What it means to be a moderate

[Shogun]

It's a matter of personal perspective. I doubt that very many people will admit that their opinions are anything but moderate.

 

[Paulie]

Considering that for the most part, both parties have been steering to the left in some way shape or form for at least the last 10 or 15 years, maybe it's time to steer a little harder back to the right.

 

[Toro]

I understand your point, but I don't completely agree.

Perhaps I should invent a new word for it, but when I say moderate in the OP, I mean someone perfectly capable of either of the two positions you've outlined and decides it on a case by case basis. There are some issues, like individual liberty for example, where I'm much more one-sided and not in favor of compromise. On the other hand, how we spend our budget is and area that demands compromise.

The term "moderate" is relative anyways. Moderate to what? Almost all conservatives would be considered leftists compared to a hundred years ago. Most centrists in America would be considered on the right in most other countries in the developed world. Many conservatives in America would be considered moderates or liberals in the developing world.

 

[manifold]

Well, your definiton of moderate is just your opinion. Mine is a fact. Ergo, I win by TKO.



I was going to say the new word could be moderpendent, but that has a derp in it.

As factual as a definition of liberal or conservative.

 

[Flopper]

I understand your point, but I don't completely agree.

Perhaps I should invent a new word for it, but when I say moderate in the OP, I mean someone perfectly capable of either of the two positions you've outlined and decides it on a case by case basis. There are some issues, like individual liberty for example, where I'm much more one-sided and not in favor of compromise. On the other hand, how we spend our budget is and area that demands compromise.

The term "moderate" is relative anyways. Moderate to what? Almost all conservatives would be considered leftists compared to a hundred years ago. Most centrists in America would be considered on the right in most other countries in the developed world. Many conservatives in America would be considered moderates or liberals in the developing world.

I would rather have a competent extremist than an incompetent moderate.
Leon Jaworski

 

[manifold]

I consider myself to be a moderate because I recognize one simple truth when it comes to pure left wing vs pure right wing political and economic philosophy: They both lead to disaster, period.

When it comes to political and economic policy I like use the analogy that running the country is like driving a car down the road. There are often curves in the road ahead that require the driver to steer more left or steer more right depending upon the circumstances. If the driver only ever steers to the right, he will eventually go off the road into a ditch. If the driver only ever steers left, he too will eventually go off the road into a ditch. And just as important if not moreso, if the driver fails to see an oncoming curve and doesn't steer appropriately, he will go off the road into a ditch.

Being a moderate means that you cannot fall in love with either left-wing nor right-wing ideology but rather recognize the strengths and weakness of each and maintain an open, objective mind when it comes to determining which direction we ought to be turning the steering wheel.

I get the sad impression from our current crop of leaders that everyone is trying to grab the wheel but nobody is looking at the road.

Sincerely,
manifold

bumped for GMU.

 

[manifold]

I understand your point, but I don't completely agree.

Perhaps I should invent a new word for it, but when I say moderate in the OP, I mean someone perfectly capable of either of the two positions you've outlined and decides it on a case by case basis. There are some issues, like individual liberty for example, where I'm much more one-sided and not in favor of compromise. On the other hand, how we spend our budget is and area that demands compromise.

The term "moderate" is relative anyways. Moderate to what? Almost all conservatives would be considered leftists compared to a hundred years ago. Most centrists in America would be considered on the right in most other countries in the developed world. Many conservatives in America would be considered moderates or liberals in the developing world.

I would rather have a competent extremist than an incompetent moderate.
Leon Jaworski

There is no such thing as a competent extremist. You might give some thought to giving some thought... rather then mining for idiotic quotes.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I concur with the op with one exception.

I believe we have been being pulled if the liberal direction for so long that it has become a natural reaction to pull so hard to the right.


I remember when my girls were growing up and the battle was similar, believe it or not. My wife simply would not teach them right from wrong. Would not hold them accountable for their actions or inactions. Let them run all over her. As such I had to pull even harder on the reins to try to keep them in line or balanced with values.

 

[Liability]

Bragging about being a so-called "moderate" is akin to bragging about being an indecisive tool.

No offense.

 

[Mac1958]

Hardcore partisans on both ends do everything they can to belittle moderates and independents because they're not so easy to attack. People who think for themselves can't be easily pigeon-holed, and partisans have to do so to launch their insults. A hardcore winger is very easy to identify and be targeted.

That, and the fact that partisans don't like to have to communicate with honest, reasonable people who aren't ideologically obligated to employ spin, hyperbole, denial, distortion and outright lies. It's much easier to fight with someone whose techniques you share.

.

 

[manifold]

Bragging about being a so-called "moderate" is akin to bragging about being an indecisive tool.

No offense.

moderate =/= indecisive

You should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[Liability]

Bragging about being a so-called "moderate" is akin to bragging about being an indecisive tool.

No offense.

moderate =/= indecisive

You should have quit while you were ahead.

Get the sand outta yer vadge, madge.

Bwahahahaha!

I fuckin' GOT ya!

 

[Peach]

A "moderate" is someone who is either too ignorant to take a stand on a political issue or too timid to voice an opinion that might not be popular with fellow ignorant moderates.

Fail.

Moderates take a stand on every issue.

Really? Why was the Civil war fought?

The conflict between a growing industrial portion of the nation versus an agrarian area dependent upon slave labor. Were "free" factory workers in the North treated better than slaves in the south?

 

[del]

Fail.

