Combating Radical Divisiveness with Radical Moderation
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia’s 14th District, speaks at the 2021 TPUSA AmericaFest in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Gage Skidmore.
From spreading conspiracies about Jewish space lasers to accusing Democrats of pedophilia, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia’s 14th District, has made herself known for her distorted, and often observably unintelligent, perspectives on the world. But as we approach a crucial 2024 presidential election, Rep. Greene’s latest stunt is perhaps her most dangerous.
On February 20, Rep. Greene tweeted that “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.”
Rep. Greene’s suggestion is objectionable on multiple levels. On its face, separating states through a national divorce is eerily reminiscent of a tactic used by Southern states in the early 1860s. It was called secession, and we all know how that disastrous story ended.
A closer examination of her idea yields even less merit. What would happen to states with a very small red or blue majority? How about the red states with large Democratic populations in big cities? Or the blue states with huge numbers of Republican voters in more rural areas? Rep. Greene’s plan may temporarily alleviate legislative gridlock on a national level, but it would simply pass the same political conformity costs onto minority voters within each state—perhaps on a greater scale. As New York Times opinion writer David French aptly alludes to, the irony of a national divorce is that while its goal is to decrease the costs of political compromise and allow people to be governed by legislation with which they agree, it surely does not account for intrastate political disagreement. Would these separations also happen within each state? Or would a state’s majority party have unilateral control? The fatal flaw in the idea of a national divorce is self-evident.
If the plan is unimplementable, why do I argue that it may be Rep. Greene’s scariest suggestion yet? An examination of data on partisan polarization reveals a frightening reality: over 50% surveyed in a UC Davis poll believed that the United States will have a civil war in the next several years, and 20.5% of respondents agreed that in general, political violence is at least sometimes justifiable. Underlying all of this data is the alarming finding that the vast majority of people who commit to a partisan affiliation perceive the harmful effects of the other side’s policies more than the positive effects of their own party. This is far from the positive, aspirationalist thinking that once drove American democracy. Partisanship today is defined by blame and distrust. Yikes.
Naturally, we must wonder where to go from here, because most reasonable people would not want to trend towards violence. And it would not be productive to simply write off one-fifth (at least) of American society as unreasonable—see Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment (followed by her blown election) for an example of what not to do. Instead, I propose invigorating a form of radical ideological moderation. Yes, it appears paradoxical, but the ideological propensity to seek out those with whom we disagree and work together for a pragmatic common good may be, in today’s political climate, radical.
Our first task, especially as we near a presidential election year, is to find moderate leaders whose ideologies put the good of the country ahead of what has become a tribalist culture war rhetoric. Former Massachusetts Republican Governor Charlie Baker, who consistently earned the highest gubernatorial approval rating in the country, despite a majority-Democratic constituency, would have been a great candidate. Interestingly, New England Republican Governors Phil Scott (VT) and Chris Sununu (NH) also cracked the top ten. The high approval ratings of these moderate Republican governors from progressive Democratic states in the Northeast reflect a trend of moderation and bipartisanship which the rest of the country must pay attention to. This is especially important nationally because partisan gaps on presidential approval have grown significantly in the last two decades.
Interest in moderation is higher than one might expect given the increasing levels of partisanship. In a recent Pew survey, Americans expressed increasing frustration with both parties at once. And in another poll, 42% of respondents say they would vote for a candidate from a new political party that falls between Democrats and Republicans.
But noise from partisan extremes still dominates the political sphere. Democrats and Republicans alike view each other as “hateful,” “brainwashed,” and “racist.” For Marjorie Taylor Greene, Democrats are “traitorous” and put “America Last.” Lost in the sea of divisive rhetoric and resentment is the fact that nearly half of the American electorate are eager to work between partisan lines. They need inspiration, leadership, and a more clearly defined platform.
This is where the idea of radical moderation comes into play. The loudest, most passionate ideologues are on the extremes. But centrism—valuing balance between multiple perspectives, dignifying those with whom we disagree, and compromise—should command a spot on America’s political ideological spectrum as well. I propose three core tenets of a radical centrism that could inspire people to shift their sociopolitical attitudes: radical pragmatism, radical humanism, and radical optimism.
Radical pragmatism is a commitment to finding people of different political ideologies and working together towards some common good. Imagine another Abraham Lincoln. In 1864, despite receiving zero votes from the entire voting population of the South, Lincoln chose a Southern, pro-slavery Democrat as his running mate, signaling to the entire country that his administration was committed to representing and working with even those who voted against him. The integrity of the Union was the common good which stood above Lincoln’s personal political sentiments.
Radical humanism is found in leaders who go out of their way to humanize and find the good in their ideological opponents. Imagine more John McCains, who actually challenge their own supporters when they cross the line into demonizing political opponents. Or relationships like the one between the late Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, despite fundamentally opposed judicial and constitutional philosophies, maintained close friendship and utmost mutual respect.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, radical optimism is insisting on agency, responsibility, and possibility—as opposed to resorting to negativity and blame. Radical optimism is Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield appealing to his Republican counterpart, Senator Everett Dirksen, to end the Republican filibuster preventing the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And it is Senator Dirksen not only agreeing but insisting to his colleagues on the possibility of a more morally creditable America.
Ultimately, in the face of radical divisiveness from irresponsible leaders like Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ideological revolution of radical moderation—fueled by passion and commitment to these three core tenets—is a necessary and critical step in the healing of our society and the restoration of our democracy.
Elisha Baker is a Staff Writer for CPR and a freshman at Columbia College planning to study politics and history. You can often find him golfing on his favorite course in the world, Caesarea Golf Club in Israel.