Is Moderate or Bipartisan Politics The Enemy of America?

There is a saying: "[...]extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice [...] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.". It was spoken by the failed Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964. It would seem that, today, somehow this has been transmogrified into an endorsement of "extremism in the defense of moderation." Or so, anyhow, our political leadership would have us believe.

It doesn't take very much digging to find it: bipartisanship is apparently the greatest virtue of politics today. Our very own President (I didn't vote for the guy), Mr. Bush, was hailed on this very issue once upon a time. He was to be a "Uniter, not a divider." We were told that he was a "compassionate conservative" and thus could bridge the gap. Now, compassionate conservatism is a separate issue that I won't be going into today, but suffice it to say that I think it is one of the greater deceptions pulled over the eyes of the public today: when you hear "compassionate conservative", expect a theocratic/religious political agenda.

There is, however, a more subtle evil at work in this; "We the People" have been fooled into believing that extreme politics is bad. We have been deceived into thinking that bipartisanship is good moderation. And I am here today to say, that just isn't so. Now, the chances are fairly strong that neither the democratic-socialist agenda (before you respond here, you need to realize that democratic-socialist is a mainly european appelation that specifically applies to American liberalism) nor the conservative agenda will be going away anytime soon. They seem to be too firmly rooted in the basal psyche of the human race. I could not count, if I used all my fingers, toes, and teeth, the number of times I have heard mostly non-political people state that "what we really need in this country is a party that represents the moderate perspective."

There is no such thing as a -- in the singular, unified sense -- moderate perspective. Nor should there be. It is as simple as that.

What our country (America, that is) needs is not moderation. What we need is not bipartisanship. What we need is extremism.

By way of example, there is a much larger than you'd think number of extremists whom belong to the political philosophy called liberal conservatism. That philosophy can be described -- and is, by Wikipedia -- as follows:

Liberal conservatism is a political philosophy which generally means combining elements of "conservatism" with elements of "liberalism". As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.

Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which stressed the importance of laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, although in an increasingly lesser-sense, religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

By way of contrast, there is also "classical liberalism", which today has far more in common with American conservatism than it does American liberalism. Wikipedia again comes to my rescue:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism^[1] and laissez-faire liberalism^[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,^[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire ^[4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.^[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,^[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.^[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,^[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,^[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

Compared to standard conservatism and standard liberalism, both of these political philosophies could be -- quite easily -- called "moderate". And yet, when you see a political moderate in an electoral campaign, they never represent this -- in action, at least.

There's a very good reason for that: the ones who appeal to moderation are in fact appealing to compromise, not moderation. That's precisely why you'll never hear, all too often, of the so-called "radical middle". By way of exemplifying exactly where this sort of compromise thinking leads us, I will now direct your attention (if you're still reading this far in, that is) to the Moderate Party. Or, more specifically, their platform. Reading through it, you'll notice that there is a great deal of "Supports this" and "Supports that" -- but almost no details on how they intend to accomplish it. And when they do engage in actual details, they tend to be contradictory in nature:

The Moderate Party believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper.

The Moderate Party believes that although the United States may disagree with other nations' politically and/or socially inhumane ideologies, where those nations have not directly threatened American security, we do not have the right to preemptory invasion.

Hate to break it to 'em, but you gotta pick one or the other. You can't both be a pacifist nation and have a 'primary role as international peacekeeper'. The two are somewhat contradictory to each other. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't act in other nations; pacifism or non-interventionism is not isolationism. But it does mean that if you're going to walk softly and carry a big stick, you can't go playing whack-a-mole with other countries' petty dictators. (My mind imagines Iran yelling out, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" -- while wearing a burkha, since countries are traditionally referred to in the feminine sense. A characteristic I've always found peculiar.)

So what is the general argument I make here, today? It's relatively simple enough: if extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, then let us no longer shun the kooks, the crazies, and the extremists, from the arena of politics. Let's give up on the appearance of agreement and consensus; instead, let us move on to having politicians who say what they mean, are respected for it, and actually attempt to accomplish what they say they will. As opposed to the shenanigans we now get to endure, where a Democratic majority was elected on the basis of getting us out of Iraq... and what we get is a non-binding resolution that can't get passed and a Speaker of the House who refuses to act on the articles of Impeachment despite there being a number of members of congress having endorsed them against both Bush and Cheney. And why? Because it won't get the votes. That is sheer weak-willed duplicity, and it's time we as a nation called both the White House and Capital Hill on it; that we told them, effectively, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."