Define "moderate", left or right...

[Skidmore]

Where does right moderate end and left moderate begin? Who the heck are some of us dying to appeal to anyway?

[Coastie for Truth]

1. Motto of the Moderate

1. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
2. Time heals all wounds.
3. All things seek steady state/homeostasis.
4. "Win-Win" is always better then "Zero Sum"
5. When life gives you lemons make lemonade.
6. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
7. Always give the other guy a chance to save face.
8. When in doubt read the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle - but only draw you own conclusions after you have read Paul Krugman and E.J. Dione. (Disregard George Will).
9. Plan carefully.
10. Measure twice, cut once.
11. Sushi is good, but so is broiled fish and tuna salad.
12. The role of "faith" is to break barriers and include - not to build barriers and exclude.

Or - as we used to say aboard ship -- "Don't sweat the small shit."

[cidliz2004]

25. I consider myself a moderate, until reading your description

Although, personally, I like what your description says and personally those are many of my motto's, they aren't my "Politics".

I feel as a moderate that you take from both sides. You sit on a fence in the middle and you observe the Left and the Right and you decide what you think to be the best choice for the time. You don't blindly follow anybody's ideology lockstep and you try to OBJECTIVELY look at issues for the good of most (you'll hardly ever get for the good of all). You may at times swing way left and even at times way right, but you always start from the middle. The approach is balanced.

This isn't a political explanation, it is my explanation.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissMarple]

6. Not if you understand the goal regarding abortion is to make it rare.

If you don't believe that making a law against a serious social and cultural issue makes the problem prompting the law effectively addressed, and if you do understand that a strictly punitive approach driven by bureaucratic government oversight of intensely personal health and family issues is counter productive, one can come closer to a rapprochement on the matter of abortion and abortion rights. There is not a simple answer, and it is a serious issue. It is not a question of moving right or left, it is a question of how best to limit the necessity for abortion that is the problem.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissMarple]

8. The "gung-ho" abortion on demand crowd are not moderate.

They are just reacting to the "no abortion even if the woman and fetus are dying on the table" people. If we resolve this, it will be the moderates that come together for some non grandstanding, old fashioned roll up your sleeves and make it work legislation. The answers are out there, the extreme partisans don't want us to use them because divisiveness is better for them than for us to get along and do some real problem solving. Then they would have to do some real work for a living.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissMarple]

13. No it's not. There are folks on the far right who believe that.

There are even women who believe that it is necessary to carry a non viable fetus to term, even if it endangers her health and her life. This was front page news in our paper The Gazette last month. Of course, I think they verge toward religious imbalance. Some of them really believe this, others use it to promote their agenda.

And again, it's not a matter of moving right... or left, if you really want to resolve this issue. Most moderates, and we make up a quite large segment of the population, want an end to the grandstanding idiocy from both sides. Abortion should not be, and is not medically recommended as, a convenient method of birth control and government should not demand a woman maintain a pregnancy she does not want. Ideological purity of either extreme does none of us any good.

Those guys on the fringes who keep shouting and tantruming...I don't know. They are like horses who have the bits in their teeth and they are running the whole shebang off the cliff.

[centristo]

11. what if we did this?

Maybe we (the left) would be better served pushing legislation to help reduce the number of legal abortions in this country. This is NOT the same thing as limiting the number of abortions. Producing legislation that, for instance, educates at-risk teens, makes birth control more accessible, etc. would accomplish two things:

1) keeps the government out of a woman's personal affairs (which we all want)
2) shows moderate right-wingers that yes, we (liberals) realize abortion isn't a glorious thing and that as a society that values life we should should strive to reduce the amount of unnecessary abortions.

I have heard of some women in their late twenties who have already had 3-4 abortions. I personally think that's sick, but I still don't want the government to tell her she can't have a fifth. What would work better for our ideals and even for conservative ideals is to foster an environment where a person like that will realize her sexual lifestyle is risky and even irresponsible. That is a societal change however, but one we should encourage, IMHO.

We should avoid pro-choice/pro-life terminology and reframe this debate on our terms.

PS: as you can tell from my name, I'm a centrist (aka left-moderate).

[MissMarple]

16. I think you have a good start at a productive discussion.

Other pieces are improved education in general, and in family living skills that emphasize responsibility and logical consequences, in accessible health care, and affordable housing, and child care for working parents, and job creation. An educated, informed, and comfortably off citizenry will reduce the number of abortions. They have actually increased since 2000, with the loss of jobs and the economy, it is not surprising.

Also, I understand that many countries in Europe limit late term abortions, as does Roe v Wade. Viability is the tripping point. We need to come to terms with that.

