What Exactly Do I Believe?

In a recent AC article I announced that after several years as a libertarian I had abandoned the ideology in favor of a more moderate political philosophy. In my years as an ideologue, as a libertarian and earlier on the left, one thing I've noticed is that there is nothing ideologues hate more than moderates; this seems to be the one thing the far left and far right can agree on. Whether it is conservative talk radio hosts screaming at the top of their lungs about RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) or left wing activists railing against President Obama for not actively striving to turn the entire nation into San Francisco it seems that moderates are unpopular among the fringe. Common accusations include the charge that moderates are "spineless," that we "lack principles," and that we simply take the "popular position." In some cases this is true, but "moderate" is not an all encompassing brand. In some cases various liberals and conservatives could likewise be described as bull headed imbeciles who would rather drive the national car off the cliff than change direction, but I do not think such a brush should be used to tar the many reasonable liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians.

First of all "moderate" is merely a term that I use to describe myself for the sake of political expediency. American politics functions along a left-right spectrum. There is a general set of beliefs seen as left-wing or liberal and others seen as right-wing or conservative. In a general sense liberals believe in a strong role for government in the economy and in its purest form liberalism can border on socialism. On social matters however, they believe government is best minding its own business. Conservatives by contrast believe in less government in the economy and the purest conservatives support laissez-faire capitalism. On social matters however they believe government has a role to play in promoting the traditional values of society, whatever those may be. There is a third tradition that has a strong stand in American politics called libertarianism, which is radically socially liberal and radically economically conservative. Perhaps the political spectrum is inadequate. Perhaps it fails to take into account the European definitions of liberal and conservative. Perhaps there is some variation, how, for instance, does one reconcile the liberal belief that government should stay out of people's personal lives with a predilection for gun control? There are various explanations for these sorts of things and certainly all criticisms have truth to them but it is the spectrum we have to work with. I do not see myself as falling into left or right, nor libertarian anymore, thus I must be something else entirely. For the sake of expediency I describe myself as a "moderate" because it is the best label available to describe something between left and right.

So what if I am between left and right? I can still be radical. I guess you could say that radical centrism exists in our world. I would make the argument that fascism is not left or right, but it is certainly radical. Radical centrism is rare, however. I am a moderate and a centrist, those can be used interchangeably. Now some would say being a moderate is "spineless" but I see it as pragmatism. In essence I think the moderate is an anti-utopian thinker in that the moderate simply sees man as he is and says, "This is what we have to work with, let's create the system that works best," whereas the far left and the far right tend to embrace a more utopian outlook. There is no question that both far left and far right have a vision of a Shining City on a Hill, though those Shining Cities differ. The left has a mythical version of a Nordic welfare state in which they mistakenly believe no social problems exist. The right of course has a Norman Rockwell painting. For the moderate there is no Shining City on a Hill (at least in this life). For the moderate attempts to create a Shining City on a Hill have always failed, just look at communism. As I said before, man is what he is, this is what we have to work with. Being a moderate is certainly boring, but it is realistic.

My rejection of utopian thought does not mean I do not believe in a Shining City on a Hill personally. I added the caveat "at least in this life." I do believe in a Shining City, or at least a metaphorical one that was described as the New Jerusalem. My Shining City is what the Bible calls "the world to come" and the way I see it is not going to happen until Christ returns. Some moderates are certainly secular but my centrism is rooted deeply in Christianity, namely three things. One, a skepticism of human nature and a rejection of beliefs that mankind is good or malleable. Two, a belief that utopia is impossible in this life. Three, a belief that even if utopia is impossible in this life at the very least we can make this world a little more livable. Four, if we are going to make the world more livable we ought to go for the old and tried, not the new and untried. That is my own personal centrism in a nutshell. The question then is, "how does that centrism manifest itself?" More specifically people may be wondering what my stances on the issues are. That is what this essay is about. I can't cover every issue but I will try to hit the major ones.

I will start off by talking about economics. First off, I am not an economist and I am not going to pretend to be. This is something ideologues of both sides fail to recognize, but it is more prominent among libertarians and Marxists than anyone else. In general though I look to what I have seen has worked demonstrably. When I look out over the world I see that time and time again capitalism has proven itself to be the superior economic system. At the same time it has been the capitalist countries with a good deal of socialism rounding off the harsh edges of capitalism that have been the most prosperous for the past century. I am speaking of course of the great mixed economies of Europe, North America, Australia, and now, increasingly, China and Russia. These mixed economies run the gambit from the more socialist oriented welfare states of Scandinavia to the more capitalist USA but among them you will not find a pure capitalist or pure socialist state and all in all they have done the best. Certainly how much capitalism versus socialism is up for debate and one can point to the merits of a system like the USA over Sweden and vice versa. In the end the false choice conservatives and libertarians put up between either embracing pure capitalism or communist dictatorship is nothing but a red herring. Now I will discuss my views on specific economic issues.

