Capitalism

Righty: Any system that rewards individual initiative, inventiveness, character, hard work and dedication is the kind of system we need to bring out the best in our people. Capitalism is like a magical machine that takes raw materials and transforms them into wealth. Into the machine we load oil, iron ore, cotton, lumber and ideas; out the other end emerge handsome homes, stores, cities, universities and a life of comfort. Capitalism is the essence of freedom and the springboard to self-fulfillment. No system has been more effective at transforming us from wretched barbarians into affluent and civilized men and women. If God had money, you can bet He’d be a capitalist, too.

Lefty: Righty offers us a predictably starry-eyed (read "deluded") view of a corrupt economic system that thrives on greed, opportunism and exploitation. The essence of capitalism is a cheat: you obtain your goods at a bargain price and fob them off on your gullible customers at a significantly fatter price. Very noble, that. Even worse, the capitalist reaps a profit off the labor of his underpaid underlings. They sweat for a pittance, like beasts of burden, stripped of their dignity and security; the capitalist collects the rewards. Where’s the justice in that? The people who do the work are entitled to share equally in the proceeds, and only government ownership of the means of production will restore some semblance of justice to this outrageously exploitative system. We need an economy that acknowledges our interdependence and sense of community. Marx had it right: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

The New Moderate:

As Winston Churchill once observed about democracy, capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others. There is nothing especially praiseworthy about buying low and selling high, other than the fact that it helps build fortunes for those doing the buying and selling.

Capitalism rewards an extremely narrow range of human skills: the ability to spot opportunities and exploit them. Nothing especially praiseworthy about that, either. What if our skills lie more in the direction of creating vivid art, diagramming sentences or amassing a vast internal storehouse of general knowledge? Then we’re free to join the underclass. There’s your "freedom" for you, Righty.

I like capitalism’s respect for individual effort; I’m all in favor of private property; I think hard work should be rewarded. It’s just that within the confines of pure free-market capitalism, the rewards generally go to the most avaricious rather than the brightest or most virtuous. Much like Darwinian natural selection, pure capitalism is an amoral system that shows no regard for beauty, kindness or other intrinsic values; all that seems to matter is one's ability to find a suitable niche and dominate it. (For this reason rats and MBAs are more successful than tigers and poets.)

We need to reshape capitalism so that robber-baron CEOs can no longer earn a thousand times the salaries of their hardworking secretaries. We need to restore some sense of proportion to our current "winner-take-all" economy, or eventually the peasants will revolt. What’s more, I think they’ll be justified.

The New Moderate would favor a modified capitalist economy as defined by the two Roosevelts: combine TR’s trustbusting fervor with FDR’s reliance on inspired federal programs to supplement the private sector, and we’d be well on our way to a more just economy that, unlike socialism or communism, still respects and rewards the individual.

Summary: Capitalism may be the least evil of economic systems, but it’s far from perfect. We need to tweak it so more people can share in the rewards.

Birth Control

Righty: The Good Lord counseled us to "be fruitful and multiply," and His wisdom is good enough for me. Birth control is an unnatural disruption of the human life cycle. Even worse, I think it's a symptom of cultural narcissism: snooty urban yuppies don't want anything as depressingly mundane as babies to keep them from dining out at their fancy restaurants. Look at what's happening in Western Europe, where the native populations are surrendering their future to the hordes of Muslims who reproduce like fruitflies in their midst. And why? Because Europeans are so enamored of their cushy lifestyles that they've balked at the strenuous task of raising offspring. Listen up, America! I see the same pattern emerging here, among our own middle class. Get busy and start reproducing -- unless, of course, you're comfortable with the idea of living in the Estados Unidos thirty years from now. But what do you care? Your children won't have to live there -- because YOU WON'T HAVE ANY!

