What is a moderate?

Right now, as I see it, we have 3 main political stances in this country: conservative, moderate, liberal/progressive.

At this stage, I'm curious as to definitions. For instance, I consider myself an extreme liberal/progressive, but I don't know why, except that I'm opposed to the Bush administration. To me, everything that is right and good in this country came from liberals; I can't think of anything conservatives did that was good that wasn't also something a liberal would have done, or that doesn't follow conservative dogma (for instance, Eisenhower's Interstate highway system). I also can't think of anything conservatives stand for that I agree with.

But what really gets me is the term "moderate". What does this mean? Liberal on some things, conservative on others? Wishy-washy? Unable to take a stand on anything? What?

And who are these people who are "undecided", anyway?

There are more than two or three sides in this country.

If someone believes in small government, low taxes, marijuana legalization, pro-choice, but thinks that global warming isn't proven, evolution should be taught over creationism, but we should still have school prayer.

Exactly how do you classify that person?

3 general categories. Leftish, rightish, centrish?

Would there be someone out there who believes evolution should be taught over creationism but still believe in school prayer?

The believe that there should be school prayer before school, and that if someone doesn't want to participate the shouldn't have to, but that it won't hurt them. They think it's part of our national history.

They also think creationism should be taught in a theology class, or a social studies class, but not a science class. They support science, but they still believe in god.

Anyway I think the political compass is more acurate, four 'zones'.

Socially Conservative, Fiscaly Conservative - Republicans
Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative - Libertarians
Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal - Green Party
Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal - Stalinist

The Democrats are actualy in the Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative quadrant.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Since when are Republicans fiscally conservative?

And how do the zones help categorise your friend who's for school prayer but liberal in everything else?

AT least it's a 2 dimensional representation. In reality there have to be hundreds or thousands of little representations, but this is far better than just Conservative Liberal or somewhere in between.

As far as the Republicans I agree that they are not acting fiscally conservative. In that sense I think the Republican party has moved to the upper left quadrant and is sharing it far more to the middle now to where Hitler was. Highly Authoritarian, and moving to the left fiscally. I think it's a good system, but you have to understand that it's a fluid one and the parties move around. Heck 140 years ago the Republicans were the progressive party in this country.

AS far as my friends, I had them actually take this test and they each scored within 1 of the mid point. So in that sense they were very centrist. If that's what a moderate is, then so be it.

and decide based on its merits and overall plusses and minuses.

In other words, not a lock-step drone.

It's possible for a person to do this on each issue, and yet every time come up with the liberal/progressive (or conservative) position because of their personal beliefs. I think one of the great myths of the "moderate" is that they consider each issue on it's merits while liberal/progressive or conservatives march in lockstep. Provided people always vote their conscience (and we know that doesn't always happen), it really comes down to a person's personal beliefs. A "moderate" who sides with the conservatives on some issues and sides with the progressives on others just has beliefs in the merits of one ideology or the other on a particular issue, but that person is still voting based on their beliefs. While you could consider this person a moderate based on a sum of all their positions, as far as any individual position goes, these people are either progressive or conservative on any given issue. A "moderate" who constantly seeks a compromise between the two on every issue isn't really voting based on any personal beliefs, they're just trying to move things along. The world does need people like this in order to get things to actually happen, but they usually don't make good leaders.

A "moderate" who constantly seeks a compromise between the two on every issue isn't really voting based on any personal beliefs, they're just trying to move things along. The world does need people like this in order to get things to actually happen, but they usually don't make good leaders.

I'm not aware of anyone like this nor anyone who claims to be. Any examples?

The nuclear option/judicial filibuster issue would be a decent example. There were those who believe that democrats had the right to filibuster judicial nominations and there were those who believe that they did not, and to avoid it they would "just" in changing the senate rules to avoid it. Then, there were those on both sides who didn't really take a position on either and created a compromise to get things to move along. No one ever really claims to be one of these people, because it makes them seem wishy-washy, but they are out there.

