Political moderates are held up in America as an ideal. It is believed these are the guys who build a bridge between the two parties ( really two factions of the same party, but we will deal with that later), keep the radical left and reactionary right at bay, and get things done because they are practical in their politics.
Well, I will agree with point one, sort of agree with point two, and vehemently deny point three. Let's deal with point one since it is obviously true- moderates do work very hard to keep the two parties happy. All they need to usually do is sacrifice the interests of workers absolutely and the rest is easy ( ever notice how legislation favoring big business slides through Congress faster than shit through a goose while anything that might benefit working folk is relentlessly picked away at by compromise until it is useless- if it goes through at all?).
As far as this famed neutrality goes, that is pure bullshit. Throughout History, the role of the moderate politician is to thwart revolutionary change. Just look at our Congress today. Any proposal even hinting at progressive reform is automatically tabled for debate. And History shows us another despicable trait of the moderate- if it does come to Revolution, these guardians of the status quo par excellence flee immediately into the arms of Reaction, no matter what form it takes. Even though it later almost always is cause for regret.
And getting things done? Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of being a moderate is to not get anything done. To fiddle while Rome burns. To prevaricate, postpone, delay, anything to keep a creaking and failing establishment going for another year, month, or day. Far more often moderates are renowned for their catastrophic failures, lack of vision, spineless politics.
Can you even think of a moderate politician of historical note that does not wear the stink of failure and betrayal like a shabby cloak? Take note of the two do- nothings that bracketed Abraham Lincoln's presidency- James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. The first let the Southern aristocrats frighten him into inaction on the slavery issue, thus pretty much ensuring the Civil War would ensue. The second let Reconstruction slip from the federal government's grasp because he didn't want to upset those same Southern aristocrats- after they had been defeated in war! Or the left- of- center moderates of the German Social Democrats who sold their Red brethren out to the death squads of the Freikorps during the German Revolution after the First World War.
More? How about Neville Chamberlain, perhaps the best example of the disastrous effect the wishy- washy can have when put in positions of great responsibility. The people of Britain and France were, if not eager, at least resolved to go to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia in 1938. Hitler's legions were far from prepared. One good push over Germany's western border might have shattered der Fuherer's carefully constructed bluff of military might completely. But no. Like any good moderate, Chamberlain decided to play it safe because the class he really represented was the ruling class, and they liked having Hitler right were he was- his Germany acting as a possible bulwark against the Soviet Union. So he left Czechoslovakia in the lurch and the Czechs lost the Sudetenland, which was where all of their frontier fortifications were. A year later Hitler marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia and captured the Skoda armaments works, which happened to build some pretty decent models of tanks. Well, these very same tanks were used to equip three of the ten Panzer divisions that overran the West in 1940. Whoops.
These are only the most egregious examples of moderate perfidy. It is no wonder that these milk- livered wankers, who sit on the fence so much they have splinters in their asses, are so beloved by our political establishment? And it is no wonder that in any revolutionary struggle they are the first to go?