, really--to read Peter's post without concluding that he's engaging in a slapdown--the kindest, most gentlemanly of slapdowns, but a slapdown all the same--of the Tea Party and its wellwishers. Consider this:
As many have noted, again this election year majorities did not endorse transformation of the political system along the lines sought by the most uncompromising elements of the winning party. Rather, they sought to rein in the transformative ambitions of the losing party.
And then—to pull out a quotation that Emily also noticed—there’s this:
[I]t should be recalled that the Constitution was also born out of the pressing need to create a larger, stronger, and more centralized government. The decision in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to abandon repair of the Articles of Confederation and instead replace them with a new constitution stemmed from the need to establish a national government capable of levying and collecting necessary taxes, regulating commercial life to promote economic prosperity, and providing for the national defense in a dangerous world.
Jeepers. To read Peter, you'd almost suppose that John Boehner was calling for the abolition of the FDA or the SEC or that Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan wanted to do away with the income tax. But what have those wild-eyed Republicans actually proposed?
Well, a) the not terribly radical measure of repealing ObamaCare, a program passed in the face of opposition from the American people and that has yet to take real effect, and, b) the reduction of the federal budget to the level at which it stood when Barack Obama took office. Those immoderate Republicans! Those yahoos in the House! If they had their way, they'd take this country right back to where it was in....well. Ahem. In 2008.
The political virtue on which Peter insists no doubt has its place. Call it "prudence." Or call it "due deliberation." But don't—please don’t—call it "moderation." To invoke “moderation” is tp denigrate the Tea Party, which alone, over these last two years, prevented the Obama administration from doing irreparable harm to the constitutional order.
The Tea Party, immoderate? No. It was just, and it was noble. And it was necessary.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
The time for moderation is over. We have a Republic to save.
Of course, no one gets plaudits in the sacred halls of academia for saying so, but as a guy who knew whereof he spoke once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".
Aug '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Kenneth A return to AUH2O ? Where do we sign up ?
Jul '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Maybe with Michele Bachmann?
Dec '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Imoderate? Please recall, Ricos, that Bush, a relative moderate, postponed the introduction of new rules proposed by the EPA that Clinton would never sign, regarding arsenic in groundwater. He insisted upon some additional study, then wound up signing a new rule that cut in half the amount of arsenic, an extremely strict standard, allowed in groundwater.
What was the public perception? The EPA had proposed a ten-fold cut in the amount of arsenic allowed in groundwater that Clinton wouldn't sign, then Bush eventually signed cutting the amount allowed, by half. The moderate, Bush, was acccused of allowing more arsenic in groundwater, even though he cut it by half (of a very small number). Clinton skated and did nothing.
If you choose to play defense on your side of the court, don't be surprised if they score more points.
Nov '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Peter Berkowitz is simply out of touch. In the present political climate, Republican Moderation = Surrender.
It is time to pull out the knives...
Edited on Jan 8, 2011 at 8:16pmAug '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
If every muni water co in the US tried to comply, half would go bust . So are there teeth anywhere ? Maybe 43 was head faking ?
Oct '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
You're not supposed to be moderate until you've exhausted all your other options. That's when it becomes a virtue and politicians revive the principle. It's kind of like what Jonah said in the podcast about preemptive pessimism regarding Obamacare repeal. Moderation is the last resort not the opening blow.
Dec '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
I promised my friends who are over (and who grow tired of my obsession with checking and reading political websites) that nothing could tear me away from NFL football and Chicago deep dish pizza this evening, but I'm glad I broke that promise for this post. I couldn't agree with you more, Peter. My father always told me growing up that I should beware of people who constantly call for "moderation" and "dialogue." Certainly such terms and concepts have their time and place, but when you know you are right...when you know what you're doing is the thing needed...the most dangerous person is the one who says they basically agree with you, but want you to dial things back. We need bold colors, not pale pastels (as a wise man once said). Firm conviction in, and strict adherence to, a set of values/principles does not equate to radicalism or extremism.
As far as the conservative, Center-Right movement in America is concerned...if we're not taking ground, we're losing it. The Left never sleeps, never eases on the progressive, carbon-taxed gas. We can't either.
Dec '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
P.s. I genuinely mean no dis-respect to Mr. Berkowitz, and I don't want us to alienate any "moderates." But conservatism has been the weak horse for too long. People won't follow moderation.
Nov '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
I used to study Karate. I learned that in training and tournaments, there was a way of fighting. But in a real fight, the rules were simple: one hit, one kill. You don't dance about and act like Bruce Lee. You do whatever it takes to disable the enemy. Once again I agree with Kenneth, though it pains me. We have a republic to save. No one should be holding back. Every compromise with liberals leads us closer to socialism.
Dec '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Hear, Hear!
Well said Peter.
I wish above all else that Pfizer would develop a version of their little blue pill that would work on conservative spinal columns.