In the "don't ask, don't tell" issue, there were 2 sides of the issues. Gays should or should not be in the military. The compromise that was made was a half-assed cop-out because the the Big Dog didn't have any deeply held beliefs on either side of the issue, but needed to address it (in my opinion anyway).

In the end, it can always be claimed that a compromise was 100% political and had nothing to do with anyones beliefs, but there is a reason why it is always the same few people that always seem to broker the compromise.

I asked for examples of people that are as you described.

John McCain, Olympia Snow, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mark Prior and going back further Henry Clay, Neville Chaimberland, and Gerald Ford to name a few. That's not to say that these people were always willing to compromise, but in many cases they were.

your quote:

A "moderate" who constantly seeks a compromise between the two on every issue isn't really voting based on any personal beliefs, they're just trying to move things along.

Shall we pull up the voting records of all you named?

It's not really "constantly" and "every" issue. Pull up the voting records if you like and research the issues. But these seem to be the same names that seem to keep comming up whenever there is a deal that really doesn't seem to make either side happy.

Do you disagree that there are some people out there who seek a compromise above victory on many issues?

Do you believe that when they do compromise, they are going against some deeply held belief that they have?

...especially when there is a stalemate. Compromise has and always will be a political reality. The opposing extremes owe moderates in these instances a bit a gratitude because without them - one extreme agenda would be win the day. You'd prefer that if it were YOUR agenda, but in our case today, it would not be your agenda. Better to get some of what you want than none at all.

But let's take your theory further. Let's skip examining the voting records of those you named because we both know what they are. Let's instead examine the voting records of a few liberals you believe are above compromise and have never done it.

What I said was that it is not a political ideology. My point was (and perhaps I didn't say it correctly) that there are some people who consider themselves moderates because they support certain issues that are considered progressive and other issues that are considered conservative. This doesn't really make them a moderate on any specific issue, but when you look at their opinions in total, they're somewhere between both sides. There are other people who consider themselves moderate because they don't have an opinion, or not a strongly held opinion on issues, are are willing to compromise because they don't have a strong belief one way or the other. In one case, their ideology is made up of issues from both sides so they're not really a moderate on the issues. In the other case, there's no ideology there at all.

there are some people who consider themselves moderates because they support certain issues that are considered progressive and other issues that are considered conservative. This doesn't really make them a moderate on any specific issue, but when you look at their opinions in total, they're somewhere between both sides.

Right. And that is what makes them a moderate.

There are other people who consider themselves moderate because they don't have an opinion, or not a strongly held opinion on issues, are are willing to compromise because they don't have a strong belief one way or the other.

I don't know a single person who fits this description who call themselves "moderate."

who doesn't have an opinion on most political topics? Good for you, most of my friends are pretty apolitical on almost every issue, which makes political discussions with them very boring. I'm not necessarily talking about politicians here, just political ideologies.

As far as making them moderate, I see what you mean. That seems to be the common usage of moderate now anyway. Personally, and maybe it's just me, I've always considered someone who has a wide variety opinions on both sides of the aisles to be not specifically affiliated with either ideology but not necessarily "moderate". As I see it anyway, a moderate is someone who is somewhere between both sides on most issues.

I guess it really depends on how you define moderate, which is why we seem to have the disagreement on that point.

Edited: When I read it back I thought I kind of sounded like an ass, which was not my intention, so I reworded it a little.

Bill Clinton is a moderate. He's definitely not apolitical.

Nah, you didn't sound like an ass. I wouldn't have noticed anyway.

Whatever they are, I still have no idea what "moderate" really means in the Political Realm today.

I am genuinely asking this question. Everything I think of as real progress was considered radical in its' own time - all Labor laws, the entire "New Deal," Civil Rights Legislation.

It seems to me that the current Health Care crisis is a good example of the futility of "moderates" and "incremental" change. All over this Country thousands - maybe millions - of activists have spent endless valuable time and energy on getting a little more health care for a few more people. And all that happens is that ten people get some health care over here, while ten others lose their coverage over there. We still have the highest infant mortality in the Industrial world and the worst record on providing basic health care for our citizens. There are still forty or so million uninsured.

