Good Grief, Aren't there any Moderates here?

Lash and Freeduck moderates? Nah, don't think so.

I suppose one can define a word anyway one wants but I don't think having a mixture of ideas from both the right and the left is a generally accepted definition of political moderate.

A political moderate is someone who rides the middle of the road, and has no use for ideas that can be identified as a favored position of either end of the spectrum of political thought.

Favoring positions from either end is not the sign of a political moderate, a political eclectic perhaps, but not a moderate.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Rog. Aren't you a moderate? Have a blend of views, don't ya...?

I've views and opinions from all over, Lash, but if we accept Finn's definition, no. Of course, that definition seems to exclude anyone with an opinion.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Lash wrote:
Rog. Aren't you a moderate? Have a blend of views, don't ya...?

I've views and opinions from all over, Lash, but if we accept Finn's definition, no. Of course, that definition seems to exclude anyone with an opinion.

Not at all. It is clearly an opinion of a political moderate that ideas from either extreme are of no real value and may possibly even be dangerous. It is clearly another opinion of a moderate that it is better to compromise than to fight for firm beliefs.

There seems to be a definate undercurrent running through this thread that political moderation is the zenith of political thought, and therefore no shortage of folks who wish to modify its meaning in whatever manner is required for them to lay claim to the appellation. To some extent I think this is because of the nature of political discourse in this country. One need not be uncivil to be partisan, and one need not be a madman to be a radical.

0 Replies

I, just my opinion, don't think being a moderate is superior to reasonable conservative views or reasonable liberal ones.

But, I think clearly a moderate--McCain, Bush 1, Lieberman, Arnold--is someone who has a mix of views from across the political spectrum.

It doesn't matter how intensely held the views are--but WHAT the views are.

Finn's assertion here--

A political moderate is someone who rides the middle of the road, and has no use for ideas that can be identified as a favored position of either end of the spectrum of political thought.

is quite incorrect.

Moderates come by their opinions with the same conviction everyone else does. Why would you think they don't?

(Just curious---not argumentative.)

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I, just my opinion, don't think being a moderate is superior to reasonable conservative views or reasonable liberal ones.

But, I think clearly a moderate--McCain, Bush 1, Lieberman, Arnold--is someone who has a mix of views from across the political spectrum.

It doesn't matter how intensely held the views are--but WHAT the views are.

Finn's assertion here--

A political moderate is someone who rides the middle of the road, and has no use for ideas that can be identified as a favored position of either end of the spectrum of political thought.

is quite incorrect.

Moderates come by their opinions with the same conviction everyone else does. Why would you think they don't?

(Just curious---not argumentative.)

I have no doubt that a moderate comes to his or her position with conviction. They are convinced that compromise is preferable to defending or advancing a given belief or set of beliefs. They are convinced that it is better to get things done reasonably well than to risk not getting them done at all by pressing the "correct" way.

As I have repeatedly said, we need moderates. I am a moderate in my professional life. I don't, at all, have disdain for moderates, I just think partisans are more interesting.

Perhaps we are simply arguing semantics, but words mean something and some one who holds a firm position ascribed to the right, and at the same time, a firm position ascribed to the left is not, by my definition, a moderate.

I don't like the term the way you are using because by such a definition, all but a few politicians are moderates. By that definition Hillary Clinton is a moderate as is John Kerry, Orlin Hatch and George W Bush. All of these politicians have at one time or another taken a "mix" of positions classically identified as coming from the left or the right.

I admire a politician who will look at each idea on its own merit and determine how it makes sense, but I believe that (except for the election whores who will take whatever position is expedient) they are basing their take on a given idea from an internal philosophy that is either basically left or basically right.

0 Replies

A person could certainly agree with one side's theory but disagree with their implementation. Such as someone who agrees that government should be mindful of economic disparity and should do something to help lift up the bottom of society, but who thinks that the current social programs in place do not alleviate poverty but make it worse. Is this what you would call a moderate position, Finn?

