It figures. Evan Bayh, who wears the moderation tag like a shiny lapel flag pin, is a part of the No Labels movement:
Elected officials and activists from around the country gathered Monday to bemoan the excesses of political partisanship and seek ways to restore civility and practical solutions to government.
The inaugural meeting of a group that calls itself "No Labels" drew lawmakers from across the country, including Republican-turned-independent New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
In an auspicious sign for the fledgling movement, however, the gathering also attracted several GOP-aligned officials who were defeated in last month's midterm elections — Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican who lost an independent bid for governor; Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, whose Senate bid was derailed in the Republican primary by tea party candidate Christine O'Donnell; and South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who was trounced in the Republican primary by a more conservative challenger.
"It wouldn't be left or right, but forward" for the government to focus on core issues like national security, better jobs and cleaner air, Inglis said, adding he had been heckled by both liberal and conservative audiences when trying to press for practical solutions.
Not left or righr, but forward in the march for "practical solutions." Well, then, that's just extremist pragmatism, isn't it? People who value "getting things done" above all, without regard for philosophical principles or informed world view, will get a lot of things done, but how many will really be beneficial? A whole lot of misery has been created by people who confuse "compromise" with "common ground," as the No Labels crowd seems to so eagerly do.
It's true that too often we let our labels start defining us, in which case we cease arguing -- the way to finally get to the truth -- and just end up shouting our dogmas at each other. But the labels define our starting points and tell others what kind of arguments they need to use to win us over.
And, sorry, but "moderate" is a label, too. It tells us as much about the person who uses it as "liberal" or "conservative" or any other identifier.
UPDATE: Ah, disdain is coming in from all over.
Every couple of months we get something like this, don't we? It's the "Coffee Party" all over again — isn't it? — an attempt by elite Democrats to create the impression of a grass-roots movement. It never works. [Remember "One Nation"?] And "No Labels" is such a silly... uh... label. It has a certain nostalgic 60s vibe: I ain't lookin' to... analyze you, categorize you, finalize you or advertise you.... But I came from the 60s, and I'm sick of that vibe when it's used to advertise to me. Wasn't there some ad campaign with a sincere-looking model staring straight into the camera and saying "no labels"? Or was it "no games"? Or no some other damned thing?
The people who attended the "No Labels" conference here on the campus of Columbia University really, really want the government to get things done. "So much partisanship, and not enough getting things done," said Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles who traveled across the country to join No Labels' fight against the "excessive polarization and hyperpartisanship of American politics."
[. . .]
So there's just no doubt that No Labels is about getting it done. But what is it? That's not so clear. Sure, No Labels activists believe we should cut the deficit and improve health care and become energy independent. But after listening to a few hours of speeches at the group's rollout, it was not at all obvious that the attendees would ever agree among themselves on how to do those things.