One thing I learned from researching teen pregnancy in the 1980's was that girls who tend not to get pregnant have goals and see a positive future for themselves. They may have sex, but they get pregnant at a far lower rate. Also, a conservative church organization in Dallas did a study on teen pregnancy in the 80"s and about 50% of churched and non churched kids had sex, it dropped to 25-30% for seriously churched kids who pledged celibacy until marriage. At the time, I was startled to see that. I understand the percentages may be different today, but I bet the relationship stands.

Ewww...and that poster above, I was wondering about him. He disappeared as I was posting in response to him. He didn't seem to be thinking clearly. Definitely not with the program. :-)

[slackmaster]

24. Only valid reason for government to try to limit abortions is efficiency

Abortion when used casually as a method of family planning is a waste of medical resources. Government's proper role is to ensure that people are educated about and have easy access to effective methods of birth control.

I have heard of some women in their late twenties who have already had 3-4 abortions. I personally think that's sick, but I still don't want the government to tell her she can't have a fifth.

I really don't care about the abortions themselves, but someone who has had that many needs to get a clue. As a taxpayer I think it's wrong to make all of us pay for someone's chronic stupidity.

[cidliz2004]

27. You could pay for their chronic stupidity

OR you could pay to raise an unwanted child.

[slackmaster]

29. There are other options

- Forced sterilization, of which I do not approve, and

- Concentrate educational efforts on the few people who haven't yet gotten a clue.

In some cases the latter will fail, and we end up paying for the abortion or the unwanted child. So be it. That's the price of living in a society of humans.

[cidliz2004]

30. That is what it comes down to

when all else fails, the choice is, pay for the abortion or pay for the unwanted child.

[Jamastiene]

3. The ideal 2 party system

would be a definite moderate to left on one side and a definite moderate to right on the other. Well, maybe skip the right and just have moderate and liberals.

Some of my definitions:
Left would be:
Pro Choice
Anti Death Penalty
Pro Gay rights
Pro Freedom of religion
Strongly Pro Environmental protections and
Pro Animal Rights

Right would be:
Pro guns including ak47's for hunting ???
Anti choice
Pro Death Penalty (although this could fall in the moderate category)
Anti Gay Rights (including and at least condoning what happened to Matthew Shepherd in some cases)
Anti Freedom of religion (government establishes the right wing version of Christianity as the official religion)
Strongly anti environmental protections and
Anti Animal right AND human rights

Moderates to me could fall anywhere in between the left and the right. I kind of see a moderate/left and a moderate/right so, that could take all day. I gotta go get ready for school now...

[BlueFlu]

4. Check out moderatemajority.com...

for several examples of left -v- moderate -v- right issues.

[wyldwolf]

10. the issues there are somewhat simplified...

... and "moderate" is a big blanket term.

You can be a moderate liberal, with views slightly right of typical liberal views - whatever they are - or a moderate conservative with views slightly left of typical conservative views - whatever THEY are.

Yet, the two can still be miles apart.

Let's take abortion.

Assume the liberal view is abortion should be legal at all times.
Assume the conservative view is they should be illegal at all times.

A moderate conservative may feel abortions should be illegal at all times unless the health of the mother is at stake.

A moderate liberal may feel abortions should be legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy UNLESS the health of the mother is at stake then it would be legal at any time.


What you also have to undertake is a tedious process of determining what the "true" liberal or conservative stance is on any given issue, tally all the issues, then determine which issue is most important and carries the most weight.

is it more important to have the liberal view on abortion than on gun control?

if one is pro-choice but anti gun control, is he/she a liberal or conservative or moderate?

[ret5hd]

5. i'm a moderate...

everyone to the left of me (admittedly very very few) are left wing wackos
everyone to the right of me are fascist right wingers

does that answer your question?

[welshTerrier2]

12. what the heck ...

here's my views on this spectrum stuff ...

moderates incorrectly believe that they are somehow "balanced" because 1/2 the people who disagree with them are on the right and 1/2 the people who disagree with them are on the left ... of course, the truth is that being in the middle doesn't make them right ... i see them as the inattentive drivers who straddle the lane lines figuring it's safer not driving too far left or too far right ...

the right is characterized by those that believe our system of competition yields the fairest results and nothing should be done to tinker with it ... they mistakenly believe that the playing field and the rules are fair to begin with ... i've been thinking about how unfair access to the media is in the U.S. ... take something as simple as a commercial to sell cars ... a profit-oriented business buys time on TV and airs its commercial increasing the demand for its product ... we take this system for granted ... but suppose you thought mass transit was the way to go ... suppose you hated the pollution caused by automobiles ... suppose you wanted less money for highways and more money for trains ... what do you do? put together a little non-profit and buy commercial time on TV? it just doesn't work that way ... even if you could raise the money, most stations wouldn't air your commercial ... the right would never understand this argument ...

