One of the most important words in American political speech is “moderate.” The same thing, of course, is true in the world of religion.
“Moderates” are nice. They are smart, constructive and nuanced.
Extreme people are mean and extreme, and that often means dangerous. “Extreme” conservatives or even “radical” conservatives are even worse than regular conservatives. I guess that the same thing would be true of “extreme” liberals, only that there are almost none on the American political scene. There are “moderates” and, out on the edge, “progressives” and others who want progress (as opposed to those who want to stay put or even regress).
There are candid journalists who realize that “moderate” is a loaded word. For example, take that statement by New York Times editor Bill Keller that we have discussed here in the past, from one of his documents linked to an internal committee asking how his newspaper can do a better job of relating to its readers:
We must … be more alert to nuances of language when writing about contentious issues. The committee picked a few examples — the way the word “moderate” conveys a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme, the misuse of “religious fundamentalists” to describe religious conservatives — but there are many pitfalls involved when we try to convey complex ideas as simply as possible, on deadline.
I thought about this issue while reading George Skelton’s Capitol Journal report in the Los Angeles Times arguing that this election proved that California isn’t a blue state at all out on the left coast. No, California is a pastel state or, at most, a light-blue state.
In other words, California is a “moderate” state. Offer California a “moderate” GOP candidate like Rudy Giuliani or, of course, the Governator and this becomes perfectly obvious.
This is not a deep blue state, regardless of recent presidential elections. Color us light blue, if you must.
… Currently, and over the long haul, we’re centrists. Sure, we’ve voted for the Democratic candidate in the last four presidential races. But in the previous 10 elections, we voted nine times for the Republican. Each of those contests had its own dynamic, but party label was the least of it. This state never has been and is not now solidly Democratic.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s overwhelming reelection victory is Exhibit A of California centrism. The governor ran as a typical state voter: anti-tax, fiscally prudent, pro-environment and left-leaning on social issues like abortion. He was supported by 57% of moderates, a Times exit poll found. That pretty much mirrored his overall vote, about 56%. This state is not consistently liberal and, except on certain issues, definitely isn’t conservative.
The best hope for the GOP, writes Skelton, is that there is “a Ronald Reagan out there somewhere.”
What in the world does that mean?
As a rule, it seems that the newspaper’s definition of “moderate” is conservative on economic and business issues, and perhaps on military issues, yet liberal on social issues.
If that is what “moderate” means, what do you do with the folks who march with the Rev. Jim Wallis, the new old Democrats and others of that ilk? Can someone be a “moderate” if they are liberal on economic issues and conservative on moral issues? What would the Los Angeles Times call that kind of voter or candidate?
Actually, there is a clue later in the article:
We’re sometimes liberal, rejecting — for the second straight year — an initiative to require parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. But we’re conservative on law and order, placing residency restrictions and GPS tracking devices on paroled sexual predators.
“This is not a liberal state, it is a libertarian state,” says Democratic consultant Darry Sragow. “Basically, its about Western American values.”
Ah, that makes more sense. “Moderate” equals liberalism on social issues.
So, once again, let me ask: What would editors at the Los Angeles Times say that “liberalism” looks like on moral, social and cultural issues? Is liberalism even possible on these issues? So Hollywood is full of “moderates”?
Second image is from Take Back Red California.
 | Posted at 7:59 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (17) |
November 11, 2006, at 10:36 am
The press treats U.S. politics as if there are only two sides: liberals and conservatives. Then moderates are portrayed as sensible folk unwilling to be caught up in the ideological pettiness, when in fact they belong to another political group with its own ideology.
And to answer your question, there is no such thing as a “social liberal.” If you support stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, you are a “social moderate” or “moderate on social issues.” Uh huh.
I also get a kick out of Skelton’s evidence for a conservative streak in California: They voted in favor of residency restrictions and the monitoring of sexual predators. Is there any liberal voter anywhere who would oppose this? Why is it a conservative viewpoint?
