Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

When did moderate become a political dirty word?

By Bob Greene, CNN Contributor
April 1, 2012 -- Updated 1315 GMT (2115 HKT)
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
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 1609 GMT (0009 HKT)
Ten views on the shutdown, from contributors to CNN Opinion
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 1546 GMT (2346 HKT)
Peggy Drexler says Sinead O'Connor makes good points in her letter to Miley Cyrus, but the manner of delivery matters
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1956 GMT (0356 HKT)
Sen. Rand Paul says there's no excuse for President Barack Obama to reject any and every attempt at compromise.
October 7, 2013 -- Updated 0406 GMT (1206 HKT)
Amy Stewart says the destruction of hornets' habitats sends them into cities and towns in their search for food
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 2331 GMT (0731 HKT)
John Sutter asks: When will homophobia in the United States start seeming so ridiculous it's laughable?
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 0853 GMT (1653 HKT)
Maurizio Albahari says the Mediterranean chronicle of death cannot end merely as a result of tougher penalties on smugglers, additional resources for search-and-rescue operations, and heightened military surveillance
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 2106 GMT (0506 HKT)
Richard Weinblatt says cops followed a standard of "objective reasonableness" in their split-second reaction to a serious threat, when a woman rammed police barricades near the White House.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1130 GMT (1930 HKT)
Ted Galen Carpenter says change of policy should begin with the comprehensive legalization of marijuana.
October 5, 2013 -- Updated 2031 GMT (0431 HKT)
Amardeep Singh: Victims of hate crimes and those convicted of them should work to overcome fear of one another.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1044 GMT (1844 HKT)
Meg Urry says a two-week government shutdown could waste $3 million, $5 million, even $8 million of taxpayer investment.
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1332 GMT (2132 HKT)
Frida Ghitis: Most of the world is mystified by the most powerful country tangled in a web of its own making.
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1346 GMT (2146 HKT)
Ellen Fitzpatrick and Theda Skocpol say the shutdown is a nearly unprecedented example of a small group using extremist tactics to try to prevent a valid law from taking effect.
October 4, 2013 -- Updated 1911 GMT (0311 HKT)
Danny Cevallos asks, in a potential trial in the driver assault case that pits a young man in a noisy biker rally against a dad in an SUV, can bias be overcome?
October 3, 2013 -- Updated 1410 GMT (2210 HKT)
Ben Cohen and Betty Ahrens say in McCutcheon v. FEC, Supreme Court should keep to the current limit in individual political donation
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1616 GMT (0016 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah says if you are one of the 10% who think Congress is doing a good job, people in your family need to stage an immediate intervention.
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1452 GMT (2252 HKT)
Let the two parties fight, but if government isn't providing services, Bob Greene asks, shouldn't taxpayers get a refund?
October 2, 2013 -- Updated 1658 GMT (0058 HKT)
Kevin Sabet says legalization in the U.S. would sweep the causes of drug use under the rug.
September 25, 2013 -- Updated 1359 GMT (2159 HKT)
James Moore says it is time for America to move on to a new generation of leaders.
ADVERTISEMENT