Beyond moderate

There is something about the concept of the middle that always seems to fascinate people. Something about being neither high nor low, neither first nor last, that triggers certain emotions—emotions that allow the middle to become the subject of songs and TV shows. It may seem a strange thing to hold in such high esteem, but it isn’t unworthy. After all, when it comes to many things, the middle isn’t such a bad place to be.

Take politics, for example. Polls have shown that political moderates tend to see both sides of issues. They recognize that neither liberals nor conservatives have the complete solution to anything and can find good and bad points in each side’s positions. Small wonder, then, that a higher percentage of people identify as political independents than ever before. Being moderate is in; being partisan is out. Plus, as The Washington Post notes, “Everyone is a moderate on something.”

But what happens when the middle suddenly becomes the worst of all possible worlds? There are times when choosing a moderate position causes more problems than it solves. For example, such positions can often act as screens that mask one’s true beliefs. Politics is always a contentious subject, and many people don’t want to be judged for their views on certain issues. Thus, they gravitate toward the middle, where they are less likely to be criticized. This, however, means that people who are not actually that moderate end up describing themselves as so. When used this way, "I’m a moderate" becomes a catch-all phrase that loses its meaning. Thus, rather than lying and using it to describe your political views, you’d be better off just pleading the Fifth on the subject altogether.

But what about the people who actually are moderate (or, at the very least, think they are)? Well, there are still problems that arise when they refer to themselves as so. For one, saying that one is moderate is a very neutral statement that doesn’t say much of anything at all. As the Post also notes, “No one is a moderate on everything.” Even people who are truly moderate take sides on certain issues. Maybe they lean right on taxes or left on healthcare reform. In any case, surely the people who insist on calling themselves moderate can follow up with their positions on some issues they find important? It can’t be that difficult—unless of course, their goal in the first place was to avoid doing just that.

People often use moderate positions not only to avoid revealing their true beliefs, but also to end conversations before they even begin. This past election cycle, you probably heard some variant of the following: “I dislike all of the candidates” or “I don’t think any of the candidates are right on all of the issues.” Again, these statements are so neutral that they are essentially meaningless. There are no perfect candidates, and both sides of the aisle have their faults...but we already knew that. And even if you truly disliked all of the candidates, you could find some things you liked and disliked about all of them and their positions. But people aren’t looking to further the dialogue or give a more in-depth explanation—they just want to switch topics by dropping a line and hoping it will stick. After all, when was the last time you heard someone say, “I don’t like all of the candidates, and here’s why"?

Sometimes, this avoidance of conversation can raise serious doubts about people’s true feelings on certain issues. Take the All Lives Matter movement, for example. On first glance, it seemed like an honest attempt to find the middle ground and take a moderate stance with which everyone could agree. But, no matter your feelings about Black Lives Matter, it is hard to deny that ALM was a not-so-subtle attempt to keep things the way they were. No one who paraded “All Lives Matter” ever followed up with a discussion of race relations in America. Simply put, that was never their goal in the first place.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that one of All Lives Matters' main proponents was Dr. Ben Carson, whose book "One Nation" contained such neutral-statement gems as, “If we are to put an end to division, people from all political persuasions will have to stop fighting one another and seek true unity, not just a consensus that benefits one party.”

It is possible to call for everyone to come together while also fighting to make the world a better place. However, when used by people such as Carson, such pleas for peace and harmony carry little weight. For the Carsons and the ALMs and the false moderates will never address issues being disputed or put forth any sort of constructive ideas of their own. They will just call for people to be more moderate—but what really they want is to maintain the status quo.