November 11, 2006, at 11:29 am
Yes. There are serious civil liberties concerns about placing electronic monitors on people who have been released from prison after they have satisfied their penalties. “Sexual predators” are the only ex-offenders who have residency restrictions placed on them. Why them and not arsonists or muderers?
I think “moderate” depends on who is in power. Already, you are hearing about “moderate” or “conservative” Democrats recently elected who are going to change the direction of Congress. These people, I assume, are in contrast to “liberals” who are supposedly in control of the party.
This is the mirror image of the “moderate” or “liberal” Republican, who stands in contrast to the “conservatives” in control of the GOP.
“Moderate” is too often used to refer to “reasonable” or “rebel.” McCain is described as a moderate because he bucks the system and takes unpopular (to his party) positions, even though he is very very conservative on the larger spectrum of issues.
November 11, 2006, at 2:05 pm
Moderate: N “Someone who shares the political opinions of you and your co-workers in the newsroom.”
Not being cynical here, it is just that if all your friends are of more or less the same opinion you begin to think of that postion as “moderate” or “consensus” or even “intelligent” rather than “Liberal” or “Conservative”. There is a natural “Groupthink” or echo chamber effect. I remember the George Will story about a very fashionable fellow from Manhattan who after the ‘72 election was heard to say (quite sincerly) “I can’t believe McGovern lost! Everyone I know voted for him!!”
This incidentally is why reporters are so reluctant to admit a Liberal media bias, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They don’t think of themselves as “Liberal”, even if they always vote strait ticket D. They are much less likely to think of themselves as “irreligious” even if they haven’t been to Church since Gerald Ford was in the White House. We naturally tend to think of ourselves as “moderate”, and the OTHER GUY as “out of touch” or “extreme”.
So even if you are a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party, if all your friends and co-workers are ALSO members of the Monster Raving Loony Party you begin to think of the Monster Raving Loony Party as “moderate” and “rational”. (See Berkely)
The argument that California isn’t a Blue State is utter bilge. As of last Monday (and I don’t belive this has changed) the only Republican in Statewide elective office in CA is Arhnuld himself.
The California G.O.P. commited suicide back when Pete Wilson decided to capture that all important inbred racisit demographic with Prop 187.
Up untill then the G.O.P. had been making a lot of headway with Hispanics on values issues (like abortion and gay marriage) and on small buisness issues, as more than a few Hispanics are entrepreneurs. Hispanics are not just the fastest growing demographic segment, they also tend to be quite socially conservative (where I grew up in Albuquerque a Hispanic house always had two obligatory pictures, one of The Sacred Heart and the other of a son/brother/cousin/uncle in his USMC dress blues.)
Prop 187 basicly told Hispanic voters that the G.O.P. didn’t want them, didn’t want their votes, didn’t want them in the country. California is now securely in the Blue State camp for at least a generation.
The G.O.P. however decided to recreate this failure on a national level by following Tom Tancredo and his merry bund of Minutemen off the very same cliff…. hence last Tuesday.
November 11, 2006, at 5:23 pm
I don’t know if anyone at GetReligion is aware of this, but in politics news the term “moderate Republican”, which is often applied to folks like Lincoln Chafee, has a precise and misleading definition. There are actually associations of self-described “moderate Republicans”, see here; basically it’s a combination of social progressive and fiscal moderate. The vast majority of Americans don’t know about this definition, and would otherwise assume that it is a generic term.
So my guess is that the mainstream media rationalize this semantic choice according to the inconsistently-applied rule of self-description.
November 11, 2006, at 7:35 pm
You and those who agree with you are also “bipartisan” (as opposed to the “partisan views”: of those on the other side.) I saw someone actually introduced as “a bipartisan Senator”.
November 11, 2006, at 7:37 pm
If there are trends in the usage of terms like “moderate” it should be pretty easy to document.
