Moderation Versus Good Policy

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee doesn't like this. Too bad.

Last week's Gay Pride Parade in New York was a little more prideful than usual, for good reason. Oddly enough, the great state of Rhode Island didn't think people should celebrate over gay marriage, and instead the state legislature passed a civil union bill. It reminded me of Barry Goldwater, when he read a speech written by somebody else who was paraphrasing somebody else. To be succinct, I will paraphrase:

"Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; extremism in the pursuit of justice is no vice."

As he sometimes does, Mr. Goldwater has a point. Sort of. Then again, that's Barry Goldwater for you. What Goldwater did not define was what the terms "moderation" and "extremism" meant. And to be fair, he was an extremist. But that does not justify "moderation" as good policy. That wasn't true in 1964 and it is certainly no more true today.

Evidence that democracy works: People celebrate in the street to celebrate passage of legislation. How often does that happen?

Andrew Cuomo just passed good policy, and millions of people are elated. 58 percent of New Yorkers approve of gay marriage, compared to 54 percent nationally. The fact that Governor Cuomo was able to sign the will of the majority into law has garnered speculation that he may someday run for President. To quote Goldwater's contemporary, you can go from chicken shit to chicken salad!

And gay marriage is good policy. Buffalo state senator Mark Grisanti said so in just a few simple words:

"I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife, whom I love, or the 1300 plus rights that I share with her?"

That's a good point. That's good policy.

Civil Unions are not good policy. It is a semantics nightmare, an intrusion on religious freedom, and perhaps worst of all in the eyes of political conservatives, a French Social Experiment.

France passed its own "civil unions" law in 1999. Guess what? Straight couples prefer these domestic partnerships to marriage. What gives? If today's Republican Party wants to boast about "streamlining government," what is the point of establishing two legal separate legal entities for the exact same living situation?

Liberals view same-sex marriage as a civil right--that all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Some political conservatives view same-sex marriage as a right for religious institutions to wed whom they please, and that marriage is a bedrock of community. There is really no "middle ground" here.

And while "civil unions" are merely a benign case of "moderate" policy, let's revisit our old friend Lyndon Johnson to see what a complete, unmitigated utter disaster a "moderate" course can be.

While his political opponents accused him of communism, Lyndon Johnson established Medicare. When Klansman were bombing churches in Alabama (and acquitted of murderer, by the way), Lyndon Johnson signed historic civil rights legislation. The economy grew with a federal deficit that was only 3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, compared to a whopping 90 percent today. Some of his policies were consider radical at the time, today we take them for granted.

And Johnson also assumed a moderate course on foreign policy. Barry Goldwater advocated the invasion of North Vietnam and the use of nuclear weapons. Douglas MacArthur warned against any military involvement in Southeast Asia (a mere footnote to his personal history). Lyndon Johnson attempted to bridge these conflicting viewpoints by supporting the South Vietnamese government "by all necessary measures." We all know what happened next.

I understand the concept of negotiation and the art of the deal. And there is a time and place for that. To be wise, we must understand the difference.