Opinion: Widespread moderation not likely in eating or politics

Talk about it

When I was in high school, I traveled through Germany as part of a tour for students who’d studied the German language.

The first week, I stayed with a host family. My host mother was an enthusiastic and prolific cook, and she offered a memorable pearl of wisdom to me one day as I was enjoying the fruits of her culinary labor.

“All food is good for you,” she said, “in moderation.”

It was sage advice. It didn’t stop her, though, from stuffing me full of second, third and fourth helpings at every meal, thus setting me up to gain 15 pounds during my 21-day visit to her country.

Her behavior and mine exposed an elementary truth about humanity: We like to profess our belief in moderation, but we don’t really like to practice it. That’s why I find it unlikely that a third political party or national political movement organized around moderate views could achieve lasting success.

Nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote recently that the time for such a movement may have arrived, because disdain for both Republicans and Democrats is at a historic high.

“When the porridge is either too hot or too cold,” Parker wrote, “the moment for something in between is ripe.”

That’s a nice thought, but I think it’s about as likely as a sudden end to the problem of overeating.

For proof, just look to recent history in South Dakota. In 2005, a bipartisan group of people including Mitchell’s political Olsons — Ed, a Republican, and Mel, a Democrat, who are not related but are both former legislators — launched the high-minded “Mainstream Coalition.” The Daily Republic’s first story about it was published in June 2005.

“South Dakotans are hungry for a more moderate voice,” Ed Olson said at the time.

Turns out South Dakotans were already full. Less than two years after the organization’s founding, it died. In fact, it faded so quickly and deeply into obscurity that today marks the first time the phrase “Mainstream Coalition” has been printed in The Daily Republic since 2008.

There were various explanations for the coalition’s demise, but I think the simplest and truest is the lesson I learned by observing my German host mother. People just don’t get very excited about moderation.

Political parties and movements thrive on extremism, or at least views that seem extreme in comparison to the views of others. Think about it: Liberals support bigger government, while conservatives oppose it; prolifers want to ban abortion, while pro-choicers don’t; social liberals support gay rights, while social conservatives oppose them. The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same. For a political group to thrive, it needs to espouse views that are extreme in comparison to the other side. That’s how people get agitated and motivated to win elections, pass legislation and cause social change.

If a Moderate Party arose, what would its candidates say on the campaign trail? They’d probably put people to sleep with their rational, reasoned, compromise-driven agenda.

“My fellow Americans,” a Moderate Party candidate might declare, “at this crucial moment in our great nation’s history, it’s imperative that we … calmly analyze all sides of every issue, take the best ideas from every faction and reach sensible compromises!!!!”

As the Mainstream Coalition learned, that’s not the kind of message that inspires a massive political force. Like it or not, it’s extremism that gets people revved up and ready to fight for their beliefs. And it doesn’t have to be a crazy brand of extremism. It can be good extremism, like the kind practiced by the civil rights movement in opposition to widely held racist beliefs. I doubt Martin Luther King would have been as successful had he advocated a moderate, compromising approach rather than extreme actions such as boycotts and rallies.

The tea party movement is another good example. It was the most energetic force in this year’s campaign, because its leaders advocated views that were the most extreme in comparison to the party in power.

Following that logic, a movement based on political moderation could only work in a time when partisanship is so rampant that moderation seems like the extreme alternative.

Some say we’ve already reached that point; then again, there must be a reason two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. I don’t think it’s because we’re ready to commit en masse to the principle of moderation.

Tags: seth tupper, mainstream coalition, opinion, columns, politics