BCT Editorial – 12/5/06

This page was last updated on December 6, 2006.

Center solution; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 5, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Moderates in both parties have a chance to bring Congress back to the middle

“The center may yet have a chance to hold in American politics.

“One important aspect of the Democrats regaining control of Congress in last month’s elections is that the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives, picked up nine new members.

“Blue Dogs now represent about 10 percent of House membership and 20 percent of their party’s caucus. However, if moderate Republicans who are members of the Republican Main Street Partnership are included in the political mix, the members in the moderate middle double.”

[RWC] The whole “moderate” thing is BS on different levels.

Before I proceed, I need to set the table.

First, there are two organizations that rate elected officials based on the strength of their conservative and liberal positions. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) rate based on liberal positions and The American Conservative Union (ACU) rates based on conservative positions. A “perfect” rating for both organizations is 100%.

Second, using ADA or ACU ratings, I believe most of us would consider a politician “in the moderate middle” would have a rating of 50% plus or minus 10 to 15%.

As I’ve noted before, moderate/centrist as used by liberals – including the Times – really means liberal. Here is evidence to support my position.

While the Times considers Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to be in the middle, Sen. Lieberman is as liberal as you get short of the MoveOn.org wackos. For example, Sen. Lieberman’s 2005 ADA voting record was 94% and he was the VP candidate in 2000. The American Conservative Union (ACU) gave Sen. Lieberman a 2005 rating of 8%. A 94% liberal rating what the Times considers “the moderate middle?”

Here’s another example. During the recent election for House Majority Leader, the press labeled Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) a “moderate” despite a 2005 ADA rating of 95%. That was exactly the same as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Therefore, a Democrat can have a liberal rating of nearly 100% and be labeled a “moderate.”

New let’s look at what it takes to be a “moderate” Republican. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) had a 2005 ACU rating of only 63% and a lifetime rating of only 45%. Other “moderate” Republicans include Sen. Lincoln Chafee (12% - yes, that’s right.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (32%), Sen. Susan Collins (32%), Sen. Norm Coleman (64%), and Sen. Gordon Smith (58%). As a reminder, RINO Chafee was such a “moderate” Republican he didn’t even vote for President Bush. If there’s any good news out of the 2006 election, it’s that Mr. Chafee lost his reelection bid. Why politicians with records like Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Specter, et cetera didn’t/don’t run as Democrats is beyond me.

For the record, Sen. Rick Santorum’s 2005 ACU rating was 92% with a lifetime rating of 88%. Therefore, Democrats (like Sens. Hoyer and Lieberman) with higher liberal ratings than Mr. Santorum’s conservative rating are labeled “moderates” while Mr. Santorum gets the “extremist” label.

Finally, what does a “moderate” stand for? You’ll note Times editorials never tell us.

“The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that 44 House Democrats identify themselves as Blue Dogs. On the GOP side, 39 House Republicans belong to the Main Street group, according to The Associated Press.

“If these 83 moderates can stick together, they could have a huge impact on how the House operates because they hold the balance of power in the closely divided chamber.

“Let’s hope they prevail because it’s time for the moderate middle to reassert itself in American politics and government.”

[RWC] “[M]oderate middle?” Is there a non-moderate middle, or is the Times going overboard trying to convince us there is something called “the moderate middle?”

“Most Americans don’t fit into neat ideological niches. They tend to have opinions across the political spectrum. They don’t see things in black and white. They recognize that different is not a synonym for wrong. They are free agents who pick and choose between Democrats and Republicans depending on the candidates and the situation. They recognize that for every complex issue there’s a simply ideological solution - and it’s wrong.”

[RWC] People “who pick and choose between Democrats and Republicans depending on the candidates and the situation” are the equivalent of smoke blowing in the wind. If you’re switching between Democrats and Republicans depending on the issue, you are not living by a set of principles. For example, it’s tough to say you’re living by a set of principles if you side with conservatives regarding eminent domain but side with liberals when it comes to smoking in restaurants. How can you say you support nondiscrimination based on race, but support affirmative action? Liberalism/centrism is full of these logical contradictions.

The “complex issue” statement is BS. The focus of just about every job I held was to solve problems. In most cases, I succeeded where others failed because I could see “complex” problems weren’t as complicated as other people thought they were. Generally, I found the most complex problems involved correcting previously implemented complicated “solutions” to otherwise simple problems. Contrary to what the editorial would like us to believe, most good solutions to problems are the result of being able to “see things in black and white.”

“Call them ‘yes, but’ Americans, and they’ve been disenfranchised for too long.”

[RWC] If your idea of principles is to jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be passing by, you deserve to be “disenfranchised.”

“One problem with politics over the last 20 years is that the political discussion doesn’t include the cooling influence of centrists, especially in Congress.”

[RWC] Translation: Conservatives aren’t sitting back and taking it anymore.

If it weren’t for the Times beloved “moderates,” we wouldn’t have had the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Part D, so-called campaign finance reform, et cetera. The Times complaint is really that legislation hasn’t been liberal enough.

“Because of gerrymandering and incumbent-protection campaign finance laws, the House has become polarized between left and right. It has become a place where ideology trumps practicality, where unbending loyalty to the party line matters more than problem solving. The result was a dysfunctional House.

“Why? Because of its system of checks and balances and separation of power, our representative democracy can’t function in a bitterly partisan political atmosphere. Compromise, conciliation and centrism are absolutely essential in doing the people’s business.

“That’s what’s been missing, especially since 1994. If Congressional Democrats are smart, always a dangerous supposition, they will stay away from ideological agendas and focus on problem solving.”

[RWC] “[E]specially since 1994?” Translation: “Democrats are nice guys when in the majority, but Republicans aren’t.” It’s too bad the record shows the opposite. For example, while Republicans routinely approve the liberal nominees of Democrats, Democrats routinely filibuster or threaten to filibuster conservative nominees of Republicans. When Republicans held a one-vote majority in the Senate in 2001, they (unwisely in my opinion) instituted a power-sharing scheme with Democrats. When a RINO jumped parties and gave Democrats a one-vote majority, power sharing ended.

Part of “problem solving” is realizing when you have a problem and when you don’t. Another part is understanding who should solve the problem if it exists.

Liberalism will find problems where they don’t exist because without problems to solve, no one needs liberals. Liberals need to find/manufacture problems because that’s how they form victim groups. Finally, liberals believe government must solve every problem – either real or imagined. That’s because liberals need for people to be dependent on government so people can be dependent on liberals.

Finally, why should Democrats “stay away from ideological agendas?” Elections have consequences. If I’m a Democrat elected to increase the minimum wage and immediately get us out of Iraq, I better vote to increase the minimum wage and get us immediately out of Iraq.

“Paying attention to the Blue Dogs, Main Streeters and the moderate middle would be a good place for them to start.”

[RWC] As defined by this editorial, “Blue Dogs, Main Streeters and the moderate middle” are Democrats in spirit if not in official party affiliation.