I just ran the following searches in LexisNexus. Unless otherwise noted, the search was for NYT articles from the past ten years which include the given phrase in the “headline, lead paragraph(s), or terms”. I suspect that numbers for “republican” are too low, since “G.O.P.” is frequently used in its place.
republican 371 (previous year headline only)
democrat 288 (previous year headline only)
“conservative republican” 339
“conservative democrat” 42
“liberal republican” 26
“liberal democrat” 163
“moderate republican” 220
“moderate democrat” 58
November 11, 2006, at 8:22 pm
This is a good issue and good debate, one can only hope a few newsroom people are paying some attention and thinking about the issues raised.
I have always been amused how so many Democrat politicians—like our Mass. senator Ted Kennedy—can have the most consistently far left voting record by comparing his votes with those of other senators, but in news stories is virtually never labelled truthfully “liberal” or “radical” or the “farthest left” senator. While a Republican can have a consistently middle-of-the-road voting record and yet be constantly pigeon-holed as a right-winger, or conservative, etc.
November 11, 2006, at 9:47 pm
Well you are right Deacon John, but left and right are often a function of what is to the left and right of YOU.
I had a friend in D.C. who told me once that an East Coast Conservative is a Texas Liberal. He was right. Of course when East Coast Liberals come here we get out the Holy Water and Crucifixes.
November 11, 2006, at 10:36 pm
There’s another angle to the whole “moderate” concept, one that, it seems to me, includes a religious angle, if you’re willing to widen that angle to include American Civic Religion, or in other words, the spirit of liberalism.
Learned Hand, the coolest-named judge in the history of our union, delivered the “Spirit of Liberty” address in 1944. It uses explicitly religious language (“a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion”) to talk about the American idea:
“What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”
That’s something like what moderates have in mind. That’s the essence, at least, of self-proclaimed moderates beef with perceived extremists. It’s an open question as to whether or not the NYT or LAT use the word sensibly, I guess. It might be fruitful to look at this from a Godbeat angle.
I hardly think that tmatt is justified in extrapolating an across-the-board “liberalism on social issues” from a reference to opposition to a parental notification law. A moderate, in presenting her own case on social issues, might be tempted to say, as I do:
“I’m very worried about the whole ‘abortion on demand, without apology’ crowd, but I don’t like abortion. I’m skeptical of our ability to end it, or even really reduce the number of abortions by criminalizing the practice. I hope to, through education and public health initiatives, reduce the number of abortions as much as possible without demonizing young women in already difficult positions.”
There seems to be a lot of air between this position and that of Foucault or Inga Musico. If the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the folks behind GetReligion want to clarify what moderatism is and isn’t, the best way would be to go to self-proclaimed moderates (there are millions!) and ask them. This is a case that tmatt himself makes all the time when the press is dealing with positions closer to those he identifies with. Is it somehow less important to make this point now?
November 11, 2006, at 11:17 pm
Tmatt’s posting here is a good corrective to the foolishness that passes for reporting - for both political and religious stories - regarding the word “moderate.”
It’s not far off the mark to say that the reporter’s friend is often a “moderate” and all the rest risk the label “extreme.”
The Chaffee example is an excellent one from the political world, since I’ve heard him described over and over again as a “moderate Republican,” which is, of course, laughable, since he is about to come out of the closet and declare himself a full-fledged Democrat.
As regarding religion and these labels, yes, they can be harder to pin down, but we all recognize that a traditionalist, anti-Gay marriage, pro-life person is “conservative” the opposite is “liberal” and the one who cherry-picks from differing views (sometimes of the naive belief that adopting a “middle” view on ALL issues is somehow more *mature* and “moderate” - when in fact, this Goldilocks Method is actually just morally or politically confused, and kind of mentally immature.
The bottom line is that a “moderate” to the MSM means “moving from conservative to liberal.” Otherwise, the person is simply “becoming more extreme.”
November 11, 2006, at 11:59 pm
There’s a fallacy out there about the “moderates” - whatever those are.
It’s this idea that they are intelligent and well-informed while the “extremists” (whatever those are) are ignorant brutes.
Quite the opposite actually.
Those with a solid party affiliation actually tend to be better-educated on the issues than the so-called “moderates” (who seem to have all the nuance of a pile of rocks when it comes to politics).