Lefty: Whoa there, Righty! Your racism is exceeded only by your chronic ignorance. Having children should be a matter of personal choice, and optional birth control is the most effective means to that end. Furthermore, your stance on birth control (and the Catholic Church's, for that matter) should win some kind of award for environmental irresponsibility. How can you continue to fight birth control when this overcrowded planet will be running out of resources before the end of this century? Forget about white Americans and Europeans versus Muslims and Hispanics. The issue is whether our primitive biological need to create more and more people in our image is going to lead us to a nightmare scenario of famines, global deforestation and mass extinctions. And who's going to suffer most? Precisely the people you fear and despise, Righty: Hispanics, Muslims and other Third-World peoples whose expanding populations will soon overwhelm the earth's ability to support them. The Church, especially, deserves to be excommunicated from the human community for its willfully reactionary, disastrous and ultimately evil (yes, evil!) prohibition of simple birth control methods that could save our planet from ruin.

The New Moderate:

Such intense heat emanating from the right and left can mean only one thing: the answer lies in the middle. The New Moderate believes, with Lefty, that the Church has no divine right to prohibit a practice that was never mentioned, let alone condemned, in the Bible. (And don't quote us the story about Onan and his seed; if you're going to adhere to the literal dictates of every Bible verse, you're also required to stone the nearest adulterer and renounce pork forever.) The Church must wake up and see that unlimited human reproduction is going to severely compromise the quality of life on this smallish planet of ours.

That said, we also share Righty's concern that the middle classes of Europe and America are going to contracept themselves into extinction if they don't show a little more enthusiasm for procreating. Having a kid is the ultimate life-affirming gesture. The creation and nurturing of a unique little person is one of life's most richly rewarding pursuits, even if it tends to crowd out the occasional restaurant meal or midnight movie.

The moderate solution, simply stated: poor people around the world need to start using birth control; middle-class people need to use it a little less. Of course our solution sounds racist, classist and all that (go ahead, Lefty; heap your infamy upon us!). But we're merely attempting to create some needed balance: a little more restraint from those who are currently overpopulating their lands to their own detriment, and a little more lusty abandon on the part of the fading bourgeoisie, whose continued presence is vital to the survival of Western civilization (or what's left of it).

Summary: Poor people need to practice birth control more; middle class people need to practice it less.

Patriotism

Righty: I love my country above all others. There, I said it. Anyone have a problem with that? America is the greatest nation in the history of the world: the most welcoming, the freest, the most bountiful, and the most selfless in terms of rescuing other nations from disaster. We’re a land ripe with opportunities to build a rewarding life. I’m forever indebted to my country, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by in silence while she’s attacked by fanatics or badmouthed by ungrateful liberals. My country right or wrong -- but nearly always right.

Lefty: Patriotism, as Samuel Johnson once noted (and Dr. Johnson wasn’t exactly a flaming liberal), is "the last refuge of a scoundrel." It makes us narrow and parochial, as if our own country just happened to be located at the center of the known universe. It inflames us with irrational passions and provokes bloody wars at the drop of a hat. In fact, it has probably accounted for more premature deaths throughout history than all the plagues that have ravaged humankind. I suspect that patriotism is nothing more than a primitive territorial instinct inherited from our ape ancestors -- a form of patriarchal bullying perpetuated by the male of the species for countless millennia. It’s time we rose above the apes. Let’s face it: nations are an artificial and outmoded construct. We should all consider ourselves part of the human community.

The New Moderate:

We need to make a distinction between militant jingoism and the kind of patriotism that arises from a deep and abiding love for one’s country and its traditions. Simply stated, The New Moderate rejects the former and embraces the latter.

Jingoism is the misguided notion that our own country is better than all the rest (and therefore deserves to get whatever it wants, peacefully or otherwise). Genuine patriotism is absolute, not comparative; I can love the United States without feeling the slightest need to denigrate (or invade) France, Germany, China or Turkmenistan. Patriotism is what kept George Washington from abandoning the American cause while his army nearly disintegrated at Valley Forge. Patriotism is what inspired Francis Scott Key, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King to find words that inspired the rest of us. Patriotism is fitting and proper.

Jingoism, on the other hand, is the patriotism of a fanatic. Not satisfied with loving his native land, the jingoist agitates for his country to meddle gratuitously in foreign affairs, assert itself over other nations, establish an empire of unilateral dominance. Jingoism is the asinine chant of "We’re number one!" echoing around the globe.

