What it means to be a moderate

[del]

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.

chattel slavery =/= child labor

if you're trying to tell me that an owner was constrained by law from doing what he wished with his own property, i have to conclude that you're either lying or stupid.

 

[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.

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.

A fine read.

What's being said is that it is the people that keep the government in check.

 

[Liability]

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.

A fine read.

What's being said is that it is the people that keep the government in check.

That's part of it. Ideally, the People are SUPPOSED to help keep the government in check. Willingly or otherwise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Moderates are wishy-washy asshats more concerned with being all things to all people than standing on a set of principles.

 

[del]

Moderates are wishy-washy asshats more concerned with being all things to all people than standing on a set of principles.

that remedial spelling class is paying off already!

 

[Mr.Nick]

Most moderates just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to be all things to all people rather than standing on principal.

That's 180 degrees of wrong in typewritten form.

The point is that a moderate / independent / centrist decides issue by issue what they believe - and sticks to it - DESPITE what the other side says. That's holding fast to principles.

Sounds like you have a strong position and believe that if others dont bend your way then they're wrong. I could be wrong about that, but just letting you know how you sound.

It's harder to be an independent than someone who just scarfs down and spits back out what one side or the other makes you think.

Meanwhile in reality libertarians stick to the constitution rather than their knee-jerk emotions..

Moderates are no different than progressives or RINO's..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Moderates are either idiots or just not mentally in the game at all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Moderates are wishy-washy asshats more concerned with being all things to all people than standing on a set of principles.

The idea of "moderates" being "in the middle" is faulty. Self-described "moderates" have strong opinions, just like everyone else.

In terms of politics, "moderates" and "independents" are interchangeable terms.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Moderates are wishy-washy asshats more concerned with being all things to all people than standing on a set of principles.

that remedial spelling class is paying off already!

Why are you taking a remedial spelling class and why did you feel the need to tell me this?

 

[Peach]

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.

chattel slavery =/= child labor

if you're trying to tell me that an owner was constrained by law from doing what he wished with his own property, i have to conclude that you're either lying or stupid.

Not so much laws as fellow slave owners; but some laws did protect slaves as PROPERTY:
Despite the respect Southerners held for the power of masters, the law -- particularly in the thirty years before the Civil War -- limited owners somewhat. Southerners feared that unchecked slave abuse could lead to theft, public beatings, and insurrection. People also thought that hungry slaves would steal produce and livestock. But masters who treated slaves too well, or gave them freedom, caused consternation as well. The preamble to Delaware's Act of 1767 conveys one prevalent view: "t is found by experience, that freed [N]egroes and mulattoes are idle and slothful, and often prove burdensome to the neighborhood wherein they live, and are of evil examples to slaves." Accordingly, masters sometimes fell afoul of the criminal law not only when they brutalized or neglected their slaves, but also when they indulged or manumitted slaves. Still, prosecuting masters was extremely difficult, because often the only witnesses were slaves or wives, neither of whom could testify against male heads of household.

Law of Manumission

One area that changed dramatically over time was the law of manumission. The South initially allowed masters to set their slaves free because this was an inherent right of property ownership. During the Revolutionary period, some Southern leaders also believed that manumission was consistent with the ideology of the new nation. Manumission occurred only rarely in colonial times, increased dramatically during the Revolution, then diminished after the early 1800s. By the 1830s, most Southern states had begun to limit manumission. Allowing masters to free their slaves at will created incentives to emancipate only unproductive slaves. Consequently, the community at large bore the costs of young, old, and disabled former slaves. The public might also run the risk of having rebellious former slaves in its midst.

Antebellum U.S. Southern states worried considerably about these problems and eventually enacted restrictions on the age at which slaves could be free, the number freed by any one master, and the number manumitted by last will. Some required former masters to file indemnifying bonds with state treasurers so governments would not have to support indigent former slaves. Some instead required former owners to contribute to ex-slaves' upkeep. Many states limited manumissions to slaves of a certain age who were capable of earning a living. A few states made masters emancipate their slaves out of state or encouraged slaveowners to bequeath slaves to the Colonization Society, which would then send the freed slaves to Liberia. Former slaves sometimes paid fees on the way out of town to make up for lost property tax revenue; they often encountered hostility and residential fees on the other end as well. By 1860, most Southern states had banned in-state and post-mortem manumissions, and some had enacted procedures by which free blacks could voluntarily become slaves.

