Moderation in all things. And that includes moderation. For without some valve on temperance, moderation would implode.

It is good to remember this when we consider the Machiavellian machinations of political procedure so characteristic of our democracy. Of course, ours is a new age in many ways - of political trust, participatory empowerment. With a new generation of politicians and participants, it would be easy to err on the side of embrace and leave the paranoia to newly marginalized Republicans. But the responsible practice of power also involves the scrupulous exercise of self-scrutiny. Paranoia has its place.

Perhaps paranoia is in some ways its own disinfectant. The more it is exercised the less it grows. It keeps the politicians clean so that paranoia itself won’t grow like some mold in the cultural milieu. It is all a question of balance. Without a little public distrust we might all be paranoid; for unscrupulous tend to grow where scrutiny is missing.

The notion that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 is a leftist lunacy; but, minus the paranoid progressives, it might have been possible. Actual conspiracy has been the norm of history, after all. Plenty of monarchs have been readily willing to sacrifice large numbers of the people they represent in order to better meet their own needs. The less their reasons for action were scrutinized, the more likely they must have been to act unscrupulously.

So perhaps conspiracy theories are a democratic bad cop. Sometimes it takes a threat of unreasonable action to bring people to reason. This was Nixon’s mad bomber theory. This is my theory of why the lunatic left and the rabid right might actually have a part to play in our nation’s great debates. The bad cop of paranoia supports the good cop of reasoned debate.

The problem with all of this is that if we don’t trust our representatives enough, like all employees, they will become untrustworthy. Grasping this paradox may be key to our survival as a democracy. A lack of trust for all politicians makes us more willing to accept corruption; less willing to participate politically; less willing to take political debate seriously; and more willing to let our attention be diverted from the real issues by scandals. It diminishes the pool of potential representatives by sullying the job and sends a signal to the just that they are not welcome in politics, while simultaneously signaling the corrupt that this is where they belong. Finally, a lack of trust for our representatives makes us less willing to exalt the truly great leaders of our day.

But trusting politicians is as dangerous as mistrusting them. The problem is that if we trust our representatives too much, they may begin to feel comfortable letting the end justify the means. After all, it is difficult to get things done in our system of checks and balances, and there is much need for compromise and trade offs. It is difficult to tell where this slippery slope ends. If the end begins to justify the means, we must ask ourselves how far we will go. For the means may soon become its own justification. From common cause to political calculus, from collegial compromise to corruption; the sliding scale of harmony and discord can obscure the slope through which principles slip.

And this is where the paranoid steps in. They will be watching and waiting: to tell our representatives when they have stepped over the line; to brand them in their chosen colors when it looks like they might overstep. To a politician, a good reputation is everything. It gets you elected. It allows you to build coalitions to accomplish your goals. And it is an enjoyable end in and of itself.

Paranoids are needed: for the threat they pose, for the untruths they expose. The question is one of optimization. How much to question and how much consent?