On Moderates
By Sam Weaver (11/02/03)
Dyed-in-the-wool liberals seek to establish national policy upon the basis of the secular ethic of relativism. Liberals want a powerful central government with vast bureaucratic (virtually totalitarian) control over national “domestic policy”. They seek some form or some degree of “share-the-wealth” socialism and often ignore the idea of individual responsibility and accountability.
Die-hard conservatives, on the other hand, want the Judeo-Christian ethic to be the foundation of national policy. Conservatives want a substantial central government for very little purpose other than that of a strong national defense and a cohesive foreign policy. [See Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.] “Domestic policy” (which, by the way, came into the American vernacular only after the “reign” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt!) is simply not the bailiwick of the federal government. Any “domestic policy” (that which is distinguished from national policy—national policy being roughly defined as any policy which effects the whole nation rather than a certain group or class of individuals) must be within the full custody and control of the states and the people. [See Amendments IX & X of the U. S. Constitution.] Federal control over “domestic policy” has only two results: 1) It absolves individuals of responsibility and accountability, and 2) It leads to bureaucratic (all but totalitarian) control over the states and the people. Conservatives desire the economic system of free-enterprise; but true conservatives fully understand the absolute fact that this system cannot and will not work when the people are generally neither responsible nor accountable to the rule of law.
There are liberals and conservatives; and then there are “moderates”. Fundamentally, a moderate is one who has fallen into the trap of the “conventional wisdom” (i. e., the Hegelian model) of the political spectrum. [See http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/index.php?021228weaver and below.] A moderate has been taught (or, programmed) to believe that liberalism is near the “left” extreme and that conservatism is very near the “right” extreme of a political spectrum that is represented by a simple line segment. “Moderate ideology” is simply the rational and practical position between these two “extremes”. So says “conventional ‘wisdom’”.
Typically, a moderate is a person who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This means that many if not most moderates subscribe to the original American (i. e., the conservative) idea of economics, but generally hold to the liberal (i. e., the secular, or relativistic) view of religion, politics, and/or science. This, perhaps, best describes members of the American Libertarian Party, which endorses the conservative idea of politics and economics, but largely supports the secular (liberal) view of science and religion. Libertarians strongly believe in the constitutional republican political model and the economic system of free-enterprise, but, by-and-large, they also believe in the dialectic method of “’scientific’ discovery” and the humanistic ethic, “If it feels (or seems) good, then go ahead and do it!”
Most Libertarians want a totally secular society yet, curiously, many if not even most at least claim to believe in the concept of personal responsibility and accountability. Personally, it seems to me that they want their cake and eat it too. I just cannot see how they believe that they can have it both ways. Think about it! Think back to what George Washington said in Paragraph 27 of his Farewell Address! It is a myth, by the way, that America’s Founders sought to establish a purely secular state or, especially, a secular society!
Other moderates are populists. Populists don’t necessarily have strong convictions themselves on any of the four basic worldview/cultural institutions. Populists let other people shape and guide their ideas. Populist politicians (e. g., Ross Perot and Bill Clinton) study the polls, listen to the people, and tell the people what they believe the people want to hear. [NOTE: Bill Clinton is, at heart, an ultra-liberal. He governed as a populist because he was a very astute politician. He knew that he would have been thrown out of office after his first term had he governed according to his true beliefs.]
Populist voters vote according to what they have learned from their parents, their peers, their teachers/professors, and the media (primarily T. V. and music radio). Most people never stop to consider that what they are being “taught” in school or told by T. V. news broadcasts and documentaries, newspapers and magazines may be absolutely false. Most people assume that these outlets exist to teach and to inform. Most people simply cannot fathom the fact that these “institutions” are ever so subtly indoctrinating them with anti-Christian, relativistic themes and messages whenever they attend a class, listen to modern “pop” music or tune into a television sitcom. They are ignoring this absolute fact at their own peril—and when they vote, they are imperiling American liberty!
Much more often than not, modern public schools and universities, modern “pop” culture, and modern media mislead and misinform rather than educate and inform—sometimes quite blatantly, but usually very subtly. American liberty cannot exist without a generally moral, educated and informed electorate. In many ways and for some obvious (selfish) reasons, the “powers that be” behind public education and “mainstream” media do not want a moral, educated and informed populace. That would upset every utopian, secular, relativistic idea that every “elitist” liberal holds sacred. Every elitist both demands and needs a population that is immoral, uneducated and uninformed. That way, the “elitist” believes he can have his beloved bureaucratic control and his socialistic utopia. If this sounds paranoid and sickeningly conspiratorial, just take a long look at Ephesians 6:12—in the full context of verses 10-20. And then, ponder it all for a few minutes!
Sadly, in today’s relativistic society, it is impossible to become educated and informed by relying upon traditional, “mainstream” sources of education and information. Now, more than ever, it is not just important, it is crucial that every individual seize the responsibility to seek the truth on his own! Only through dedicated prayer and objective research can a person even hope to find the truth in today’s culture. Any other road leads only to half-truths and “moderate ideology”. Every other path leads to immorality, improper education, and misinformation.
Moderation in all of life’s luxuries, necessities and simple pleasures is a wise and healthy thing. To cross the line of moderation in these areas is to enter the realm of obsession which is always unhealthy and can be very dangerous. America saw first-hand the results of “religious” fanaticism—obsession with a particular false religious doctrine—on 9/11/01. We should be familiar with the results of any obsession with false doctrine by now. It led to America’s early “acceptance” of the “institution” of Black slavery and it drives the acceptance—among too many of us today—of moral relativism and the modern holocaust of abortion.