The New Moderate would like to see a return to simple, wholesome, heartfelt patriotism. We shouldn’t expend our energies bashing our country (our politicians, yes; our country, no) any more than we should incite our country to embark on unprincipled global adventures. As with most issues (but especially this one), the answer lies in the middle.

Summary: Genuine patriotism is a noble sentiment: a heartfelt love of one’s country. It shouldn’t be allowed to deteriorate into cheap jingoism, which subordinates all other nations to one’s own.

Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.

Righty: Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to see America overrun with hordes of unskilled immigrants who conveniently refuse to learn English. I’m not exactly keen on seeing them move into my neck of the woods and turning our downtown into a teeming barrio. But I’m realistic enough to recognize that the American economy needs all the able-bodied help it can get. Let’s be honest: we need uneducated, low-paid workers -- and plenty of them -- who are willing to perform the grunt-work that we overpampered Americans have grown too proud and soft to do for ourselves. Who else is going to pick our crops, stock Wal-Mart’s shelves, weed our lawns and scrub our toilets? First we need to make sure that all those illegals have a fair chance to become legal. Then we need to enact immigration laws that encourage hardworking people to enter this country and keep our economy booming.

Lefty: I’m loath to admit I agree with you on this one, Righty, but I do -- for completely different reasons, naturally. America is a nation of immigrants, and we should stay true to our historic role as a welcoming beacon of opportunity and freedom from oppression. The inscription on our Statue of Liberty reads, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." How can we turn our backs on those huddled masses? We need to ensure that everyone who wants to start a new life in America has a right to live here. Anything else would amount to a betrayal of our national purpose. By what moral authority do we determine that some immigrants are "legal" (i.e., desirable) and others are "illegal" (i.e., undesirable)? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the color of their skin, would it?

The New Moderate:

I might be a little obtuse, but how is it that our friends on the right and left conveniently overlook the word "illegal" attached to the aforementioned immigrants? Illegal immigrants are, by definition, lawbreakers. They’ve entered the U.S. on the sly, find work on the sly, elude Uncle Sam at tax time but readily accept his generosity when they need a benefit or two. And their numbers just keep growing like some radioactive behemoth from a 1950s sci-fi flick.

That the illegals are predominantly Hispanic is almost irrelevant. The only Latino-specific issue that should concern us is the apparent reluctance of many Hispanic immigrants to learn English -- along with our own feeble-minded attempts to support their Anglophobia by establishing Spanish as our unofficial second language. (See BILINGUALISM.) The New Moderate would be equally peeved if the illegals were Swedes or Hungarians who stole past the border guards and settled en masse in cities and towns across the republic, enjoying government benefits and straining our resources without contributing to the public till.

The recently proposed solutions to illegal immigration should strike any thinking moderate as outrageous and even nonsensical. Building a wall along sections of the Mexican border is a wasteful and ultimately absurd enterprise. Not only does it send a spiteful message to everyone south of the border, but it can only tempt the more resourceful outlaws to perform end-runs around our defenses.

The newly minted Bush-Kennedy gradual amnesty bill (when these two gentlemen collaborate, be very afraid!) must rank among the most shameless examples of governmental hornswoggling in American history. Formulated behind closed doors, the program essentially winks at the past transgressions of the illegals if they take a few cursory steps to legalize themselves over the next few years. (We have stiffer penalties for parking-ticket scofflaws.) The bill disguises itself as a moderate solution, yet it blatantly caters to special interests on the right and left. It serves Republicans who salivate over the prospect of low-wage workers flooding the land; it serves Democrats who covet the affections of all those brand-new Democratic voters; it totally ignores the will of the people. Our partisans ignore the will of the people at their own peril; Americans will ultimately rebel against a government that repeatedly snubs them. (Mr. Jefferson gave us permission, after all.)

So what do we propose as a moderate solution to the illegal immigration fiasco? It’s relatively simple: enforce the law. Nothing extreme about that. Impose penalties on illegal immigrants and those who shelter them. Deport all illegals with criminal records. Set term limits on "guest" workers the way we do for houseguests and congressmen. Make life considerably less inviting here for immigrants who sneak past the border guards.