On health care I guess you could say I support some government intervention in order to achieve universal coverage. I do think private health insurance should be allowed but I do think everybody should be covered with at least basic services in a single payer system. I am not sure about the specifics and need not be, all I know is that it is profoundly immoral to leave millions without health insurance in the name of some twisted concept of liberty. On the other hand conservatives are right to say socialized medicine has had its inefficiencies. It has, but to say that every country that has socialized medicine has the same system is preposterous. The UK has awful waiting times but on the flip side France has the best health care in the world. The issue is not "socialized medicine" versus "freedom" but "well run socialized medicine" versus "poorly run socialized medicine" versus "allowing nearly 50 million Americans not to have health insurance." In the end there is never going to be a perfect system. Liberals are foolish for thinking socialized medicine will bring the Millennium, but conservatives are foolish for thinking it will usher in Hell.

I am open to some privatization of Social Security, such as allowing people to take some of their money and invest it into personal retirement accounts. I think public education is a good concept that needs reform, but to explain my exact thoughts on this issue would take another essay entirely. I think America needs to invest more in higher education in order to compete in the modern, global economy. I think unions have had their corruption and are by no means perfect but serve as a check and balance on business. I understand why many well meaning businessmen don't like unions but I would ask them to put unions in a historical context. Before unions workers labored long hours under dismal conditions, unions fought to change that. Unions have their problems and I do not reflexively support their agenda, but I do not think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to ask the wealthy to pay a higher proportion in taxes than the poor since their money matters less to them than the poor's money does to themselves but I think politicians should be careful to avoid punitive tax rates that merely serve as political ploys to stick it to the rich at the expense of economic growth. I think that free trade is a good concept, but that unless trade is fair it cannot be free. That is why I think free trade agreements should have some stipulations for human rights and labor standards. That's generally where I stand. As I said before I'm not an economist and my mind is open to be changed. I've talked about the dismal science enough, people are probably less curious about that and more curious about where I stand on hot button social issues.

On the whole global warming issue I am going to take a humble position and state that I am not going to arrogantly trumpet my opinion on an issue I know little about. It is certainly true that there has been a warming trend. As to what caused global warming I am a weak agnostic, meaning I am not sure but open to be convinced. It is difficult to say whether or not global warming will be good or bad as a whole, it will most likely be good for some species and bioregions and bad for others. I think it is important to take care of the environment nonetheless, but not to get too radical at the expense of the well being of humanity.

Abortion is probably the issue that people are wondering about the most. Allow me to clear the water by saying that I am unequivocally pro-life from conception to birth. There can really be no compromise on this issue, either you see abortion as the taking of an innocent life or you see it as something totally different. Those who claim to be "personally pro-life" but "politically pro-choice" are trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways; you need to choose one side or the other. I try to keep my talk about abortion to a minimum because I believe it is next to impossible to convince those who disagree and because it is such an emotionally charged issue, but if you were wondering about my stance there it is. That is all I have to say on this issue.

My views on other social issues are varied. I support limited gun control: I would never support banning guns but I think it is perfectly reasonable to register them, have waiting periods, and keep them out of the hands of felons, children, and the mentally ill. I don't have strong feelings on capital punishment but I can accept that it is a morally acceptable punishment for morally unacceptable acts. I think marijuana should be legal for recreational use and users of other drugs be sentenced to treatment, not prison. I believe that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the government. I think that censorship of virtually any kind is an anathema to a free and democratic society.

On foreign policy I guess you could say that I am realist. I am opposed to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya but I do not consider myself to be an isolationist. I think that you have to work with what you have on the international stage and that it might mean working with unsavory people, but in a flawed world that is sometimes the price of peace. I think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too much of a jumbled up mess for me to have much of an opinion on it, but I think it is to the best interest of the world to solve it in the least bloody way possible if it is at all possible. Something tells me it isn't. I think that there is a case to be made for maintaining America' superpower status, namely that if America is not the dominant power in the world somebody much worse will be. In the end, foreign policy is not cut and dry. If you want to remain morally pure, stay out of it. I try to as much as I can.

So there you have it, my views. You might say that they are boring but they are my views nonetheless. I may not have touched on every issue but I have tried to touch on the issues that matter. Certainly whatever my views are they will be unsatisfactory to radicals of any ideological stripe. I don't really care.