Moderation of Truth (e. g., any negotiation—or mediation—of the Ultimate Source of American liberty and justice) is unmistakably wrong! Moderation (i. e., any deviation) from even one fundamental institution of original American culture could very well be the proverbial “slippery slope” that leads to the end of American liberty, American justice, American productivity, and/or American technological prowess. “Moderate ideology” is always a direct result of ignorance, indifference, insecurity, and/or indoctrination.
Moderates are not well-grounded in the religious (moral), political (constitutional/ethical), and/or economic (fiscal) laws and truths that have traditionally guided The United States of America to greatness. Moderates do not fully understand the devastating effect on American culture that compromising and deviating from these traditional American principles has had in the past several decades. Thus, ignorance to some extent drives moderate ideology. For example, support for homosexual and abortion “rights” reveals moral ignorance. Support for programs and policies (including, for one example, heavy, progressive taxation—rather than uniform taxation as stipulated in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph (1) of the Constitution—and, for another example, socialistic federal “domestic” welfare programs) that empower the federal government and take liberty away from responsible citizens reveals both constitutional and ethical ignorance. Support for national, “universal” health care programs that increase access to health care with little or no regard for personal responsibility and accountability reveals an ignorance of the economic Law of Supply and Demand. When any product or service that is in demand is artificially or arbitrarily made more readily obtainable, the price of that product or service increases. Health care is a service and medicine is a product. Any system that would make health care or prescription drugs more accessible to more people can have only two results: 1) Either it would significantly increase overall costs—which would mean, eventually, much higher taxes for all those who pay taxes, or 2) it would drastically reduce the choices among consumers and the overall quality of health care. The Law of Supply and Demand—like it or not—is written in stone by the finger of the Creator and Author of Law. There is absolutely no way around it. Not even the “almighty” government can repeal this fundamental Law of Nature and Nature’s God.
Among other issues, a moderate stance is the result of indifference, or apathy. If some voters see an issue as having little or no effect on them personally, then they often do not discern the need to educate themselves as to the potential effects of that issue upon others or upon the nation as a whole. Thus, they remain “neutral” on that issue. In light of human nature, this is certainly understandable; but it reflects to at least some degree the selfishness and laziness of many “moderates”. If too many voters are indifferent and apathetic on the cause and effect of too many issues; and if those voters elect certain candidates without scrutinizing the stance of those candidates on those specific issues; then the liberty of the nation is at risk. Again, American liberty demands a moral, educated and informed electorate!
Many Americans are moderate as a result of their own insecurity. Popular culture incorrectly equates conservatism with greed, bigotry and lack of compassion. Numerous and constant—yet subtle—negative depictions of conservative Christians and original American principles in “mainstream” media and “popular” culture take their toll over time. Many Americans publicly denounce any affiliation with conservative ideology for fear of being branded with labels such as “greedy”, “racist”, “intolerant”, “discriminatory”, “fanatical”, “extreme”, “mean-spirited”, “cold”, “heartless”, etc., etc.
American education and media “establishments”, the prime purveyors of information and ideology, have been dominated by men and women of a liberal bent for at least the last four decades. [NOTE: The “how” and “why” of this absolute fact can be established via a serious study of the works and the goals of the “progressive” educators—chief among them being John Dewey and Harold Ordway Rugg. However, that discussion must be reserved for another day—another column; another essay.] As a result of this liberal domination, virtually every American alive today has been imbued with some degree of liberal philosophy, liberal “theory”, and liberal interpretation of both historical and current events conveyed to him as truth. This liberal (i. e., humanist, relativistic, or secular) indoctrination is perhaps the primary reason why so many Americans today have all but forsaken such traditional American principles as limited government, personal responsibility, virtue and morality—not to mention, the idea of GOD as the Creator, the Author of Law, and the Source of liberty and justice—to pursue a more “moderate” course.
The idea that moderate ideology is a good thing comes from the false view of the political spectrum (where communism and fascism are completely opposite extremes, liberalism and conservatism are both just short of those extremes, and moderate ideology—a “happy medium” between the two is the ideal). This contorted diagram of the political spectrum, in turn, comes from the “dialectic” philosophy of the German thinker, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel’s dialectic philosophy was probably the greatest inspiration for Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ communist philosophy. [Marx and Engels’ communist philosophy is today’s Western liberal worldview! It is the culmination of more than two centuries of Franco-German philosophy.] If the term “dialectic” sounds familiar; Yes—it is the very philosophy that gave us the dialectic method of “’scientific’ discovery”; the impetus which made Darwin’s “theory”, with minor alterations, acceptable among the wise fools of today’s “scientific” community.
Conservatives are right. The American Constitution, the morality (as expressed, for example, in every outward gesture of human compassion) of the American people, American economic might and technological superiority are all testimony to the sheer truth of this statement. Liberals are wrong. The failure of socialism wherever and whenever it has been attempted and the absolute evil of totalitarianism in any and all forms and degrees lend credence to this assertion. If conservatives are right and liberals are wrong, then moderates are simply confused. I’m here to tell you, moderates are very confused!
NOTE: This is the sixth in a series of ten essays designed to proffer my own personal views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Sam Weaver
