Hmmm. jwest's comment tells me I should maybe have added yet one more point.
5. Moderates do not lose sleep worrying about irrelevancies like whether or not one's car choice makes an appropriate political point.
:>
HemmD
· 7 months ago
polimom
Thanks for this post. Your four points certainly required some reflection on my part before I responded. Generally, it seems to me you define being a moderate not so much as a political creed like 'liberal' or 'conservative,' but as a philosophic technique for navigating political issues. If you agree with this assessment, can you help me see the difference between moderates and independents?
Also, I found it curious that three or your four points defined a moderate by what a moderate is not. Is that due to the fact that moderates have been defined by the ends of the political spectrum?
Polimom
· 7 months ago
"can you help me see the difference between moderates and independents?"
Dang. Drat. I definitely should have had a point on that -- because that's a great question, and it's been on my mind recently.
Independents can be, and often are, moderates -- but the reverse is not a given.
The recent polling showing the growth of self-declared "independents" is, I think, pretty misleading, because there are people dropping from the Republican party (I know a lot of these folks) because they're disgusted with the party in recent years. But their disgust is more along the lines of, (for example) "they didn't close the borders and kick out all the dirty illegal aliens".... or, "they expanded government, and what I really wanna see is a full return to states' rights".
I assume that there are similar movements on the left (though those shifts don't appear to be so dramatic just now).
In other words, everybody moving to the "I" column is not necessarily moderate.
"Is that due to the fact that moderates have been defined by the ends of the political spectrum?"
Yes, that's exactly why. One early draft this morning was kind of a "myth-busters" thing.
HemmD
· 7 months ago
For years, I have never felt to be a member of any party becuase to declare a preference is to be responsible for all 'official' planks in that party. For a lot of people I know, they agree with certain issues that are 'owned' by one end of the spectrum or the other. I've called myself an independent simply to keep people from assuming my position before we discuss an issue. I tend to the left (a surprise I know), but my positions hve been reached through my own analysis, not a party line. If that makes me a moderate, ok.
The greyness you talked about resonated strongly. I've often said, "Tell me one problem you have in your own life where there is only black and white solutions." Yet this is exactly what we are asked to chose between in American politics.
If a moderate is someone that uses their own intellectual rigor to arrive at a position, and
if a moderate refuses to allow the sound bite and the culture of crisis spawned by the media to drive his decisions, and
if a moderate is someone who is willing to work with disparate positions to hammer out a workable solution to common problems,
then you've helped me find a label. When's the convention? :)
Polimom
· 7 months ago
"to declare a preference is to be responsible for all 'official' planks in that party."
Yupyup. Even though I realize that isn't necessarily true, there's no escaping the fact that I disagree with at least some of each party's platform. And thus, have found it impossible to affiliate with them. I so understand you there.
"When's the convention? :)"
Oh.... don't I wish!
jwest
· 7 months ago
A bit askew from the core topic…….
For years, moderates had the best of both worlds while shopping for cars.
Conservatives thought it was their patriotic duty to “buy American”, while no liberal in good standing would be caught dead in a domestic car. Moderates, by virtue of their yellow-striped, squashed armadillo middleness, got to play both sides of the automotive street.
The tables have turned for the “extremists”.
Chrysler and GM are now a socialist experiment owned by Obama and the UAW. Toyota, Honda, BMW etc. all continue as non-union bastions of capitalism.
So, I’m sure we’ll see San Francisco and Martha’s Vineyard fill up with Chevys and Dodges. Atlanta and Houston will be overrun with Japanese and German luxury vehicles and the mushy middle will continue to drive anything they feel like without having to take a stand.
casualobserver
· 7 months ago
You can be moderate in acceptance of left/right ideology or you can be moderate in terms of political pragmatism.
Example, the abortion issue does not affect me, therefore I could go along with a variety of solutions vs. I believe there are severe moral shortcomings in people who for reasons other than rape and incest decide to abort, however, they are free to choose hell of their own volition, so if you want to make abortion more accessible, I can live with that.
shannonlee
· 7 months ago
Moderates are viewed as wishy washy people whos ideas are not based in solid ideology. This is completely false.
Moderates are people that refuse to be defined by the American versions of left or right. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, they just don't fall into "left" or "right". We need more parties. Maybe one day I will find one to which I can identify.
Don Quijote
· 7 months ago
Moderates are the people who sat on the sideline when GW Bush lied to start a war in the ME, they are the people who didn't say a damn thing when GW Bush went out and set the Gitmo, Baghram torture camps, they are the people who didn't say a damn thing when GW Bush decided to tap every phone in the country, they are the people who didn't say a damn thing when GW Bush used the Bill of Rights to wipe his ass, they are the people who did not say a damn thing when GW Bush doubled the National Debt. They are also the people who did not say a word when the Republicans decided to do whatever they could destroy the Clinton Presidency up to impeaching him but now have a problem because a Democratic President, Senate & House are attempting to clean the last twenty years of mismanagement.
