"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
| Print Story | E-Mail Story | Font Size

Thomas Sowell: Voices of Moderation

Moderation-- at least verbal moderation-- is suddenly in vogue.

President Obama's rhetoric has moderated, even if his policies and practices have not. Among Republicans, voices of moderation are warning that the party cannot win elections without having a "big tent" and reaching out to Hispanics, for example. Recently, talk show host Michael Medved has suggested that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin should moderate their attacks on Obama.

Moderation is fine-- if it is not carried to extremes. But some moderates seem to think that it is always a good thing to tone down your words. Yet history shows that muffling your message can mean forfeiting many a battle to extremists.

No one has had more of a mixed and muffled message than Senator John McCain, which is why Barack Obama is President of the United States.

Republican moderates warn their fellow Republicans that they need to move away from the Ronald Reagan approach, in order to attract a wider range of voters. But Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide elections-- and he couldn't have done that if the only people who voted for him were dedicated conservatives.

What Reagan had was a clear, coherent and believable message. Even voters who did not agree with him 100 percent could respect that and prefer it to the alternative.

He didn't have to offer earmarked goodies to each special group, in order to get their votes. Pandering can gain you some votes but lose you many others.

After the tragic murders and attempted murders in Tucson, some Democrats and the media have promoted the notion that sharp political criticism somehow provoked the shootings. There is not a speck of evidence to support that notion.

Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction, because the individual charged with the crime did not follow talk radio or Sarah Palin.

This same political game was played after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on the "hostile" conservative atmosphere in Dallas. But the atmosphere in Dallas did not kill JFK. A bullet from a far-left kook killed him.

The criticism-causes-violence notion plays right into the hands of those Democrats who have done outrageous things in Washington, and who now insulate themselves from the outrage they provoked by equating strong criticism with fomenting violence.

Apparently some moderate Republicans don't realize that you can't buy your opponents' assumptions and then try to oppose the conclusions that follow.    

Conservative talk-show host Michael Medved recently criticized Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh D'Souza for depicting Barack Obama as someone who does not love this country, and who is deliberately doing things to undermine it, at home and abroad. Medved declared, "it's particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality and policies."

Are public opinion polls the way to determine the truth? If so, we can all outsource our thinking to Gallup and Zogby.

Michael Medved also cites other presidents of the past, whose errors or even sins did not mean that they were unpatriotic. But does anyone seriously believe that this tells us anything about Barack Obama, one way or the other?

Like some others, Michael Medved seems to think that Obama's pragmatic desire to be re-elected means that he is not an ideological extremist. But Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic and that did not stop them from being extremists.

Finally, there is the argument that Republicans will have a harder time winning the next election if they are "perceived as running against the presidency." But Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh D'Souza are not running for office, and it is not certain that Sarah Palin will be either.

And nobody is running against "the presidency." They will be running against Barack Obama.

Are we not to consider a possibility with deep and painful implications for the future of this nation, for such feeble reasons as these? Or just because moderation is a Good Thing?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

See archived 'Columns' Stories »

Reader's comments




I really love reading Mr. Sowells articles. Very good points and a great angle on the topic.

Dave - Mar 12, 2011 05:12:42 AM Remove Comment

 
Thomas Sowell is exactly right as usual. President Obama may love his idea of what he thinks this country could be or should be, but does not love THIS country the way she is, imperfect yet closer to perfect than any country in history. Listen by contract to the way Marco Rubio speaks of this country, with abiding love.

Ralph - Mar 11, 2011 08:05:18 PM Remove Comment

 
God bless Professor Sowell

sowellhappy10 - Mar 11, 2011 07:36:19 PM Remove Comment

 
Medved lives here in Seattle and I think it's helping him return to his college days of "Free Love Man " He's a moron as a movie reviewer and as a " conservative " Reagan had no fear of compromise !

sowellhappy10 - Mar 11, 2011 07:33:56 PM Remove Comment

 
Follow Michael Medved and you may as well vote for Obama! No wonder Republicans are so weak. They must have been listening to Medved and his go along to get along group thinkers through many lost elections. Wake up Michael!

Shirley - Mar 11, 2011 06:20:56 PM Remove Comment

 
Stand firm in principals but willing to comprise on some policy issues.

Christiana - Mar 11, 2011 04:39:20 PM Remove Comment

 
I thought Medved's article had 2 points 1 Attacking Obama as a "radical" will not help GOP cause 2 Obama is just another Democrat doing what Democrats do Medved sounds like a wuss. Obama is a thug and can handle it. And the country can too. Democrats verbally assaulted Bush for 8 years and Obama won the Presidency. Democrats are venomous evil rotten human beings and they should be treated as such. People need to wake up and realize it's Liberal politicians that have destroyed this country and the weak GOP politicians that want to be nice are to a degree complicit in the destruction.

chandler - Mar 11, 2011 04:27:19 PM Remove Comment

 
Medved's argument doesn't even make sense. He claims Obama wouldn't do things to undermine the country because he wants to get re-elected, yet he pushed for and signed Obamacare, a program Americans didn't want, that will most likely keep him from being re-elected. But what do you expect from Medved, he believes in bigfoot, lol.