and the left? the left has done a very, very bad job ... they allowed themselves to be painted as un-American ... "go back to Russia you commies" is not the battle cry you should be hearing from those you hope to influence ... it's time for the left to adopt the following idea: we must revere "THE IDEALS" of America ... our battle should never send an "anti-American" message ... we need to make it very clear that we honor our Constitution and the freedoms it seeks to ensure ... our fight is not with the Founding Fathers vision for America; our fight is with those who trash the Constitution and endanger our democratic ideals ... our government exists today for only a single purpose: promoting corporate interests ... any progress we think we're making is illusory ... the Democratic Party will remain a non-player until we rejoin the battle for a new American democratic movement ... the battle for the left should be a battle to reform our institutions and return America's promise to all Americans ...

[Yosie]

14. Not abortion per se

It is the attitude about non-procreational sex.

The right says "Sex is only for procreation" and therefore homosexuality and abortion are wrong.

The left says "Sex is private - and no concern of the government."

[AP]

15. Moderate is when you occassionaly shift your priorities around so that...

...sometimes you could be convinced to vote across to the other party. Some moderates shift because they think the other party has the best position on a certain favorite issue (whether it's fighting terror, or reducing the deficit). Sometimes a moderate will shift because they're horrified by their party's position on an issue that has suddenly become their party's top priority but isn't the voter's top priority. Like, say, pro-choice Republican is driven from Santorum rather than drawn to the Democratic opponent.

You're a left moderate if you're more often voting Democratic, and you're a right moderate if you more often vote Republican.

No?

[MissMarple]

17. Moderates are more goal oriented than ideologically driven.

Abortion, for instance, goals would be limiting the incidence of abortion while keeping government oversight at a minimum. An ideological purist on the left would say government has no say, a moderate would ask about the viable fetus that can survive out side the womb. A purist from the right would mandate all pregnancies come to term and even begin to monitor a pregnant woman's activities. A moderate would understand that government has no place in intimate details and take into account the issue of viability. A moderate religious person would possibly weigh the health and life of the mother and the viability and "ensoulment" of the fetus. Either way government's only role could come into play only after viability. And as I intimated above, after viability, abortion should not be used as birth control. It doesn't make any sense, to my moderate sensibilities, of course.

[welshTerrier2]

18. goal oriented?

so like, if plantation owners in the pre-Civil War South had been willing to set 1/2 of the slaves free, moderates would be willing to compromise with them instead of holding out for the lofty ideals of outlawing slavery ???

i guess that's somehow being "goal oriented" ...

[MissMarple]

22. That doesn't even make any sense.

That would have been more like limiting the spread of slavery (which they tried), and figuring out how to shore up the southern economy when the slaves were freed (which they didn't). Since plantation system was based on slave labor, a transition for the slave fueled plantation based economy would have been necessary to avoid economic collapse. But we didn't do that. We fought an expensive, damned, bloody, and divisive war that we are still haunted by, and still brought about economic collapse. The plantation owners were something like the oil companies today. They just keep using up resources in a grossly inefficient and destructive manner.

Would a moderate approach have worked? Maybe. Did they have the foresight, knowledge, and resources to explore that? I don't know. Would it have been worth a try? In my opinion, yes. But then hindsight...and all that.

[independentchristian]

19. Don't you get it?

Everything in politics is "conveniently" divided into "two" perfectly opposing viewpoints.

You must be either liberal or conservative, right?

You must be right or left, right?

You must be a Democrat or a Republican, right?

You must be pro-choice or anti-choice, right?

You must be pro-life or pro-death, right?

You must be totally for pro-gun control or anti-gun control, right?

You must be pro-abortion or anti-abortion, right?

What's my point? My point is that no one is either one thing or the other. People are not that "conveniently" divided into groups based on viewpoints, but the "elites" have convinced them that they should be. This makes it easy for the elites to control the electorate and maintain the status quo, getting its way.

I am a "person," and I am multi-layered. I am not one thing or the other, and that's what most people are as well.

If I were you, I'd just "ignore" labels like left or right. Most people are not either one of them, and every Democrat is not a leftist, and ever Republican is not a rightist. Every Democrat is not "liberal" and every Republican is not "conservative." That's why I can't stand labels, because they keep people from thinking. They are used out of "convenience." Anytime that someone says, "left," they automatically assume that that person is a leftwing, liberal, Democrat, and that ignorant mindest makes me sick.

