From Fencesitters to Flip-Floppers: Defending the Moderate in an Age of Extremes

Critiques of the contemporary political system as one that is highly polarized and divisive are hardly new. We are all fully aware that one is expected to be Right Wing or Left Wing, with little room for crossover between the two, and very limited provisions for effective, cooperative measures geared towards social progress as opposed to numerical advantage. This system creates a kind of decision-making vacuum within the political process that relentlessly suctions legitimate debate and discourse into a spectacularly unwinnable and moronic conversation between two hostile parties riddled with phrases like "bleeding heart," "pig," "pinko," "fascist," etc. Complex social issues are reduced to hero/anti-hero levels of simplicity, nuances are overshadowed in favor of sensation and the conference table suddenly becomes no-man's land in such a climate of discussion- two camps dug into rotting and unpleasant trenches on either side of an insuperable divide pockmarked with failed attempts at conquest. 

In the space of this vacuum, however, there is an opportunity for improvement and a chance to bridge the right-left, hero-antihero model that is superimposed onto some of the most important political and social issues the world over. That chance for improvement is simpler than it would seem. It is nothing more than moderation and consideration. Before I continue, I'm aware that my simple request is perhaps functionally impossible, and that I am indeed an idealist, though this is never a title I have resented. Nonetheless, I feel that the role of the moderate political subject position has been muddled and, in many cases, lost, on the global stage. What is a moderate? In my mind, the moderate is a political or social actor with individual agency and the ability to exercise that agency is a way that moves beyond dichotomous polar politics and takes a more holistic view of life as a series of interests, motivations and bids as opposed to a string of actions. The difference here is crucial. I feel that, by and large, global political activity is based largely on responses to actions. Perhaps above all others, the recent crisis in Sri Lanka illustrates this gulf between action and interests most clearly. The Sri Lankan government,for years, has been reacting to the independence movement staged by the Tamil Tigers by employing military force. The Tigers, in response, stage further acts of resistance (in many cases, acts of terrorism), which, in turn, are put down by further Sri Lankan military action, ad nauseam, This is the trajectory taken by a number of seemingly insoluble international conflicts- one side moves, the other moves against that movement, leading to further movements. These are desperate circumstances often marked by sporadic and scattered tit-for-tat bombing such as that that characterizes the Israel/Palestine conflict. Oftentimes, the most heavily affected are those caught in the middle, in the residential and unarmed areas used as a staging ground for guerilla and insurgent violence. To consider and approach tensions from a more moderate stance, from one that acknowledges interests and bids, however, could potentially go a long way to dismantle this kind of long-standing and stalemate type of conflict. When speaking of interests and bids, I have a specific meaning in mind. Take the bid metaphor, for example. At an auction, a bidder places a bid with a specific goal. They don't simply enter a bid expecting nothing in return, or for its own sake. A bid is a calculated move that reflects the interests and goals of the bidding party. It is an extension of the self into the shared space of negotiation engineered to generate a certain type of response. Conflict erupts when a bid remains unsatisfied, or in other words, when the intentions and interests of a particular party are ignored and not considered for whatever reason. The bidding process is entirely foregone in tit-for-tat, retaliatory conflicts. Any action taken targets only some other previous action, not the underlying goal, desire or intention that motivated that action. The conflict digs itself deeper into the earth, more lose their lives, and policy makers and international organizations grow increasingly weary and pessimistic about the possibility of coming to an effective solution. 

