Posted on 06/10/2009 3:58:20 AM PDT by Nils Bergeson
“All I know is my gut says maybe.” - The President of the Neutral Planet from Futurama
One of the most common misconceptions about Moderates is that they are neutral, appeasing, weak, indifferent, apathetic, or a host of other soft-sounding adjectives. Perhaps when one thinks of a Moderate, they immediately imagine someone who doesn’t take a stand on any issue. Perhaps they think of one more concerned about being liked than about doing what is right. Perhaps they think of one who is easily swayed by the changing winds of public opinion.
If you found yourself agreeing with any of those sentiments, know that the purpose of this article is to wipe any such conception of from your mind.
A Moderate cannot be neutral. While there are certainly plenty of “neutrals” out there, these individuals are not Moderates. A political neutral has no set viewpoint on a particular issue. A true neutral is rare indeed, and more who are called neutral are likely better defined as “indifferent” or “apathetic.” A Moderate does not qualify as a neutral, because they indeed have political viewpoints, and those viewpoints must be strong and well defined.
These viewpoints are strong, because they have legs to stand on. They are based on progress facilitation, not problem identification. Moderates spend less time stating their opposition or support for certain policies, and more time constructing working solutions to solve existing problems. A neutral or apathetic cannot be focused on solutions, because they, in fact, hold no position.
A Moderate cannot be an appeaser or a “flip-flopper.” While Moderates, like any thinking individual, have the right to change their viewpoint based on more information coming to light, a change in understanding, etc., they do not do so for the sole purpose of political opportunism.
When it comes to electoral success, a Moderate’s job is actually tougher than that of an Extremist. Sure, Extremists easily make plenty of enemies on the opposite extreme of the continuum. However, they also garner a staunch group of loud followers who share their own extreme positions. On the other hand, a Moderate has little difficulty finding critics, usually ending up with haters on either side of the continuum. Extremists, espousing a “with us or against us” mentality, will consistently try to push the Moderate on the other extreme.
While Moderates generally have little trouble finding people who in principle agree with their views, their supporters tend to be quieter and less controversial than the supporters of Extremists. This level-headed approach often gets mistaken for “political softness,” making political success difficult for Moderates.
Moderates especially have difficulty winning elections. If they belong to one of the major political parties, they find opposition from more extreme opponents within their own party. If they are independent, well, we all are aware of the near-impossibility independents face when running for office.
A Moderate cannot be weak. Moderates stand up for what is right just as strongly as any Extremist does. In fact, the moderate position is ultimately stronger, because their goal goes beyond only taking a stand. Their goal is to facilitate solutions through working methods. Unlike many Extremists, Moderates focus primarily on actions, rather than words.
The main reason Moderates make enemies out of Extremists is because taking a position focused on solutions means working with individuals on both sides of the continuum. Extremists are quick to jump on the Moderate, deriding their openness as pandering. Taking such a difficult position is anything but weak, as Extremists make being a Moderate a constant challenge.
My goal has been to show how a true Moderate can and does hold strong views. Moderation is not a political position, but a method of finding solutions. At heart, the Moderate in all of us wants to progress. The true test is learning how to become Moderate in our own approach to political issues, without becoming unduly influenced by the voice of the Extremists.
Moderates might not be in the news as much as Extremists, but they are the individuals whose commitments to progress truly bring about positive change in politics. Simply put, a Moderate is anything but a sissy.
Next Editions: Defining a Moderate Part III: Did Somebody Say Party?
Al Qaeda are not moderates. You know exactly what to expect from them. I dont trust them either.
All politicians decide issues on what “makes them look better”. Its just that their core constituency is different.
Is that because they hold those opinions dear, or because they know if they went against them they would be out of office in double quick time, and no one would be paying them anything again?
Interesting interpretation of scripture. Try this one:
“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.” Philippians 4:5
What you are explaining is an appeaser or one who compromises morals. The article explains how a true Moderate is neither of those things.
Good question. I think what you are describing is Centrism, which in my mind doesn’t necessarily equate with Moderation. As you explain, there are some things which do not balance well. While we don’t want to be somewhere in between “freedom” and “unfreedom,” as you say, there can, however be balance between things such as anarchy and complete government control.
In short, I agree with you that “balance” doesn’t always imply the direct center between two extreme viewpoints.
Can’t say I recall anyone named “O’Bozo” on the ballot. Perhaps he/she was only on the ballot in certain states.
Perhaps I could rephrase: A Moderate is content to get a good solution.
I appreciate your distinction. Thank you for clarifying. I agree that moderation (which in the case of your post, appears to be related to Epicureanism) is an approach rather than a position. Centrism connotes an ideological position.
Neither are they leaders. They are crowd followers and politically moral relativists.
Interesting you should bring old Adolf into the discussion. In 1928 the Nazis were a minor party of what was called the extreme right. In the elections of that year they got a derisory 3% of the vote. He got into power because after the wall street crash and the onset of the great depression, German political opinion polarised very rapidly. The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.
So who’s to blame then?
Interesting you should bring old Adolf into the discussion. In 1928 the Nazis were a minor party of what was called the extreme right. In the elections of that year they got a derisory 3% of the vote. He got into power because after the wall street crash and the onset of the great depression, German political opinion polarised very rapidly. The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.
So who’s to blame then?
Not so. Washington wasn’t a gung-ho revolutionary republican. Lincoln was no rabid abolotionist. Jeff Davis believed secession was legal, but not that the South should secede. At the time all of them were regarded as moderates on the great issues of their day.
What does “politically moral relativist” mean? A cynic might explain it thusly. Certain political opinions (like gun control, pro-choice, national health service) have become thought of as “leftist”. Others, (such as anti-abortion, pro death penalty, free market) have become associated with the right-wing.
This has become so entrenched now that someone who holds an opinion on say, creationism, is by definition also expected to be in favor of, say, tighter immigration controls. Someone who thinks for themselves and refuses to buy into this, by say, believing in increased defense spending and also that we should reduce Carbon emissions, is accused of being “unprincipled”!
Political moral relativism - its just another excuse not to think.
No Im not saying that Democracy is between two “extremes”. As far as I am concerned, the political spectrum meets round the back. The extreme “left” is no better (and no different basically) from the extreme “right”.
I’m saying that moderation is not a political position. Its not centrism. It is an approach, a method, a way of doing things. That is why I agree absolutely with your last paragraph,
That is because the “moderates” you met were either centrists, or people whose moderation was actually indifference or apathy. As the original article clearly states, true moderates are not like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.