What is this so-called "DU Moderate"?

I'm curious, as I saw a couple of threads going over the divisions here between "leftists," and "centerists," "moderates" and "liberals."

I confess, I've been referred to as one of those "moderates" in the past, usually for stepping in between the torch-bearing mob and our elected Dem leaders to counsel patience. For this reason, I'm apparently a moderate.

Not something I'd really call myself, since I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare, publicly financed campaigns, nationalizing the oil industry, siezing and liquidating any company which received a no-bid government contract, requiring that any company doing business in the United States adhere to our worker protections and minimum wages anywhere they operate, and immediately disassembling Blackwater and any other paramilitary "security" firm, using any means up to and including lethal force if necessary.

What I do consider myself is a pragmatist. Shredding the party, or sitting on our hands because we haven't gotten all of what we wanted, is not going to make the situation better. Yes, I'm disappointed in the Congressional Dems like anybody else. Unfortunately, so long as we have a narrow majority--if that--in the Senate, there's nothing that we can pass that the Repubs can't veto or block. Until and unless they're willing to accept that there's no other way but to cut off funds, that's the way it is--and I doubt they're going to do that with our Presidential candidates potentially in the line of fire.

Unless the Republicans in the Senate suddenly break lockstep--and I can't imagine what could cause them to do that now except fear of the next election--then the reality is that we're in Iraq for another 18 months.

So kindly remember folks, most DUers are here because they're not what an independent observer would call moderate, but solidly left of center. And don't mistake realism or patience for a lack of desire for change.

Or is that conservative?

But I Also Realize They Operated In Different Milieus And Political Environments..

They also didn't have to deal with Congress. :)

I've had the same thoughts. Thanks for the post.

:-)

your opinions are worthless. Ironically, those doing it, whinge about how they're the ones that are the target of an attempt to silence. That's easily given the lie, considering that any OP about how DU is really not liberal and is controlled by centrist DLC enabler villains, is on the Greatest page in mere minutes, while a post such as yours, sinks.

Furthermore, it's commoner for someone who doesn't go along with the prevailing sentiment to get labeled than the reverse.

kudos to you for a thoughtful post.

The way I've seen it work is:

a) if A calls B a moderate, B is probably a left-of-center moderate.

b) if someone self-describes as a moderate, that person is probably just barely to the left or right of cthulu (see pic below)

She needs to shut her mouth up and stop acting like a Republican. Why is Pelosi acting like a Republican?

You're just now realizing that?

is appropriate. However...Stark is correct but shouldn't talk like that on the floor...just as Cheney shouldn't have insulted Leahy. We all criticized him for that so why is it OK for Stark? Aren't we being hypocritical? However...God Bless Stark. The guy has balls.

We all demanded an apology from Rush for the 12 y.o and Phony Soldiers.

:thumbsup:

it depends on the issue.

...... who, like you, in the real world is a looney liberal.

On edit .... Glad to be R #5

However, whenever I take one of those tests to determine where you are on the political spectrum, I always end up as left or far left. I am not sure what it takes to be a moderate.

Coming from Europe, I think it is moderate to control the important industries that can affect the quality of life for millions. Regulation of the banking, transportation, energy and health service seems reasonable. Not to mention unions and workplace safety.

I do not understand why this point of view would make me a moderate.

Perhaps you should consider that those calling you a moderate don't know what they're talking about.

"Not something I'd really call myself, since I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare, publicly financed campaigns, nationalizing the oil industry, siezing and liquidating any company which received a no-bid government contract, requiring that any company doing business in the United States adhere to our worker protections and minimum wages anywhere they operate, and immediately disassembling Blackwater and any other paramilitary "security" firm, using any means up to and including lethal force if necessary."


Thanks, TheWraith.

even though it would grant immunity for thousands of felonies committed, and is in direct opposition to our constitution? Our people are doing this. We can't afford to wait 18 months. Our leaders are doing this, not because they have to. they do not have to.
(why they do I cannot answer.)

I'm right there with ya. Nice post.

and moderate on what is the question...

You might be a moderate if...you haven't started a thread with the word "Fascism" in the title.

You might be a moderate....

A pragmatist who still believes in progressive principles will FORCE the minority and the president to play by their rules if they want to get more funding for the war. One doesn't have to fight a fillibuster. One doesn't have to fight Bush's veto. One simply has to not bring a bill to the floor to be voted on until one gets what one wants in terms of language ending the war.

Apparently, either our leadership doesn't get this (which I seriously DOUBT!), or they are complicit with these folks and the DLC in continuing to try and fool us into trying to have us believe that they don't have any choice when they do!

There are other issues where perhaps one can compromise and seek out "moderate" positions. But the continued capitulation on funding the war, allowing FISA bills that screw our constitution to get to the floor is complicity and CORPORATISM, not being a "pragmatic moderate" as they are trying to falsely claim!

This is why people like us are angry with our leadership and why some claim that we are "bashing" them. We have damn good reasons to be angry to them, as they are NOT representing Democratic Party principles. And when someone says we are acting like Republicans when it is those that claim to represent us who are actually the ones that could be confused with Republicans, that also builds up our anger too!

