Why moderates are so often bad news

[cali]

I'm specifically thinking of Congress here.

first of all, what is a moderate position on, say, abortion? On many issues, there really aren't so-called moderate positions. Going along with 20 week abortion bans isn't "moderate". It's caving. Supporting the chained CPI isn't "moderate", it's support for the chipping away of benefits and the strength of the program.

saying things like "We all have to sacrifice" isn't "moderate". It's a cruel false equivalency that throws in poor people, the elderly,children as on an equal footing with the wealthy. Not to mention that the former have already had to make terrible sacrifices.

In congress, there are virtually no republican moderates. A handful at most. And more and more, people like Lindsey Graham (he'll be heading up the fight in Congress to make the 20 week ban, federal) are referred to as moderates. News Break: Lindsey Graham is a far right conservative.

A common argument that is entirely bullshit is that both the democratic and republican parties have fringe elements that are making it impossible for Congress to get anything done. Bullshit indeed. There is NOTHING analogous to the teahadist repukes, within the Dem caucus. Not even a little bit. Not even close.

More and more, this cry of "support moderates and moderation" is coming from the right wing. Alas, more than enough democrats who claim to be liberals, are lapping up this nonsense.

[DireStrike]

1. +1. These people are not going to go away because of appeals to "moderation".

That will just move the goalposts. Again.

[Scuba]

2. Thanks to "moderates", this is what we now have in Washington ...

Thanks to DUer RC for this graphic.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

110. Thanks for reposting this

[indepat]

111. Me thinks that donkey belongs a tad-to-a-goodly bit to the right of where depicted

[Demeter]

3. There aren't any moderate Democrats, either

And we shouldn't support any kind but the best: progressive, reality-based, Constitutionally sound, ethical and liberal in the best sense of the word.

[truebluegreen]

35. ? There aren't any radical Democrats....

since liberals aren't radical at all and progressives are center left at most. We could use a few fire breathers on the left just for contrast.

I think I agree with you, I just don't understand your comment.

[BobbyBoring]

107. About 100 fire breathers

Like Alan Grayson would do the trick! Where are they?

[truebluegreen]

109. I don't know, but boy hey howdy would I like to see that!

[Laelth]

4. Question about the definition of a moderate.

While I agree that there's no truly moderate position on abortion, the first example in the OP, and while I agree that there are few, if any, "moderate" positions on most issues, I wonder if a moderate isn't one who holds liberal positions on some issues and conservative positions on others. Is that not what we would call a moderate?

Should we expect every candidate we endorse to take the liberal position on every single issue? That's more purity than I believe it is useful to insist upon, and I have been called a "purist" in the past.



-Laelth

[cali]

5. I think it is hard to define what a moderate is

which is why I used examples.

And I'm far from a purist. I'll take the woofiest of blue dogs over a republican. I'm definitely a pragmatist in that regard. I'm not advocating purity in the op. I'm trying to point out the inconsistencies in the arguments that I see for more moderation.

[Laelth]

12. You and I have both been called purists in the past.

We were cruelly ridiculed for it, in fact, by our own supposed allies. Those wounds still sting a bit.

That said, I do see the inconsistencies that you are highlighting. Thanks for clarifying the purpose and intent of your OP.



-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So name the hard right wing positions you would accept in a candidate to prove you are no 'purist'

whatever that made up term means. Show your cards, mentioning so vague idea that a candidate might hold a less than liberal position on an issue is rhetorically manipulative. Tell us what you mean. Would a candidate who was liberal except he opposed equality for women be ok? What about a racist? Advocate of wars of aggression? 'Oh, he's liberal except for the genocidal desires, let's not be purists and make an issue about one issue.'
Most of the 'conservative on some issues' Democrats of recent history have simply been homophobes. They say 'moderate' to mean 'can't stand gays'. Is that ok? Liberal except for being bigoted against gays? How about Muslims, ok to be liberal except for hating Muslims?

[nxylas]

16. The official teaching of the Catholic church springs to mind

Anti-abortion and anti-SSM, but also anti-wars of aggression, anti-death penalty and pro-labor. That's potentially a large bloc of voters who don't fit easily into the traditional liberal-conservative dichotomy.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. What has the RCC have to do with politics and politicians?

Are you saying you would vote against human rights for your faith? I'm asking for personal specifics, are those your answers? You'd sell out your neighbor's rights for dogma, and claim that makes you 'not a purist' rather than making you a religious fanatic believing nonsense based on nothing?

[nxylas]

29. I was giving an example of how someone could be conservative on some issues and liberal on others

I'm not the person you directed your original question at (and being British, I don't get to vote in US elections anyway), but the mildly hysterical tone of your response makes me think you should take a look in the mirror before accusing others of fanaticism.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. Why are you attacking a fellow DU'er? Very rude approaching

You need to settle down.

