On Chesterton and Moderate Politics

It is, appropriately, a paradox that being Chestertonian makes you both a political moderate and a political extremist. You're a moderate in the sense that the Chestertonian view is the middle between extremes. You're an extremist in the sense that this point of view will draw breath of fire from both liberals and conservatives, and raised eyebrows from the apolitical.

The extremist sense of Chestertonian politics is easy to describe - pro-life, pro-family, against big business, against big government, and outspoken about the differences between men and women. The Chestertonian view of these issues will surely raise the temperature of any political discussion.

As for its moderate characteristics, well, there are two aspects to Chestertonian politics that make them moderate. First, they truly fall between extremes. Creating an artificial pole of 'liberal' and 'conservative' in government and economics (which is not hard to do, as they are truly polarized) we see one interested in government intervention and the other interested in personal responsibility. Moral conservatives frown on drink, while moral liberals frown on very little. In terms of care for the poor, one favors handouts and the other favors, well, very little.

There is another sense in which Chestertonian politics are moderate, in this case in the sense of being mild and reasonable. This is embodied in the Chestertonian value of dialogue. There is a refreshing lack of polarity in political discussions of a Chestertonian bent. It can be disarming, after mentioning one of the above 'extreme' topics, to hear someone discoursing on them reasonably, with adequate pauses allowed for the expression of an alternative opinion. It is very quaint, really, this mode of dialogue.

Although there can be little doubt that this method of political dialogue is exactly what is needed right now, it remains to be seen whether the political system is capable of rehabilitation. But, as Dale said to us last Saturday, there is no greater cause than one that is uncertain of victory. The question is, then, whether these political principles will be put into practice at all.