Moderates take a stand on every issue.

Really? Why was the Civil war fought?

The conflict between a growing industrial portion of the nation versus an agrarian area dependent upon slave labor. Were "free" factory workers in the North treated better than slaves in the south?

did their families get sold off on a whim?

could they be murdered for the same reason with no repercussions?

obvious fail is obvious

 

[Peach]

I understand your point, but I don't completely agree.

Perhaps I should invent a new word for it, but when I say moderate in the OP, I mean someone perfectly capable of either of the two positions you've outlined and decides it on a case by case basis. There are some issues, like individual liberty for example, where I'm much more one-sided and not in favor of compromise. On the other hand, how we spend our budget is and area that demands compromise.

The term "moderate" is relative anyways. Moderate to what? Almost all conservatives would be considered leftists compared to a hundred years ago. Most centrists in America would be considered on the right in most other countries in the developed world. Many conservatives in America would be considered moderates or liberals in the developing world.

Good point. I define moderate as not agreeing with all aspects of either parties' platforms.

 

[Ropey]

I consider myself to be a moderate because I recognize one simple truth when it comes to pure left wing vs pure right wing political and economic philosophy: They both lead to disaster, period.

When it comes to political and economic policy I like use the analogy that running the country is like driving a car down the road. There are often curves in the road ahead that require the driver to steer more left or steer more right depending upon the circumstances. If the driver only ever steers to the right, he will eventually go off the road into a ditch. If the driver only ever steers left, he too will eventually go off the road into a ditch. And just as important if not moreso, if the driver fails to see an oncoming curve and doesn't steer appropriately, he will go off the road into a ditch.

Being a moderate means that you cannot fall in love with either left-wing nor right-wing ideology but rather recognize the strengths and weakness of each and maintain an open, objective mind when it comes to determining which direction we ought to be turning the steering wheel.

I get the sad impression from our current crop of leaders that everyone is trying to grab the wheel but nobody is looking at the road.

Sincerely,
manifold

I tend to agree. It's not two parties working together as political opponents at the moment. It's diametrically opposed north and south poles responding to force with force and not much twain to meet.

 

[Liability]

By contrast, if the liberals are that far fucked up in their thinking and behavior, I contend that it is perfectly ok NOT to seek "compromise," but to instead oppose them at every turn and try to defeat them (politically that is) as far as possible.

I suppose they'd say the same (and I know they have) when the shoe is on the other foot.

Does moderation sometimes have its place?

yep.

That -- standing alone -- is not proof that so-called moderation is generally the proper position.

 

[Ropey]

By contrast, if the liberals are that far fucked up in their thinking and behavior, I contend that it is perfectly ok NOT to seek "compromise," but to instead oppose them at every turn and try to defeat them (politically that is) as far as possible.

I suppose they'd say the same (and I know they have) when the shoe is on the other foot.

Does moderation sometimes have its place?

yep.

That -- standing alone -- is not proof that so-called moderation is generally the proper position.

What's being said is that it is not the parties that keep the US in check. It's the people who are more moderate than the parties and pull them back if they get too extreme.

This is why the checks and balances were built in.

 

[Peach]

Really? Why was the Civil war fought?

The conflict between a growing industrial portion of the nation versus an agrarian area dependent upon slave labor. Were "free" factory workers in the North treated better than slaves in the south?

did their families get sold off on a whim?

could they be murdered for the same reason with no repercussions?

obvious fail is obvious

Actually, some states protected the lives of slaves as valuable property. The killing of slaves was deemed an act likely to lead to rebellion. And northern wage slavery allowed small children to be killed in factories with no sanctions.

 

[Liability]

By contrast, if the liberals are that far fucked up in their thinking and behavior, I contend that it is perfectly ok NOT to seek "compromise," but to instead oppose them at every turn and try to defeat them (politically that is) as far as possible.

I suppose they'd say the same (and I know they have) when the shoe is on the other foot.

Does moderation sometimes have its place?

yep.

That -- standing alone -- is not proof that so-called moderation is generally the proper position.

What's being said is that it is not the parties that keep the US in check. It's the people who are more moderate than the parties and pull them back if they get too extreme.

This is why the checks and balances were built in.

That can't be what's being said since "Parties" were not part of the Constitutional plan.

The Constitution did not establish a "democracy," since the Founders and Framers had enough sense to realize that a majority rule could translate into a tyrannical rule.

The notion of checks and balances was complicated and redundant. It checked a tyranny of the majority. It checked one branch against the others. It checked the Federal government against the States and the people. It checked all government against any concentrated governmental powers contrary to our fundamental rights. It also tried to avoid making the checks too over-bearing, since there was no desire to create a federal government that could not perform the very tasks we wanted it to have the power/authority to perform.

Prior to the Revolution, I believe that many of the Founders were quite understanding of their fellow colonists whose "politics" were more "loyalist" than "independence" oriented. It was not seen as an evil position to have; just wrong-headed. What they could NOT quite accept were the "moderates" who were neither for nor against independence.

And what's being said here, now -- in my view, anyway -- is that when our system has gotten this far out of whack, it is appropriate to take a strong position to rectify the situation. If you like it this way, you can advocate for more governmental interference on our liberties for the "collective" good. If you don't like it this way, you can advocate to return us as much as possible back to the precepts that took us to greatness in the first place. But a mealy-mouthed waffling position falling in that squishy gray area in-between? That crap is of no use to anybody.