Extremists aren’t dumb, even if the poster-boys the media picks tend to be located in neo-nazi compounds in Idaho and largely high-school drop-out material.
Liberal society needs to get over this trivializing of the barbarians at the gate, if it wishes to remain vital and relevant. They need to acknowlege that not only are the extremists “smart,” but their ideas seem to have a lot more persuasive force and power to inspire than the bland offerings of the moderate mainstream.
November 12, 2006, at 12:28 am
While I think moderate can be a loaded term, I do think that one of the reasons we have seen Republicans differentiated more than Democrats is because Republican have been in charge. When you are the one creating policy, differentiating factions who can allow or prevent policy from being created is helpful.
We already see that happening now that Democrats will control Congress, with differentiating between the liberals—like Pelosi and Conyers—and the moderates or conservatives—like Webb and Shuler. We see that the liberals are “bad” while the moderates or conservatives are “good” and “representative of the people.” Clinton was described as a “moderate,” as opposed to liberals like Kennedy. Sen. Clinton is often described based on where she is viewed that week on the political spectrum.
Just as the GOP needed to win over moderates to get legislation passed, we will soon hear the same about Democrats needing to woo moderates or conservative Democrats.
November 12, 2006, at 2:26 am
“sometimes of the naive belief that adopting a “middle†view on ALL issues is somehow more *mature* and “moderate†- when in fact, this Goldilocks Method is actually just morally or politically confused, and kind of mentally immature.”
You are right Stephen!
I think it was Will Rogers who said “Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow’s too lazy to form an opinion. “
November 12, 2006, at 2:39 am
First, on a statewide level California is not “moderate” (except maybe on tax issues). Certainl not the press: there is one libertarian paper (the OC Register), 4 doctrinaire liberal papers (LA Times, SJ Mercury, SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee) and one seriously confused paper (the SD Union). The bulk of our Republican and Democrat elected figures are on the liberal end of the national spectrum. (Just like our mainline churches).
The LA/SF urban voting blocks and the well-organized public employees mean that only the most liberal Republican can get elected statewide. (The trend was well established before the Pete Wilson claim above). Similarly, we have very few “moderate” democrats — Diane Feinstein 1.0 or 2.0 (rather than her current incarnation) being one of the few examples, or perhaps Rep. Jane Harmon, or even our former Gov. Gray Davis. Think of Calif. Democrats you’ve heard of: any moderates among them? SF mayor Gavin Newsom or Willie Brown? Sen. Barbara Boxer? Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Ron Dellums, Barbara Lee?
As noted, in practice “moderate” means “views the writer finds reasonable.” A more practical (and less intersubjective) definition would be “matching the national consensus opinion”. So a moderate would believe in “one nation, under God,” efforts to prevent voter fraud, preventing another 9-11, and that in an ideal world, all kids would have a loving mother and father. It would also agree that Bush could have done much better in Iraq (even if they don’t agree how), and that what happens in the bedroom belongs there.
This definition would be consistent with the wishy-washy moderate defintion proffered above — if there is no national consensus, then a moderate would try to try to split the difference or not hold any strong opinions. (e.g., Abortion should be legal but rare).
PS: While the failure of parental notification may reflect the state’s liberal views, many of those liberals are Latino Catholics less likely to be vehemently pro-abortion. It should be noted that opponents had money for TV ads and proponents did not. The state’s online database shows that opponents raised more than $10 million, 2/3 of that from organizations with “Planned Parenthood” in the name. Not that you’d read about it in the paper.
November 12, 2006, at 11:26 am
If the Democrats proposed drinking a quart of arsenic a day and the Republicans proposed drinking a quart motor oil, a Moderate would drink a half quart of each and congratulate himself on being so progressive-minded.
November 12, 2006, at 8:18 pm
ha!
November 14, 2006, at 9:32 am
[…] California looks like a red state on the map shown at near the bottom of this post at Get Religion, which might have been titled, “California is moderate … whatever that means.” […]