[beerandjesus]

42. Good answer

And I'm pro-choice and STRONGLY pro-SSM!

[nxylas]

56. As, I suspect, are a lot of Catholics

(I don't know if you're Catholic, I had to play around with the reply title a bit so that it works equally well whether you are or not).

I am not saying that every single Catholic voter agrees with these teachings (and in the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I am not a Catholic, though I am Orthodox, which is close enough, especially on non-theological matters). But I'm fairly sure that enough voters, not all of them Catholic, will agree with them to constitute a significant voting bloc.

[beerandjesus]

60. It's well known that most Catholics disagree with the Church's stance on birth control

And my personal sense is that on social issues like choice and SSM, Catholics are subject to the same generational trends as anyone else.

I'm not Catholic either, by the way; I was raised Orthodox, in fact, and although I no longer practice, I still think the Eastern Churches were/are correct to reject the doctrine of dual procession!

[Doctor_J]

98. are you pro-ssm or anti gm?

i am pro both. that's what makes me a liberal. newt gingrinch is pro-ssm, as you can tell from his 3 ssm.

[beerandjesus]

125. Not sure I understand the question....

I am pro-Same Sex Marriage, therefore not anti-gay marriage.

More broadly, you're not going to find someone on here who's more gay-friendly than me. Just to clear up any ambiguity I may have created.

That said, I do think there are other issues which make me a liberal as well... and intellectually, I believe it's possible to be a liberal without being pro-gay marriage, even if it's hard for me personally to get my head around!

[Laelth]

17. Personally, I am not heavily invested in the social/cultural issues you mention.

Those are wedge issues pushed by the Republicans. I have no interest in fighting them on their home turf. I am on record saying that I think the left has already won the debate on most of the great social/cultural issues of our time, especially regarding GLBT rights. It's only a matter of time until we see those victories encoded into law. As such, I am not terribly concerned about them. As a result, I don't think it's either useful or necessary for Democrats to all be on the same page in regards to these issues.

It's the economic issues that matter most now. It's the obscene distribution of wealth in this country that ought to be our primary concern, imo. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind:

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

That argument rings true today. Right now, all I want out of Democrats is good government that serves the people and not the 1% on the issues that matter to all of us, i.e. the economic issues.

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

19. So you would sell out your neighbor's rights to prove you are not a purist? You don't care about

bigotry, prejudice, injustice?
Your answer was so vague and evasive that all I can get from it is that you don't care about justice for others.

[Laelth]

23. We have already won on those issues.

No need to insist on purity on those issues. Let's fight, instead, for some economic justice. That's my position.

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

30. We have not already won those issues, right now in the Senate they are debating a bill that would

simply protect GLBT people from discrimination in employment. Obama is working hard to get it passed, but it might not pass. Equality is an economic issues, when a person can be fired from a job for their minority status, that's a jobs issue. When you straights refuse our partners equal inheritance and refuse to let us file jointly, all of that is about money economic justice is a huge component of GLBT rights. I have been cheated by bigoted tax laws every year of my life, understand that? Unfair treatment every year of my life.
I'd like some of that economic justice you claim is so separate from 'social issues'.

[Laelth]

32. I am not dismissing your complaints.

I understand that our society has treated you unjustly as it has millions and millions of other people (Native Americans and African-Americans have a particularly strong argument in this regard). That said, we are making tremendous progress on the issue of GLBT rights. The fact that the bill in question has even been introduced is major progress. If it fails this time, I have no doubt that it will succeed in the near future. As I said, we have already won on most of the great social/cultural issues of the day.

Thus, I do not insist on purity in regards to the social/cultural issues. I want Democrats who are solid on the economic issues--ones that advance the interests of the people over the interests of our oligarchs.

-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

116. I am so with you on this.

"I do not insist on purity in regards to the social/cultural issues. I want Democrats who are solid on the economic issues--ones that advance the interests of the people over the interests of our oligarchs."

[Bluenorthwest]

129. You have not answered ONE of the questions asked of you. This indictes a lack of respect.

You are willing to claim we have won that which is not yet won. That's called being duplicitous. You do that because you can not otherwise defend your incorrect and indifferent attitudes and ideas.
You are the sort of voter that has most hindered good people seeking justice, the sort that is willing to put on blinders and declare 'Justice is won' when injustice still rules.

[Laelth]

130. I have no interest in "fighting" with you because you are an ally of mine.

Here's what I hoped I said. Perhaps if I say it more precisely and clearly, that will help.