Had we all spent that time and energy on fighting for Universal health care - over the past fifteen or more years, maybe we'd have gotten somewhere.

It looks to me like how "things get done" by "moderates is to end up with a little amelioration here and there of intolerable injustice, just enough to keep large numbers of people on the do-nothing side of real, meaningful change.

:thumbsup:

Conservative: One who will do anything to get elected. Nothing is too nefarious, too sleazy, too immoral if it furthers that goal. The welfare of the country is totally out of the question. When caught, deflects blame to the liberals.

Moderate: One who will do almost anything to get elected. Morals are important, but rules can be bent and friends or country's welfare can be ignored if the election goal can be furthered. Especially eager to make compromises with totally amoral conservatives. Totally ignores progressives. When caught, deflects blame to the liberals.

Liberal: A person who adheres first to principle and country, building solutions from the source and carrying them out so that accountability is built in. When caught, accepts responsibility.

I consider myself a moderate because I agree with 'liberals', and I want to drag the term back from the right where it's been abducted to. I also am not comfortable saying that, say, PETA, or the Nation of Islam, or a Communist group 9sorry, don't know any names) speaks for me, though Cindy and Howard and Dennis sure do.

as I figured it, your definition should read something more like this:
Moderate: someone who will never be good enough for a DUer, no matter what they believe in, because they're not perfect, and can't be because they're human. Someone DU hates, even when they agree with progressive causes, because they support gun laws/don't support gun laws/are religious/aren't religious/voted for the war because of intel they had at the time even if once they learned differently they opposed it/whatever whatever whatever

For all the good this place does, it does a lot of damage too by making us hate each other, making everyone else liberaler-than-thou and by god i'm tired of it. shit, i'm gonna go take another Xanax. maybe if I do a Laura Bush style OD, i can get all Joker-y and I won't have to want to cry every time I come here and see all the hate for people who just want to help, even though they're not radicals.

But I'm not sorry for my opinion. Please let me clarify it.

These political moderates (of which you probably do *not* belong) are not so much ideological moderates as they are appeasers. The type of people I mean are Lieberman, Chaffee, McCain, etc. who would make a deal with the devil to further their careers. They will vote substantially against their constituents' interests in order to satisfy some perverse need to appease to the seat of power. That's not acting on principle, it's acting on opportunity. There's no room in government for people like this.

Putting it another way, it is not that they are conservative ideologically, it's that they let their ideology blind them to the very brutal fact that these lunatics on the other side are not their friends and are not looking out for the welfare of the country, let alone the welfare of its citizens.

I have a healthy respect for true conservatives. I have voted for many in my over 35 voting years. Although I am a liberal, I do not necessarily look at conservatives as a threat. But these neocons are demonstrably evil and a threat to this country and this world. Many ideological moderates are responsible representatives for their constituency. But regardless of ideology, I cannot stomach appeasement. It's the most insidious of betrayals.

It turns my stomach when the same group of moderates are always so willing to sell the interests of their constituency down the river for some political expedient. I wouldn't object to it once in a while, but every time there's a controversy it's the same appeasing bunch.

Just maybe things would turn out okay if people simply let things go and stop interfering. Maybe this country needs a shake-up or two to get it back on its feet. Maybe a Constitutional Crisis or two will open some eyes to what is really going on here. That's what it took in 1973. I think we may have to go through that again for things to come out right. I dred the consequences of postponing small but critical perturbances so that things build up to an completely avoidable catastrophic event. I am very worried where appeasement will take us.

somebody who takes polls to determine what position to take on every issue so they can point to the poll and proclaim they are "normal and maintstream" while everybody to the left is an extremist. they hold no political philosophy except remaining in power or winning.

I should stress that I have no problems with ideological moderates, or even ideological conservatives. It's the political actions of some ideological moderates that turn me off.

convictions and are not as shallow as I make them out to be. i was being snarky at the time. How they BEHAVE makes it seem like my crude and unfair stereotype is true at times.

