We remember Barry Goldwater’s strident and self-defeating assertion: “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” I beg to differ.
Too many of us love a dogfight (unless we have to watch actual dogs going at it). The media is reveling in the specter of dogfights within both political parties – Republican Tea Partyers going for the throats of the few remaining GOP moderates; for Democrats, it’s enraged and energized progressives baiting those Democrats facing re-election in red states who are trying to appeal to a broader range of voters. The media seem eager to see the fight go on until it shakes out with a victory for one side or another. The losers just might include almost everyone.
Here’s why that’s a big mistake, no matter which party you belong to. History tells us, from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, and right up to modern times, that the quest for ideological purity almost always leads to electoral defeat (at best) or to a reign of terror (at worst).
In our troubled times, a crucial distinction has to be made between ideological purity and the championing of idealist policies aimed at helping people find economic equity, environmental survival and social justice. It is about the difference between arguing vociferously against any compromise language that does not fully support one’s desired goals – or working hard to support legislation and candidates for office who are clearly better than the alternative, even when they do not fully embrace our agenda. It is about finding the compromise most likely to help solve a genuine problem, as opposed to fighting against anyone or anything we see as compromising our sacred principles.
Shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses is about ideological purity, as is heaping vitriol on Republican moderates who dare to utter the word “compromise.” Attacking genuinely liberal leaders like Joe Biden because he didn’t do enough to defend Anita Hill is about ideological purity, as is vilifying moderate Republicans because they don’t seem to be obsessed with eviscerating the “deep state.” Ideological purity leads some young people to focus on combating “micro aggressions” or “cultural expropriation” instead of canvassing for votes on behalf of good enough candidates who may not embrace all of their pet issues. It leads others to trash moderate conservatives because they dare to spend money on social programs, such as children’s health and treating addiction.
There is certainly a place for radical thought and radical action in our political life, but these highly charged strategies should be reserved for very special circumstances. We may well be in such circumstances, given the extremist words and actions of our current president. But the political gridlock that has for the past decade paralyzed our politics serves only the interests of those who want to eviscerate our public government so they can maximize private greed.
Here are some guidelines for those of us who reject the quest for ideological purity and are trying to make some headway for humanity amid our current political schisms:
When they go crazy, we go sane. The antidote to deeply partisan rhetoric is reasoned discourse and clear policy alternatives. If we want a better nation, we need to try to create a better climate for people to work toward that end, and that most likely involves fewer slogans and more patient dialogue.
When they exude arrogance, we bend toward humility. To whip up a mob we use the language of hatred, fear, prejudice and passion; to win over a neighbor we try to find the patience to explore issues that we can discuss in a spirit of openness. This includes our accepting the possibility that we might not have all the best answers, or that some of the ideals held by our political adversaries may enrich our own.
When they push for exclusion, we champion inclusion. Political parties have descended into arenas where the most radical claim the moral high ground, even when their tactics often violate their own principles. The “big tent” is not just a place for circuses; it can also be a venue to allow people who agree on the big issues to join forces to promote them.
When they shout at us, we try instead to listen to the quiet people. We serve humanity best by opening ourselves to the thoughts of others, even as we energetically support our own causes.
Recently, a reporter on NPR asked former Senate President George Mitchell which faction of the Democratic Party he sided with. His heartfelt answer should guide us.
“I’m not a labels guy. I like to deal with issues. I think the Democratic Party has a very strong and bright future, if we concentrate on those principles, those policies and those actions which created such strong support for Democrats over the past century – that is concentrating on economic growth, job creation, working men and women, many of whom feel we have forgotten them, and that’s gotta be the emphasis. I believe this to the bottom of my heart that the single most important agency in United States history in opening up doors of opportunity, reducing, breaking down barriers to people moving ahead, getting education and skills, has been the Democratic Party, and the policies that it has pursued, and we’ve got to get back to that kinda basic. And when we do that, we will prevail in elections and be doing the right thing for the American people.”
George Mitchell may not be anybody’s idea of a firebrand advocate of righteousness, but his voice may well be the voice we need to hear.
(Robert L. Fried of Concord is a retired educator who is now a writer, gardener and tinkerer. He can be reached by email at rob.fried@gmail.com.)