What I tried to say was that, on most of the social/cultural issues of our time, the left has already won the national debate. What we have not seen yet, as I also argued, is the translation of our social/cultural victories into law. I readily admit that the law has not yet caught up with the national consensus. I fully support translating those cultural/social victories into law, but this takes time. We are seeing some progress, and I have every reason to believe that our cultural/social victories will translate into law eventually. If you would like to take issue with this position, i.e. if you don't think the law will follow the national mood, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about that. I certainly could be wrong. I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again. I am open to hearing what you have to say.

As to your demand that I answer a question or two or three, for whatever good that will do, I can try if you think that would be useful. The one issue about which I am on record saying I do not favor the standard, liberal position is gun control. I think trying to further restrict gun rights makes us look authoritarian, and I think advancing further controls and restrictions on the 2nd Amendment seriously hurts the Democratic Party. This particular issue is one that I think Democrats should avoid like the plague.

Does that help?



-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

134. I asked you several specific questions and you ignored them.

Your claim that equal protection under the law is already won is false. Chances are your own State lacks such protections even in employment and housing. Either you don't know that or you just don't care. You'd rather pretend the battle is already won than actually bother to win it.

[Laelth]

135. I will support you in your attempt to see the national consensus translated into law.

Let me add that I admire your energy and your dedication to our founding ideals, i.e. that we are all equal under the law. That's as it should be.



-Laelth

[Warren Stupidity]

84. NO WE HAVE NOT.

Employment non-discrimination is a huge issue, as it was for racial discrimination in the past, and it is not a settled issue at all.

[Rex]

97. +1

I agree that was bogus.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

70. Purist is not a "made up" word in this context

Despite the fact that you may not want to acknowledge reality, words do have meanings.

[sabrina 1]

126. 'Purist' IS a made up word to attack Liberals with. It, like many others, comes from

one of those political 'think tanks', a 'talking point' intended to silence Progressives. Words as weapons, aimed at Progressives to be used by Right Wingers, which they are, and now adapted unfortunately and repeated by a few on our side, to slap down anti Corporate Voices in the Democratic Party. To end discussion is the goal, to simply shut people up.

They should be turned around and used against the Corporate entities who oppose Democratic values. What could be more Purist than constantly defending Corporate interests, excusing policies like the Chained CPI, another Think Tank phrase designed to deceive the public on cutting SS benefits.

Maybe it's time to make a list of these anti-progressive 'think tank talking points' which have been used so often they have become jaded and old by now. Which is one way to recognize them.

People like Blue, eg, whether you agree with him or not, doesn't need to use Think Tank talking points to make his point, he speaks for himself, unlike those who dip into that 'talking point' bag whenever they want to slap down those who adhere to Dem Principles exposing themselves as not thinking for themselves because if they were, they would, like Blue and other progressives here, use their OWN WORDS.

To finish with another 'think tank' phrase, 'I am a member of the Reality Based Community' used also to insult Liberals with 'and you, child are not'. So sick of these old, used up talking points. If someone has something to say, let them use their own words, not stupid phrases thought up by paid morons intended to stifle the only process that will ever get this country on track, serious discussion of the issues that affect a majority of the people.

[treestar]

54. A moderate position on abortion

might be someone who thinks it is wrong but allows that it could remain legal and the women make the decision.

A moderate Republican - they used to exist - was pro-choice. Conservative on other issues.

Or someone could think abortion should be legal but never government funded, getting in trouble with the left and right.

[BobbyBoring]

108. That's my deffinition

[scheming daemons]

6. overwhelming majority of voters hold a potpouri of opinions

Some conservative and some liberal.

Nationally, the candidate that wins the middle win the election.

This has been proven in every election for a century.

Locally or on state level, this isn't always true.

But to win 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four years, a candidate must hold the center.

This fact may piss us off.... but it is an indisputable fact.

[cali]

8. I specified that the op was about Congress

and btw that the center has moved more and more to the right should concern you.

and that it has is supported by a great deal of evidence.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. You mean the center on gay marriage and marijuana has moved right since 1950?

You mean decades ago it used to be common for people to protest wars before they even happened?

I think you may be wrong that on a number of issues the country's "center" has moved right.

[Enthusiast]

118. Only our political representation has moved right.

The true citizen center has moved left. We just aren't represented. And therein lies the source of our complaint.

[Bluenorthwest]

128. Marriage equality and marijuana reform have progressed because of activists who never stopped

working for that progress no matter how often Moderates and Conservatives held demonstrations against us or called us names. People died and went to prison and all sorts of great sacrifices were made to get that progress.
We made the Center and Right wing irrelevant.

WW2 was heavily protested in advance of US entry to the war, so yeah, decades ago people protested wars in advance. Same for WW1.



"But from 1939 through 1941, Americans were deeply divided between interventionism and isolationism.

"It's so easy, again, to look back and say, 'Well, all the things that the isolationists said were wrong,' " author Lynne Olson tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. " ... But back then, you know, in '39, '40 and most of '41, people didn't know that. People had no idea what was going to happen."

Olson's new book, Those Angry Days, shines the spotlight on the national debate over whether to go to war in Europe. President Franklin Roosevelt led the interventionist charge, while aviator Charles Lindbergh became an unofficial leader of the isolationist movement."
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175288241/angry-days-shows-an-america-torn-over-entering-world-war-ii

[Bluenorthwest]

11. So the Moderates are willing to stand up and say 'we elected GW Bush'?

They sure as hell did so, twice, if your theory is correct. So what is so appealing about Bush voters that we should all emulate them and the tragic misjudgments they made?
In Congress, which the OP is speaking of, Moderates helped Bush invade Iraq. Again, not much of a recommendation in the Zagat's of politics. 'Supported Bush and his wars, but not purists!'

[DissidentVoice]

15. But what is the "centre?"

Is it cheerleading for a health care reform plan that does not, and will not, cover everyone?

Is it being cool with the President caving to Republicans on health care in 1994 and to Max Baucus most recently?

Is it continuing the heinous USA Patriot Act?

Is it allowing Guantanamo Bay to remain open?

Is it pissing off our allies by spying on them, not to mention U.S. citizens who haven't done anything to warrant that?

If that's "centrist," you can keep it.

[truebluegreen]

38. Hear, hear!

[leftstreet]

73. But that's exactly what it is - support for the Status Quo

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. No ...

"Centrist" Democrats do not support the status quo, though they/we may think differently on those specific issues. For just one example, of this "centrist's" difference in thought would be I don't believe that the spying on other nations (including our "friends&quot is NOT pissing off any other nation.

But that said, what marks a "moderate" or "centrist" is his/her being (in someone's mind ... usually the person using the term(s)) insufficiently ideologically pure ... It's jusst another way to divide out people that disagree with me ... and would be harmless, if it weren't so devisive among Democrats.

[Major Nikon]

7. There's no moderate position on abortion in congress

So long as the forced-birthers believe their imaginary friend is on their side, they will always take the extreme position and refuse to compromise.

[xchrom]

10. du rec.

[DissidentVoice]

13. There are so few Democrats left

By that, I mean Democrats who haven't been infected by DLC ideology/idiocy.

The political spectrum chart is spot on - Republicans and their media smear machine have been unfortunately too effective in moving the political spectrum further and further to the right.

Too many Democrats have signed on to this kind of "me-tooism."

But the day when the far right actually SUPPORTS "moderation"...well, that will be the day when Rush Limbaugh hangs up his microphone.

[BlueStreak]

14. "Moderate" = accepting the far-right position most of the time

"Moderate" = not having any guiding principles that say some issues are worth fighting over.

[oberliner]

20. Moderates are not "bad news"

Moderates are the reason Democrats have a majority in the Senate.

[cali]

24. it appears as if you didn't even read the op

and it's exceedingly simplistic to claim that there is only one reason why dems hold a majority in the Senate.

Most importantly, the center has moved significantly to the right. And when we have people here calling Lindsey Graham a moderate, that's blatantly obvious.

Yes, moderates are often bad news: They supported practically en masses, the war in Iraq. They vote for such shit as the phony "partial birth abortion" ban. They support things like entitlement cuts out of "fairness".

[oberliner]

45. Appearances can be deceiving

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Moderates are not bad news. They are in fact often good news. They help create majorities for Democrats, without which, one can only imagine the results.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

77. Thanks! I agree!

[lonestarnot]

21. 2K and fucking R

[Snake Plissken]

22. Blaming moderates for the Democrats wimpiness is not going to do anything

but continue the far right trajectory of politics in this country, instead of whining about moderates, use your time and energy to expose the insanity of the far right.

The major problem is democrats think they are taking the 'high road' but all they are doing is allowing the far right to set the agenda and narrative in this country.


finally we are starting to see a little backbone from democrats ... precious little.

[AverageJoe90]

103. Sad but damn true. We need to understand what happened in 2010.....

And learn from that. Or 2014 may end up giving us more setbacks than advances, and that's not something we can afford, IMHO.

[n2doc]

25. people tend to vote on 1 or 2 issues they hold dear

gun control, abortion rights are the 2 biggies. Many others just seem to vote for whomever's name they recognize from the barrage of media ads.

What we call 'moderates' now used to be mainstream Republicans 30 years ago. That is how the political spectrum has shifted.

[reflection]

26. I missed the larger "moderate" thread,

but I always took "moderate" not necessarily to mean that a person has moderate views on all issues. That would be impossible, as some things are just binary, with no gray in the middle.

I envision a moderate as someone who may hold right-leaning views on some things and left-leaning views on others. You see this sometimes with people who say "I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal." Whether or not their views are valid, I think people like that would consider themselves moderates.

In other words, one's political label is the algebraic sum of their views. But like all opinions, mine is my own and certainly subjective.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

76. Great encapsulation of the issue.

[jsr]

27. Recommend

[Benton D Struckcheon]

28. The Barack Obama Twitter account...

…sent out a tweet the other day that set my teeth on edge. "The question isn't between growth and fiscal responsibility. We need both."

No, we don't. If they had actual Keynesians in the White House, that tweet would never have seen the light of day. That precise philosophy got FDR a relapse of the Great Depression in the late thirties.

Grrrrrr…...

[truebluegreen]

39. +100

[Laelth]

71. +1.

A recent post of mine on the subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3893206

-Laelth

[Pretzel_Warrior]

78. So you believe in fiscal irresponsibility?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

81. In times like these, yes.

As Keynes wrote, and as he has been proven correct over and over again. Read Irving Fisher's Debt and Deflation to get an intro on why. This was actually Keynes' point of departure for his own stuff.
Read Hyman Minsky's book on Keynes for a clearer view of who Keynes was and why he said what he said. Best explanation out there.
For a practical view of how it has been implemented and why it worked, read Galbraith's Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went. Funny and very informative.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

82. You are actually arguing that Keynsian deficit spending IS fiscally responsible

And it is a position I agree with. Just so you know, the quantitative easing of the fed is stimulus by another name. Greenspan hates QE so you know it must be the right thing. Keep money flowing in the system...keep interest rates low to make debt servicing less expensive.

The shit heads on the GOP side refuse to allow large enough spending to accomplish economic stimulus.

Don't blame the WH twitter feed. They are operating in political reality.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

106. I'm on record as seeing the Fed as useless

QE is smoke & mirrors far as I'm concerned. Galbraith argued, in that book I mentioned, and showed it pretty persuasively, that monetary policy is useless. Worse than useless actually; it can do harm by raising rates at the wrong time for the wrong reason.
I'd read Galbraith if I were you; he was an advisor to Dem presidents from FDR to JFK, and he implemented policies such as price controls and argues that they work.
Nixon even implemented price controls at one point, but then he's a freakin' commie in the context of today's Republican party.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. dishonest to the max.

"fiscal responsibility" is a dog whistle for "cuts to all programs except those that directly benefit the owning class". Military, prisons, corporate welfare, none of that gets the axe. SNAP does, as do the rest of the programs that actually help working families, and you know it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

86. and you know this how?

Obama has been on record MANNNY times discussing the need to cut out loopholes for corporate taxes, raising taxes, and cutting some of our defense spending. So for you to assume you know what is meant underlying "fiscal responsibility" is your own imagination run wild.

[Enthusiast]

119. You are right. nt

[hobbit709]

31. The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead armadillos-Jim Hightower

[mountain grammy]

33. In the past, I considered myself a "moderate" and "independent"

then I started listening to progressive talk radio and the callers who identified themselves as "moderate" or "independent" were neither according to my definition of the word.

After studying the views and policies of conservatives, moderates, and independents, I concluded I am none of the above.
I'm a LIBERAL, and that's all there is to it. I respect honest differences of opinions and can even compromise occasionally, but it must be honest, and conservatives are no longer honest; they are only about gaining power and using that power to gain more, until we are all slaves to the tyranny of the minority and their religious beliefs.

[progressoid]

55. I think that's true of a lot of people

Many people don't realize how liberal they really are. I read a study (probably here on DU) that showed that many people are actually more liberal than than they think.

Also, the word 'liberal' has been slandered to the point that even Democrats won't even acknowledge it.

[DissidentVoice]

64. "Liberal" has become a slur because WE HAVE ALLOWED IT TO become one!

One of Rush Limbaugh's many and manifold offences has been the creation of "liberal" as a slur.

One of our biggest failings is allowing this to happen, virtually without a fight. Hence the replacement of the term with "progressive," which is now being given the same status, in part due to Glenn Beck.

I piss off a lot of RW people online because I do not run from the term "liberal"...nor do I run from "socialist!"

It's quite hilarious to see their responses - telling me to get out of "their" 'Murica, move to Russia/China/North Korea/Cuba, calling me one of "Lenin's useful idiots," telling me I should be tried for treason, stripped of my citizenship...I've even had threats of physical harm, but I don't take them seriously. Very, very few keyboard commandos have the time/resources/knowledge/wherewithal/guts to trace me down, and even fewer would have the intestinal fortitude to come to my front door and face me.

[Nye Bevan]

34. I think the "moderate" position on abortion is "safe, legal and rare".

I have no problem with that position but plenty of DUers hate it.

[truebluegreen]

40. Disagree in spades.

That sounds like you think people here are pro-abortion, as opposed to pro-choice. That's always been a rw talking point and I don't know of anyone, anywhere who thinks that, let alone here.

[Nye Bevan]

43. You're not familiar with the DU "fuck rare" crowd? It exists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=276069

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=436802

[truebluegreen]

50. 2 is a crowd?

And aren't these people arguing against abortion laws, as opposed to arguing for abortion? You know, trusting women? When women have control of their bodies, access to good sex education / information, birth control, etc. the abortion rate drops.

When it comes to taking politicians out of the mix, I agree with them.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Read the whole threads. Many posters have the "fuck rare" philosophy.

The OP in this thread was asking about "moderate" positions. My view is that "safe, legal and rare" is a moderate position. "Ban abortion" is not a moderate position, and neither is reacting to "safe, legal and rare" by saying "no, fuck rare".

[truebluegreen]

65. My position is "fuck the politicians" regarding this issue,

and I regard that as moderate. So I guess we'll just disagree.

[Nye Bevan]

67. And mine is "fuck the politicians who are trying to ban abortion",

but not the politicians who are working to help preserve a woman's right to choose.

So I guess we are halfway in agreement.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. "rare" is a paternalistic judgemental edict that implies abortion is wrong.

It isn't. It is none of your damn business.

[Nye Bevan]

131. Ted Kennedy was paternalistic and judgmental?

In 1987, Kennedy delivered an impassioned speech condemning Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as a "right-wing extremist" and warning that "Robert Bork's America" would be one marked by back alley abortions and other backward practices. Kennedy's strong opposition to Bork's nomination was important to the Senate's rejection of Bork's candidacy. In recent years, he has argued that much of the debate over abortion is a false dichotomy. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, he remarked, "Surely, we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision." He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy

In any case, 71% of DUers disagree with you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023976002

Like it or not, "safe, legal and rare" is extremely popular, even here on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

132. yes. Oddly enough he was not perfect nor a saint.

Nor was Ted an authority on the subject. Appeal to authority fallacy.
71% of DUers disagree. Argument ad populum. Got anything else?

[Nye Bevan]

133. Yes, as it happens I do.

I have the paternalistic Hillary Clinton:

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

[Warren Stupidity]

140. yes you have the words of a triangulation specialist using the carefully constructed phrase her

husband Bill also used. How that addresses my argument remains a mystery.

"and rare" implies that there is something wrong with abortion and that women who have abortions, and thus contribute to its potential "non-rareness" are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

What part of it is none of your damn business do you not understand?

[Nye Bevan]

144. A "triangulation specialist" who you will most likely be voting for in November 2016.

Try not to break your nose as you hold it.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. I've been voting for repulsive center right Democratic candidates since Carter.

[Nye Bevan]

147. At some point you will probably need to tone down the "Hillary is repulsive" stuff.

Just saying.

[gopiscrap]

36. I agree

[gopiscrap]

37. Moderates are nothing but political chickens!

[dmosh42]

41. The only thing Congress fels 'moderate' about is 'fair' tax rates for the wealthy!

[Vashta Nerada]

44. Moderates are people with political commitment issues.

I can't stand them. I hate that the Democrat running for president always has to court them.

[Marr]

46. A coalition party *must* insist on a degree of purity.

If gay rights advocates want union workers to be there when they're needed, they have to be there for the union workers. The same goes for any other group that makes up the Democratic Party.

So-called "moderates" undermine the party, splitting it by sacrificing this group here, that group there.

[geek tragedy]

47. Sane is the new moderate.

Graham isn't moderate on a single issue. He is sane.

There are crazies on both the left and the right. The difference is that the crazies on the right own a national political party.

[bullwinkle428]

53. "Crazies on the left" could hold their conventions in a phone booth.

[geek tragedy]

61. A really giant phone booth, maybe nt

[Nye Bevan]

69. Is someone who supports the execution or imprisonment of Tim Cook,

and the forced nationalization of Apple, a "crazy on the left"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022881616

How about someone who wants the Koch Brothers arrested for treason or sedition?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023965660

[leftstreet]

75. Moderates were once known as Conservatives

No change
Change nothing
Small tweaks only no change

[cui bono]

113. Talk about false equivalence.

We're supposed to be fighting that, not feeding it.

[geek tragedy]

124. Example: Cynthia McKinney left the party

instead of taking it over.

See also Sheehan, Cindy.

[cui bono]

136. So you consider them crazy? Liken them to Teabaggers?

And where are the crazy left rallies? What are the crazy left ideas that have no basis in reality? What are the crazy left people voting for that is the opposite of what they say they want? Who are the crazy left people that have no fucking clue what they are talking about, who couldn't pass a fourth grade history test?

[geek tragedy]

137. Want an example of a left idea that has no basis in reality?

Try abolishing corporate personhood.

Which would mean that corporations could not sue, be sued, enter into contracts (including employment contracts), and could be censored and have their property (including customer metadata) seized by the government without being able to object.

There's certainly a powerful argument for making distinct corporate persons from natural persons. But abolishing corporate personhood is a wacky idea.

If you want more, just take Ted Cruz's rhetoric about why conservatives failed to defund Obamacare in October and see how often one sees the left apply it to Democratic politicians, i.e. the only reason the attempt failed is that Senate Republicans didn't fight hard enough for it.

It's the exact same argument made by many who claim that the only reason we don't have single payer is because Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn't fight hard enough for it.

[cui bono]

138. Even if I agreed with you, that's not even close to Teabaggerdom.

False equivalence. Completely. And you only hurt the entire Democratic Party and give legitimacy to Teabaggers when you do it.

[geek tragedy]

142. It's not false equivalence.

We don't have Democratic politicians pandering to 911 MIHOP/LIHOP people the way that Birtherism became mainstream in the Republicans.

A lot of the crazies on the left wind up voting Nader/McKinney/Jill Stein etc and aren't considered Democrats.

"Bush=Gore" is crazier than anything the Teabaggers say.

[intaglio]

48. I am very pro-Choice but

There is a definite movement towards terminations based on gender and genetic traits. For example certain cultures value male children over female. Also some families will try to ensure that a future child is a donor match for a sick family member. This last is not necessarily a bad thing but where do you stop the selection? - will all WASP female children be blonde and blue eyed?

[alc]

49. they can be good news

If their view is "don't do anything extreme" where "extreme" means almost 1/2 the country (1/2 of congress) is going to be fighting it for a long time. "big" things can still be done if you have support from both parties and don't have 1/2 the governors, and 1/2 the congress, and potentially a majority of the next congress or the next president fighting that thing.

[Silent3]

51. Moderation can be a great thing, under the right circumstances, which aren't the circumstances...

...we face on many issues in Congress right now, unfortunately.

Republicans have been very successfully in framing many debates in their own terms (like the debt and deficits) so that no one even wants to say flat-out the very historically justified evidence that deficit spending (on the right things, like infrastructure, unemployment payments, creating jobs) can be a good thing. Acting like reducing the deficit in a burning emergency above all else is already conceding more than half the battle to Republicans.

No compromise made under those terms is true "moderation".

A moderate position on abortion would be in line with what many Americans already support, which is no restrictions during early pregnancy, but perhaps some late-term restrictions that don't endanger the life and health of the mother.

[treestar]

52. The right wing is not in the least willing to be moderate!

What just happened re debt ceiling and government shut down?

You're confusing having to come to some agreement, and both sides have to do that, with actually believing in the things agreed to.

There's no way I'd want, say taxes reduced, but it might have to be agreed to in order to avoid government shutdown. Other times, the government shutdown might be OK for a while.

Moderate seems now to mean just admitting the other side exists and won some elections.

[ljm2002]

57. Exactly right!

Thanks for a very clear outline of how this particularly insidious false equivalency gains traction, while being completely, 100% false.

K&R

[green917]

58. moderate republicans

The only moderate republicans in congress are democrats!

[L0oniX]

59. my moderate k & r

[dawg]

63. What passes as "moderate" today was considered radical just a few short years ago.

There's nothing moderate about proposing cuts to Social Security benefits.

There's nothing moderate about proposing an increase in the Medicare age from 65 to 67.

There's nothing moderate about proposing severe spending cuts while unemployment continues to be high and the economy has not fully recovered.

There's nothing moderate about telling women what they can do with their own bodies.

There's nothing moderate about discriminating against people because of innate characteristics they were born with.

There's nothing moderate about making unaffordable tax cuts permanent for people making up to $400,000 a year and then cutting food stamps because ..... deficit!

The Third-Way, Pete Peterson, Fix the Debt, Bowels-Simpleton, and any Democrats or Republicans who hold these positions, are not moderates

They just call themselves that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Yet, the left is blamed for not supporting Democrats who support Republican policies.

[Kermitt Gribble]

99. Perfectly stated! n/t

[Enthusiast]

120. PLUS ONE! nt

[rock]

66. Excellently put

Kick

[lostincalifornia]

68. You have just said it. What the MSM is telling us is moderate, is bogus. They have been pushing

that idea regarding Chris Christie. He is NO MODERATE. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-education, etc.

however, if you relay on the television media you will be misled

[ronnie624]

80. This point cannot be stressed enough:

There is NOTHING analogous to the teahadist repukes, within the Dem caucus. Not even a little bit. Not even close.

I don't understand how anyone can draw this ridiculous equivalency.

[colsohlibgal]

83. All Tags Have Moved Hard Right

A moderate republican now would have a far right label pre Reagan.

Ike had the top marginal personal tax rate at 91 or 92%. That was probably a big high then it moderated to about 60-70% through JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Democrats and Republicans. Then the Death Valley Days B Actor took over and it got slashed and things have never been the same.

Our budget problems are way more about revenue than spending - though slashing our ridiculous defense budget would help immensely. We could start by our stopping making planes and tanks the military don't want or use.

[Enthusiast]

121. Absolutely right on!

The "tags" have moved hard right. Because that is the narrative the corporate media is pushing.

[Rex]

87. The saddest are the moderates that behave like extremists toward the rest of the party.

They make America SUCK.

And they also try and hide their behavior by pretending to be moderates...which is just downright sad imo.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

89. examples?

[Rex]

90. Too easy.

NEXT.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

91. waiting.

[Rex]

92. This guy right here

A classic case of hiding behind moderation, when he was nothing more than a disrupting troll.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

93. my apologies. who is that? I don't recognize the face.

[Rex]

94. Just some piece of trash that hid behind the moderate tag

while forgetting sometimes and acting like a total extremist when he got mad. His only point was to divide people on DU and thankfully he was banned.

You asked for an example, there ya go.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

95. thanks for nothing.

[Rex]

96. Aww why are you so sadz now?

I gave you what you wanted.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

88. quit being so EXTREMELY MODERATE! Nothing good ever came from moderation.

ever.

I now see the word "moderate" is as much of a rorschach test as anything here on DU. It means whatever you want it to mean. Words cease to have meaning when ideologues decide that word is bad.

[cali]

115. I was quite speciific in my op. YOU, oth, are not at all specific in your complaints about it

[Zorra]

101. I remember when the Dem moderate position on marriage was STFU. nt

[AverageJoe90]

102. Somewhat decent OP, but the Repubs aren't really crying out for "moderation" at all, TBH.

Don't know where you got that from, but it isn't really true.
While you ARE correct in pointing out that there are very few moderate Republicans left anymore, I'm not hearing the cries for "moderation" of any kind from the GOP. In fact, all they've been calling for is for people to outright capitulate.....something that, to be truthful most real Democratic moderates have been agitating against since day one.

In fact, if anything at all, the vast majority of actual cries for moderation have been coming from the left, and I don't see that changing much anytime soon, unless anti-establishment-GOP sentiment ends up being a lot more prominent in the next year or so.

If you want to blame someone for Lindsey Graham being falsely labelled as "moderate", btw, blame the media; they're most of the problem in that regard.

[liberalmuse]

104. In my experience?

Moderates are fucking idiots. You cannot discuss anything other than "American Idol" or "The Voice" with these people. They like to keep their heads firmly embedded up their asses.

[blkmusclmachine]

105. .

.

[quakerboy]

112. There are plenty of Republican moderates in the congress. I'd say at least 70.

they are just calling themselves Democrats at the moment.

[Enthusiast]

114. I'm certainly not lapping up this nonsense.

Those that say, "We all have to sacrifice", they are serving the 1%. If your President says, "We all have to sacrifice", he is serving the 1%. If your Senator or Representative is saying, "We all have to sacrifice", they are serving the 1%, at your expense. That is a fact. And anyone promoting message that there is an extreme uncooperative fringe left in congress, they are serving the corporations and the 1%. And it's a damned near universal media narrative.

[KG]

117. useful tools for blue-washing right wing policies....

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. the problem with the word moderate is - where do you put the goal post?

I suppose Mussolini was a moderate compared to Hitler. The current pundit class is claiming that moderates on the issues of Social Security and Medicare are those in the middle between the far right who wants to eliminate or privatize such programs or cut them drastically and what they call the far left who opposes cuts in any Social Security and Medicare. Why not declare that the moderate position lies between those who want to gradually increase the benefits of Social Security and Medicare over the next few years and those who want major increases immediately? What not adopt a real broad definition of moderate as the one who is in the middle between the extremes of old Soviet era total collectivism and the extremes of American style capitalism. Perhaps that would be a real moderate - someone who is in the middle between capitalism and socialism.

[bvar22]

139. DURec!

[font size=3]"In politics the middle way is none at all."[/font]
-President John Adams

[Laelth]

141. +1 for the Jim Hightower allusion. n/t

-Laelth

[MissMillie]

143. I say this all the time, but I'll say it again

The Democratic party has been inching to the middle for more than 20 years now. The result has been that in order to paint the left as "radical" the right has had to go extremely right.

[blackspade]

145. This.