Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

When did moderate become a political dirty word?

By Bob Greene, CNN Contributor
updated 9:15 AM EDT, Sun April 1, 2012
Two of Mitt Romney's rivals in the presidential campaign have tarred him as
Two of Mitt Romney's rivals in the presidential campaign have tarred him as "moderate." Bob Greene asks: Why is that so bad?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Bob Greene: Politicians have been tossing around the word "moderate" like it's an insult
  • He says GOP rivals deride Mitt Romney as a "mushy" Massachusetts moderate
  • But word connotes balance, care, evenhandedness, Greene says
  • He says Americans are pretty centrist and the word will survive 2012 beating

Editor's note: CNN contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose books include "Late Edition: A Love Story" and "Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North Platte Canteen."

(CNN) -- For months now, platoons of politicians have been filling the air with words.

But today, if only for a few minutes, can we forget about the politicians and express our sympathy for one of the words?

It's such an amiable word: a word that is friendly and easygoing and nonconfrontational, a word that would never want to get dragged into a fight like this.

Yet it is there anyway, caught between practiced brawlers.

The word?

"Moderate."

If you have found yourself paying attention to the presidential campaign that is going to be with us until November, you have heard the word. Repeatedly.

Two of the candidates in the Republican primaries -- Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum -- have used the word regularly to assail one of their opponents, Mitt Romney.

"Massachusetts moderate," Gingrich has said of Romney, over and over, with unmistakable derision.

Santorum has called Romney a "mushy moderate," and has said that delegates at an open Republican convention "are not going to nominate a moderate Massachusetts governor."

Now, Romney and Santorum and Gingrich are all experienced politicians. They know what they're doing, and they can duke this out among themselves. The purpose of today's column is not to discuss which of them would make a better president, or whether Barack Obama is a better president than any one of them would be. We'll find out about that soon enough.

But just how exactly did "moderate" become a political dirty word?

It doesn't sting -- you wouldn't think anyone would consider it a killshot. If one politician calls another a left-winger, or a right-winger, or a communist, or a fascist, or a radical ... now those are words meant to provoke.

But to use "moderate" as a weapon?

Is this really supposed to rile up the American people? Are voters supposed to say: "I don't want that guy anywhere near the White House. He's a moderate!"

To most people's way of thinking, "moderation" has always meant balance, carefulness, calm deliberation, evenhandedness, dispassion, impartiality, judiciousness. It is traditionally a conscientious objector in the universe of bellicose language.

Moderate weather is lovely weather. How are we best advised to eat and drink? In moderation. "Moderation," in the world of words, is the common-sense good buddy, walking the straight and narrow.

It has ever been thus, down through history. "Out of moderation a pure happiness springs," said the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. "Moderation in people who are contented comes from that calm that good fortune lends to their spirit," said the French author Francois de La Rochefoucauld. "Keep a mid course between two extremes," said the Roman poet Ovid. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, may or may not have said the actual words that are often attributed to him -- "Moderation in all things" -- but he unquestionably believed in the principle.

So what's going on here? In search of an answer, I turned not to Ovid or Aristotle, but to Cal Thomas, the conservative columnist and commentator whose love of language is as passionate as his interest in politics.

Thomas is resolute in his conservative beliefs, but he has always shown a willingness to at least listen to the other side. He and liberal Bob Beckel write a regular column for USA Today called "Common Ground," where they seek to find precisely that: a meeting place where ideas helpful to America may be worked out.

So, Cal: What exactly does "moderate" mean as it is being used in the present political free-for-all?

"In today's vernacular," Thomas said, " 'moderate' has come to mean that you have no fixed principles, that everything can be negotiated away because all that matters is 'the deal.' "

He continued:

" 'Moderate' has also come to mean liberal on taxation, regulation and the social issues."

We were conducting our conversation by e-mail, so I couldn't see his face as he typed the next sentence. But, knowing his long understanding of politics and the people who practice it, I have a feeling he was smiling. Of "moderate," he wrote:

"It is a label that means whatever the person applying it wants it to mean."

In the current context, he's probably right. But will it work? Come the general election, will Americans band together and slam the door in the face of that dreaded quality, moderation?

It would seem doubtful. This is a pretty centrist country. The one other time that moderation was referred to with such disapproval on the national political stage was in 1964, when Barry Goldwater, the Republican standard-bearer for president, famously said, in accepting the nomination:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

What Goldwater was trying to get across was that one must fight for one's principles. He was echoing the words and stances of ancient Rome's Marcus Tullius Cicero and also of early America's Thomas Paine, who said: "Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

It was a distinction largely lost on the electorate. Goldwater was never able to recover from the controversy over that speech, and Lyndon Johnson -- whose strategists used Goldwater's words to hammer the thought into voters' minds that someone who spoke well of extremism might be an extremist -- won in a landslide.

But this isn't about landslides or squeakers. It's about that mild-mannered little word that has suddenly found itself turned into an epithet.

When the dust of 2012 has cleared, and the election is over, that word -- wounded, staggering, wondering just what in tarnation happened to it -- will do its best to go on with its life.

It may even allow itself to get angry.

Moderately.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 2:25 PM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Maria Cardona says Republicans should appreciate President Obama's executive action on immigration.
updated 7:44 AM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Van Jones says the Hunger Games is a more sweeping critique of wealth inequality than Elizabeth Warren's speech.
updated 6:29 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
obama immigration
David Gergen: It's deeply troubling to grant legal safe haven to unauthorized immigrants by executive order.
updated 8:34 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Charles Kaiser recalls a four-hour lunch that offered insight into the famed director's genius.
updated 3:12 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
The plan by President Obama to provide legal status to millions of undocumented adults living in the U.S. leaves Republicans in a political quandary.
updated 10:13 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Despite criticism from those on the right, Obama's expected immigration plans won't make much difference to deportation numbers, says Ruben Navarette.
updated 8:21 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
As new information and accusers against Bill Cosby are brought to light, we are reminded of an unshakable feature of American life: rape culture.
updated 5:56 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
When black people protest against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri, they're thought of as a "mob."
updated 3:11 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Lost in much of the coverage of ISIS brutality is how successful the group has been at attracting other groups, says Peter Bergen.
updated 8:45 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Do recent developments mean that full legalization of pot is inevitable? Not necessarily, but one would hope so, says Jeffrey Miron.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
We don't know what Bill Cosby did or did not do, but these allegations should not be easily dismissed, says Leslie Morgan Steiner.
updated 10:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Does Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have the influence to bring stability to Jerusalem?
updated 12:59 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Even though there are far fewer people being stopped, does continued use of "broken windows" strategy mean minorities are still the target of undue police enforcement?
updated 9:58 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
The truth is, we ran away from the best progressive persuasion voice in our times because the ghost of our country's original sin still haunts us, writes Cornell Belcher.
updated 4:41 PM EST, Tue November 18, 2014
Children living in the Syrian city of Aleppo watch the sky. Not for signs of winter's approach, although the cold winds are already blowing, but for barrel bombs.
updated 8:21 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
We're stuck in a kind of Middle East Bermuda Triangle where messy outcomes are more likely than neat solutions, says Aaron David Miller.
updated 7:16 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
In the midst of the fight against Islamist rebels seeking to turn the clock back, a Kurdish region in Syria has approved a law ordering equality for women. Take that, ISIS!
updated 11:07 PM EST, Sun November 16, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says President Obama would be justified in acting on his own to limit deportations
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT