What does it really MEAN when people label themselves as political "moderates"?

[Ken Burch]

Some argue that this mean that these people are anti-Right(to a small degree)and anti-Left(to a much harsher degree). This is the interpretation of the term "moderate" that the MSM is fixated with spreading and imposing on American politics.

I would argue, however, that many people who call themselves "moderates" are actually using the term, not to indicate rigid "centrism&quot the "socially slightly liberal/economically reactionary" model that the MSM and many of our Beltway Dems take it to mean)but simply as a euphemism for "sensible" or "practical". They are open to all sorts of ideas, even radical ones, and will give all ideas a real hearing if they can be presented to them as being the most practical solution to a given problem.

This is born out, I would argue, by the huge number of polls where a majority might call themselves "moderate" or "centrist", but then take positions on individual issues that are liberal or even, in many cases, radical.

Therefore, the key to getting the support of such voters is not "moving to 'the center'" as our "strategists" argue, but making a case for progressive, even radical and transformational change, as the most sensible and workable approach to the problems we face.

Discuss.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Wow. Really?

Don't over think it. Not everyone is a strident ideologist left or right.

[Ken Burch]

4. Not an ideologist...but not closed off, either.

What I'm saying is that we can actually make a case that REAL change is the most PRACTICAL course of action...that incrementalism may simply not help anything anymore.

It's about looking practical...AND about having confidence in the idea that change is actually a GOOD thing.

Assuming "moderate" means "sectarian centrist" is the path to irrelevance, because there are no ideas and no solutions in the "center"...because there isn't really a "center" at all.

[nashville_brook]

198. incrementalism... would love examples of that actually working, b/c

it seems that rapid transformation after crisis is the best traveled road to change.

[Scootaloo]

107. "Ideologist"?

I think you want to go with "Ideologue."

Sorta like the difference between "symbology" and "symbolism," as Agent Smecker would point out.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

110. Here you go

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ideologist

Although you could make the point that idealogue more closely represents what I was trying to convey, the word ideologist is clearly sufficient and accurate.

[Ken Burch]

187. Not sure it's valid to assume those who don't label themselves "ideologue" or "Ideologist"

(btw, would ANYBODY call THEMSELVES those things) are actually in "the center" in terms of what they are or are not willing to support.

There is a consistent difference, in poll after poll, between what people label themselves as and what proposals they are actually willing to support.

[Ken Burch]

186. OK..."ideologue".

I'll leave my usage so folks will know why you posted that, though.

[Chan790]

2. In my experience, it makes them ill-informed and oblivious.

Low information voters often describe themselves as moderate. It's not a coincidence.

[Throd]

5. I identify as a moderate. I don't consider myself "low information".

[Chan790]

8. There's exceptions to every rule. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

9. But then you don't answer the OP's question either. What do you mean when you say you

are 'a moderate'? How can you be sure you are 'a moderate'?

[Throd]

12. My views are not overly far left nor far right, hence "moderate".

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Why not just say 'it's a term of art meaning whatever you wish'?

What views do you see as 'overly far right' and which are 'just far right enough for a moderate'?

[Throd]

19. Mostly the views of the socially conservative Moral Majority types are "overly far right".

Those are the kinds of conservatives I really have no interest in talking to.

[bvar22]

38. Is that the same thing as a "Reagan Democrat"?

I've never under stood what that meant.
Is that it?

Doers being "moderate" mean that you agree with Republican 1/2 the time, like the "centrists"?

Thats the problem I have always had with people who claim to be "centrists".
They agree with Republicans most of the time, but don't like being called a racist.

[Throd]

39. I never understood the term "Reagan Democrat" either.

[ZombieHorde]

119. Perhaps defining "moderate" is going to be vague by nature

so what is your "moderate" position on the following topics?

Healthcare
Abortion
Environment
Firearms
Social Security
Marriage Equality

Any other current hot topics I'm forgetting about?

[Warren Stupidity]

183. Please list a few "far left" and "far right" views you don't subscribe to. nt.

[Ken Burch]

208. A number of people in this thread have equated radicalism with violence and repression.

This implies that the Stalinists and the Khmer Rouge were actually working towards a radical program, rather than simply reducing THIER program to brutality for brutality's sake.

[Warren Stupidity]

209. My point is that we do in fact have a major political party advocating far right positions.

We do not have a major political party advocating far left positions. So a "moderate", if that is a person with positions that can somehow be categorized as "midway" between the right wing of today's Republican Party and the left wing of today's Democratic Party, is center right.

Moderates, in my opinion, are "moderate conservatives". Obama is a moderate. They are what in my day would have been characterized as Rockefeller Republicans.

[Ken Burch]

210. You are right about our far right major party.

I was addressing something else.

[BlueStreak]

67. There is an insidious split-the-difference, false equivalence epidemic

It is intellectual laziness. Yes, there might be some cases where splitting the difference makes sense. Let's say we're looking at a new class of submarine. One side says we need to make them as cheap as possible so we can have more subs. The other side says we need to spend more money to make them safer and more comfortable for the crew. It might makes some sense to split the difference, making them safe and comfortable, but not underwater Taj Mahals.

But in most cases we have morally clear choices, such as "turn Medicare into a voucher system" versus finding other ways to keep that system solvent. The correct answer is not to only turn it halfway into a voucher system, or to make it a voucher system for half the retirees. No, there is right and wrong. And people who think of themselves as "moderates" generally do not have any moral or philosophical guideposts that they feel strongly about.

I can admire the passionate conservatives far more than the fence-sitting "moderates". They are completely worthless given the challenges our nation faces today.

[GoneFishin]

155. Splitting the difference nearly always is nosensical with republicans because their goal posts

always start on Mars. They have big money, the media, and spineless politicians pulling in their direction. Splitting the difference with them is basically the same as caving. They are stubborn and greedy, with no sense of fair play. Dems who speak softly, but don't carry a big stick get their asses handed to them every time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

193. SO TRUE!!!!!!!

[Egnever]

199. Sure thing Rush

[dipsydoodle]

3. Yes - a euphemism for who use common sense.

.

[raging moderate]

6. For me, it means "cautious."

Yes, let's make changes, but first let everyone have their say (yes, even right-wing crazies), carefully search out and prepare for as many resulting problems as possible, be willing to compromise, compensate, and make concessions to allay fears in skittish people, and make large changes in small increments so everyone can get used to them.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. That just sounds fear based, craven rather than cautious.

Once you admit a change is needed, any delay of that change is simply intentional extension of an injustice or a mediocrity. Justice delayed is justice denied. No one needs time to adjust to long needed improvements save those profiting from the lack of them.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. Attacking moderates for being moderate is what extremists do

Kind of like extremist Muslims blowing up moderate Muslims.

[Luminous Animal]

18. So criticizing moderates is now akin to killing them?

I find your language immoderate.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. Just providing an example of its logical conclusion

[Luminous Animal]

28. Um no. It is not a logical conclusion that radical ideas result in the killing

of anyone.

FYI, fundamental Islam is not radical but rather it is reactionary. Reactionaries are ultra-conservative and resist progress.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

29. I said extreme. And they are extreme. Like the antiwar folks in 60's

Finally resorting to violence/bombing/killing.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by the word "attacking"...

I assumed you were using the word to mean criticizing.

Did you mean physically attacking? Because, if so, your response to Bluenorthwest makes absolutely no sense at all and has zero, nothing, zilch, nada with the very reasonable and calm OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. Dr King was anti war too.

"And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land." MLK

[2banon]

200. "like the anti-war" folks in the 60's..???

Millions participated in anti-war demonstrations across the country, yes there was violence - some instigated by some protesting, but MOST of the violence was perpetrated by the Police or National Guard.