Basically they are the people who will no say a damn thing as long as the right is winning, but will start whining like there is no tomorrow if the left is winning.
ThurmanHart
· 7 months ago
I have several points to make, in no particular order. When I began blogging some five years ago, I said that I began my political life as a moderate and found myself consistently defined more extremely to the left as the political pendulum swung to the right. As the left has organized and flexed a bit of muscle (not as much as they claim, though), I have found that I'm equally out of place with that band of miserable warriors. So, here I go:
1) "Moderate" is, by definition, determined by two more extreme points. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about what a moderate is without talking about what a moderate is not.
2) Our political system was founded on a series of compromises, and the design of checks and balances is meant to force our government to act slowly and deliberately - and to introduce multiple points where compromise (moderation, if you prefer) can be introduced. Anyone who thinks moderation is a bad thing should read The Federalist Papers. Particularly "Number 10."
3) Political ideologies are, in some manner, a model of reality. Like a physical model, they seek to re-create reality, but on a scale that is more easily handled. A necessary by-product of this is that some amount of detail is lost. A moderate, in my mind, remembers that some of the details left out of their favorite model are still important, and sometimes it is important to look at another model to get a better view of reality.
4) Reality is paradoxical. For example, government regulation, by definition, limits the ability of people act; therefore limiting liberty. However, without government regulation, there is only so much liberty as it allowed by the nearest person willing and able to impose their will on your actions; therefore absence of government regulation limits liberty. Extremists are too locked into their model (see above) to understand that, without a counterbalance, their prefered actions will result in the loss of liberty.
5) I find that most moderates are much more concerned with the realistic outcomes of governmental action. In part, I think this is because they are not sold out to one or another intellectual model that says this necessarily follows that. Holding the paradoxical nature of reality in mind makes one consider how one's favorite model might be wrong as well as right.
6) "Centrist" really makes no sense at all. It depends on a left-right plot that finds some people's aggragated votes as falling somewhere between the party lines. In reality, very few people are 100% party people. That means everyone is a centrist, and therefore no one is.
7) "Independent" is meaningless. Various studies have shown that those who say they are independent are actually just as partisan as those who openly join the parties. "Unaffilliated" is a better descriptor.
8) Not agreeing with a party 100% is a poor reason to forego membership. If all moderates abandoned both parties, then, by definition, the nominees would be chosen by the most extreme members of the parties. This would lead our country to lurch first one direction, then the other as the majority over-reacted and fell out of favor, and the cycle repeated with the other side. By flexing their muscle in the primary, moderates can ensure that the eventual nominee is more in line with the overall population - and our system is more stable.
9) A moderate, at very least, understands that someone can disagree with them and still be a good human being. I think that everyone, probably, has at least one topic on which they are not moderate. For me, it's torture - I really don't think someone can claim to be a reasonable person if they believe other human beings should be tortured. There's just no reason anyone can give me that would make me believe otherwise. But that's my non-negotiable belief. Other people have others.
JSpencer
· 7 months ago
Great post Polimom. I especially appreciated your observation that moderates are not dispassionate, which I think can be a common mischaracterization. My own voting history is all over the place, I've voted for republicans (pre-2000), third parties a few times, and more often democrat. I vote for issues first though, not parties. Environmental matters for example, are of great importance to me, so it isn't hard to understand why I would lean to the left these days. If republicans suddenly took up the mantle of environmentalism in a big way, suddenly developed a greater understanding and appreciation for science, and suddenly came to the realization that long term challenges need to trump short term gains, well... then I'd start voting for republicans. Other issues hold the same power. I don't vote for one party over another because I think they are "my team" or because I feel loyalty to them. I think about issues and who best represents them.
All Comments
5. Moderates do not lose sleep worrying about irrelevancies like whether or not one's car choice makes an appropriate political point.
:>
Thanks for this post. Your four points certainly required some reflection on my part before I responded. Generally, it seems to me you define being a moderate not so much as a political creed like 'liberal' or 'conservative,' but as a philosophic technique for navigating political issues. If you agree with this assessment, can you help me see the difference between moderates and independents?
Also, I found it curious that three or your four points defined a moderate by what a moderate is not. Is that due to the fact that moderates have been defined by the ends of the political spectrum?
Dang. Drat. I definitely should have had a point on that -- because that's a great question, and it's been on my mind recently.
Independents can be, and often are, moderates -- but the reverse is not a given.
The recent polling showing the growth of self-declared "independents" is, I think, pretty misleading, because there are people dropping from the Republican party (I know a lot of these folks) because they're disgusted with the party in recent years. But their disgust is more along the lines of, (for example) "they didn't close the borders and kick out all the dirty illegal aliens".... or, "they expanded government, and what I really wanna see is a full return to states' rights".
