Moderation Fails in Principle.Early in this campaign I characterized myself as moderate; mostly because I saw my views as being different from the two sets of extremes dominating the political debate. As I’ve come to better understand the landscape, and matured through roughly nine months of explaining and defending my views, I realize that much of what passes for “moderate” is simply unprincipled pragmatism or opportunism. I’m increasingly uncomfortable thinking of myself as moderate. I still advocate for moderation in how we discuss the issues. We need to understand each others’ views and work to find the common underlying objectives that we all share – safety, prosperity, health, and justice (aka life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). But we need to be principled in our approach to governance and our understanding of the Constitution. Advocates for issues all over the political spectrum tend to abandon constitutional principle when it comes to achieving their goals, whether they are socio-economic “fairness” on the left, or religious “freedom” on the right. (Just two examples of many.) Let’s be moderate in how we conduct the debate, but let all parties be extremists in working for the interests of Americans and defense of our Constitution. Let the Christian right be extreme in wanting to raise their children in an environment of faith, but let them be moderate in how they impose those views on others – let them work for school choice while respecting constitutional separations of church and state. Let the social left be extreme in guaranteeing working Americans housing and healthcare, but let them be moderate by providing mechanisms of opportunity for those wishing to achieve, not by penalizing those who have already achieved. Let us be extreme in our citizenship. I recently read a proposal that suggested all Americans be required to take the same oath as naturalizing immigrants. The most relevant clause: “that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America…” That is also the essence of the President’s job and key component of the oath every elected official takes. So, am I comfortable if labeled an extremist? No, conservatives and liberals both have given extremism a bad name. But if I was labeled an extremist in the defense of our Constitution? To adapt Barry Goldwater’s quote, I believe extremism in the defense of the Constitution is no vice. I could live with myself just fine if that was the worst epithet I encounter in this campaign. Michael Previous: 9 Trillion Reasons to Still Distrust Your Government -- Next: Bear with me… Comment from willCode4Beer: If you want to be “extreme” and defend the constitution, I for one will stand with you. Now, if only the other candidates actually cared about preserving the constitution. Posted by willCode4Beer Aug 17, 01:53 PM # Comment from Strayer: I think Mr. Smith, you may have the key, because everything else is kind of on the side. Our constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted by brilliant Americans. I don’t think we’ve seen such greatness since. So steadfastly defending the constitution, carefully redirecting folks back to that, might be the way to achieve more unity in this country and a new beginning, with the neutral focus most, I would think, could agree upon—-defense of our constitution and the Bill of Rights amendment, right on Mr. Smith. Everybody has their special interests and issues. They divert us all. Posted by Strayer Aug 17, 03:01 PM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