Some would argue that we should sympathize with the plight of any people who want to make a better life for themselves in the U.S. We agree. Let them enter the country through legal channels, pick up a Social Security card, work and pay taxes like the rest of us. Then you can talk to us about sympathy.

Summary: Illegal immigrants flood the job market, depress wages, pay no taxes and consume a disproportionate share of benefits. They’re harming our country, a fact our lawmakers conveniently ignore. Just as important, they’re lawbreakers and should be treated as such. The solution: simply enforce the law.

Moderates

Righty: I've reached the conclusion that a moderate is just a liberal without a backbone. Of course, we never know what moderates really believe because they're too jelly-legged to stand up and say anything worth remembering. At least Lefty knows the issues and can pack a good wallop. I suspect that the average moderate is just a namby-pamby quiche-eating yuppie who never thinks about anything more important than the newest trendy restaurant to open up in his neighborhood. You know why there are no political magazines for moderates? Because moderates don't care about anything. Most of them probably don't even know that they're moderates -- that's how pathetically apathetic they are.

Lefty: The world must be coming to an end, Righty: I actually agree with you on this one! I might detest your views, but I admire your willingness to take a stand and debate it. Moderates? They're bland, unenlightened political nonentities who are chronically oblivious to the world's problems. Someone needs to wake them up with a good spray from the garden hose of reality.

The New Moderate:

I have to concede that Righty and Lefty make some painfully valid points. We moderates do need to wake up -- fast. We need to rouse ourselves from indifference, come together and develop a coherent platform that can propel our ideas into the limelight. I'm tired of occupying a vacuum between the push and pull of extremist ideologies. I'm tired of getting no respect from the right or the left. If you're a moderate, you should be tired of it, too.

Moderate ideas are the most lucid, the fairest, the most practical, the most sensitively reasoned, and the most representative of society as a whole. (That's why I consider myself a moderate, and why I believe so fervently in our cause.) So why are we moderates, to this day, a vast and voiceless nothing between the two constantly flapping wings that dominate the public debate?

The majority of Americans characterize themselves as moderates. But where's the passion, the camaraderie, the inspired rhetoric? Where's the traffic on this site? Is anybody home?

Being a moderate means more than adding up the ideas of the right and left, and taking the average. It means being brave enough to stand up and shrug off the crossfire from the opposing trenches. It means being reckless and resolute enough to declare that, for example, the pro-life and pro-choice factions are both equally rigid and equally wrong... that the abortion issue will never be resolved until more nuanced and moderate minds prevail.

American culture has been dominated by dueling extremists since the McCarthy era, and the strife has grown nastier than ever under the polarizing reign of Bush II. The U.S. has essentially split into two nations, red and blue, implacable and apparently irreconcilable. Why do we stand around and twiddle our thumbs? Thinking moderates everywhere owe it to themselves and their country to wake up and forge a radical middle that can influence public debate, win votes and stitch a sundered nation into the strong and happy union it was always meant to be.

Summary: Moderates have the best and fairest ideas, but nobody will know it until we form a movement to thrust those ideas into the public consciousness. Let the movement begin NOW.

Stereotypes

Righty: You have to be either blind or a political correctness fanatic (essentially the same thing) not to notice that blacks are superior athletes or that Jews are smart. Let’s face it: Asians love technology, Latin Americans love hot music, the Irish love drinking and politics. I’m not going out of my way to be offensive here; I’m just stating that we shouldn’t ignore the obvious. That’s what Lefty and his fellow PC freaks are doing when they deny the validity of stereotypes. I find it exasperating that godless liberals insist on explaining evolution strictly in genetic terms, yet they throw a hissy fit if you mention the role of genetics in determining the behavior of ethnic groups. We know that individual dog breeds, for example, exhibit distinct behavioral traits that have been perpetuated through selective breeding. Why shouldn’t it be the same with members of ethnic groups that have married within their own tribe for centuries?