Other Restrictions
In addition to constraints on manumission, laws restricted other actions of masters and, by extension, slaves. Masters generally had to maintain a certain ratio of white to black residents upon plantations. Some laws barred slaves from owning musical instruments or bearing firearms. All states refused to allow slaves to make contracts or testify in court against whites. About half of Southern states prohibited masters from teaching slaves to read and write although some of these permitted slaves to learn rudimentary mathematics. Masters could use slaves for some tasks and responsibilities, but they typically could not order slaves to compel payment, beat white men, or sample cotton. Nor could slaves officially hire themselves out to others, although such prohibitions were often ignored by masters, slaves, hirers, and public officials. Owners faced fines and sometimes damages if their slaves stole from others or caused injuries.

Southern law did encourage benevolence, at least if it tended to supplement the lash and shackle. Court opinions in particular indicate the belief that good treatment of slaves could enhance labor productivity, increase plantation profits, and reinforce sentimental ties. Allowing slaves to control small amounts of property, even if statutes prohibited it, was an oft-sanctioned practice. Courts also permitted slaves small diversions, such as Christmas parties and quilting bees, despite statutes that barred slave assemblies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most moderates just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to be all things to all people rather than standing on principal.

That's 180 degrees of wrong in typewritten form.

The point is that a moderate / independent / centrist decides issue by issue what they believe - and sticks to it - DESPITE what the other side says. That's holding fast to principles.

Sounds like you have a strong position and believe that if others dont bend your way then they're wrong. I could be wrong about that, but just letting you know how you sound.

It's harder to be an independent than someone who just scarfs down and spits back out what one side or the other makes you think.

Meanwhile in reality libertarians stick to the constitution rather than their knee-jerk emotions..

Moderates are no different than progressives or RINO's..

They're worse than that. They're either idiots who are not paying attention or are lying Liberals pretending to be thoughtful

 

[manifold]

Frank Zappa was a well known moderate.

bwgd?

 

[del]

Moderates are wishy-washy asshats more concerned with being all things to all people than standing on a set of principles.

that remedial spelling class is paying off already!

Why are you taking a remedial spelling class and why did you feel the need to tell me this?

a matter of principle

Most moderates just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to be all things to all people rather than standing on principal.

 

[Peach]

that remedial spelling class is paying off already!

Why are you taking a remedial spelling class and why did you feel the need to tell me this?

a matter of principle

Most moderates just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to be all things to all people rather than standing on principal.

NOTE Del:

Accordingly, masters sometimes fell afoul of the criminal law not only when they brutalized or neglected their slaves, but also when they indulged or manumitted slaves.

 

[sealybobo]

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

What is pure left wing? I'll assume you mean things like when unions protect lazy workers. While I do admit that unions protect some workers that should be fired, they do a lot more good than bad.

As a moderate, you may not realize that everything you enjoy at your job is because of a union. Do they pay well? They only started doing that when union workers were making a lot and so non union companies had to keep up with the competition. They had to pay a fair wage to attract good candidates. Now that unions are all but dead, we don't make as much. Remember when healthcare was cheap? That was before they killed off the unions. Remember 40 hour work weeks and paid vacation days? First faught for and won by a union.

Moderates don't realize that there is class warfare going on. It has been going on since the start of our country. The day we won independence from the British was the day the corporations and the rich started trying to take over our country. Our founding fathers warned about this. And they gave the country to We the People. But today the tea baggers and libertarians like to pick and choose what the founders said. They like to omit their warnings about wealth and corporations trying to take over our democracy.

My advice is to stay interested in politics and keep seeking out the truth. The more you learn, you more you will realize the rich crashed the economy and they made a fortune doing it. And while the Democratic party isn't perfect, its the only choice if you are middle class.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank Zappa was a well known moderate.

bwgd?

Frank Zappa was a well known Libertarian

 

[Ravi]

that remedial spelling class is paying off already!

Why are you taking a remedial spelling class and why did you feel the need to tell me this?

a matter of principle

Most moderates just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to be all things to all people rather than standing on principal.

Why do you hate standing on principals?

 

[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

Still true

 

[manifold]

What makes you think conservatives and liberals don't decide issues by what they believe and stick to it despite what the other side says?

Because that notion simply doesn't hold water when you consider that they all hold the same positions, from one issue to the next.

 

[Tilly]

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

Still true

Good post. Why don't you venture out of the FZ and write like this anymore?