The Violence in the case of anti-war demos, were perpetrated by the Extremist -Riot Police and National Guard when they were employed they were involved with tear gas bombing, severe beatings, and gunning down unarmed civilians.

Those were the Extremists.. good gawd.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

203. way to to. obviously was referring to the EXTREME ones who used violence

not the vast majority of antiwar protesters. do you NOT read the entire post?

[2banon]

206. yes, I read it. This is what you said..

You said:

"I said extreme. And they are extreme. Like the antiwar folks in 60's

Finally resorting to violence/bombing/killing. "

That's the post I responded to.. Perhaps you didn't intend to make a blanket analogy, but can you see how putting it that way aids in propagating the myth which creates the perception that anti-war protestors are left wing extremists?

Yes it was a radical concept to be against war, (and it still is). and that's how the PTB would like all of us to believe, wouldn't you say? more to the point: "extremists". Is it ever a "moderate" position to be against war?

From my perspective being anti-war should be considered a "conservative" position. That is to say, avoidance in engaging in war fare is the more prudent, reasonable, position to take for the sake of stability and economic reasons, if for no other.

But language (and therefore perceptions) is flipped on it's head.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. I don't think it is moderate to say 'we know what is right, but let's wait'

I think it is something else. Claiming that disagreement with you is akin to murder seems sort of extreme to me. Certainly immoderate.
I also quoted Martin Luther King. He's a famous extremist. Justice delayed is justice denied. I'll quote him again, since it pleases you so:
"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."

[zeemike]

59. I actually remember reading the argument for gradualism in Life magazine

Back in the fifties...I remember it came with a cartoon of a black man trying to push open a door...the argument was that people were not ready for this and we need to take it slow...give them time to adjust to it....as if it had not been 100 years going on.

[Bluenorthwest]

157. Of course the gradualists here refuse to address what Martin said and instead they make

extreme hyperbolic statements in an attempt to characterize those who do not agree with their desire to preserve the status quo which serves them.

[zeemike]

159. Well nothing has really changed.

It was the same back then....MLK was a communist according to them and so was anyone that supported him.
It is all based on fear...the fear of change scares the shit out of some people...I am not sure why, but it does.

[2banon]

201. MLK was classified as a Terrorist courtesy J.E.Hoover and the National Security Establishment

nothing really has changed for the better, it just keeps getting worse.

[seveneyes]

7. Very simple

A moderate is someone who lives and lets live. No harassment of anyone for anything they do that does not harm others. They will also help those in need of assistance with life. Hypocrisy does not exist in a moderate.

[bvar22]

168. No. You have confused "The Moderates" with "The Hippies".

Live & Let Live?
Is that why the "Moderates" in the Democratic Party fully supported the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, The Patriot Act, the NDAA, Government Spying, Drone Attacks,
and subsidizing the Health Insurance Industry,
and currently support "reforming" Social Security by cutting it?
Those "Moderates"?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. If they want money or your vote, it means that they consider everyone else to be an extremist

or gullible.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

11. It depends on who you ask.

If you're talking about a regular person, and they describe themselves as a moderate, it probably means they are apolitical. Not having put much thought into political subjects, they've picked up attitudes towards them rather than true beliefs, and generally just go with whatever the people around them and the TV say.

Political people use the label of moderate as a weapon. After all, if I am the moderate, and you disagree with me, that means you're an extremist. It's one thing when dealing with true radicalism, but I see it misapplied as a thoughtless "split the difference" ploy far too often. It's just a way to "hold the high ground" in political strategy; a cynical tool used by cynical people.

[Throd]

24. Funny thing is, Rush Limbaugh says the same thing about moderates.

And if that fascist lump of crap doesn't like me I consider it a good thing.

[raging moderate]

14. Well, I try not to be a hypocrite.

I guess I have to admit that I am as human as anybody.

I have a brother who started out as a rigid Democrat, read "None Dare Call it Treason," and overnight became and remained a rigid right-wing Republican. From the first, he was just as convincing a debater for the right-wingers as he had been for the Democrats. This was about fifty years ago. I learned a great deal that day, about him, about people in general, and about myself. I suspect that none of us are as correct as we seem to ourselves. We are all so limited in our experience and our understanding, boxed into these skulls trying to comprehend the universe with these greasy string networks we call brains.

One thing I like about Democrats is our efforts to consider as many viewpoints as possible, which seems to me to encourage an atmosphere of humility. I tried to explain to my rigid right-wing son, If somebody showed up at a Democratic meeting suggesting that we should all wear only clothing made of giant glued-together leaves, we would invite them in to have coffee and a doughnut and let them have their say. I believe this is a great strength.

[intaglio]

17. Wrong, it means they are anti-extremist

The actual politics of moderates can be either left or right of centre but what they loathe are extremists, on both ends of the spectrum, because those extremists vilify anyone who deviates from their narrow and intolerant views.

Moderates on DU will tend to find more of the Left Wing extremists and so will criticise them. RW extremists tend not to post on DU and so do not attract as much attention.

[Curmudgeoness]

54. I agree that it means anti-extremist.

Both left and right.

At least moderates are more prone to be open to the compromise that is required when you are governing a large nation. I am not a moderate, but this is what I believe they are. I would like to see a liberal left agenda, but I don't think that it is feasible. Too many moderates would be opposed.

[Isoldeblue]

58. Well said, intaglio

Especially "because those extremists vilify anyone who deviates from their narrow and intolerant views. "

I don't have a problem with extreme views, as long as they don't feel the need to belittle those that don't share them. I've learned my lesson here on DU, with what I felt were reasonable posts. Talk about getting flamed!

It seems to me that extremists from either side believe their shit don't stink................... But mine and yours does, because we're not fanatical zealots on absolutely every single issue, one way or another.

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. Good discussion. The official framing of left, right, & center are phony, & function as a tool to...

...bamboozle and dis-empower the citizenry.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Huh? Unbelievable what passes for logic here

It's basic probability distribution. Vast majority will gather about the mean and less will be at the extremes.

[Fumesucker]

51. You are assuming that politics is one dimensional

And we all know there are at least eleven political dimensions because Obama plays eleven dimensional chess so often.

[Faryn Balyncd]

91. Correct. The assumption that political views can be accurately represented linearly, and that views

...on multiple economic issues, foreign policy, civil liberties, social and cultural issues will correlate is absurd.

To make matters even worse are the skills some on the far right have developed at manipulating the framing of public discourse by dragging the public debate to the right by first bombarding the public with right wing pseudo-populist propaganda (the most malignant lie being the myth of the "liberal media&quot , and then conning the corporate media into mainstreaming right wing propaganda via false equivalencies. (which is, of course, facilitated by the substitution of simplistic, false, one dimensional, linear mis-representaion of issues rather than by use of facts-based investigative journalism.)

[2banon]

202. Well Stated!

and to further complicate things as regards mis-representation and shaping public perceptions, we have the element of manufactured consent to manufactured reactions of manufactured crises, courtesy of a Media Apparatus that is owned by Corporate Titans with sometimes competing agendas, often shared agendas, and oh yes infiltrated by the National Security State to boot..

[Faryn Balyncd]

143. You have a point.

Bell shaped, unimodal distributions of opinion are common. And they can be positively correlated with healthy, stable, and functional democratic processes.

But bimodal distributions of opinion are also seen:

A simple bimodal distribution, in this case a mixture of two normal distributions with the same variance but different means. The figure shows the probability density function (p.d.f.), which is an average of the bell-shaped p.d.f.s of the two normal distributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimodal_distribution|bimodal distributions

To some of us, it seems as though the right wing has succeeded in creating a new mode far to the right of what was the entire range of American political opinion in the Eisenhower years, and even the Reagan years.

Consequently, people who were "liberal" just a few years ago, and those who were "moderate" a few years ago, and even those who were "conservative" and well onto the right end of the Bell shaped, unimodal distribution curve of traditional political opinion, now find that they are classified as "far left", even if they have not substantially changed their fundamental values or views.

And it seems that increasingly we are seeing a tendency towards bimodal distributions, with increasing polarization. And increasingly this is the result of the creation of an entirely new mode of far right, pseudo-populist opinion, far to the right of the pre-existing mode (which consisted of "liberals", "moderates", and "conservatives&quot .

As increasing polarization can threaten the stability of democratic systems, it seems easy to understand why seeking to create a new consensus may appear to have benefit.

But here's the rub:

It seems that forces on the right have become adept at gaming the system by intentionally pushing the limits of acceptable debate to the right, intentionally creating a polarized, bimodal atmosphere, and depending on the corporate press to complete the process of pushing public opinion to the right, intimidated by their desire to disprove the false, but endlessly repeated, meme of "the liberal press".

So when the right wing has so "moved the goal posts" that old "moderates" and old "conservatives" are now "far left extremists", how can we ever hope to succeed without re-framing the terms of public discourse?

[Laelth]

147. Excellent post. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

177. I don't think there's any merit in creating a new consensus anywhere between the poles.

It's more important to move the poles.

[Faryn Balyncd]

182. Agree.

[raging moderate]

21. I grew up very poor. Caution is how we survived.

Even a tiny change is extremely bitter in a poor family's life. This 5% decrease in food stamps really will cause suffering. Right now little children are already weeping from it. The bombastic right-wingers who engineered this change are definitely NOT moderates. They are cosseted, overprivileged, overprotected, celophane-wrapped candy-brains who have no empathy for other people. I remember reading when I was a young girl, a nice rich lady trying to explain to a mean one, "Try to think, how would YOU like it if you had only sixty dollars a week to live on. Why do you think your maid can do it if you couldn't?" It meant so much to me because there were no food stamps or reduced-lunch programs at that time, and I was sort of hungry most of the time. I thought to myself, somebody has noticed, and the nice rich people will be looking for a chance to help you, and you must hang on somehow until they get to you. And they did!

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. At one time "conservative" didn't have such negative connotations.

It is one thing to carefully conserve resources and avoid untenable risk.

What is being described is the phenomenon of recognizing right and wrong - and choosing the middle road.

[Warren Stupidity]

184. No really that is not right.

Conservatives were and are always defenders of the current ruling elites. They were monarchists as monarchy crumbled. They were against the abolitionist movement as the civil war loomed, and "southern Democrats" supporting Jim Crow after the failure of reconstruction. They were Republicans defending the first gilded era against the reformists of the early 20th century and the New Dealers of the mid 20th century, and they are the Reagan Republicans and Democrats defending late capitalism and the second gilded era against the reality of the limits of growth in an age of catastrophic climate change and global resource scarcity.

You are conflating "conservatives" with "conservationists".

[Ken Burch]

43. Caution is fine. And I appreciate you sharing your experiences, truly.

But there also comes a time when you have to decide whether you have anything left to lose. The poor, nowadays, don't. And really, MOST people who aren't part of the 1% don't. Therefore, caution, in political terms, is useless to them. The only practical solution is to push for much, much more, and to revolt against those who have told us to obey.

[Fumesucker]

23. It means what Humpty Dumpty meant

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

[IronLionZion]

25. Or it depends on the issue, and the strength of their feelings on the matter

there's a lot of stuff that a lot of folks don't care about nearly as much as others do. That's human nature. If we wanted to think, talk, act, and look the same, we would be republicans!

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. in the sane and rational universe - a moderate or a centrist would be someone who neither embraces

totalitarian bureaucratic collectivism - or unregulated capitalism. Obviously they would be someone who supports a socialist healthcare system since there are no recorded examples in modern history of a successful non-socialist healthcare system. Obviously they would support an economy that is a mixture of both socialism and regulated capitalism. They would believe that the country needs adequate means to defends itself form attack but would never agree that America should be a global military power. They would of course categorically reject the extremist view that poverty is acceptable in the wealthiest country the world has ever known. I suppose Sen. Bernie Sanders would be America's most famous and respected moderate or centrist - the real third way - in the world of the sane and rational.

[Dragonfli]

65. You have described well what it should mean, at least in the context of right/left pol. ideology

What the term appears to mean at this time in politics is a label to describe those that are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal (Reagan Democrats or third way "new" Democrats as well as Republicans that are pro choice and do not hate people of differing sexuality would fit this mold).

It is also sold as a "pragmatic" means to find the best solution somewhere between the views of Republicans and Democrats, the problem being that it leads to false solutions between one who is provable incorrect and one who is not - as an example, the idea that supply side economics is as likely to help the economy as Keynesian economics during a depression is flawed, bolstering the already wealthy with more wealth is not stimulative and never will be, whereas providing a means for the majority of people to have more to spend actually is stimulative and always will be.

so

The "middle" where cutting food stamps (but not as much) while cutting taxes on the wealthy (but not as much) while elimination some loopholes (increasing revenue) will never be the best solution to stimulate the economy, even though such a "centrist" position could be said to lie directly in the middle of the current state of the policy views of the two major parties (both have moved quite a bit right over the years, so IMO even the center is only center right at best at present).

Unfortunately such a "middle position" is the bread and butter of the modern "moderate" and many if not most of them mistakenly believe (or at least try to sell) it as the best solution possible due to it's lack of what they would term as "extremism".

[FrodosPet]

30. Personally, I'm not sure what to call myself

I support marriage equality, MJ legalization, non-carbon energy, body sovereignty (pro choice above and beyond abortion), a strong national defense, and regulated private enterprise over state-controlled institutions to acquire and distribute most non-public-safety goods and services.

I'm not a hardcore "self reliance" person, but I believe people should do as much as they can to take care of themselves so more help will be available for the elderly and ill.

I always thought of myself as a centrist. Some of my positions are identified with the left, some with the right. Am I incorrect in my personal evaluation?

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. It means that they...

a) lack any convictions
b) lack the attention span and or intellectual capacity to sort through the facts and come to a conclusion
c) want everyone to be their friend

[Throd]

33. You got me. I'm a stupid, spineless creature desperate for companionship.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. If you say so.

There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and squashed skunks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I think your answers (a) and (b) fail

I do not believe a significant amount of people want to label themselves as 'lacking any convictions' and 'lacking attention span and intellectual capacity'. People just don't say that about themselves.

I'll give you (c), though - people will say they want everyone to be their friend.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. The question posed was "what does IT mean", not "what do THEY mean".

I've never met anyone who has carefully, rigorously and honestly examined all the facts, evaluated the weights of the various arguments, considered the biases and motivations of the people giving them information and logically concluded that "the truth about Iraq's role in 9-11 must lie somewhere between what Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich were saying".

One says "the truth must lie somewhere in the middle" because they are lazy and prefer to avoid conflict.

On a political spectrum, if correct lies at one end and incorrect lies at the other, all the points between are wrong to varying degrees.

Labeling is a vexing thing. To me "moderate" means one universal thing; "The ideological position that will allow me to claim affinity with the winners regardless of what happens".

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. "...when people label themselves as political "moderates"?"

It helps to read to the end of the question. It's about them, not about your preconceptions of them.

Sure, you don't want people to be your friends - you're happier calling them lazy. But that doesn't mean you understand them in the slightest.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. What was the moderate position toward the war in Iraq?

Moderates ideology is defined by the two prevailing ideological poles. If 80% of the talking heads are saying we should spend $1 trillion bombing Iraq, and 20% are saying we should spend zero, then the moderate position is to spend $800 billion.

See? I've listened to both sides and drawn my own conclusion!

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. The French government's one, perhaps?

Support the UN vote to get the inspectors in, let them finish their job, and, as it was becoming clear before Bush and Blair invaded regardless of what the inspectors were saying, decide there were no functional WMD there. Then perhaps have a conference about what to do after that, in terms of sanctions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. This is the first time I've heard France described as moderate in the context of US politics

The policy you describe was only articulated at the time by the most fierce liberals.

Moderates came around to this idea only long after the fact, as the catastrope developed and the political winds blew the debate to the left.

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. And yet, they were a centre-right government

which makes their actions 'moderate', I would say. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats (moderate enough to now be in a coalition government with the Tories) took a similar line. As did Kenneth Clark, a Tory who was both in Thatcher and Major's cabinets, and in the current one. And you didn't have to be on the left of the Labour party to have the same view - just be sceptical of the Blair claims, as Robin Cook was.

[lumberjack_jeff]

162. This is illustrating my point.

"Moderate" in the UK or France is ultra-liberal here, because our poles are shifted to the right. If we shift "left" further left, it drags moderates along with it.

"Moderate" isn't an ideology of its own. It only means anything within the context of a single socio-political system.

Nothing is served by attempting to sway moderates because their flag is rigidly fixed midway between A and B - "because they think for themselves".

Since one end of the chain which enables moderates to consider themselves "independent" is attached to the left marker, better to move it farther left.

This also has the effect of luring conservatives on the fools errand of "appealing to swing voters" - a trap that we have lived in for far too long.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. But you'd tell those European moderates they have no convictions

and lack the attention span and or intellectual capacity to sort through the facts and come to a conclusion; despite them feeling the same way about an important topic as you.

I think your point is that you hate American who currently call themselves 'moderates', and feel the need to distance yourself from them, by making sure they don't listen to you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. actually, I'm telling a group of self descibed liberals

We don't push the ball forward by embracing moderation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. I'd also give european moderates something of a break. They can look around...

... find a healthy, well adjusted populace. Well educated, with low crime rates, and with sensible domestic and foreign policies. Their moderates can be excused because moderation, from their starting point, may have some merit.

In the US? Everywhere you look you see "broken". Anyone who can do a slow 360° and not see it as a call to outrage, action and change, or worse, see it but believe that the solution is something between the two parties who brought us here, is... choose your own pejorative.

[delta17]

48. I think moderates differ on the process, not the issue.

A moderate might care as much about inequality as a hard leftist. However, they probably don't believe that communism is the way to fix it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. You're not describing process. You're describing ideology.

Moderates and centrists thought that we should bomb Iraq just a little... you know, nicely.

In my experience they are incapable of looking at an issue, figuring out for themselves what constitutes optimal, and advocating for it.

It is not at all unreasonable to conclude that the optimal economic system has features that can be found in other systems - to me that is not what moderate means. To me it means a belief that the best solutions are the ones that lie midway between the prevailing ideological poles.

[raging moderate]

113. I didn't.

I never liked that bombing stuff. I learned from the first Gulf War how the warmongers spread propaganda and outright lies, and then spread terror and commit grand larceny and mass murder in the name of "democracy!" I also read "War is a Racket" and pieces by Moussolini and Hitler and Lillian Hellman and Bertrand Russell. I'm not briliant, but I do try to learn things.When this Syria thing came up, I spent a lot of time calling and emailing Congresspeople and the White House.

[delta17]

44. I respectfully disagree.

Moderates or centrists are often people who have their own opinions that don't neatly line up with a certain party or ideology. It is kind of a crappy word, and there are some wishy washy centrists for sure. But not everyone can just say "I am a liberal/conservative." That would be a pretty boring world.

[Throd]

45. Welcome to DU

[delta17]

49. Thanks! Nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. See? That's what I'm saying.

"I'm a moderate because my views don't line up with either party".

It presupposes that ones views are formed with respect to the prevailing ones. e.g. I'm just going to plant my flag half-way between Rush Limbaugh and Thom Hartmann, call myself a moderate and be done with it.

It's like an index fund of ideology.

[idwiyo]

47. +1

[Isoldeblue]

52. Identifying as a centrist,

do you mean me? If I have convictions, do they have to be extreme left out the nth?

Does being a centrist mean I can't made a choice of what I believe in?

Being a centrist doesn't seem to have much affect on people I like or want to like me. Actually, I don't much like "people/human nature and don't give a fuck what people think of me. So that point is impossible for me to identity with.

But I still maintain being a centrist in a number of different beliefs.

Maybe, extremes are of little use to many people?

[nobodyspecial]

70. Beats being an insulting, judgemental asshole.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. You're entitled to your opinion. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

96. Thank you for saying this, so I didn't have to.

[Number23]

108. +a stone cold billion

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

- Churchill

[Number23]

115. Or it could just mean you're an unlikeable, judgemental, selfish ass.

And that's the universal "you're," not directed to you. Necessarily.

[liberal_at_heart]

127. Hey I'll take an a$$ who will fight corporations over a nice guy who won't any day.

[Bjorn Against]

41. I think there are two types of "moderates"

Most people who call themselves moderates are really mostly apolitical, they may hold opinions on some issues but they are not very passionate about politics. There are no moderates like this in Washington, but there are many millions of them among the general population.

The "moderates" in Washington as well as on political message boards like this one are generally idealogues who pretend not to be idealogues. They have an ideology that says that both the left and the right are always wrong and the truth is always somewhere in the "middle". It is a very idealogical view and many of them believe that anyone who is to either the left or right of them is an extremist and they believe they are some sort of superior rational being. Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of the ideological "moderate", they give the Teabaggers a run for their money when it comes to the most annoying idealogues.

[DanTex]

78. +1

The "both sides are wrong" moderates are as annoying as it gets.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

112. Nothing like projection.

In the rational real world, moderates are antithesis of idealogues. But in your word where moderation must be recast as a pejorative...well naturally you are the balanced one and moderates are extremists.

[Bjorn Against]

129. I am projecting nothing, I know where I stand

I recognize my ideology, I don't try to hide it and pretend I am above it all. These so called "moderates" often hold very firm ideological view, just because they decide to label their opinion "center" rather than "left" or "right" does not make them any less opinionated.

[bvar22]

42. CENTRISM!!!!

Centrism....because it is so damned EASY.
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!



That is the problem I have with Centrists, "Reagan Democrats", and Moderates.
They agree with Republicans half the time.


"In politics the middle way is none at all."
-President John Adams




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[idwiyo]

50. +1

[Drew Richards]

53. What does it MEAN? It means they are worried only about what is good for them WHILE

Not looking like assholes in public...thats what it means...moderate piffle

[Snake Plissken]

55. Help me out here, what exactly is not moderate about today's Democratic Party?

Seriously what are Democrats in Washington currently doing that is not moderate?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

73. No. Proper liberals peak is DC Dems are center-right

Or more RW than Bush or DINO or DLC traitors depending on the mood of the liberal offering the opinion.

[liberalmuse]

56. They lack passion.

They watch "American Idol" or "The Voice" religiously. They talk incessantly about remodeling their homes, volunteering for their kids football/cheerleading/soccer team and/or shopping. They whine because their new car with all the extras is taking too long to be shipped from overseas (in other words, they are the ones who will lament about First World Problems). They vote Republican (and will never, ever tell this to the liberals they are friends with) because their church tells them to. My experience, only.

[nxylas]

57. In my experience...

...it means "I'm a Republican, but am smart enough to feel embarrassed about it".

[Snake Plissken]

60. those are the millions of self proclaimed libertarians who post on internet message boards

but never seem to show up to vote on election day

[nxylas]

144. No, these are people I know

They call themselves "moderates" on Facebook etc when I know for a fact they are rock-solid Republicans.

[Starry Messenger]

61. I assume it is code for "My life is working well, don't change it." nt.

[woo me with science]

62. "Moderate," my ass.

They are not moderates. They are extreme corporatists and neocons/neoliberals.

There is absolutely nothing moderate about what's being done to this country.

Indefinite detention, "kill lists" and drone wars, pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spy centers and a massive surveillance state, internet IDs and internet-censoring measures like ACTA, military drones in American skies and militarized police departments, prisons that profit from caging more of us, coordinated violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, strip searches for any arrestee, corporate education deform, new drilling and selling off the Gulf of Mexico, job-killing free trade agreements, big agriculture appointments, bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks, austerity budgets, and attacking Social Security and Medicare in an economy that has already impoverished its middle class.....

.....These are not moderate or centrist positions. Not by a long shot.

These are extreme corporatist, neocon, and police state policies, not "centrist" or moderate at all. And they are coming from corporatists in both parties.


Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2069607




The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Our middle class has been destroyed, our Constitution is being dismantled, and the corporate "moderates" are coming for more. It's well past time to give up the illusion of what we are really facing here. We have a *systemic* problem of corporate money deluging Washington and corrupting both parties. We are under assault by corporatists who pretend to represent us, and we had better figure out what we are going to do about it, because change is not coming from Republicans *or* from those who claim to be on our side.


THIS is the distribution of wealth in which our "moderate" President advocates cutting our social safety nets and is pushing hard to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Job and Wage Killing Agreement:

[TheKentuckian]

170. Fuckin A

[YOHABLO]

63. "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos"

Jim Hightower was right!

[Flatpicker]

64. I always took it

that being a "moderate" is a way of stating their position on social issues more so than budgetary issues.

From those whom I've talked to who ID themselves as moderate, it tends to be a belief in the "you stay out of my private life, and I'll stay out of yours".

So for the most part they are pro LGBT/Equality issues, as long as PDA is kept to a minimum. Then again, they are not ones to engage in PDA either. They are reserved.

Fiscally, most of them are pro the social safety nets and pro defense. They may be more apt to want foreign spending reigned in and to have that money spent at home.

Sometimes they can be a bit naive in thinking that corporations do care for the environment and non-corporate interests, and that if the regulations are left as they are, the people will "do the right thing".

Typically, I think they are more willing to lean left if the change can be shown to be beneficial to society, but, you have to work with them because they don't like destructive change. If it appears that change is coming too fast or too much of a 180 from their mindset, they will lean right in their voting patterns. They are skittish. They have worked hard for what they have and don't want to lose it all, so, they need encouragement to move in one way or another. Reasoning can do that, also as the Republicans have learned, fear can do that faster. Fortunately, fear doesn't last as long, and if they feel they have been tricked, it is difficult to rebuild their trust.

[JDPriestly]

66. You said it so well. I always considered myself to be moderate before I started reading

and posting on DU. But when I got here, people classed me as liberal or progressive or left, so I accepted that. But I didn't change my fundamental views although I have changed my views on specific issues after learning more facts here and elsewhere.

[FarCenter]

68. There seem to be at least three possibilities

1. they lack strong political engagement and views on any issues,

2. they support a middle position on most issues, or

3. they have liberal or conservative views on different issues.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

69. This thread is very enlightening about libreral falsely placed arrogance

If it weren't for moderates and coalition building, You wouldn't have had 2 terms of Clinton or Obama. You'd have election after election of McGovern wipeouts.

[nobodyspecial]

71. Don't pop their bubbles

Must be nice to wrap yourself in the cloak of ideological purity while those you attack do the heavy lifting necessary to win elections and govern.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

76. No kidding. This is a continuing and hilarious theme on DU.

As the BELiberals on DU (bleeding Edge Liberals) try to figure out how to divest themselves of moderates.

[RobertEarl]

116. Ah, yes, the country has done so well

The moderates voted for Reagan and Bushies. So we can thank the moderates for allowing the country to get so messed up. Way to go!!! Rah, f'n, rah.

Moderates, as the lumber jack says, are what has enabled the really bad things in this country. Had they done the correct thing and always voted for the more Liberal, we'd have a much better country and possibly a future.

Moderates are to blame for this sad state of affairs, indeed.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

120. Bush stole his first election and it was the GREEN PARTY

Aka disaffected über liberals who helped make theft of Florida possible. Quit rewriting history.

[RobertEarl]

128. First Bush stole the election?

PW wrote: "Bush stole his first election..."

Good gawd, dude, how old are you? And how long has it been since you studied history?

Lesson: First Bush was elected pres in 1988. After serving as vp under Reagan for 8 years.

You have completely lost all reality, haven't you?

"Why he's no fun, (that PW) he fell right over"

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. exactly! the gradual dismantling of the New Deal/Great Society social contract and finding

traditional conservative market based solutions is what sensible people believe in.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

118. Except almost 5 years into Obama has seen

No erosion of New Deal and Great Society and a great advancement in social structure with implementation of ACA continuing apace.

Under Obama, Financial Consumer Protection Agency was created, removal of DADT and this from someone denizens love to refer to as a center-right president.

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. if it wasn't for those progressive purist and other crazy liberals we could have made lot of

progress in entitlement reform. At least with the ACA moderates like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh were able to stand up to the left-wing extremist and block the public options - and keep crackpot socialist ideas like Teddy Kennedy's - Medicare for all - completely off the table while insuring financial service regulation was not burdensome on job creators.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

126. You mean the three moderate Republicans who joined Dems?

Short memories about the state of play back then. They had to compromise final look of ACA to get the GOP votes to break filibuster.

I notice you didn't refute the other points.

[Douglas Carpenter]

132. I do not refute that Obama has been good on many social issues

One can only surmise what damage would have been done if there was no loud outcry against "Entitlement Reform" Dodd-Franks and other modest reforms in the financial sector still go nowhere near undoing the Reagan/Clinton legacy on financial deregulation.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

134. Both Bushes get a pass?

[Douglas Carpenter]

137. hardly - I certainly didn't support them - Although, I suppose in the paradigm of the time

and even more so in the current paradigm - Bush Senior was a moderate. Hell Nixon supported a much more comprehensive form of universal healthcare and even a guaranteed annual income for all Americans and he established the EPA - I guess he would the loony left in the current paradigm and not only by the standards of the current Republican Party

[lumberjack_jeff]

181. Don't besmirch those people "doing the heavy lifting".

The building blocks of the new deal are, after all, pretty heavy and dismantling it is hard work.

[Number23]

111. Your responses are spot on in this thread

I am absolutely dying reading the responses from people calling centrists/moderates "ill informed" who "want everyone to like them" and "lacking convictions" by the same crowd that couldn't lead a political party 2 feet to a fiesta with free booze.

If despising and attacking moderates is not the PUREST definition of "irrelevant fringe" then I truly don't know what is.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

122. I know. In their hearts, most of them grudgingly admit it

They just can't imagine why the vast majority of left-leaning Americans weren't in Occupy camps and aren't ready to impeach Obama for drone attacks in Pakistan.

[RobertEarl]

133. Despising moderates is no fun

What they need to do is become liberals.

Moderates elected Reagan and the Bushies. Not liberals.

You can't blame Reagan and the Bushies on liberals. You may try, just because you may be moderate, but that would just make us despise moderates even more. But they do try to do exactly that and that does make us despise them even more. Just look up thread, your bud actually tried rewriting history and got caught.

Be careful of the company you keep, #23.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

136. I was going to let your lunacy go

But now that you're calling me out? You said "Bushies" in your post. I merely pointed out greens had more to do with Shrub's first election than moderates.

So you are wrong. Again.

[Number23]

194. Your post could be word for word written by any extremist which is a textbook definition

of the ideological purity that so many demand here.

"Moderates need to become liberals" could easily be changed to anything else that extremists believe that moderates should become. And if your posts and others are any indication of the "liberals" you want moderates to become then I understand more than ever why there are more people that identify as conservative and independent by LARGE numbers than there are those who identify as liberal.

Some of these folks around here would be terrifying if they had any power, clout or influence whatsoever. It's their rigid devotion to ideological purity that keeps that from happening, so to me, it all works out just fine.

[RobertEarl]

195. What is it you don't get?

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Moderates are responsible for the Reagan and Bushie years.

Liberals are responsible for the Clinton and Obama years.

Why do you hate the Clinton and Obama presidencies? We delivered and you hate us and think the jerks who gave us the Reagan years are to be thanked?

WTF!?

ETA: Sure enough, in the post replying to this, #23 stakes a claim that liberals are to blame for GDubya. Just as I predicted.

[Number23]

197. And it could just as easily be said that liberals were responsible for W

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

But since that is a fact that you have proven that you are DETERMINED to ignore, I think it's time I've moved on.

Why do you hate the Clinton and Obama presidencies?

In a forum full to the brim with hysterical, fact free and idiotic postings, this one has to just about take the cake. You should be so proud.

ETA: And the poster I'm replying to has edited his post with some non-sensical gibberish. As I said, if he is the type of "liberal" that some around here demand everyone be, there is no doubt in my mind that this is why liberals have the lowest number of self-identified followers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Did Reagan and Bush II get elected through moderation?

Voters respect conviction, and in fact I think it may even be more important than ideology. I think I would prefer a nominee that has convictions with which I agree 50% than a nominee who, depending on the audience and the day, says things which could be interpreted (Hope! Change!) in any way the listener wishes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

84. They put together a successful coalition of fundies, racists

And typical country club republicans. Now the right wing crazies are abandoning coalitions, demanding purity, and having ass handed to them in presidential election.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Those right wing crazies got elected.

And now they locate one of the two poles with respect to which moderates define their ideology.

"Maybe we should cut Social Security just a little"

[Pretzel_Warrior]

89. Liberals are getting elected too.

What part of massive entitlement of health care under ACA do you not understand? Liberal ideology is getting victories too. You just refuse to identify it as such because you didn't get 100% your way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. I understand that I won't get 100% my way, but that doesn't mean I should aim for 50%. n/t

[2banon]

207. ACA doesn't represent Liberal ideology from my perspective.

Single Payer is a liberal policy to my pov..and I don't equate the term "entitlement" with the term "earned" (paid into vis a vis taxation or out of pocket)

[Hippo_Tron]

174. Compared to the tea party, Bush really did get (s)elected on moderation

No Child Left Behind was crappy policy, but it was moderation compared to the position of the right wing which is that the department of education ought to be abolished and all matters of education left up to the states.

[bvar22]

169. If it wasn't for The Liberals and Organized LABOR,

....we wouldn't have had those things either.

Do you really think Obama would be president today IF he had been honest about:

*Mandates with NO Public Option

*Billions in subsidies for the health Insurance Industry

*MORE "Free Trade"

*Extending the Bush Tax Cuts

*defending the Banker Bonuses with Bailout Money

*Cutting Social Security

*Ridiculing Organized LABOR

*Extended Drone Killings

*Presidential Assassination Lists

*Protecting Clapper & the NSA

*Re-Upping the Patriot Act

*The NDAA and enhancing the Powers of the "Unitary Executive"

*A "Sequester" to avoid accountability for cutting Social Programs

You really think that?


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[leftstreet]

75. Moderates are Status Quo defenders

They used to be called Conservatives

[Rex]

79. Well obviously for some of them it is their golden ticket to act like extremists.

Don't you find that kinda funny? I do.

[Nye Bevan]

80. If you want taxes on the rich raised to 90%, you're far to the left on this issue.

If you want a 15% flat tax for everyone, you're far to the right.

If you are happy with taxes at their current levels, or you want to see taxes on the rich go up from 39.6% to about 45% or 50%, you're a moderate on this issue.

Of course that's just one example and every issue is different. For example I am a moderate on taxation but would support banning all handguns and semiautomatics so I am at an extreme on the issue of gun control.

[liberal_at_heart]

105. we have been going the way of the moderate for 30 years. It is not working.

Going moderate has created suppressed wages, a broken education system, broken unions, no way out of poverty, and not enough of a safety net to take care of those in poverty. The moderate's time is over.

[gopiscrap]

82. it's means they're too stupid to care (or chicken) to to be honest about their opinions

[elleng]

83. Yes, I am sensible and practical,

'moderate' by nature.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. .

[elleng]

95. I supported Wes Clark,

who quite sensibly opposed iraq, and opposes all stupid wars, as do I. Democratic powers that be refused to give him the time of day.

[juajen]

85. When I am told that, I think "conservative". Just sayin'.

[Marr]

87. It means their interest is in cheering for a team. Actual policy is just a prop.

Self-described "moderates" tend to have no real convictions, beyond supporting their heroes. They can be counted on to mouth support for the party's position when it's free to do so, but when that position becomes inconvenient for the party's leadership, they change their positions in a moment.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. ^ this

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. I disagree completely.

I label myself as a moderate because I have no interest in the current "football game" we have going on in politics.

I am staunch in my positions.

Yes to ACA
No to Drones
No to NSA
Equal rights for everyone. No ponies, no waiting, no BS. This should have happened like yesterday.
Pro, pro, pro choice.

Right now, I label myself as such. It's sad and disappointing because that was once a liberal, but the liberals don't like me because I support ACA. The centrists to the rights don't like me because I don't buy the excuses for continued drone strikes and NSA spying. There is not place for a lot of us who are not willing to play football, or chess, or whatever stupid name they're giving for political inaction these days.

Thank you.

[elleng]

103. Wrong

[Jenoch]

94. When a self proclaimed

moderate says they vote for the candidate withot regard to political party, all that means is they are morons. Like it or not, this country's politics is based on a two party system.

[liberal_at_heart]

124. Yes it is, but you don't have to participate in it. You can vote for any number of candidates from

any number of parties or you can stay home. Like it or not a very large number of Americans don't vote because they refuse to just go along with the two party system.

[Jenoch]

131. Those people have zero impact

on the political process, and of course they have that choice. They have the same impact as those who never actually vote.

[liberal_at_heart]

135. That's fine with those of us who chose that route. I have such a bitter taste in my mouth. I can

only bring myself to vote for populist liberals. People who will fight for better wages, better education, better unions. If that means I have no effect, then so be it. Why would I vote for someone who makes me sick to my stomach? Why would I vote for someone I don't like and don't want to vote for? It doesn't even make any sense.

[Jenoch]

139. Are the populist liberals

you vote for the Democratic candidates on the election ballot?

If not, why are you here? If you aren't voting for democrats, why do you post here?

[liberal_at_heart]

141. I vote for democrats when there is a populist liberal democrat to vote for.

As far as how I vote the rest of the time, I'd rather not say because of the censorship on this site. I was a democrat for 19 years. I got tired of the democrats voting for Trickle Down economic policies. Now I'm an independent who votes for liberals who fight for wages, unions, education, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. Democrats who make cuts to any of these programs do not get my vote.

[marshall]

97. They think for themselves

In fact they probably are more liberal or conservative, but they at least believe they are basing their position on their own decisions, and not strict adherence to a party platform.

On the other hand they might differ from their main party alignment in a few ways, and that is what they feel qualifies them to be called moderates.

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. And yet they define their views in the context of those two poles.

In this country, moderates define their ideology as midway between "the entirely corporatist party" and "the mostly corporatist party". As those poles drift so does their ideology.

They are only thinking for themselves inasmuch as they tune the radio dial half way between Rush Limbaugh and Stephanie Miller.

[marshall]

148. Or back and forth

Maybe equal doses make them feel moderated.

[TransitJohn]

99. It means they're Republicans embarrassed by their Party. eom

n/t

[Warpy]

100. People who use that term like to pretend they're sane

and the rest of us are crazy. It's a meaningless term.

[ScreamingMeemie]

102. I don't.

I do tend to think that some who look down on the term and the people who claim it are mean. But crazy? No. Just mean. Maybe cruel. Depends upon the person. (and not all are like that)

[Jamaal510]

104. A moderate is simply

someone who has a fairly balanced mixture of liberal and conservative stances. It refers to a person who does not occupy either ideological extreme overall. Contrary to some of the earlier posts here, though, it does not necessarily refer to someone who is apolitical or someone who is pragmatic for either side of the spectrum.

[elleng]

106. Yes

[Marr]

171. Except that doesn't actually mean anything.

What does it mean to "not occupy either ideological extreme" in the United States today? Does it mean you have a traditionally liberal stance on social issues and conservative economic views? Vice-versa?

There is no mid-way point on any of the actual issues. You're either a supply-sider or a Keynesian. You're either for gay rights or against them, etc.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. in the current paradigm it means someone who is somewhat socially liberal - but supports only

moderate and gradual cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Education programs and other programs. A moderate rejects the extremist views that we should hold on to what remains of the New Deal and those who want to eliminate them entirely.

[liberal_at_heart]

121. +1

[Pretzel_Warrior]

125. Not true at all. Moderates are not monolithic

There are so those who believe in strong unions, New Deal, Medicare, etc should be maintained and strengthened but who ate more socially conservative.

You cannot accurately pigeonhole what a moderate is. Too many possible permutations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. if you watch the Sunday morning talking heads - the extreme left are those who oppose

"Entitlement reform" AKA: "moderate "cuts in Social Security and Medicare - that is what is being sold as moderate in the current paradigm - But objectively speaking moderate is not an objective term - it depends on where you put the goal posts. Mussolini was a moderate perhaps even a liberal in comparison to Hitler. European-style social democracy is the moderate position between communism and American-style capitalism.

[Marr]

172. Exactly-- "moderate" does describe an actual set of concrete positions in today's

political scene. The people here who keep insisting they're just iconoclasts who can't be categorized are being needlessly obtuse.

[Spider Jerusalem]

138. What it means when people identify themselves as moderates:

"I'll consider voting Republican" (or, Democratic, depending on primary party affiliation). Also usually means people who tend to be somewhat socially or fiscally conservative. Moderate positions: Clintonian "welfare reform"; civil unions instead of same-sex marriage; acceptance of some tax rises in combination with targeted spending cuts in order to balance budgets (contrast with the extreme-right position that budgets can be balanced through cuts alone, and the extreme left position that tax increases alone can solve the issue).

[Bobbie Jo]

140. I'm a liberal

of the bleeding heart variety, but I also understand the limitations involved in enacting a liberal agenda within our system of government, and the reality of actually having to govern with the existence of relentless political opposition.

Does that make me a "moderate?"

[liberal_at_heart]

142. I used to be that kind of liberal before Race to the Top, Common Core Curriculum. Before they

started tying funding to state standardized tests. Before they stopped increasing funding for education to keep up with inflation. Education was what did it for me. No, I just can't go along with the moderate way anymore. Not to mention, when my kids do get out of school the wages they earn will probably not be enough to support themselves. No, no more moderation for me.

[Recursion]

146. When I call myself that, I mean that rapid systemic changes cause more harm than good

That is, I think that preserving existing social, economic, and political institutions (despite all their flaws) is generally a good idea, and that changes should be made gradually and based on empirical results.

A hundred years ago or so, that view was called "conservative" (with a small "c&quot , but that view is nowhere to be found in political conservatism today.

[elleng]

164. Right,

and THEY sure aren't 'conservative,' you and I (and others) truly care to conserve/preserve.

[polichick]

149. Agreed - and your last paragraph is key to changing our country...

Dem voters have to choose carefully during the primaries. The candidate needs to be populist and unafraid to embrace the values that have always moved this country forward, which are liberal.

[scheming daemons]

150. being a moderate means realizing we need a candidate that can win

Not a candidate that is ideologically pure.

A moderate Democrat is someone who realizes a Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders nomination is a recipe for collosal electoral defeat.

A moderate Republican is someone who realizes a Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin nomination is a recipe for collosal electoral defeat.

In our electoral system, the more moderate candidate almost always wins national elections.

If you want to occupy 1600 Penn Ave for four years, that's what it takes.

[polichick]

167. Moderate these days = corporate tool when you're talking about leaders...

Different story when you're talking about voters - and the op has that right imo.

[Ken Burch]

188. It doesn't have to mean, for example

accepting a nominee who has no problem with vaporizing innocent Iranian civilians over a nuclear weapons program we all know doesn't exist.

Or accepting one who believes that the most important economic priorities in this country should be the things corporations want.

[valerief]

151. It means they want rich people to get richer off the backs of not rich people. It also means

they want abortion kept legal. They may or may not care about gay marriage. They're pro-military, too.

I think that's the MSM version of "moderate".

People believe what the teevee tells them, so when real people parrot that they're "moderate" they're whatever the teevee wants them to be.

[GoneFishin]

153. I like your TV theory. It meshes well will the low information voter post toward the top

of this thread. Although I wouldn't necessarily call them low information voters. More like educated-only-by-TV-talking-heads voters. Since no TV talking head is going to admit that they are left or right, anyone who generally agrees with them must be moderate, see?

[valerief]

154. Lies are low information. Truth is high information. Teevee spews lies and nurtures

LIVs.

MSM teevee spews far-right lies, but, as you point out, MSM teevee presents itself as middle-of-the-road/moderate. So, yes, people who swallow MSM bullshit--from talking heads who repeat the word "moderate" over and over again in their LIV indoctrination process (for which they get well paid)--might also refer to themselves as moderates.

[alarimer]

152. Jim Hightower said it best.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

[99Forever]

156. Moderates and jellyfish...

... have something in common.

Neither have a spine or actually stand for anything.

[Zorra]

166. It means "those who desiire to make the Democratic Party more right wing in order

to make it conform to their conservative belief systems".

[Hippo_Tron]

173. If you agreed with Obama on some issues and Romney on some issues, you're a moderate

If you're like me and agreed with Obama on some issues and thought he was way too far to the right on other issues, you're not a moderate (at least not in this country).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[pinto]

180. +1

I feel moderation in temper leads to real discussions and that principle, not labels, should be in the forefront of those discussions. Principles are clearer, imo. Labels can mean different things to different people and block principled discussion.

[DonCoquixote]

176. I believe there was a time

When moderation WAS a matter of virtue. The centrism I was raised in, believed in, was principle enough to grab Che Guevara and Ayn Rand by the throat and say "sorry, you do NOT get to build your utopia using the blood of children as fuel!" That sort of center would roll their eyes as both the Randist and the Marxist would talk about how they had to break eggs to make omelettes, and often, the target of their fury was the middle class, hated by marxists as "middle class" and Randists as "useless eaters."