I think that I am a moderate, in spite of Finn's assertion that I'm not. I think that I fit either definition. I fit Lash's because I hold positions that lean further to one side than another but not always the same side. I fit Finn's side because I have several positions that are in effect compromises between the two spectrums (the above being one). I realize that makes me pretty uninteresting to Finn and that's fine by me. I think that someone who strives for balance also strives for stability and that's good for societies and governments both. Being "right" doesn't get you much in this world.

0 Replies

Finn's comment--Perhaps we are simply arguing semantics, but words mean something and some one who holds a firm position ascribed to the right, and at the same time, a firm position ascribed to the left is not, by my definition, a moderate.

Lash's comment--I think you are correct about semantics. I would have thought that DID describe a moderate. I'll have to look at it from more sources.

Finn's comment---I don't like the term the way you are using because by such a definition, all but a few politicians are moderates. By that definition Hillary Clinton is a moderate as is John Kerry, Orlin Hatch and George W Bush. All of these politicians have at one time or another taken a "mix" of positions classically identified as coming from the left or the right.

Lash's comment---You DO have a point about almost everone having at least a few bipartisan views. But, what makes McCain so different from Kerry? I wouldn't have described Kerry as a moderate...ever.

Interesting comments, though. More reading....

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

A person could certainly agree with one side's theory but disagree with their implementation. Such as someone who agrees that government should be mindful of economic disparity and should do something to help lift up the bottom of society, but who thinks that the current social programs in place do not alleviate poverty but make it worse. Is this what you would call a moderate position, Finn?

I think that I am a moderate, in spite of Finn's assertion that I'm not. I think that I fit either definition. I fit Lash's because I hold positions that lean further to one side than another but not always the same side. I fit Finn's side because I have several positions that are in effect compromises between the two spectrums (the above being one). I realize that makes me pretty uninteresting to Finn and that's fine by me. I think that someone who strives for balance also strives for stability and that's good for societies and governments both. Being "right" doesn't get you much in this world.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making in your first paragraph, but I retract my statement about you not being a moderate.

"Being right doesn't get you much in this world." (whether accurate or not) is a classic politically moderate belief.

I'm always amazed how apparently eager some people are to be offended (slightly or otherwise).

Again, I have repeatedly indicated that I believe that we (societies and governments) need moderates: balance and stability are good, and moderates are not necessarily uninteresting, they are simply less interesting (to me) than partisans.

As for being "right," I'm afraid that I disagree with you --- it can get one quite a lot in this world. Of course it depends upon what one wants to get.

Just as we need moderates, so too do we need radicals. Anyone (and believe me this is not intended to offend) who believes that being "right" doesn't get much is not likely to challenge steadfast believes or seek to advance new ones.

It is the nature of society to value balance and stability, and therefore there is a built in appreciation for the moderate and a built in aversion to the radical.

I don't know if you listen to NPR or have heard their relatively new segment "This I Believe." It's a bit where people ( famous and ordinary) make a two or three minute statement on what it is they believe. Recently they featured a reporter for the Washington Post (I can't recall his name) who is, clearly, a political moderate. He didn't attempt to argue that such a position is preferable to any other but just wished to describe what it meant to him to be a moderate. I don't know if they keep these clips at their website, but you might wish to check and see. If you do listen to his tone of voice and demeanor.

0 Replies

Finn--

Help me with your understanding of moderate.

If I espouse several views--all of them strongly-- after having thought them out...and half of them are considered conservative and the other half as considered liberal---how would I be categorized politically, if not a moderate?

Please note, I didn't change or choose any of these positions to please anyone. I think all of my positions are the only supportable ones.

Just trying to see where someone with my views fits in your scheme of things.

0 Replies

PS-- I'm not offended by anything you've said. Just curious.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Finn--

Help me with your understanding of moderate.