I assume that there are similar movements on the left (though those shifts don't appear to be so dramatic just now).
In other words, everybody moving to the "I" column is not necessarily moderate.
Yes, that's exactly why. One early draft this morning was kind of a "myth-busters" thing.
The greyness you talked about resonated strongly. I've often said, "Tell me one problem you have in your own life where there is only black and white solutions." Yet this is exactly what we are asked to chose between in American politics.
If a moderate is someone that uses their own intellectual rigor to arrive at a position, and
if a moderate refuses to allow the sound bite and the culture of crisis spawned by the media to drive his decisions, and
if a moderate is someone who is willing to work with disparate positions to hammer out a workable solution to common problems,
then you've helped me find a label. When's the convention? :)
Yupyup. Even though I realize that isn't necessarily true, there's no escaping the fact that I disagree with at least some of each party's platform. And thus, have found it impossible to affiliate with them. I so understand you there.
"When's the convention? :)"
Oh.... don't I wish!
For years, moderates had the best of both worlds while shopping for cars.
Conservatives thought it was their patriotic duty to “buy American”, while no liberal in good standing would be caught dead in a domestic car. Moderates, by virtue of their yellow-striped, squashed armadillo middleness, got to play both sides of the automotive street.
The tables have turned for the “extremists”.
Chrysler and GM are now a socialist experiment owned by Obama and the UAW. Toyota, Honda, BMW etc. all continue as non-union bastions of capitalism.
So, I’m sure we’ll see San Francisco and Martha’s Vineyard fill up with Chevys and Dodges. Atlanta and Houston will be overrun with Japanese and German luxury vehicles and the mushy middle will continue to drive anything they feel like without having to take a stand.
Example, the abortion issue does not affect me, therefore I could go along with a variety of solutions vs. I believe there are severe moral shortcomings in people who for reasons other than rape and incest decide to abort, however, they are free to choose hell of their own volition, so if you want to make abortion more accessible, I can live with that.
Moderates are people that refuse to be defined by the American versions of left or right. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, they just don't fall into "left" or "right". We need more parties. Maybe one day I will find one to which I can identify.
Basically they are the people who will no say a damn thing as long as the right is winning, but will start whining like there is no tomorrow if the left is winning.
1) "Moderate" is, by definition, determined by two more extreme points. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about what a moderate is without talking about what a moderate is not.
2) Our political system was founded on a series of compromises, and the design of checks and balances is meant to force our government to act slowly and deliberately - and to introduce multiple points where compromise (moderation, if you prefer) can be introduced. Anyone who thinks moderation is a bad thing should read The Federalist Papers. Particularly "Number 10."
3) Political ideologies are, in some manner, a model of reality. Like a physical model, they seek to re-create reality, but on a scale that is more easily handled. A necessary by-product of this is that some amount of detail is lost. A moderate, in my mind, remembers that some of the details left out of their favorite model are still important, and sometimes it is important to look at another model to get a better view of reality.
4) Reality is paradoxical. For example, government regulation, by definition, limits the ability of people act; therefore limiting liberty. However, without government regulation, there is only so much liberty as it allowed by the nearest person willing and able to impose their will on your actions; therefore absence of government regulation limits liberty. Extremists are too locked into their model (see above) to understand that, without a counterbalance, their prefered actions will result in the loss of liberty.
5) I find that most moderates are much more concerned with the realistic outcomes of governmental action. In part, I think this is because they are not sold out to one or another intellectual model that says this necessarily follows that. Holding the paradoxical nature of reality in mind makes one consider how one's favorite model might be wrong as well as right.
6) "Centrist" really makes no sense at all. It depends on a left-right plot that finds some people's aggragated votes as falling somewhere between the party lines. In reality, very few people are 100% party people. That means everyone is a centrist, and therefore no one is.
7) "Independent" is meaningless. Various studies have shown that those who say they are independent are actually just as partisan as those who openly join the parties. "Unaffilliated" is a better descriptor.
8) Not agreeing with a party 100% is a poor reason to forego membership. If all moderates abandoned both parties, then, by definition, the nominees would be chosen by the most extreme members of the parties. This would lead our country to lurch first one direction, then the other as the majority over-reacted and fell out of favor, and the cycle repeated with the other side. By flexing their muscle in the primary, moderates can ensure that the eventual nominee is more in line with the overall population - and our system is more stable.
9) A moderate, at very least, understands that someone can disagree with them and still be a good human being. I think that everyone, probably, has at least one topic on which they are not moderate. For me, it's torture - I really don't think someone can claim to be a reasonable person if they believe other human beings should be tortured. There's just no reason anyone can give me that would make me believe otherwise. But that's my non-negotiable belief. Other people have others.