Impeachment can NEVER be "off the table". That's violating our constitution! Now one can say we won't succeed in doing it. We may or may not. But that isn't the issue. The point is, to show that at least one party still believes in our constitution and upholding it, and by bringing it to votes FORCES those in congress to stand up and be counted on where they stand on supporting our constitutional laws. We have far more to gain both from a principled stance as well as political power in pursuing it than continuing to ignore it.

Now is not the time to act as if Hillary Clinton has already won the nomination and be "pragmatic" on voting for her in the general election. We may never get to that hypothetical point. NOW is the time to pick the representative that best represents us! And the same goes for us in the primaries for other members of congress too. Until we the people don't surrender to this so-called "inevitability" that the corporate media is trying to sell falsely as reality, we're not going to fix this corrupt system.

Albeit of the eminently practical and philosophical variety.

"in favor of single-payer healthcare, publicly financed campaigns, nationalizing the oil industry, siezing and liquidating any company which received a no-bid government contract, requiring that any company doing business in the United States adhere to our worker protections and minimum wages anywhere they operate, and immediately disassembling Blackwater and any other paramilitary "security" firm, using any means up to and including lethal force if necessary."

That's a lot of governmental power, for not having a government.

Your OP was excellent, BTW.

I (and a good number of others) view anarchism as being less about not having a government, than opposing the conglomeration of power into the hands of a few. There's always going to be some kind of government in any human society--we seem to have an in-built urge to organize. That being the case, the best solution by far is a representative government, one which in its purest form essentially IS the same as the people. One might say that an idealized anarchist-style post-scarcity society is the goal of democracy, albeit never quite in reach. Government is malleable, with no inherent qualities, doing whatever it's called upon to do. Thus, the majority of the power should rest in the people's hands via their government, rather than in the hands of those who would control the government or the financial systems for the sake of their own power, profit, or elevation. To wit, people like me exist to philosophically oppose the people like Dick Cheney.

And thanks.

"no other way but to cut off funds, that's the way it is--and I doubt they're going to do that with our Presidential candidates potentially in the line of fire."

Think about that for a minute, what Dem's would put in the line of fire? This is the corporate battle,
The unincorporated candidates, the true majority's candidates would only be validated by this kind of confrontation.
The rift is not between Democrats and Republicans, thats the corporate battle.
The rift is just as what is displayed here on DU name of the game is, find you meter.
Mine reads Kucinich all the way too the center but that center is pushed all the way to to left and truth be told there's nothing to the right of Kucinich I will rally for.
Peace!

:popcorn:

proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2087716&mesg_id=2088890



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray:

sorry--couldn't resist.

Thank goodness the cautious, non-risk-taking "moderates" did not prevail back in the 1700s or we'd still be a British colony.

The time for a revolution was several years ago and the blatant need for one grows daily. But thanks to "moderates" who still think the people in Congress are actually representing them or acting in their best interests, who still believe in that system of perks and payola, we can expect the country to plummet to shit at the hands of the junta who took over in a coup d'etat in 2000. "Moderates" simply do not recognize that war is being waged against We The People, and has been since about 1963 and that "moderation" will accomplish nothing but more of the same, in increasing intensity.

Personally I'd love for the US to be part of the commonwealth, they're all running far better than this nation begat from plutocratic slave-owners.

I prefer to think of myself a hot head, but then you're probably more effective than me in getting your views across tete-a-tete, in face-to-face debate.
I hope to see you around the board, especially if I dis-agree w/ your post, and I usually chime in; though I'm an arrogant smart-ass, I'll gladly take the time to look @ other facts that might prove my arguments weak.

You think you've cornered the market on reason, implying that anybody showing passion or anger is "unreasonable." What we're feeling are very human emotions, and contrary to Vulcan reasoning, they drive action. I think many self-proclaimed "realists" are scared as hell, and have found a more flattering label for it. Yes, we're heard insults fly in both directions. The respect here is pretty much gone.

As for the labels, nobody's smarter, nobody's dumber. We're all scared, but react differently. It's fight or flight instinct, and all the rationalization and denial that goes with each. And we all think the other way is ridiculous because our instincts tell us so. There is also a strategic difference, where the moderates still believe in a political solution within a broken system. The leftier of us are more willing to make symbolic gestures as a way to spur collective action among the people. Top-down vs. Bottom-up solution.

We all want the same ends, but we're getting lost arguing over means - when in reality we have very little control over the means if all we're doing is debating them on a message board. We're all just playing Monday morning Quarterback. We're all lost, scared and powerless - and we're all here spinning our wheels trying to figure out what's coming next and how we could make an ounce of difference. If we haven't figured that one out by now...

We need to lighten up, because however serious the situation our country is in, we're not going to solve a damn thing here. Let's just exchange ideas and information, and respect the differences that come with doing so - whether you're on a political discussion board or a PTA board - it's always a bit frustrating to work in groups. Realizing that we will not accomplish anything here kind of takes some of the pressure of, though.