The Case For Moderation

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Moderation, ratiocination, careful thoughtfulness and analysis of the future......found in one of the two parties.


1.Just one example of the brilliance of our Founders is that they aimed to make certain that change didn’t occur too quickly….as in the words of the song:

“Slow down, ya’ move too fast….”

.




2. A defining difference between conservatives and Liberals/Democrats is how each views change.

Liberals/Democrats are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

From Eric Hoffer in The True Believer, “…people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world land would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.”



3. Moderation is embedded in the law of the land, our Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers—in the eighteenth century—had a very different view of democracy from that of their contemporary revolutionary colleagues in France. There, Enlightenment philosophers felt that it was the duty of government to heed what they called the “general will.” So they developed a political system in which there were no checks and balances, but the popular will ruled the day. Every day.

By contrast, our Founders were skeptical of the “general will,” and worried that it could be too easily inflamed by passion and prejudice. So they developed a constitutional system designed to enable—but also to thwart—the popular will by making it wait until after passions had cooled to be enacted.

This suspicion of the general will led to their decision to stagger the terms of presidents, senators, and congressman so that one election could not completely change the government. While congressmen—the core of representative democracy—were elected every two years, senators were elected every six, and presidents every four.” Dick Morris, “The Return”




The Constitution is the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by. This doesn’t apply to Democrat voters, as that party is not an American party, but a European creation.

Note how often the Democrats have ignored the powers that the Founders gave to the central government, and, most recently, in the 2020 election, in order to steal the election.
 
Last edited:
Thank a Liberal

1663166208055.jpeg
 
4. The law of the land, the Constitution, can be changed if we find it out of date.



“The view behind originalism is that the rules for the founding of America are in said document. This is not to say that they cannot be changed: the Constitution’s writers anticipated a need for alteration, and included it in “Article V, which sets forth the amendment process, is the key to the Constitution's success. It establishes a process where adding amendments is not too easy, which would make the Constitution more like statutory law and less permanent—but also not too difficult, which would make violent revolution more likely.

A proposed amendment must pass a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or if two-thirds of the states petition Congress, a new constitutional convention can be called to consider amendments. In any event, three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a permanent part of the Constitution.”
https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/we-the-people/damendment-process/



This is not a quick process…..and again we see the value of moderation in the Founder’s design.
But Democrats find it far more simple to nominate activist judges who insert their Left's views over that of the Constitution.


Recently, the Supreme Court gave a nod to the Constitution, deciding that abortion was not in the Constitution, so it came under the 10th amendment, the control to the states.



One must ask, if most Americans actually desire abortion/infanticide to be national law......why haven't they initiated an amendment in all the years since 1973?
Perhaps they know it would fail.
 
There is no resemblance between "Liberals" from our history and the "Liberals" of today. I'm old enough to remember when Liberals were rational, anti-establishment and inclusive. They would say "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Now Liberals say "Death to all who disagree with me!!!!"
 
There is no resemblance between "Liberals" from our history and the "Liberals" of today. I'm old enough to remember when Liberals were rational, anti-establishment and inclusive. They would say "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Now Liberals say "Death to all who disagree with me!!!!"

A Liberal, is a Liberal, is a Liberal

They look at challenges and seek ways to address them. Been that way throughout history
 
There is no resemblance between "Liberals" from our history and the "Liberals" of today. I'm old enough to remember when Liberals were rational, anti-establishment and inclusive. They would say "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Now Liberals say "Death to all who disagree with me!!!!"



Thank you, but your post is gilding the lily......that poster is the most prodigious liar on the board, and lies about everything.....starting with his avi title.
 
Deflect from what?

You didn’t even read Political Chics OP, did you?
Most people don’t
No, I read it, did you? It's talking about making change slowly instead of recklessly or impetuously. You ran off into the weeds yammering about the things that liberals came up with and didn't even bother to talk about how long it took to get some of those things.
 
JFK lowered the top rate by 26 percentage points. I will accept that, will you?
Why did JFK lower tax rates?
Because we were in a post WWII era and taxes had been raised to pay for the war
 
Why did JFK lower tax rates?
Because we were in a post WWII era and taxes had been raised to pay for the war
So, super high tax rates really didn't have much to do with making America a wonderful place to live in the years after the war. Then why the incessant wailing that we need to take the majority of what a person earns away from them? Even serfs in the Middle Ages didn't have to pay those kinds of rates.

And yeah, I like the idea of lowering tax rates by more than 20 points.
 

Forum List

Back
Top