I know many principled moderates who I would gladly support without reservations. Former Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-KS) is one. So I would not presuppose that just because somebody's a moderate they would be like the spineless appeasers that appear now and then in the halls of Congress. I'm not too worried about individual votes. I am more worried about the behind the scene deals which undermine democracy and the accountability to their constituents. Above all, I despise the appeasement, the hubris of some of these people that the problem must be resolved by dealing with the devil.

But not all moderates are like that.

i agree with you, those 'moderates' give people like me a bad name!

You, too can be a Moderate! Always be on the side that's winning! Take expedient, prudent viewpoints in any political debate! And, last but not least, when asked your political affiliation, you can say "Independent"!

moderate: Someone who is reasonable.

liberal: Someone who is white and upper middle class anyways, so it doesn't matter to them if the Republicans win, so they can go around looking idealistic while trying to tank the Democrats.

Mine are the correct definitions, and yours are the wrong ones.

I can tell that you are a moderate by my strictly political definition. The "Blame the liberals" is the give-away. It's the one characteristic you share with the neocons.

It's a most immoderate and unreasonable position to take.

...if your definitions were the right ones, but they are the wrong ones.

than you are correct. I cannot support your point of view. Note that this is different than taking a position on an issue, or of voting for your constituency. I'm talking about going around the issue and undercutting others with whom you disagree.

A case in point--the fillibuster deal. That was the sleaziest sort of underhandedness I have ever witnessed. A minority cut the rug out from their compatriots and preempted the solution to a very important issue. Now there is no resolution to a very dangerous situation which can and likely will visit this country again. Next time it may not be safe to have such a stand-off. The stakes could be something far more important than a court appointee. But we won't have resolved the issue because some minority decided that it was better to get along than resolve the problem. Get this, moderates, the problem ain't yet solved. The only thing accomplished was that the bad guys got what they wanted (the judicial appointments) and the bad guys can still spring the nuclear option on the country any time they damned well please. Well, next time the stakes may be considerably higher. The easier early victory may very well have been traded off for a very difficult victory later.

That's what appeasement gets you. NOTHING.

Most liberals I know are black and poor, hell, I'm white and poor, so what the hell do you know. You describe the republicans, not liberals.

You don't think a large contingent of people truly have conservative beliefs? Just because the term has been somewhat hijacked by assholes like bush and delay who are whores that would do anything for money and power does not mean there aren't people who truly believe a conservative government would be the best thing for this country just as you believe a liberal government would be best.

just to the left of moderate. Unfortunately, the rest of the country is fairly conservative from my viewpoint, which makes me in comparison to the rest of the country, very liberal. :)
Honestly, I don't consider myself to be on either side really. I just follow common sense and I think things through to figure out what's best. And in just about every issue, I end up siding with the liberal side after I've thought it through. That should say a lot right there about the state of liberalism and conservatism in this country right now.

I'm a skeptic. I'm a raging skeptic. I take a long hard look at every single issue, and I'm virtually always on the liberal side of things, through logic if nothing else.

I guess I'm wondering if "moderate" isn't just a cover for "not very partisan" or, even worse, "not that involved." My Republican sister has actually admitted that, had she the time and energy to do the reading I do, she'd probably be a Democrat now. Sheesh.

like not forcing other people to live by laws created by ONE person's view of a religion.
Which is why I can not in good conscience vote for any republican, as long as they are supported by and to some extent controlled by the religious right.
I'm registered as independant, because I don't completely agree with the dems in every issue. However, I will continue to vote dem if only to fight against the current republican party.

I think we should start a new party called the "truth" party. Its open and transparent, all the people can see what's going on within it. Dedicated to helping everyone and serving up the "truth"

In Skinner's definition, it would be someone who doesn't generate controversy and division on DU, as is usually stipulated in calls for new moderator volunteers, which is one of the reasons I never apply.

DU made me a moderate!

our party alone.

I haven't analyzed the Republican demographics, but I'd imagine that they have at least three, as well.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Moderate

Moderate
From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia.