If I espouse several views--all of them strongly-- after having thought them out...and half of them are considered conservative and the other half as considered liberal---how would I be categorized politically, if not a moderate?

Please note, I didn't change or choose any of these positions to please anyone. I think all of my positions are the only supportable ones.

Just trying to see where someone with my views fits in your scheme of things.

These are the problems with political labels.

I find it difficult to imagine that someone can find themselves split right down the middle in terms of their political beliefs. You may be one of the rare few, but if so, I think that distinction has been missed by everyone who frequents this forum.

There are core principles to liberal and conservative thought which is why it is possible to have these online tests of a person's political nature. Where one fits precisely across the spectrum is impossible to say, but, with very rare (if any), everyone leans one way or the other - except for true moderates who are not concerned with ideology, but instead prefer pragmatism. Of course they have core principles as well, but they are of the broadest nature: strife free productivity being the primary.

If you are truly a mish mash of equally divided positions then I would have to give you a label that doesn't already exist, but which I've earlier coined Political Eclectic.

Political labels (even when they get more specific such as neo-con) rarely capture the full breadth of an individual's ideas, but they are useful in communication. Many of us have a complexity of thought that is not encapsulated, with entire satisfaction, by a particular label, and yet when we match our beliefs and principles to the criteria of each label we usually can find one that fits fairly well.

0 Replies

Thanks for explaining.

My abortion stance is pragmatic, you're right.

My gay marriage stance is owing to my interpretation of the Constitution.

My immigration stance is directed by what I believe to be the essence of the founding of this country. Wouldn't the immigration and gay marriage things really be the conservative opinion? Based on our founding documents and our method of birth as a country?

Anybody?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I'm always amazed how apparently eager some people are to be offended (slightly or otherwise).

Did you think I was offended?

Quote:

Again, I have repeatedly indicated that I believe that we (societies and governments) need moderates: balance and stability are good, and moderates are not necessarily uninteresting, they are simply less interesting (to me) than partisans.

And I am (repeatedly) agreeing with you.

Quote:

I don't know if you listen to NPR or have heard their relatively new segment "This I Believe." It's a bit where people ( famous and ordinary) make a two or three minute statement on what it is they believe. Recently they featured a reporter for the Washington Post (I can't recall his name) who is, clearly, a political moderate. He didn't attempt to argue that such a position is preferable to any other but just wished to describe what it meant to him to be a moderate. I don't know if they keep these clips at their website, but you might wish to check and see. If you do listen to his tone of voice and demeanor.

I don't know if I think it is superior or not to be a moderate and will go and look for the clip because I find things like that interesting. I suppose I think it is best for me, but that's because it suits my personality.

Perhaps my tone was unclear in my previous post. I don't take offense at anything you've said (in this thread anyway :wink:) and was merely being blunt. The first paragraph was an attempt to illustrate what I thought you meant by your description of "moderate". And the question "is this what you mean" was simply for clarification that I had the right take on your definition.

0 Replies

Also want to add, if there are no radicals then there can be no moderates, so I agree that we need all kinds. I just get nervous when I see the balance tip too far to one side. I suppose that's why you see moderates changing sides all the time to favor whoever is currently the "opposition". I imagine we are like the people standing in the middle of the teeter totter making sure nobody takes a hard fall.

0 Replies

dys is our resident radical moderate, he claims to be an anarchist though.

0 Replies

Actually Brand X, I was given the title of "anarchist" by a former participant on a2k and never attempted to dispute it. (I would admit to some degree of philosophical anarchism) I also readily admit to being pretty far left as far as US labels have any meaning (I find democrats pretty near as reprehensible as republicans. I also have very definite ideas about what role I think government at all levels should be doing for the people which, I believe, takes me out of the realm of "moderate."

