Middle of the road? Is that good?

[colehart]

Why is being a "centrist" (middle of the road) person more appealing than taking a particular side? A centrist is neither "hot" nor "cold". Neither "right" nor "wrong". Neither "left" nor "right". Why would someone want a President like that? Indecisive is not something you want(or should want) in a leader!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by colehart
Why is being a "centrist" (middle of the road) person more appealing than taking a particular side? A centrist is neither "hot" nor "cold". Neither "right" nor "wrong". Neither "left" nor "right". Why would someone want a President like that? Indecisive is not something you want(or should want) in a leader!

I think centrist means that your willing to take severe hits to your values system in order to get along and form alliances large enough to get a lot accomplished. Unfortunately, oftentimes the amount of freedom of the citizens varies inversely to the number of government accomplishments.

 

[wonderwench]

Because politicians are there to represent all of their consituents, not just the fringe. Good centrists realize that they have to build consensus and that each "faction" is going to have to give up some of its agenda in order to arrive at solutions for the entire society.

Dogmatic extremists are generally unable to build consensus - so they resort to the politics of personal destruction in order to destroy the opposition.

 

[5stringJeff]

My experience has been that a "centrist" or a "moderate" is someone who has no real value system and is easily swayed by a nifty-sounding argument or campaign mailer. Liberals and conservatives, whether right or wrong, have a value system that makes them liberal or conservative. Moderates, in my experience, do not. But maybe I'm wrong (WW?).

 

[Aquarian]

well said ww. For instance, I don't believe in gun control at all, but I'd make the compromise to ban assault rifles in exchange for more freedom to carry handguns. (besides, if assault rifles are actually needed you can get them off the black market...).

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
My experience has been that a "centrist" or a "moderate" is someone who has no real value system and is easily swayed by a nifty-sounding argument or campaign mailer. Liberals and conservatives, whether right or wrong, have a value system that makes them liberal or conservative. Moderates, in my experience, do not. But maybe I'm wrong (WW?).

The best way I can explain "moderate" is to think of John Nash's Equilibrium Equation. We live in a community with others. Balancing our self-interest with that of others results in a benefit to all. Extremists, IMO, are so self-absorbed that they are willing to destroy the well-being of the community at large (and themselves, although they fail to realize it) by insisting on Their Way Or The Highway.

A reasonable person chooses his battles carefully - and has a hierarchy of values. One doesn't adhere to a subordinate value if it injures a more important one.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The best way I can explain "moderate" is to think of John Nash's Equilibrium Equation. We live in a community with others. Balancing our self-interest with that of others results in a benefit to all. Extremists, IMO, are so self-absorbed that they are willing to destroy the well-being of the community at large (and themselves, although they fail to realize it) by insisting on Their Way Or The Highway.

A reasonable person chooses his battles carefully - and has a hierarchy of values. One doesn't adhere to a subordinate value if it injures a more important one.

Agreed. And I have met some very self-absorbed people who believe in their cause regardless of the facts. However, most of the hard-core Republicans I know (or Democrats, for that matter) are not like that at all.
And I agree with your heirarchy of values statement. That's how I determine my own position on many issues.

 

[acludem]

Everyone wants to be a "moderate". No one wants to be called an "extremist" Centrists have strong values as well, they just fall in between those on either side of the spectrum. I consider myself to be center-left. There are extremists in both parties, but they are no more or less passionate than those in the middle, such as Joe Lieberman (D), Jim Jeffords (I), and Lincoln Chaffee (R).

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I always thought it just meant that you might agree with things from both sides and/or you are willing to make compromises. I didn't think it necessarily meant indecisive because I would think that even they would know exactly how they feel on just about every issue.

For those who don't like "Middle of the road" types, what do you like then? Surely you don't like extremists.

 

[5stringJeff]

Please let me clarify... what I said was that most moderates I have come across either don't have a well-defined value system, or they just don't care. If a person is a moderate, but can defend their position(s), more power to 'em.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Well apparently being the board's only vocal centrist, I suppose I should say something. Centrist doesn't mean necessarily mean we're politically apathetic or without value-system as some of the posts would suggest.

Politically being centrist means seeing the value in both sides of the spectrum. For instance, I am socially leftist, but economically rightist. At first this can seem like an oxymoron, but with a little bit of observation you can realize that both is possible.

For example, I think healthcare should be a universal right. So should welfare.... BUT I think welfare should be work-fare and mandatory if you want the check unless you are disabled.

Economically I'm pretty far on the right. I believe that taxes are necessary, but that there should be a flat tax for people rich or poor, no loopholes, incentives or crap like that. However, I do agree with many leftists that income tax should be much less and consumption should be taxed. I also think corporate taxes should be reformed to avoid double taxing on earnings. However, then again I'm very left on the environment, not because I'm a hippy, but because that I acknowledge that there is a problem and although I think I will be safe for awhile yet, I have no wish to burden future generations with my greed.

As for international relations well I was totally for the war with afghanistan because there was unequivical proof that they harboured terrorists linked to western attacks. Iraq I was opposed because I simply don't think there was case for the terrorist or WMD link. However if the US decided to go after NK or Iran (though I might wait to see what Khomeini can do to reform) I wouldn't oppose at all. However, on the war on terrorism i think

My ethos is fairness (or at least my interpretation of it) and to do so means taking or perhaps "stealing" a few thoughts from each side. It's not a devoid ideology, is an ideology that both sides have good ideas. Call it consensus if you want, but my opinions are just as strong as devouts on both the left or right.

 

[Moi]

I think I am also a centrist if the definition is that you can see both sides of an issue and vote indepentdent of party lines. I am conservative on somethings but liberal on others. I don't fit the true USA republican model because I don't conform to their views on women's rights, religious beliefs, etc.

 

[wonderwench]

I am beginning to hate the phrase "Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal" - but I do think it fits how most of us "moderates" believe.

In other words, we'd prefer for the government to stay out of our wallets AND our bedrooms.