All Things in Moderation I: The Most Important Word

In the excitement following our victory of May 29, 2009, our attention has focused on the word "Party" in the phrase "Moderate Party of Rhode Island". We now have an historic opportunity to reform the way the game of politics is played in our state, and we are rightly excited at the prospect. But simply being a party is not enough. Rhode Islanders are not attracted to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party because they are parties. The established parties attract partisans because the parties have symbolic meaning to their adherents. They have a brand identity, so to speak.

The Moderate Party, on the other hand, does not. The central tenet of Moderate philosophy, so far as I understand it, has been to put divisive social issues to the side, so that critical managerial issues can be resolved so as not to risk a Rhode Island bankruptcy in the coming years, and to encourage business development in our state. These ideas are absolutely prudent, and if the Republican Party had suggested them, it would have been seen as a rare sign of leadership from a dying organization. That it is actually the promise of a new, exciting, vibrant organization such as the Moderate Party suggests that it is one of two things: a.) an indication that the Party is not so much Moderate as disinterested, and not so much committed to long-term reform of our state's political culture as in patching the leaky raft for another few political cycles or b.) the first step in creating a truly innovative operating philosophy for a truly twenty-first century political organization. I suggest it is the latter.

The key here is in another word in our party's name, the word "Moderate". In contemporary politics it means many things. To people who identify themselves as "moderates" it means that they feel they share some elements of both parties' ideals, but they may feel alienated from one or both at one time or another, or on one issue or another. To conservatives, moderate means Arlen Spector; it means a cynical attempt to pass off progressivism or liberalism as thoughtful compromise. To progressives the word means Bill Clinton, an aww-shucks likeableness and sympathy for liberal social ideals that signs the WTO into being and passes welfare reform. In short no one is happy with "moderate". It sounds nice, but what does it mean?

The answer is that it doesn't mean ideology. The politics of moderation are not about ideology, but about methodology. I believe that the Moderate Party can create an organization that works with disparate interests in our state to form a meaningful compromise, as long as we are willing to understand that our ideal is compromise. To do this, we must create a methodology to determine policy positions, a way to moderate the ideals we have as individuals or classes, so that we may find a compromise we're all willing to accept. The fact that the Moderate Party is new, that it aims to be a truly grassroots organization, and that Rhode Island is such a small place with such a small political class contribute to what I believe is a truly historical opportunity to create a new political philosophy based on the principle of compromise, or moderation.

Compromise is the antithesis of ideology. If compromise is our ideal, we will stop at nothing to find a solution that works and at the same time maintains political support. Thus far the Moderate Party has adopted what I would term the top third of the Republican Party's goals: bring taxes in line with the rest of southern New England, adopt school choice, &c. So what's the compromise? Not talking about gay marriage? Do we really think that gay marriage and abortion are the reason only ten out of 113 seats in the General Assembly are filled by Republicans? In a state as Catholic as Rhode Island?

No, the answer is that the Republican brand is ruined in Rhode Island. A well-funded Democratic offensive, a series of terrible blunders, and a self-destructive tendency towards ideological puritanism have crippled the RIGOP, possibly forever. Even Lincoln Chafee, an honorable, popular civil servant, has been driven out of the Republican Party and demonized—nationwide—for his failure to submit to the Reaganism of the "big tent" party. They've done this to themselves.

Here I fault not the workaday card-carrying loyal Republican, but the leadership, who have moved as out of touch with Rhode Island's people as they accuse progressive leaders of being. I say they're both right. Today's Rhode Island wants to fix the dams protecting it temporarily from a fiscal Hurricane Katrina, but it's not going to chant "smaller government, lower taxes" like a mantra. Rhode Island is not Texas, no matter how much conservative partisans want it to be. Rhode Island wants to be a social democracy, and it should be allowed to be one. Clearly the Democratic Party super-dupermajority model of governance has not succeeded in providing the necessary moderation of the interests of those paying for and those receiving state services, and the third class, those providing them. This can be remedied.

The current opposition party does not propose moderation. It proposes radical cost- and benefit-cutting that is widely unpopular with Rhode Islanders, who want to retain state services without the costs of corruption, bureaucracy, tax burden, and bad planning that have thus far come along for the ride. This is where the Moderate Party comes in. We are new. We are fresh. We are unconnected to the political scandals of old, and unburdened with the yoke of decades-long alliances. We are presented with the opportunity to truly, honestly offer a new viewpoint on the issues of the day, in both the near and long terms.

This essay is the first in a series of essays I will publish under the heading "All Things in Moderation", which will critique contemporary attitudes and policies towards Rhode Island politics, and offer what I believe to be a radically moderate alternative.

I look forward to your comments.