The “Moderate” Label

Published in Sankei Shimbun
(Japan) on 25 February 2012
by Yoshihisa Komori (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Andrew Gonzalez. Edited by Janie Boschma.
What is a “moderate”?

That question comes to mind as I watch coverage of the U.S. Republican presidential candidate nomination campaign. The battle among the Republican candidates has been somewhat of a free-for-all, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney still seems to be the frontrunner. Most of the coverage of Romney in the U.S. and Japan describes him as a “moderate.”

According to the New Political Dictionary published by political columnist William Safire in the 1970s, “moderate” in American politics is defined as “positioned slightly to the left of center; a word more acceptable to conservatives than liberal, more dynamic than middle-of-the-roader."

In that case, the word “moderate” is a neutral expression that implies neither praise nor criticism on the part of the person using it. However, the word has recently taken on a negative meaning and is being used to attack Romney. People such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who is held up as a conservative, call Romney a “moderate”; when they do so, they are openly criticizing him by saying that he does not sufficiently embody the conservatism for which the Republican Party strives.

Then what is a conservative? First of all, a conservative is someone who values “small government” (a government with a limited role that restricts spending), “self-reliance” (limited social welfare), and “free competition”; promotes a “strong defense” that prizes national security; and respects traditional American values and customs in regard to social issues. Thus, when Romney is judged as being “a moderate, not a conservative,” it calls up an image of him turning his back on this conservative value system.

However, an objective look at Romney’s political views — such as his espousal of tax cuts, spending cuts, a balanced budget, and a strong defense — shows that he is unmistakably conservative, especially in comparison to President Barack Obama. Romney has even called for a total repeal of Obama’s health care reforms.

Those who call Romney a moderate point to his promotion of a public health care system for Massachusetts residents, and to his one-time support for “freedom of choice” in abortions when he was Governor of Massachusetts. However, he has opposed public health care at the federal level and he now opposes abortion, which makes him a conservative. He does not espouse any other policies that are particularly non-conservative or anti-conservative.

Bruce Weinrod, director of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime student of American conservatism, has said, “Romney is a conservative, which is obvious from the support that he already has from mainstream conservative New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.”* Weinrod has indicated two reasons why Romney is called a moderate. The first is the other Republican candidates’ strategy of attempting to separate Romney from the majority conservative wing of the party. Another is that when he was governor of the most liberal state in America, he was in an environment where it was difficult to strengthen conservatism.

On top of that, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic-leaning major media outlets have been stressing Romney’s “moderateness.” If Romney ultimately wins the Republican nomination, the Democratic Party likely sees him as their toughest opponent in the presidential election. Thus, they are spreading the label of “Romney, the moderate” in an attempt to prevent his nomination. The lesson in all this is that political labels should be regarded with great caution.


*Editor's note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified.


「穏健派」とはなにか。

 米国大統領選の共和党候補選びの報道をみていて、感じる疑問である。共和党候補たちの争いはなお乱戦気味だが、マサチューセッツ州前知事のミット・ロムニー氏が依然、主役のようだ。そのロムニー氏を評するのに米国や日本の報道の多くに「穏健派」という表現が頻繁に出てくるのだ。

 政治評論家ウィリアム・サファイア氏が1970年代に出した政治辞典によると、米国政治での穏健(Moderate)とは「中道よりもやや左の立場で、保守派にとってはリベラルよりは受け入れやすく、中道よりは活力のある用語」と定義されていた。

 このとおりならば、穏健派という言葉は使う側からは、ほめも、けなしもしない中立の表現といえよう。だが最近ではロムニー氏への非難に使われるネガティブな言葉となった。保守派とされるニュート・ギングリッチ元下院議長らがロムニー氏を「穏健派」と呼ぶとき、共和党が目指すべき保守主義を十分に体現していないという非難があらわである。

 では保守とはなにかといえば、まず政府の役割や支出を抑える「小さな政府」、福祉も抑制して「自助努力」や「自由競争」を重視し、国家の安全保障を大切にして「強力な防衛」を推進する。社会問題では米国社会の伝統的な価値観や風習を尊重する。だからロムニー氏を「保守派ではなく穏健派だ」と断じれば、同氏がこうした保守主義の一連の価値体系に背を向けるイメージが浮かんでくる。

 ところがロムニー氏の政見を具体的にみると、減税、支出削減、予算均衡、防衛強化など間違いなく保守である。とくにオバマ大統領とくらべると、保守色は鮮明となる。同氏は同大統領の医療保険改革案の全面破棄までを唱えるのだ。

 ロムニー氏を穏健派と呼ぶ側は同氏がマサチューセッツ州知事時代に州民への公営医療保険制度を進めたことと、妊娠中絶問題で「選択の自由」を一時、唱えたことを根拠にあげる。だが同氏は医療保険の連邦レベルでの公営化には反対し、妊娠中絶にもいまは反対して、保守の立場を守る。他にとくに非保守や反保守の政策は見あたらない。

 米国保守主義を長年、研究してきたブルース・ワインロッド元ヘリテージ財団研究部長は「ロムニー氏は保守本流のクリス・クリスティ・ニュージャージー州知事らからすでに支援を得たことからも明らかなように、保守主義者です」と語る。ワインロッド氏はロムニー氏が穏健派と呼ばれる理由については共和党の他の候補たちがロムニー氏を党内で大多数を占める保守派から引き離そうとする作戦をあげるとともに、同氏自身がマサチューセッツという全米でも最リベラルな州の知事を務めた時代、保守主義を強めることが難しかった環境を指摘した。

 さらにロムニー氏の「穏健ぶり」を強調するのは民主党全国委員会と民主党びいきの大手メディアのようだ。民主党にとっては共和党の候補に同氏が最終的に指名されれば、大統領選本番ではおそらく最も戦いにくい相手となる。だから「穏健派ロムニー氏」のレッテルを広めて、指名を防ごうというわけだ。政治のレッテル言葉には、くれぐれも要注意ということだろう。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Poland: Calm in Iran Doesn’t Mean Peace Yet

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

Topics

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Colombia: The Horsemen of the New Cold War

Related Articles

Japan: Iran Cease-fire Agreement: The Danger of Peace by Force

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength

Japan: Trump’s Tariffs Threaten To Repeat Historical Mistakes