It is my theory that everything in this world is best practiced in moderation. However, this is obviously a contradiction because it insists that moderation itself should not be practiced in moderation, but I think you get the idea. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
Like any good theory — gravity, the big bang, beer goggles — my rule has implications far beyond the obvious. Sure, moderation when it comes to tequila or “Jersey Shore” marathons is important, but even politics could learn something from the idea that less is more.
The current political discourse in our country is woefully lacking in moderation. I’m not just referring to the 18 Republican debates in the past few months or even the 17 Republican candidates who have been whittled away so far.
What is far more alarming is the lack of moderation in the actual political views of the candidates.
It appears to me that after losing the last election, the Republican Party has turned its back on moderation. It seems the Republicans have learned the exact opposite of the lesson that Obama’s election could have taught them. If a majority of the country wanted a more liberal party in the White House, then perhaps it was not the best time to take the Republican Party in a more conservative direction.
Bowing to radical Tea-Partiers, bashing gays and talking of electrifying the Mexican border fence only panders to the extreme conservative votes that the party already had, and does nothing to sway the opinions of a majority of Americans.
Surely there is some middle ground between throwing illegal immigrants a welcome party and keeping them out like the T-Rex in “Jurassic Park.” Here again, moderation would have been the right answer not just morally, but politically as well.
As conservatives frantically run away from Mitt Romney for his moderate views and instead choose candidates, who are less appealing but more extreme, perhaps they should take a moment to consider the impact of their conviction.
Party politics is essentially a centuries-long argument. Liberals feel one way and conservatives feel another with varying degrees of devotion on both sides. However, like any argument, at the end of the day, shouting back and forth never gets anything done.
Sure your opponents aren’t winning, but neither are you, and sadly, in the case of politics, neither are the American people. This is where moderation comes in.
If politics is an argument, then a moderate candidate is the compromise. I understand that nobody wants a compromise, but isn’t that really the point? Nobody gets everything they want, but everyone gets enough.
I know that what I’m proposing seems simple and any 10-year-old could understand the virtues of compromise, but it seems when the stakes are as high as leading the free world, otherwise very smart men behave in very stupid ways.
However, with my grand theories about life and idealistic views about politics notwithstanding, at some point Republicans are going to have to start thinking practically.
In the end, whether they want to compromise or not, eventually conservatives will have to face the hard truth that the only way a Republican candidate is going to beat a Democrat who made concrete steps to pull us out of a depression, ended the war in Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands, is if they find a Republican who can appreciate a moderate platform.