There is a good article on the Renew Democracy Initiative website regarding moderation in all things political. If you click on the image above, it will take you to the article. It is called “Defining Democracy: Moderation” and it is a much-needed corrective to the way in which we have been approaching politics from both sides for the last few years. Here is a quote from that article, “Thomas Jefferson singled out George Washington’s moderation as the most important value that allowed America to succeed in its early days, praising Washington in a letter: ‘The moderation and virtue of a single character has probably prevented this revolution from being closed as most others have been by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.’”
Note an important point that the article makes. The lack of moderation leads to a “subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish.” Not only do the ancient Greeks and Romans warn about the lack of moderation, but so also do the Church Fathers. Even while zeal for Christianity is being exalted, you will find among them a warning that the zeal needs to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and expressed in such a way that it preserves the commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.”
For instance, St. John Chrysostom says, “Fasting is a medicine. But medicine, as beneficial as it is, becomes useless because of the inexperience of the user. He has to know the appropriate time that the medicine should be taken and the right amount of medicine and the condition of the body which is to take it, the weather conditions and the season of the year and the appropriate diet of the sick and many other things. If any of these things are overlooked, the medicine will do more harm than good. So, if one who is going to heal the body needs so much accuracy, when we care for the soul and are concerned about healing it from bad thoughts, it is necessary to examine and observe everything with every possible detail.” Notice that while talking about fasting, he goes on to talk about being aware of conditions such as the weather and giving physical medicine. While the point he is making is about fasting could easily be applied to politics, which is to take care of what “medicine” or I could say of what political solutions to apply and when to apply them. This is a warning against the careless use of solutions without analyzing the situation. Whether it is our body or the body politic, solutions need to be carefully thought out.
Again speaking of fasting, St. John Cassian makes the identical point. “There is an old saying: ‘Excesses meet.’ Too much fasting and too much eating come to the same end. Keeping too long a vigil brings the same disastrous cost as … sluggishness… Too much self-denial brings weakness and induces the same condition as carelessness. Often I have seen men who would not be snared by gluttony fall, nevertheless, through immoderate fasting and tumble in weakness into the very urge which they had overcome. Unmeasured vigils and foolish denial of rest overcame those whom sleep could not overcome. Therefore, ‘fortified to right and to left in the armor of justice,’ as the apostle says (2 Cor. 6:7), life must be lived with due measure and, with discernment for a guide, the road must be traveled between the two kinds of excess so that in the end we may not allow ourselves to be diverted from the pathway of restraint which has been laid down for us nor fall through dangerous carelessness into the urgings of gluttony and self-indulgence.” St. John Cassian urges us to live life “with due measure and with discernment for a guide.” Though the examples he gives have to do with Christian practices, nevertheless, they are well applied to politics!
Moderation is a lost art in our modern political landscape. Both sides accuse the other side of having lost moderation and of being willing to impose their beliefs while themselves having no problem distributing literature that ensures their followers that if they are elected they will most certainly impose and enforce their beliefs with the full weight of every law and budget items that they can pass (or cut) as well as prohibiting the beliefs of the other side. The cry of cancel culture applies only to those with whom you do not agree. Should your side impose equivalent restrictions, you are simply restoring lost freedoms of one type or another or rectifying injustices of one type or another.
I would argue that the voting patterns of the last several years show that the general electorate is closer to the center than to either side of either major party. And it seems that, by its voting patterns, the electorate is trying to send the signal that they with something closer to the middle. Whether what they wish is a center-left or center-right approach, it appears that most of the electorate is not as doctrinaire as many of its representatives. I am willing to argue that the constant switch back and forth between Democratic or Republican majorities, as exemplified in the elections of 2020 and 2021 is the switch of an electorate desperately trying to stop the extremes of both sides.
Was 2020 a rejection of Trump? Yes! Is 2021 a rejection of Democratic gridlock and the far-left? Yes! Note that I am not yet convinced that 2021 is a rejection of Biden as there is an interesting gap in polling between the idea that he is likable and the idea that he is not yet successful. There appears to be more sighing over Biden than anger. What does appear to be true is that the electorate, in successive years, has rejected both the extreme claims of the far-right and the far-left and has rejected their attempts to change America into their vision of the golden land. It is interesting that both sides have programs that they insist will either allow America to return to or finally allow America to reach, the status of being a shining light on a global hill. While the left does not use the shining light analogy, it is obvious from their literature that they hold something of that view.
How do we return moderation to America? I do not know. By now the primary process is basically controlled by the extremes. It is quite difficult for a moderate candidate to run and be elected. Yes, I know there are several prominent exceptions. However, note that those current exceptions have been pilloried by their respective parties for essentially being traitors. And, most of the current moderates were elected prior to the current extremism. The rise of national documents that detail the Democratic and Republican platforms make it more difficult for a moderate to run since the opposing candidate will inevitably charge the moderate with being a supporter of those radical statements found in the documents of their respective party. Worse, their own party may refuse to fund them, even if they win the primary, on the grounds that they refuse to adhere to their party’s national documents on every point.
So, I finish this post with a sense of gloom and doubts as to the American future. As was pointed at the beginning, the article from the Renew Democracy Initiative points out that a lack of moderation subverts our democracy. At this point in our history, I see our democracy being subverted from the right and from the left. Lord, have mercy.
Leave a Reply