In an age of extreme polarization, appeals to a less divisive past are commonplace. Many people wish to go back to an era when their fellow citizens held more moderate beliefs and showed a greater willingness to entertain different opinions. This feeling is particularly common among intellectuals who dislike the ickiness of our political fights. Many argue that we should ignore the moral issues that pervade our society and constrain our vision to economics and foreign policy. In doing so, they believe that we are more likely to gain a consensus, and avoid the partisan conflicts that have come to the forefront of our political discourse. One recently famous commentator named Richard Hannania called for the promotion of an “Enlightened Centrism” which leans libertarian. We see examples of this centrism in figures such as Barri Weiss or Peter Bogossian who reject wokeness but certainly aren’t conservatives.
While we must certainly welcome those who oppose left wing authoritarianism, we must also ask ourselves whether moderation should be our goal. Was the America of the 1990s truly better than the era we are living in now? It was much less polarized, but the seeds of many of our discontents were sown in the 1960s and left untouched for years. Now, conservatives are beginning to fight back against the radicalization of our culture and the destruction of our ethical norms. Such a fight entails an increase in polarization, but such polarization isn’t necessarily bad. Sometimes, taking a polarizing position is the correct course of action and the only one that accords with both morality and good politics.
It is important to remember that in addition to being one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln was also our most polarizing. He was so polarizing that eleven states seceded from the Union. It was men like Lincoln’s opponent, Stepehn Douglas, who were calling for moderation. He wanted to ignore the question of slavery and focus on the expansion of the United States. Far from being an extreme partisan of slavery, Douglas’s position was quite moderate; he wanted to leave the question of slavery up to the voters of each state. By contrast, Lincoln wanted to use the power of the federal government to eliminate slavery.
Lincoln’s unswerving condemnation and resistance to the expansion of slavery certainly helped bring about the Civil War. But can we really say that it was Lincoln who caused the Civil War? When conflict occurs over an injustice, it is generally the guilty party who is at fault, rather than the man who calls out his wrongs. False moderation obscures our political discourse and prevents us from resolving fundamental issues.
As we contemplate the state of our political discourse we should keep in mind the words of the famous political philosopher and Lincoln scholar, Harry Jaffa who wrote Barry Goldwater’s speech for the 1964 RNC presidential nominating convention. In response to accusations of partisanship, Goldwater told his audience 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.”
Justice and freedom are the sole measures by which we should judge our opinions. When we conform our ideas to fit what is “moderate” we do a disservice to what is right. After all, moderation is relative, whereas certain truths are self-evident and eternal. If the truth elicits a polarizing response, it is the advocates of falsehood who are guilty of partisanship.