Kevin - Mar 11, 2011 01:08:56 PM Remove Comment

 
Michael Medved is Off The Reservation and Into Moderate Islamic Jihad. The Interview with a CAIR spokesperson was beyond pathetic! Medved did not restrain the Hamas Front from lies and bigotry towards Rush, Hannity, Beck et al. Michael Medved has returned to his Days Of Rage roots.

Jo Ellen Davey Cohen - Mar 11, 2011 12:52:49 PM Remove Comment

 
at devotedDad Where does he promote hot heads? Yes the point is winning elections. And Dr. Sowell mentioned how Reagan won two landslide elections. There's a reason the Left defames and character assassinates Limbaugh, and they did it to Reagan back in the day too. Because the conservative message IS persuasive and if more people heard it from coherent people like Limbaugh, they would drop leftist notions like something burning their hand. It's the incoherent people like McCain that one day sound conservative and the next liberal that have caused a generation of people to grow up not knowing what conservatism really is.

Kirath - Mar 11, 2011 12:42:20 PM Remove Comment

 
Moderation for the GOP, sounding like and siding with the democrats and leftists, has usually gotten losing elections results. Using ambiguous and moderate language just confuses the voters, angers the base and they will vote for the candidate with the clearer message, even if they disagree with them. Just look at the candidacies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Both got voters who didn't always agree with them on the issues, but liked the clearer message, as perceived by the voters, so they got their vote. Dr. Sowell is correct in has assessment that moderation will get you nowhere. Your voice must be clear and to the point, to get your convictions and message of what you're about and what you will do and not do, if elected. Look what happened to John McCain. He was and is, a moderate, didn't dare say anything negative about Obama or his policies. He dodged the issues and what his agenda would be if elected. Why his way was better then his opponent and why his opponent was wrong and harmful to the nation. You can do that, get your point across, be persuasive with your Conservative point of view and not be a hot head. Just look at the success of the 'Great Communicator,' Ronald Reagan.

ErnstCP - Mar 11, 2011 12:09:01 PM Remove Comment

 
If the Republican Party submits only RINO opposition to BHO then the TEA Party had better get a candidate ready to win. Facts do not seem to matter to the Dems or RINOs and by continuing to tell less than the truth over and over, they win. Time for AMERICA to win. Thanks Mr. Sowell.

Gary Brubaker - Mar 11, 2011 12:05:51 PM Remove Comment

 
If we play games like the democrats try to sound like republicans than what are we getting? Time to have a leader who is not afraid to tell the truth and persuade the Americans that if we do not do what is right,we will lose this country to the Hate America Crowd. Read your old media the NY Times etc and you will see what they want to take away from us.

Dorothy Wachsstock - Mar 11, 2011 12:05:10 PM Remove Comment

 
He wrote the article. How can he be off point? There are no great moderates, only great leaders.

Soonerdaddy11 - Mar 11, 2011 11:48:28 AM Remove Comment

 
This is coming from a Black man, who would get my vote for president if he were running. Sowell has an excellent book, Intellectuals and Society, which explains the cognitive dissonance on the Left.

Michael - Mar 11, 2011 11:39:14 AM Remove Comment

 
I support every conservative mentioned. I have a great respect for Mr. Sowell, but he is off point in this article. The point is winning elections, this requires the art of persuasion, NOT hot heads!

DevotedDadof7 - Mar 11, 2011 11:26:05 AM Remove Comment
 

Add your comments
Please follow and enforce these guidelines:
1. No flaming. Do not be hostile.
2. No comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd, sexually-oriented, threatening, libelous, or illegal.
3. No racial slurs or insults.
4. "Remove Comment" flags offensive comment for removal.

Verification Code:
Enter Verification:
Your Name:
Your Comment:
By submitting this form, you agree to this site's terms of service



 
Fortunately, America Was Founded By Libertarian Wing Nuts
05.12.2012

“Dear Mr. Lucente: You are a total wing nut.†Do I really need to read the rest of the letter? Actually, dear letter writer, I am a libertarian. Or, as I prefer, a classical liberal. I consider myself a person of at least average intelligence. Still, I will simply never understand those who find the [...]

Fortunately, America Was Founded By Libertarian Wing Nuts is a post from: Think Free

Read Post
FEATURED VIDEO