However, I realize that term has been taken over by the "I am ashamed to be a GOP" right wing. This group includes Obama (sadly) and Clinton (who helped being them into life) and is exmeplifed by Blue Dog democrats, and folks like Joe Liberman and the "no labels" crew. The fake center used to simply be people like Arriana Huffington, who hated the GOP policy on gays and other social issues, but liked the policy that kept them rich. It was fed by "reagan" democrats who feel those "dirty hippies" ruined everything with all their leftist talk. Granted, they could write best selling books on how the rich are screwing the middle class, but they really do not talk about policies like the Tobin Tax that would put a limit on the oligarch's. Indeed, many times when the left screams about something, out come the fake centrist, like the way Hillary Clinton suported outsourcing an entire generations jobs to India! There is not virtue, no courage, or to humbly cop a riff from bvar "you get to stand for nothing!"

[Blue_In_AK]

179. Ken, only slightly off topic,

but speaking of moderation, how do you feel about Byron Mallott's run for governor?

[Ken Burch]

185. well, if nobody else runs, I'm ok with him.

I wish Hollis French had kept his nerve and run, but others may get in later.

My dream candidate would have been Les Gara.

[Blue_In_AK]

189. Me, too.

Les or Bill Wielechowski ... but maybe we need to keep them in the House and Senate. I think Mallott will have more appeal to the non-Anchorage voters, and he's certainly experienced in the ways of government. I'm not happy that he supported Lisa, but Bill Walker, for all his "owner state" cred, is still a Republican at heart.

I love Hollis, but he couldn't even pull out a victory over my least favorite state democrat, Ethan Berkowitz, last time. Personally, I wish Hollis had stayed in the senate because I'm likely to get Mia Costello for a senator next time unless they fix the districts.

[Ken Burch]

191. the best we can say of that campaign is that it ended Ethan's career.

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Bastard.

tens of thousands of us, throughout the state, will never forgive that weasel-in-a-suit for the way he treated Diane Benson.

[Blue_In_AK]

192. Totally, 100% agree.

My husband won't even eat at the Spenard Roadhouse because Ethan is a part owner.

[Hekate]

190. I think it means they don't like the fighting, acrimony, and bitterness...

... that currently passes for political debate in this country. Someone who thinks of themselves as a centrist is much more likely to be open to compromise and persuasion than someone who identifies very strongly with either the left or the right; practicality would be the key, not rigid adherence to an ideology. Than would be more like the America of the mid-20th century than today, and not a bad thing in my opinion.

[Orsino]

196. Afraid to admit to voting Republican.

Not always, certainly, but all too often.

[phleshdef]

204. Most of the people I know who call themselves moderates say they agree with both D and R....

...on different things and it depends on the issue.

But also, most of those people, in the off chance I engaged them in a conversation on various issues, seem to come out socially liberal and pseudo-fiscally conservative (meaning they like the idea of super low taxes but they don't want to see the military or Social Security or Medicare touched at all). They are the kind that bitch about welfare, food stamps and foreign aid, though such things are such a minor part of our budget. In my experience, they are usually well meaning people, but very politically illiterate. I think a lot of them decide to be centrist beforehand and then derive their opinions on issues around that parameter.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

205. Here is some food for thought about being politically moderate

These are links to some other research I found to get a more relevant take on the subject rather than a focus on using MODERATE as a dirty word among progressives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023969966

In my business — psychology — unyielding, strident insistence on extreme positions brings failure in marriage, career and business. Stubbornness about "principles" with no effort to understand and work with other views causes isolation and feuds, in every area of life.

And yet when it comes to politics, the staunch and unbending are yelling. The right sneers that fellow GOP-ers are "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only); the left bashes "moderate Democrats" in favor of a "good, progressive, populist message," to quote Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023969953

Admittedly, this is from 2012 election when Romney was still fighting for the right to get ass handed to him by Obama, but this commentator brings up some good history on moderation and why some in modern times seem to think it is aptly used as a weapon such as here on DU and on other message boards of the opposite political persuasion.

It was Barry Goldwater in 1964 who said:


"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."


And then he promptly got HIS ass handed to him by LBJ. The vast majority of Americans are centrist. That's just a fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023969933

Partisans beware! Some of your most cherished political attitudes may be malleable! Researchers report that simply answering three “why” questions on an innocuous topic leads people to be more moderate in their views on an otherwise polarizing political issue.

The research, described in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, explored attitudes toward what some people refer to as the ground zero mosque, an Islamic community center and mosque built two blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City. When the Islamic center first was proposed it sparked a heated debate pitting proponents of religious freedom against those who felt the center should be moved away from the site of the 9/11 attacks out of reverence for those killed by Muslim extremists.

[loyalsister]

211. If someone applies a label to themselves it means what they say it means

From my perspective, the words liberal and moderate both describe my political leanings. As a liberal, I consider myself flexible and am able to adjust to change. I appreciate progress and advocate for it - especially when it comes to civil rights. I am willing to learn when I am not informed.

As a moderate, I reject extremes from any angle. I will listen to facts and opinions that are not presented as absolutes. I accept that what comes from political dialogue might not please me.

[bluestate10]

212. I am a Moderate. But there is no policy that I vote with conservatives on.

I am Moderate because I tend to observe and analyze instead of do something like take to the streets.

[TheKentuckian]

213. I don't think you can have this conversation until "Centrists" are separated from moderate.

"Centrist" is an ideology and most "Centrists" are ideologues masquerading as the opposite chiefly by utilizing language, tone, and framing while remaining steadfast and even zealous in pursuit of their ambitions. Ambitions which are far more consistent and and they brook little more compromise than those "on both sides" they lament seemingly twenty four hours a day. Present day most of these folks identify as Democrats, though there are some swing district TeaPubliKlans that they provide cover for, least an actual Democrat be elected and skew power a little from those that hoard it now.

These folks are largely what comprises the middle of the politician spectrum, not the political spectrum as some confused both out of confusion willfully created by a complicit and nearly wholly owned media and these same politicians with the backing of "stakeholders" who always get the payoffs to the greater detriment.

Actual moderates are such a mixed bag that nearly everything said about them can be true and false because they are by definition not cut from the same cloth and since they arrive in a similar political place by very different paths they will carry different baskets of beliefs, goals and priorities to the table they cannot be reasonably addressed as one. Acceptance of this simple concept allows us to begin to filter a murky area as long as we realize that the nature of the subject dictates a journey without end.

The first group I will identify is one that both unfairly gets lumped I with the "Centrists" and consistently provide them with cover are folks who value consensus based progress.

I believe this group tends to be more sensitive to tone than some other segments of society and that provides an affinity for a packaging that steers clear of flamboyance and promises to disturb nothing, well other than cutting the safety nets incrementally generally under the guise of waste fraud and abuse that can always be sold as some middle ground as long as we have batshit Birchers and silly adherents to a stillborn economic theory that wasn't plausible in pre industrial, low population, easy resource times it was born in and is laughable as anything now can effectively be contrasted with state capitalism/communism as essentially a binary choice seen as polar opposites.

In that environment one would imagine that "the middle" would be a large sprawling country with as diverse locales as most would ever desire to see but instead we get very consistently corporate friendly, Reaganomics oriented, social progressive slow walkers, ever behind the general population who always happen to be Hawks on defense and doves on BIG Anything.

These folks are herded by limiting their spectrum of effective choices more than perhaps some others because doing so for all practical intents also limits their very thinking maybe to the point that they do not even know where they stand themselves because that option is not presented to them to consider.

There are people that would identify and be described as moderate because they are significantly bi conceptual and such don't fit the caricatures of the two major parties framed at the poles when of coat such is not a fit with reality.

There address people who are considered moderate because they have progressive aims but cautious approaches and those who have reactionary aims but are quite aggressive in pursuit of them though have no personal animus toward race or orientation.

There are all kind.