red i was just reading some of my favorite dude, richard dawkins, and i found a quote that is perfect for you: "when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." a friend of mine is kinda liberal/moderate like you and he is always talking about his other liberal friends and how he thinks the right answers are between their goofy liberal opinions and my nutty martinocratic opinions, as if by some magic the right answer is always in the middle. but why would that stand to reason? why cant the right answers happen to be moderate in terms of being between mine and another friend of mine who is a psycho anarcho-capitalist? my friend thinks he gains perspective on things by listening to both sides. would that same perspective be gained if you listend to a right wing dude and then for perspective listened to a guy ever further right than the first? why not? the moderate stance is just as relative as the extremes, and no more likely to be right for its moderation. politicians are forced to hug the middle because thats where the votes are. but the right answers may appear to be extremes from both sides of where today's parties lie. i will call this the fallacy of moderation, the failure to realize that an arbitrary point between extremes is just that, arbitrary.
And as I have pointed out to you before: 1. A moderate position is not always on the dead centroid of the scale. It is a fairly broad band encompassing large portions of the liberal and conservative views. 2. Moderates are pragmatic. The answers to most questions are found somewhere in the broad middle, not at the narrow extremes. But when they are, moderates are free to go there. It is only conservatives and liberals who seem forbidden to ever take any view on the other side. 3. You have a fixation that moderates are locked to the middle on each issue. This is simply not the case. Most moderates have views that are very right on some issues, and very left on others. But, on the whole, they are moderate. 4. All natural systems seek equilibrium. It's simply a matter of balance.
but this is what i mean. this is a totally unfounded assumption. if you say so, but i always expect you to take the middle, and i am rarely suprised. social security is an example. you seem to favor it to the extent that will be perceived as moderate. with no real reasoning other than being moderate. but between the arbitrary extremes of the current politics of america? woould that equilibrium change if we lived in a differnt place and time? i dont think you follow what i am saying.
In the modern politcal arena though, moderate means, "I believe in whatever is most popular in the polls." The press trumpets a moderate as a free thinker when they break from party lines. Mainly it's a person who doesn't believe in anything except being popular and liked. For Washington, it means staying elected and getting a guest spot as host of SNL i.e. McCain. For instance, nobody talks the truth about Africa. Blair, IMO a very good moderate, wants us to give $29 billion a year to Africa when the truth is, and many Africans themselves have stated so, the money keeps these ruthless despots in power and makes the continent dependents. It's easier to make yourself feel good about "at least doing something to help" then looking at and tackling the tough problems..........that's what people who stand for something do. IMO like Bush.....he's taken harsh criticism over Iraq and the war on terror but he believes in it and rather than move to the middle and give the moderate Congress some silly date on a withdrawal, he stands behind it win or lose. Character is the key word........
Perhaps. In the political arena anything goes and I have little respect for the campaign process and politicians of all stripes who work only to be reelected. They worship the polls. But the American voter doesn't give a rat's ass about the polls. He cares about himself and his country. Moderate, in the case of the voters, means that he diapproves of the granola-eatin', wacko extreme left and also the jackbooted crackpot extreme right. Moderates drive all over the road, but they stay out of the left and right ditches. Moderates are pragmatic, not dogmatic. They will vote both parties and will elect candidates from the right and the left if they are . . . "moderate". There is no centrist party and no centrist candidates exist, I sometimes wish there were. Liberals and Conservatives must understand that moderate views extend far into their spectrums and many of their breathren are infact, moderates themselves. "We have met the enemy, and he is us!" -- Pogo
I call myself a conservative and a Republican but the party and I seldom fully agree. I still am forced to vote Republican because overall, I believe in lower taxes, tough military cause there's always an enemy etc etc. But for instance, I don't personally agree with abortion but that wouldn't keep me from voting for Guliani who is pro-choice. But I understand people who wouldn't because the issue is huge for them. I haven't met too many Dem's I would have voted for but it's hard to find a Republican that I love. Reagan was the last I think, like someone else on here said. I hope my family isn't the only hard-line conservatives anymore. Moderates have killed us off.........