Moderate
A moderate is someone who balances their position with the position of those around them, thereby reaching if not a center point, a kind of stable equilibrium which is able to balance opposing viewpoints. A moderate typically avoids partisan positions or does not consistently side with any one political party or ideology in taking positions. Some "moderates" are politically apathetic and use "moderation" as a way to average the advice of experts as presented to them in the various media. Such voters often place more emphasis on the personality of a candidate than his or her issue positions. When legislative bodies are fairly evenly balanced, as is the case now in the U.S. Congress, moderates hold the power to decide most partisan issues.

Actually, I take that back. Moderates DO exist. It's just that no one believes in them anymore. When a liberal sees a moderate all they see is a conservative. When a conservative sees a moderate, he just sees a liberal.

They are seen as everybodies foes, denied safe harbor in hopes they'll dissapear forever.

Or so it seems.

;) i like this:

"They are seen as everybodies foes, denied safe harbor in hopes they'll dissapear forever."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/moderates-radicals.html

Moderates and Radicals
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

In all times of state dominance, the instability of the system gives rise to two types of reformers: the moderates who want to work within the system but end up defending it, and the radicals who have the clarity to see that the only real solution is upheaval. If the latter prevail – and they often have in the history of politics – it is only after having endured the slings and arrows of the former.

* * *

Let’s consider an example.

A radical says: get the troops out of Iraq now! The implicit message is: the state cannot be trusted, the troops are causing trouble rather than helping, the US never should have invaded, and almost everything you hear from the government about this war is a lie.

A moderate reformer says: yes, get the troops out, but not yet. The implicit message is: we can trust the state to make the right judgment about when to leave, for now the troops are performing a service of some value, the invasion has done some good and we should complete the job, and the state is right that it is a source of some degree of order and justice in Iraq.

Now, this is a small change in words and political orientation that masks a massive difference in world view. The radical doesn't trust the state to reform itself. The moderate does. The radical does not seek the state's favor. The moderate depends wholly on it.

History, I believe, is on the side of the radical, for the moderate wants to play it safe. Now, for the most part, the moderate is a harmless creature, neither here nor there in terms of the overall direction of history, except in the following sense: he is useful to the powers-that-be as an instrument to keep the radicals in line.

This is precisely the role that the moderate critics of the Iraq War are now playing. They are blasting away at the antiwar crowd on the ostensible grounds that they too want to end the war, but we are making it harder for them to do so. What they are saying is that they favor the troops staying up until a certain point. This is the same as siding with the warmongers, just with different rhetoric.

* * *

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/moderates-radicals.html

Now, by today's measures, I am a far left looney liberal. But I have always considered myself to be a moderate. I'd consider an avowed Marxist as an extremist (not that I'd hate that person, but use the term extremist just to place a Marxist on the political spectrum). I would similarly consider a facsit as an extremist.

I am for a universal standard of living (includes healthcare, education, nutrition, education, housing, etc., etc.)

I am for all rights to privacy.

I am for a strong defense, but vehemently opposed to adventitious wars or any form of empire.

I am for a balanced budget.

I am for progressive taxation.

I am for capitalism with controls

I am for an independent media

Etc. .......

Again ..... I think I'm moderate. But by today's standards, I am seen as a left wing lunatic.

Words mean everything and words mean nothing. We have all be redefined by the right wing noise machine.

I'm a moderate in the sense that it depends on the tenor of the times, what or who I vote for. I could have easily have voted for Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Eisonhower and yet I prize FDR and LBJ's (Great Society). I think at this point in history we have pulled so far right that our party even skews a little right. For me I would like to see more politicians like Paul Wellstone and Jim Jeffords. I don't believe in a one party system, so if there was a corrupt candidate on either side I would not vote for him just for the Party's sake. In short I would vote for the best woman/man for the job with the best ideas on how to solve the problems at hand. Perhaps moderates can best be described as independent thinkers or mavericks in the best sense. I can't agree more with husband2sparkly's post.

who for some reason doesn't want to admit it.

People who identify as a moderate tend to see themselves as more reasonable, in touch with reality, less ideologically driven, etc. In their opinion, non-moderates are ideologically dogmatic, out of touch with reality, malcontent, unreasonable, etc.