Lefty: I won’t dignify Righty’s ghastly prejudices with a lengthy retort; I’ll let his ignorance speak for itself. (With his comparison of ethnic groups to dog breeds, Righty has just possibly reached a new low even by his standards.) Let me just assert that stereotypes are responsible for some of the most hateful crimes in human history, including most genocides. We reduce living, breathing individuals to identical units in a group. Then we dispose of the group. So neat and convenient, isn’t it? (Shudder.)

The New Moderate:

Stereotypes aren’t simply the wild fabrications of flaming bigots. Nearly all stereotypes, crude as they are, contain a kernel of truth that no open-minded person can deny. Jews, on average, do have higher IQs (and incomes) than the rest of us. Blacks do comprise a vastly disproportionate percentage of basketball, football, boxing and track superstars. And nobody who listens to hip-hop can honestly dispute the much-ridiculed notion that black people seem to possess a racially inherited sense of rhythm. Nearly all black music and dance -- African and African-American alike -- inform our ears and eyes that they do. Whether the inheritance is genetic or cultural is beside the point; all that matters is the finished product.

Is the black rhythm hypothesis a blatant stereotype? Of course it is, and a relatively silly one at that. But is it an inaccurate stereotype? I don't think so. We know it doesn't apply to all black people (we're not sure we'd want to see Oprah attempt to break-dance), but it applies to enough blacks within our experience to make the generalization stick.

Why do Lefty and Company profess to detest all stereotypes -- even positive ones? Because stereotypes deny due credit to individual talents and efforts. (If blacks are naturally superior athletes, then it follows that Willie Mays and Muhammad Ali were nothing special.) More insidiously, the mind that observes positive stereotypes is likely to use the same mental tools to concoct negative stereotypes. To the stereotyping mind, Jews are smart but also pushy; blacks are not only physically talented but intellectually indifferent. You can see why we’d want to avoid this line of thinking.

The New Moderate should point out that stereotyping isn't an exclusive pastime of the right. (Those who accuse right-wingers of indulging in stereotypes are themselves indulging in stereotypes.) Lefty's opinions of fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, the military, white male authority figures, Texans and other mortal enemies bear a distinct resemblance to stereotypes -- even vicious stereotypes -- though of course Lefty would simply shrug and insist that the truth can be unflattering.

Why do so many of us -- right, left and center alike -- engage in stereotyping? Because stereotypes help create order in a disorderly world. If you know what to expect from Group A or Group B (or think you know what to expect), then you know (or think you know) what to expect from all the individuals in those groups. Stereotypes help an uncertain soul feel more at ease in the cosmos.

Regardless of the common traits passed down from one generation to the next, all ethnic groups are made up of individuals. The more individual those individuals are, the less they resemble the group norm. Talented Jewish athletes and black scholars should never have to find themselves imprisoned by group stereotypes. Neither should heterosexual male interior decorators or gay airline pilots. Stereotypes are valid only as crude caricatures of group characteristics (and I’m probably giving them too much credit). They should never, ever be used to prejudge individuals within the group.

The folks who do resemble the negative stereotypes for their group are usually the ones who haven’t bothered to develop as individuals. Gun-toting black thugs, Jewish wheeler-dealers, puritanical WASPs, boorish Russians and rednecks, bland Asian technogeeks, compulsively clannish Greeks and Armenians, slap-happy Irish drunks... all of them exist in real life, at least to a degree -- and they tend to make their more enlightened kinsmen blush on behalf of their tribe.

The unenlightened ones simply inherit their behavior from their family and neighbors, follow the path of least resistance and never carve out their own identities. They're still creatures of the herd, and their numbers are probably larger than we’d comfortably like to admit. But do they deserve recognition as fitting representatives of their breed? Absolutely not. We should cheer all the quirky mavericks who emerge from those groups: nerdy blacks, lovably goofy Germans, ethereal Latinos, math-averse Asian rock stars and fashion-challenged gay men. They give us reassuring evidence that individualism is stronger than inheritance.

Summary: Most stereotypes contain nuggets of truth about various groups, but they’re only crude caricatures and should never be used to prejudge individuals within a group.

