The Trouble with Labels

By Hank Silverberg

It’s a question you hear a lot these days. Are you a Liberal or a Conservative?  My answer often confuses people because I am ----a Moderate. The next comment I usually get from both Liberals and Conservatives is: “You mean you have no principals, no ideology?”  And that is the problem with labels.

A recent Gallup poll shows https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/leans-conservative-liberals-keep-recent-gains.aspx  Americans are pretty well divided into three groups and that is not based on party. Liberals have been gaining some, now up to 26%. Conservatives have been steadily losing ground dropping to 35%.  Moderates  have also dropped slightly to 35% in the last few years.

So, here’s a scenario for you, using some simple examples.   

In general Conservatives believe in less government, free enterprise, individual responsibility and the nuclear family. Liberals believe in more government control of economy, collective responsibility to help those less fortunate, and a more diverse view on what is a family.

What do moderates believe?

I can only speak for myself, since moderate are—moderate—but not necessarily on the same issues.

Let’s take a few policy items,  starting with gun control.

A Liberal will say we need strict control. We should ban assault style rifles, license and register all gun owners, ban anyone who has been involved in domestic violence or has a mental health issue from owning a gun.

A Conservative will cite the Second Amendment and say ANY restriction on gun ownership is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

As a moderate, I look at it differently. Certainly, we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those involved in domestic violence. Certain types of weapons can be banned, like the so-called assault rifles that have no real civilian application except murder. But it is also impossible to ban all guns or restrict law abiding citizens from owning them. There are literally millions of guns out there and getting rid of them is impossible, so let’s not go there.  Trying to do so only encourages Conservatives to drag out the “slippery slope” fallacy and we get nowhere.

Another issue: Climate change:

 A Conservative would say there is no 100% scientific proof that man has caused climate change or that it is even happening. So, why damage our economy by forcing coal mines to close or banning plastic. They will talk about “clean coal” and better technology for fossil fuel extraction, but they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that our planet is being destroyed by us!   

A Liberal will point to some pretty exact science which has pinned significant climate change to man’s activity and will then call for elimination of coal mining, a massive change to electric or solar powered cars, a dramatic reduction in plastic production and more solar and wind power and will demand  that it all must be  done now or we are doomed.  (Don’t get me started on AOC’s cows).

A moderate believes the science because the facts are so overwhelming, but wants practical solutions for phasing out the coal industry (There is no such thing as “clean coal”) A moderate wants more diversification in power sources, and will look for ways to lower the overall impact around the world. The Paris Climate Change Accord was a good start. Moderates will concede this may not work fast enough and more drastic measures may be needed in the near future, but they can’t all be done at once.  I like to quote an ancient Chinese proverb on this.  “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”  

But there is also this: Man will not survive if we maintain the status quo. We must progress beyond what we are now or our civilization is doomed. Maintaining the status quo (Conservatives) will not work.  Yet moving too far, too fast (Liberalism)  could bring on the political and social upheaval we have seen in the past and move us all backwards

A moderate will tell you we must hold on to the foundations and progress of our society, like Free expression, freedom of religion, equal rights,  ideas formulated in the progressive 18^th century. But we will also say that Government is not the solution to everything. 

 

At  the same time we should be willing to take a huge leap forward when necessary and be open to change. A moderate has a philosophy best summed up by Socrates around 400 B.C.E.

So, my Liberal and Conservative friends, yours is not the only true path to survival. Polarization brings only discord, not progress. It feeds on fear and vanquishes the truth. It matters not if that disease comes from the right or the left. We must take a moderate course. We jump forward only when the crevice is passable and hold back a bit when the gap is too wide to cross until we can build a bridge. Though sometimes that bridge will be made of rope instead of steal.

With all this in mind I will cite this quote from President Kennedy that is a pretty moderate concept.

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich" --JFK, 1961 Inaugural Address. 

News Notes:

The Associated Press has just completed a two-year investigation on dams and bridges using data from the federal government. It found 1,688 high hazard dams rated in poor or unsatisfactory condition in 44 states and Puerto Rico. Some states have not complied with the reporting system, so there are likely more dams with structural problems. Research at Stanford University says more than a thousand dams have failed in the last four decades killing 34 people and causing millions in property damage. The Association of State Dam Safety estimates it would cost $70 billion to fix the more than 90,000 thousand dams across the country which average 56 years in age.  If you live near a dam, it might be a good idea to ask questions about its’ safety, especially if you are down river. 

https://apnews.com/f5f09a300d394900a1a88362238dbf77

Also this week:

We may be running out of air! 

Here are some of the facts that can’t be ignored about climate change that you may have missed.  

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says Marine plants like phytoplankton are estimated to produce more than half the Earth’s oxygen. If the earth’s oceans warm by 6 degrees Celsius the tiny plants would stop producing oxygen. That is possible if global emissions continue unabated. By 2100, Earth, at sea level could end up with oxygen amounts comparable to the top of Mount Everest today—in other words, barely breathable. This all comes from a study published four years ago in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/12/03/climate-change-oxygen-ocean\

This past week, in New Delhi,  millions of people were told to stay inside and five million children were given face masks because one of India’s rivers was covered in a toxic foam. The cause: pollution from agriculture and transportation. The emissions there are ten times more than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deems safe and things are getting worse. Not worried? After all this occurred half way around the world! But wait, air pollution travels. We need to do something about it.

But apparently not while Donald Trump is President. This week, the United States officially withdrew from the Paris Climate Change accords signed by 196 other nations, including India.

          (Your suggestions and comments are welcome)

(Copies of my book are available through Amazon.com, BN.com or at a vastly reduced price directly from me by going to HankSilverberg@gmail.com and asking for instructions on how to get a signed copy)