BCT Editorial – 5/3/05

This page was last updated on May 7, 2005.

Moderate middle; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 3, 2005.

This is another editorial that promotes the myth of the “moderate” as a thoughtful person. That’s BS.

In today’s world in this context, there are two accurate definitions of a moderate.

First, many liberals don’t like the liberal/Marxist/progressive/socialist label so they refer to themselves as moderates. In the mainstream media, liberal Republicans are almost universally referred to as “moderate” Republicans whereas conservative Democrats are referred to as “conservative” Democrats. The other reason liberals like to use the term moderate is to promote the myth that socialist principles are in the mainstream.

Second, so-called moderates who don’t fall into the first category simply can’t take a position. That is, these “moderates” can’t make up their minds about the principles for which they stand. Whether you lean to the left or right on a given issue, you need to make a choice and be willing to stand behind it.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Is U.S. Rep. William Clay of Missouri a flip-flopper on abortion rights, or is he listening to America?

“The U.S. House of Representatives last week voted 270-157 to approve a bill that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions.

“Clay was one of the Democrats who supported the measure, and the vote was a switch for him. In the past, he voted against similar bills. He said he changed his vote because of the support this issue received from his constituents, The Associated Press reported.”

[RWC] There’s a question the editorial didn’t ask. Did Mr. Clay change his position on abortion rights or did he change his position on parental rights? Remember, many schools aren’t even allowed to give a child an aspirin or Tylenol without telling the parent, but they are allowed to enable a child to get an abortion without telling the parent. Where’s the logic?

Regardless of the action, we can’t hold parents responsible for the actions of their children and then undermine the ability for those parents to fulfill their responsibilities.

“This is exactly the kind of legislative action, with input from the public, that the Supreme Court short-circuited when it handed down its Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. Even some supporters of abortion rights acknowledge the court should have let the legislative process resolve this matter.”

[RWC] I agree with the first sentence, though I have a tough time believing the second. I suspect there’s a reason the editorial didn’t provide any examples. I can’t recall any pro-abortion speaker/writer ever stating the issue should be in the hands of voters via the legislative process.

“Since then, America seemingly has been divided into pro-choice and pro-life camps, and you’d certainly think that if you watched any of the split-scream, infotainment programs on the 24-7 cable networks.”

[RWC] Use of the term “pro-choice” tells us where the author comes down on abortion.

Once again the Times is on a rampage against cable news. The editorial could have made the same observation of the Times opinion pages.

“That’s not a true picture of the situation. Many Americans are deeply ambivalent about abortion. This uncertainty can be seen in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. The random survey of 1,007 Americans found that 20 percent of those polled believed abortion should be legal in all cases while 14 percent said it should be illegal in all cases. Overall, 56 percent supported abortion and 42 percent opposed it.

“Looked at in another way, though, Americans aren’t polarized as is being reported. Do the math. Only about one-third of those surveyed had strong opinions on abortion.

“What about the other two-thirds? Of those surveyed, 36 percent said abortion should be legal in most cases while 27 percent said it should be illegal in most cases. Instead of lumping them with the zealots, as the Post-ABC poll does, let’s combine the responses of these, the ‘yes, but’ Americans. When the 3 percent who had no opinion are added in, two-thirds of those surveyed had qualms and doubts about abortion and abortion rights.”

[RWC] Did you notice the editorial didn’t include the wording of the questions? Without knowing the wording used by the poll, there’s no way to draw any useful conclusions.

Consider what the results might be of a poll asking if killing a person should be illegal in all cases. Without providing any context, most people would probably say “no.” Add “except in self-defense,” and most people would say “yes.”

Last week we learned how The Washington Post drove the results of a poll by the wording of the questions. This is called “push” polling.

“These are the people - compromisers with an ‘I can live with that’ approach to politics - who are not being heard in America today, and not just on this issue. They’re not entertaining and controversial enough to make it onto TV and radio talk shows, and they aren’t impassioned to the point of becoming a force in politics. They’re not flamethrowers; they’re head-scratchers.”

[RWC] Using abortion as an example, I’m not sure how you compromise on the use of abortion as contraception. You can be for it or against it; there is no middle ground.

If Abraham Lincoln and many in the North had been of the “I can live with that” school, for how much longer would slavery have been legal? Would there be a single U.S.A., or would we also have a Confederate States of America?

If the “I can live with that” crowd had held sway 230 years ago, there wouldn’t have been an American Revolution.

Most of the world’s atrocities occurred because too many people said, “I can live with that.” Remember Rwanda in the 1990s?

I’m not sure calling someone a “head-scratcher” is a compliment. It conjures up an image in my mind of Alfred E. Newman scratching his head and saying, “What, me worry?”

“Yet they are where most Americans are. Look at those poll numbers again. Combined, the absolutists are a definite minority, and yet they control and define the debate. They are the ones who show up on the TV and radio shoutfests and in other public forums.”

[RWC] Again, ignore the quoted poll figures until you know the wording of the questions and how they were framed.

To the author, people with well-defined principles are “absolutists.”

Again, the editorial failed to mention op-ed pages along with “TV and radio shoutfests.”

“Contrary to what they say, it is possible to find common ground on abortion. As a nation, we must stop listening to these hard-liners - and not just on abortion - and start paying more attention to the moderate middle.”

[RWC] In other words, we should pay attention to those who either do not have well-defined principles or are unwilling to stand up for their principles. Nothing good comes from relying on the wishy-washy. The name Neville Chamberlain comes to mind.

“If these ‘I can live with that’ Americans don’t step forward, if they allow the grenade-tossers to dominate the agenda, our nation is heading for big trouble.”

[RWC] Another attack on those with a well-defined set of principles. If you know what you believe and are willing to stand behind your principles, you are an “absolutist,” a “flamethrower,” a “grenade-tosser,” and a “hard-liner.”