People who don't identify as a moderate tend to see moderates as spineless, amoral, ignorant to a harsh reality that only the non-moderates and those who believe as they do are privy to understanding, craven cowards who seek to curry favor with as many people as possible by selling out, etc.

Labels are too often an excuse to avoid honest discussion, IMO.

Edited to add: I think these stereotypes of both moderates and non-moderates are mostly unhelpful. People can be truly principled moderates (to be "principled" does not necessarily mean that one holds the same principles--or values them to the same degree--as you) as much as they can be reasonable and realistic without holding positions that are largely considered "moderate".

Moderates see a classless and for some reason a largely racistless society, a basic denial of reality. They are usually the loudest to proclaim that we shouldn't wage "Class Warfare" or anything of that sort, and critisize liberals for pointing out systematic racism.

or a little injustice, or a little infringement on Civil Liberties...as long as it means MY Party stays in/gains power or MY job is saved or MY child gets the good education and health care.

It is only the safe and comfortable (or those who consider the safe and comfortable to be their birthright and any lack therof a temporary anamoly) who have the luxury to be "moderate" about Civil Liberties (including Institutionalized Racism), or Universal Health Care, or fair funding for Public Schools.

It is only the Comfortable who can afford to believe that "a little" Institutionalized Poverty is OK...as long as me and mine arn't the ones stuck in it. Only the Comfortable who can afford to think that "a little" deadly Pollution is OK as long as "I" can buy my water bottled and "I" don't live next to the Chemical Plant.

All I can forsee is "Moderates" proclaiming their reasonableness, proclaiming their "incremental" "victories" until

THEY are forced to bear or not bear children at the will of the State.

THEY are pilloried for the "crime" of a consensual sexual act with an adult.

THEY are thrown in jail for an injudicious comment.

THEY are gasping for clean air and watching their children die of water-bourne disease.

THEY are dying of treatable disease because "comfortable" can no longer afford to buy health care.

To be "moderate" in support of injustice, racism, oppression, and environmental disaster is to cling to an illusion of power and control while the noose is tightening around your neck.

...usually hated by wingnuts on both sides.

are far right almost fascist but like Chirac, quasi-facist are a bit afraid of angering the people overly. Neocons are extreme right Fascists or as Mussolini said more rightly called Corporatists).

keep it as elementary as possible.

There are really two-types of moderates

1.Republican Moderate: RARE at best
This is someone who is possibly religious,generally supports their party,but is not so stuck on stupid that they believe everything that the Republicans spew out.The may live in urban cities and are exposed to the real america: the diverse America.So,they are not quick to judge because they may actually know some liberals and may have friends who are liberals and get a long with them.They are also open to others "lifestyles" and will accept them, until it's time to vote.Then,the RED shows.

2.Democratic Moderate: More common than a Repub Moderate
This person is also possibly religious,generally liberal and supports their party.They try not to fit into the liberal stereotype by openly expressing their religious views as well as note that they realize that everyone has a right to their own beliefs.They may not agree with homosexuality or abortion, but when it comes time to vote,they know the difference between the bible and the Constitution.They will vote democratic because they believe every American has a right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's what I think

it means you compromise with ''statist'' corporate outlooks.

those are the philosophies that are warring on the poor and middle classes not just in this country but all over the what we think of as the west.

moderates support a kind of totalitarianism.

Truth is the goal for progressives. We don't
wait for others to catch up to speak out on
what we've found to be true. Politicians
may avoid the truth to protect their jobs, but the
ones we give our time, money and energy to
are the ones who find the truth and their
votes reflect it.

I'm considered an ultra leftest. It seems that it depends where you are.

The first kind of moderate is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. The second kind of moderate won't take a stand on issues or takes seemingly conflicting stands because they think it will get them votes or campaign contributions. That, however, does not make you a moderate. That makes you a whore.

I'd say that the true moderates are Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The center has really shifted rightward. I'd be considered left, but not extreme in a regular environment. I think Specter is really a mainstream conservative - not a moderate.

NT!