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Actually Brand X, I was given the title of "anarchist" by a former participant on a2k and never attempted to dispute it. (I would admit to some degree of philosophical anarchism) I also readily admit to being pretty far left as far as US labels have any meaning (I find democrats pretty near as aprehensible as republicans. I also have very definite ideas about what role I think government at all levels should be doing for the people which, I believe, takes me out of the realm of "moderate."

Ah well, I thought you might have liked the term....but anyway...it goes back to what Finn said.....the problem with political labeling.....

0 Replies

As to the term "anarchist" it's usually a term tossed about with callous disregard for it's applicaton much the same as many of moderate and/or conservatives often use the term "communist." A perjorative with little or no supstancial meaning. Philosophical anarchism has, as a basis, the idea all government is pernicious by definition leaving the desire for freedom in constant conflict with governing. The zeal of the philosophical anarchist is rooted in the constant vigilance of minimizing intrusion on personal freedom. Any law should have, at the barest minimun, an inherent proof that it does more good for society than it detracts from personal freedom. I offer a minor example in Ralph Naders "Unsafe at any speed" expose on the Chevrolet Corvair that resulted in massive legislation essentially probiting the continued manufacture of said automobile. A philosophical anarchist such as myself would have preferred seeing legislation that tested and noted the
"unsafe" characteristics of the Corvair and made public notice thereof much like the warnings on packs of cigarettes rather than actually legislating the demise of the Corvair. Governments role should be in providing honest information and then letting the consumer make his own choice. Actual regulation should be restricted to such areas as uncontaminated foods, clean drinking water, community sewage standards etc. The preceeding are meant only as isolated examples, not comprehensive to any degree.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Thanks for explaining.

My abortion stance is pragmatic, you're right.

My gay marriage stance is owing to my interpretation of the Constitution.

My immigration stance is directed by what I believe to be the essence of the founding of this country. Wouldn't the immigration and gay marriage things really be the conservative opinion? Based on our founding documents and our method of birth as a country?

Anybody?

Then you are a conservative and not a "moderate."

This is my point.

You may come to the same conclusion as a Liberal, but if you do so through a pattern of conservative thought, you are conservative, not moderate.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I'm always amazed how apparently eager some people are to be offended (slightly or otherwise).

Did you think I was offended?

Yes, based on a comment to the effect of : I realize that Finn will consider this uninteresting...If I was wrong, I am pleased.

Quote:
Again, I have repeatedly indicated that I believe that we (societies and governments) need moderates: balance and stability are good, and moderates are not necessarily uninteresting, they are simply less interesting (to me) than partisans.

And I am (repeatedly) agreeing with you.

Except, and I don't want to flog the dead horse here, that uninteresting is not the same as less interesting.

Quote:
I don't know if you listen to NPR or have heard their relatively new segment "This I Believe." It's a bit where people ( famous and ordinary) make a two or three minute statement on what it is they believe. Recently they featured a reporter for the Washington Post (I can't recall his name) who is, clearly, a political moderate. He didn't attempt to argue that such a position is preferable to any other but just wished to describe what it meant to him to be a moderate. I don't know if they keep these clips at their website, but you might wish to check and see. If you do listen to his tone of voice and demeanor.

I don't know if I think it is superior or not to be a moderate and will go and look for the clip because I find things like that interesting. I suppose I think it is best for me, but that's because it suits my personality.

Perhaps you don't consider moderate to be superior, but many, clearly, do. By my definition, moderate is clearly not superior, but merely a mid-point on the spectrum.

Perhaps my tone was unclear in my previous post. I don't take offense at anything you've said (in this thread anyway :wink:) and was merely being blunt. The first paragraph was an attempt to illustrate what I thought you meant by your description of "moderate". And the question "is this what you mean" was simply for clarification that I had the right take on your definition.

While I only occassionaly seek to offend, I realize that there are times when I do; without intent. I apologize for neither , although I regret the latter. I'm not really sure how one can be offended on A2K.

0 Replies

Good Grief, Aren't there any Moderates here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know