Our side is forever failing for lack of backbone, and "experts" like this fellow are one of the reasons why it happens.
It is an unhappy fact that we may not get another shot to save our republic, if our champions once again prove to be invertebrates.
Oct '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
I have been reading Reagan's White House diary over the last few months. While my admiration for Reagan is nearly unbounded, it's interesting to see him perceive, over the years, that his opponents in Congress and the agencies were not, as he believed when he came to office, those with opposing views of how to make America great but rather committed to bringing America down. On occasion, he said, "It's like they want the (bad guys) to win", but never really embraced the concept.
Well, here we are now. The guys and gals who want the bad guys (I omit gals, since I can't think of any) to win have been in charge for the last few years in the U.S. and look at the results. This will become more clear when the inflation cranked into the economy by "quantative easing" hits home in food and fuel prices for the average family over the next two years.
I hereby disclose a depressing theme on my otherwise upbeat blog over the next few months.
"Think Pinochet, not Reagan."
Sadly, that's the way to bet.
Edited on Jan 8, 2011 at 6:35pmRe: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Here is a question to pose to Peter Berkowitz. Would it be sufficient that we roll back what Obama has done? I think not. We live in a time of crisis. The welfare state, as it existed before 2008, was bankrupt. The states and municipalities in Illinois, New York, California, and elsewhere are in thrall to public-sector unions, and they, too, are on the verge of bankruptcy. What true moderation dictates in such a time is a radical re-thinking of the premises on which the welfare state is built.
Dec '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
My home state (IL) is in serious trouble and we re-elect a big-government, establishment liberal in Pat Quinn. Too many people are beholden to their state and local governments for their livelihood. The level of "change" that needs to take place for the current kleptocracy to be even somewhat dismantled is anything but "moderate."
Wonderful thoughts/points, as always, Dr. Rahe. I should have gone to Hillsdale! :)
Oct '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
After reading Mr. Berkowitz's entire article, I initially thought that Peter Robinson and my fellow Ricochet commentators were being too reactionary to his advice. Then when I read it again, I noticed that the praise for Hayek and Paul Ryan’s roadmap are diametrically opposed to his opening advice of what is commonly understood as ‘moderation’ in today’s politics. Berkowitz’s incoherent reasoning (and the overabundance of commas) makes his point of view unusable in a practical sense.
This great country stands at a precipice that can literally destroy the future potential of this nation. Surrendering the tools necessary to remove the country from the brink of disaster in the name of wish-washy “moderation” seems delusional in the assumption that opponents to our programs would moderate their criticisms. Leadership means doing the right thing and convincing others to follow you.
If your opponents want to cut off your entire arm, and in the spirit of moderation you agree to cut it off at the elbow, that outcome still remains unacceptable.
Edited on Jan 8, 2011 at 8:39pmOct '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
The middle of the road is for white lines and armadillos.
Oct '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
The fact is that the current political zeitgeist is toward polarization not moderation, and I, for one am glad to be aligned with that spirit. The momentum in this direction is too great, even if moderation was to be desired (which it isn't). The idea of just rolling back government to "pre-Obama" days is repugnant. Now is the time for radicalization (in the older meaning of radical, indicating the radix, the roots, the origin, of a thing) not moderation. I agree with Kenneth, there is a Republic, a Constitutional Federal Republic, to be saved. The only way it can be saved is a return to the fundamental principles of federalism. To hell with political democracy.
Sep '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
In politics, there is no such thing as a moderate. So called moderates are just progressives in sheep's clothing.
Nov '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
Well said Ken, exactly what I thought. At minimum, Berkowitz should understand what the term "moderation" means to most people these days.
Many have this weird fascination bordering on worship of "moderation". They seem to be the same ones worrying about mandates all the time. While important to a certain extent, there can be many times where you still must do the right thing and you don't have a mandate. I have heard said that during the revolution, 1/3 opposed, 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were for declaring independence. If true, there was no mandate and they didn't use moderation.
Jul '10
Re: Moderation In the Defense of Liberty? Or, Why I Ain't Buying It
What drives me nuts most of all (and this is a short trip) is the attitude we've seen in the past of Give Up before trying on the part of Republicans.
In 1995 they went to defund NEA, a non essential, unconstitutional, basically useless program that funds talentless idiots who like to think they are so intelectually superior in thier artwork that they have to get federal funds because the ignorant masses won't buy thier garbage.
Little bit of resistance and... Kaput. Being Reasonable gets you in the mess we're in now.
All week long I've been hearing that the Seattle Seahawks don't stand a chance, it will take a miracle, forget it, who will N.O. be better suited against next week etc etc.
We didn't have to play the game, the outcome was a foregon conclusion.
I'm glad they showed up and played the game.
I think it's time the Republicans showed up and played the game.
And if they don't defund NEA and CPB/NPR, we'll know they aren't in it to win it.