Why is the bid approach more moderate? The bid approach acknowledges that there is something beyond the dichotomizing nature of armed combat. It refuses to see solutions as a matter of weaponry or attrition, and demands that the conflict is solved more through policy, dialogue and discourse, as differences and conflicts in negotiations are largely an issue of rhetoric. By looking at interests, we are forced to see all sides of an argument, we are forced to consider combinatory rather than explosive action, to find ways to bridge insuperable gaps between entities as volatile as faiths, nationalities and races. Take the Israel/Palestine conflict, for example. This battle ideally epitomizes the tit-for-tat violence that can shatter hope for a solution, having been fought largely (with the obvious exception of Israeli military action) on a civilian, guerilla scale. Not surprisingly, the conflict has become startlingly polarized, at least through Western lenses. The Palestinian cause is routinely cast as unambiguously barbaric and rooted in terrorist activity, at least in the North American media. This view does nothing to acknowledge the very real suffering and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people that the establishment and subsequent expansion of Israel has caused. Since the early 1950s, Israel has been conceived of as a "land without people for a people without land," providing a homeland to displaced Jews following the Second World War- a very legitimate cause. However, the land was far from empty. It was populated by millions of settled Palestinian nationals who were, without hesitation, turned into refugees in their own country. That said, any attempt that the Palestinian people have at recovering a sovereign homeland is being ruined by Hamaas, an honest-to-goodness terrorist group governing the Palestinian people whose sole agenda is the elimination of the state of Israel. Israel, conversely, must stop attempting to expand its borders through powerful military campaigns against largely unarmed and non-unified pockets of Palestinians. As it stands now, Israel and Palestine take as their official government stances a tit-for-tat, retaliatory form of combat. Two nations officially endorse retaliatory combat as their main means of conflict resolution. Is it any wonder that the situation in Israel has snowballed so far out of control? The solutions proposed by both Israel and Palestine pay no attention to interests- shared and equal sovereignty over particular territories based on historical settlement and human need. This is an astonishingly unworkable future, for very obvious reasons. This is where the moderate, holistic, bid approach is most fruitful. We must discover what motivations are underlying acts of violence other than simple retaliation and eye-for-eye philosophy. Hamaas must be removed and a legitimate political party must be elected to govern the Palestinian people that seeks collaboration with Israeli officials; one that works hard to have its voice and claim to sovereignty over certain territories heard, yet one that demands such concessions based on legitimate claims. Likewise, Israel must embrace a spirit of cooperation that looks to cease hostilities, even if that means halting outward expansion into surrounding territories. Finally, we must all realize that there is no hero/antihero dichotomy here. All Palestinians are not terrorists simply because their corrupt government ignores attempts at peace, and Israel does not have the right to expand its holdings just beacause. Israel's interests currently lie in expansion and consolidation. Palestine's lie, somewhat hypocritically in destruction and the attainment of sovereignty. These are the interests on the table. These are the issues that need addressing. These should receive the attention and energy that the military is currently given. Every word is spoken as a bid, with some underlying intention and hope for a particular response. Lets get people back to the bidding floor, and away from no-man's land. 

Again, I understand that I have idealized this situation, but in our age of extremes, when people seem to fight for its own sake, out of retaliation, out of pure hatred, there needs to be some kind of idealism. There needs to be some attempt to create a workable solution that is, in some regard, holistic and moderate; one that considers all interests and works toward consolidating those interest by understanding the way in which we interact and expect responses. Like I said, I've never been ashamed to be called an idealist. 

Moderates are often seem as weak-of-heart, or perhaps not committed to a cause, not devoted to achieving the best for their own people as possible. In one respect, this is true. A moderate does not seek only what is best for his or her own people, but for all those people with whom they interact. They seek solutions that, in the words of one of my idols, "no one is going to like, but everyone can live with." And I feel that this is the role of the moderate today- to peel back the decades of retaliatory combat and reconsider the underlying causes, approach them with more holistic and combinatory minds and eyes, and attempt to find new solutions to very old problems. It's often said that the time for talk is over, that it's prime time for action. But I doubt that anyone who uses that kind of epithet would also say that action is the best solution for all. Why settle for less that our best effort? Have you ever noticed that negotiations between nations can break down after only a matter of days or weeks, and that immensely important global conferences last only a weekend, and yet we're willing to fight wars for decades or more? I have a hard time believing, then, that the time for talk is over. 

Here's to the moderate.