Diversity

Righty: Why do bleeding hearts on the left continue to gush about "diversity" when the guests at their dinner parties are almost exclusively white and upper middle class? I don’t detect much "diversity" among all you Chardonnay-sippers, eh Lefty? The fact is, most of us instinctively gravitate toward others like ourselves. Blacks do it. Hispanics do it. Greeks, Armenians and Jews do it. So do gays and celebrities. Even Lefty’s pampered, privately educated liberal friends do it. The difference between them and me is that I’m honest enough to admit it. Nobody who sends his kids to a private school is morally entitled to rhapsodize about diversity or impose it on others. I’m no bigot, but I’m comfortable among my own kind and I don’t see why we should have to include quotas of various favored minorities in every neighborhood, company, school, and TV show. I’m fine with blacks or gays moving into my neck of the woods as long as they’re decent, law-abiding citizens who embrace our Christian way of life. But I don’t see why we should have to send out engraved invitations to encourage them.

Lefty: I’m sure Righty would like nothing better than to whisk us back to the Eisenhower era, when America’s unofficially sanctioned national color was lily white. In those halcyon days, blacks, Hispanics, gays and even women were essentially disenfranchised and hidden discreetly from view. Is that the kind of society Righty (I almost said "Whitey") would have us celebrate? We need to empower individuals of all colors, genders and sexualities if we truly want to build an egalitarian society. We empower them by boosting their representation in academic and professional life, and by renouncing the primitive prejudices that made them second-class citizens in the first place. All right-thinking people have an obligation to help diversity flourish. Those who stand in opposition to it must be condemned as bigots, oppressors and -- worst of all -- Republicans!

The New Moderate:

I’m not especially fond of code words; they tend to conceal a multitude of agendas. "Diversity" is a stellar example of the breed. When a liberal uses this richly flavored buzzword in casual conversation, other liberals know immediately that the speaker is one of them... that they understand each other and breathe the same sociopolitical vapors. They’re siblings under the skin and firmly planted on the "correct" side of the great cultural divide.

What does "diversity" signify, exactly? Well, you’d think it would imply an open friendliness toward every conceivable minority group, white and otherwise... every economic class... every ethnic group, religion, philosophy and temperament. But as Righty suggested, those who talk loudest about diversity seem to be highly selective about the minorities they embrace. And that’s what bothers me.

An instructive example: here in Philadelphia, home of The New Moderate, the most richly diverse neighborhood is the Northeast -- a bubbling cauldron of hardworking whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and immigrants from dozens of outposts on the planet. But Northeast Philly gets no respect from the city’s educated white liberals. They positively shun the place. Too lower middle class. Too philistine. No trendy restaurants. Their paragon of "diversity" is my own Mt. Airy neighborhood, which is roughly 50% African American and 49% educated white liberal, including a generous sprinkling of lesbians and vintage hippies. You can search the place from top to bottom without unearthing any Poles, Greeks, Italians, Hungarians, Russians, Lebanese, Indians (Asian or American), Filipinos, Koreans, Mexicans or Jamaicans. Republicans are universally reviled and practically extinct. Presbyterians and pro-lifers languish on the endangered list. Other rarities include working-class whites, Boy Scouts, non-black fundamentalist Christians, gay men and young single heterosexuals.

Don’t get me wrong: Mt. Airy is a handsome and friendly old neighborhood. Blacks and whites seem to coexist peacefully and even marry each other. But diverse? The folks in Mt. Airy are clearly tailoring the word to fit their politics.

I’d like to see "diversity" used according to its dictionary definition rather than the ill-concealed biases of its liberal champions. If you want real diversity, take a walk around Northeast Philly, not Mt. Airy. Be true to your creed and welcome Irish-American firefighters into your neighborhood as readily as you welcome blacks, lesbians and educated white liberals. You might actually learn something from them.

Summary: Diversity is an admirable concept, but the term is habitually slanted to promote favored minorities and exclude those who offend liberal sensibilities. True diversity embraces all ethnic groups and philosophies; it can't be achieved through selectively imposed quotas.