Let’s hope so. I am still deeply concerned about the rampant partisanship in the United States today. For the most part, we seem to be electing extremists at both ends of the spectrum. These far-right and far-left politicians seem more interested in achieving their own agenda then they are in governing. This has produced a stalemate where neither side is willing to compromise and nothing gets done.
How did we get here? One factor is our diversity, which has been a strength when our myriad of ethnic backgrounds are well-blended in our greater identity as Americans (e pluribus unum—out of many, one) but which can become a weakness if an overemphasis on diversity fractionalizes our electorate. Today each diverse group, be it ethnic or religious, tends to develop its own agenda, creating positions and issues that become nonnegotiable. The political impact of this is exacerbated by our system of party primaries. Many Americans who consider themselves moderate do not participate in primaries, and the result has been to make it more difficult for moderates in either party to be nominated. The extremists have come to dominate our primaries. This has muffled the voice of the moderates and given credence to those who say that only rigidly held ideological views are important.
But, contrary to what talk-show hosts and partisans on both sides of the political spectrum might say, moderates are not namby-pambies without convictions. In fact, they tend to be highly pragmatic and well informed on the issues facing city, state and federal governments. They realize that most important issues are not easily solvable with a few slogans or a stubborn insistence on ideological purity. A moderate to me is a person who has firm and well-considered opinions on issues but is fully aware that they do not have all wisdom. They listen with respect to those of differing views. They are aware that democratic government is the art of the possible. With an open mind and a strong desire to do what is best for the whole country; they artfully build solutions to difficult and divisive issues.
My first experience with the power of a moderate position and the results it can produce came in the early 1950s. At that time, Tennessee had for many years been governed for years almost solely by the Democratic Party. The revival of the two-party system in Shelby County and ultimately in Tennessee was begun by the efforts of a group of mostly young Memphians, who felt that their city, county and state were suffering under Democratic dominance. Most elections were personality contests; issues were never discussed. One-party rule had become a barrier to serious civil-rights reform. The reformers were committed to such Republican issues as less government, lower taxes and a balanced budget. They were also supportive of civil-rights legislation at a time when Democrats were still campaigning with the slogan “Keep Memphis Down in Dixie.” Most of them were moderate former Democrats who found a political home in the GOP that was more in tune with their views on the issues. Their balanced position in the center of the political spectrum appealed to many, and we were able to build in a short span of years a solid base for the Republican Party. I believe that their success improved the quality of the candidates who were offered to the electorate and enabled citizens to express their views on the crucial issues of the day. Tennessee is now definitely a factor in the national political scene, and a two-party system was essential to that achievement.
This active participation led me to be involved in the election of Sen. Howard Baker and Rep. Dan Kuykendall in 1966. It also allowed me to be an active participant in the elections of Gov. Winfield Dunn, Gov. (and Sen.) Lamar Alexander, Sen. Fred Thompson, Gov. Don Sundquist and Sen. Bill Frist. I served on the first Memphis City Council after the adoption of a new form of government. I served as the commissioner of finance and administration in the early years of the Alexander administration. This active involvement has allowed me to be involved in of some of the most significant decisions of the 21st century in my community and my state.
Here’s another example. In 1954, shortly after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, I served as co-chairman of the newly formed Shelby County Community Relations Committee. Consisting of an equal number of blacks and whites and featuring both Democrats and Republicans, the committee was set up to arrange the peaceful integration of all public facilities in Memphis. Working in a bipartisan fashion, we were able to integrate buses, libraries and the zoo and then moved on to restaurants, hotels, movie theaters and schools. This was a fantastic achievement that could only have been achieved by a group of moderates on both sides of the most volatile issue of the century.
Or take the experience of Lamar Alexander, who as a Republican governor worked in reasonable harmony with a Democratic legislature to achieve education reform, environmental protection and better state services for children. During his administration, Alexander proposed reforms for education and the legislature responded by appointing a committee, headed by a prominent Democratic senator, to study the issue. Deciding that the best way to achieve his goals was to have a hand in the process, Governor Alexander urged the legislature to allow him to appoint some members of the commission. I was one of his appointments. We participated fully in what turned out to be a comprehensive and bipartisan review. In the end the legislature passed a strong bill with broad support that concentrated on reading and writing as essential elements of early education and featured one of the first plans in the nation to pay teachers for performance. That last bit turned out to be a radical reform that was amended out of existence within a few years after the governor left office. Nonetheless, this was an example of bipartisanship, cooperation and compromise that produced a good result for the citizens of Tennessee. I have usually found that when you have a bipartisan group that works together in good faith over the time of studying the issue a trust builds that makes compromise possible.
In my experience it has been moderates who provide the grease that makes the machinery of government work. I have seen how Senator Baker as minority and then majority leader made the Senate work. He produced legislation that probably represented the consensus of the country. In today’s no-compromise atmosphere we either end in stalemate or adopt legislation that is overkill. We seldom attain that reasonable consensus that makes our government work best.
Our Founding Fathers did not create a democracy but a democratic republic. We elect representatives for their integrity, their intelligence and their courage to make hard decisions. The founders never imagined that our elected representatives would be taking constant polls to tell them how to vote, a total denial of the concept of a representative who should be chosen to act independently for the common good. Instead many have become nothing more than messengers. This frequently renders debate and discussion futile. The extremists choose our leaders who talk not to each other in debate but past each other on television.
What can be done? One important step is to have a better-informed electorate, one that understands that few issues are black and white, that we elect out representatives to govern, not to quarrel. I am aware that free speech permits vituperation, bombast and lies, but the control of such irresponsible actions lies in the electorate. We must punish such demagoguery by rejecting those candidates who embrace it.
A democratic republic requires leaders who say, “Let us reason together to solve this problem.” I know from personal experiences that many of my original solutions to the problems of governing a free people were much improved by a calm and reasoned discussion of the issue with those having a different perspective. It’s wrong to characterize this process of reasoning together as a sellout of basic principles. I have learned a great deal from listening to others. If we drive moderates out of government we greatly increase the possibility for tyranny—even if it is the tyranny of a majority—and we make it more difficult to govern.
I pray for more moderation. I call on all Americans to speak up to proclaim the crucial importance of moderation in government. I call on the press to create an atmosphere where reasoned discussion is encouraged and praised where we permit office holders to talk to each other and not just to the TV cameras and where demagoguery is exposed for what it is a strong detriment to good government. And I say to moderates, “Hail to you, for it is your pragmatic wisdom that has made our imperfect system work.”
Donelson is a lawyer in Memphis, Tenn.