[Skidmore]

20. Thank you. This is my belief as well.

My question then becomes how do we disengage from this video game shootout we've allowed ourselves to be sucked into and address the needs of people? Perhaps this diserves a separate thread.

[independentchristian]

21. I could discuss that, but I don't really feel like typing 3 pages, lol

I think you could start by nominating a candidate that is admired by people who consider themselves to be every label there is.

If you have a candidate that doesn't instantaneously make voters focus on "labels," then they would not focus on them, but when you nominate one that is viewed as "far right" and one that is viewed as "far left", it serves the goal of the elites to "highlight" those convenient labels.

That's what happened the last time, and it was intentionally set up that way.

If I were to ask most people on this board, most of them would say that "you can't get any more conservative than Texas," (maybe SC and GA) and if I were to start an account on the Free Republic and ask them, they'd say "you can't get any more liberal than Mass" (maybe CA), but you get the point.

The elites want these convenient labels to be publically accepted because it makes the lab rats (people) easier to manipulate, but if you had a candidate who could get people to overlook labels (didn't hear a whole lot about labels on a regular basis when Clinton was in office), then you'd have a good starting point, and if you can get that candidate to focus on us as "Americans" instead of us as "labels," then you could start down the right road.

Other than that, people need to be educated. If most so-called "conservatives" actually knew what the conservative agenda was all about, they wouldn't call themselves conservatives. Most of them don't have a clue that Conservatism wants programs like SS, public education funding, Medicare, etc, destroyed. They think it's just about "moral values and defense," because the Democrats allowed them to believe that, so I'd say that education is also important.

Thom Hartman says, "When stories change, the world changes." Correct the misconceptions on labels, and people will question them, and while they are questioning them, teach them that they really are irrelevent. You don't need to "adopt" the title of liberal or conservative to have a political opinion, and you shouldn't need to be a Democrat or a Republican in order to get elected to office, but people have been brainwashed to think that you do, and if you aren't "labeled or branded," then you are strange to them and they don't know what to think about you although you have given them your viewpoints, so they will not support you.

It's ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

23. Far left and far right are indistinguishable from one another

For me the most important dimension in politics is the degree to which a position or philosophy advocates government intrusion into and control over peoples' daily lives. Government should serve the needs of the needy, keep the infrastrure and defense running, and do it all on a budget by collecting just enough taxes to get the job done.

The moment government starts pushing, for example, a religious agenda (as the far right is doing) or actively redistributing wealth (as the far left tends to do) it has gone out of bounds.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. A moderate is someone who manages to piss off both liberals and

conservatives. The appeal to middle of the road voters. Bill Richardson and Schwartzenegger are prime examples.

[me b zola]

28. For me it is this

I feel that the traditional Democratic values are quite moderate, although to listen to the repugs, media & some Dems, those values are far left.

Jobs, a living wage , labor unions, sustainable communities, health care, education, accountability of government & big business, hands off SS & and other safety nets, government out of our personal lives, freedom of the press, access to the courts, separation of church & State...the list goes on.

Even so-called "moderate" Dems call us far left for calling for the values that have long been held for the Democratic party. I say that they are pulling us into cooperate slavery.





POWER TO THE PEOPLE! NOW!!!!!!

[MissMarple]

31. I don't believe that is necessarily true. Moderate doesn't mean sell out.

Although there are those who have moved far away from principle because they are trying to maintain a personal power base, the anything for a vote people. But Democrats who are elected by conservative leaning constituencies will not hold the same views on every platform as Democrats elected by liberal constituencies. One problem the Republicans will be facing more and more is trying to hold their party to a narrow view. Democrats have the same problem. The two party system is getting pretty shaky, but if you want Dems to win across the country, you have to cut them some ideological slack. Pro choice positions, affordable health care, child care, jobs growth, SS, and investment opportunities, separation of church and state, etc, don't produce the same ideological fervor across the board. So, as a party, the Democrats need to focus on those traditional issues that resonate with most of the people who consider themselves democratic and liberal.

The issues of yesterday parallel those of today, but there are differences, and Democratic goals and approaches need to reflect those differences. Expectations for what government can do, should do, and absolutely should not do are in a state of change. Bringing Americans together for what we have in common is a tough task, fervent ideologists who demand purity from whatever direction they represent are as likely to throw the baby out with the bath water as the cynical, power hungry, win at any cost power brokers and politicians. And the idealists are the ones who claim to give a damn.