What is a Political Moderate?

With that statement it is now patently obvious you never watched the debates, or did not listen to what Kerry said. That's what Kerry said. That's like exactly what he said. Where were you? That might be an interesting point if not for the fact that this is wholly beside the point.The question of this thread is what was a moderate. My point was that your definition was correct, but according to your own definition then, the Republicans were actually the one's who reached out beyond the moderate section of America, to garner votes based on far right leanings.The Dems may have made assumptions that certain groups were for them, but that is not the same thing as reaching out to radical left elements which is what you accuse them of doing. Your only evidence continues to be that Michael Moore said not to vote for Bush (never mentioning he did not endorse Kerry, and if anything was Kerry negative until that was the only choice he had left). Yawn.Were promises (or suggestions of promises) made by the Republican Party to the religious right, including promises which you just said were unaccaptable to you, in order to get their vote which was necessary to add to the base vote? Yes or No?I think we both know what the answer is. If not, maybe you should look into what the moral majority is saying and what their turn out meant. Jerry Falwell does a lot of talk shows and there is plenty of tape.I am also curious what you will do when the MM gets its payback?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just want to get this straight, after whining that the Democrats are bad because they aren't centrist, your solution is that they reach out to evangelicals who are patently not centrist?Oh that's right you claim there is a difference between PFs and Evangelicals. You of course do not know that I grew up in a religious conservative community, right near the Billy Graham Center in fact, went to college at a religious affiliated university, and then spent several years among a highly evangelical community.Bush is an evangelical, and it is that wing of evangelicals (the falwells and roberts) which are being appealled to. That was the numbers that were being courted.Evengelicals are against abortion to a degree which is not mainstream. They are against stem cell research in a way which is not mainstream. They are against gay marriages that can vacillate between the moderate and not. They are also totally for faith based programs (especially education) which is wholly noncentrist.You seem to keep thinking I am Michael Moore. I am not. I had quite a conservative background, and am conservative fiscally to some degree and definitely in military matters.The problem in this election was not the Democrats choosing the wrong crowd to sell out to. It was the Republicans selling out their traditional values and courting far right votes just to secure an election win.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-06-2004 06:49 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I disagree. Abortion on demand with public funding is an extreme position. Instead of distancing himself from NARAL, which advocates this, Kerry publicly threw his lot in with them, appearing onstage with their director.Contrary to your assertion, I watched Kerry in all three debates very attentively. His remarks to the effect that poverty should not be a bar to abortion in the second, townhall debate were transparent code for public funding of abortion - an extreme NARAL position. We don't know each other personally. I don't think you are Michael Moore. Obviously you are to my left somewhat. If I am center-right, perhaps you're center-left. I do think you are an intelligent, good debater, although given to occasional flights of invective, although I confess to this vice as well. I heard Bush speak at a campaign event. One question was from a clearly fundamentalist woman to the effect of "what are we going to do about these unchurched people". His response was quite negative. It was to the effect of "Maam, you must understand that in America, everyone is free to practice whatver religion they choose, or no religion at all. We are fighting groups like the Taliban because they impose their distorted view of religion with whips in the public square. This is not what America is about".This answer was a key factor in my decision to vote for Bush. Again, I disagree. I see many of these positions as center-right positions.YECs tried to pack local school boards during the Clinton years, and they'll try again. And I'll be there opposing it, as before. If the right pushes too hard, the Schwarzenegger Republicans and the moderate Democrats will become the majority party. The system will work.

You are incorrect. It is quite clear that abortion, even publically funded, is acceptable to the mainstream. The main question appears to be to what trimester.Kerry in the debates clearly stated the same personal position that you did on abortion, he then said that while he held this stronger view of abortion he could not legislate it and so supported a centrist view of abortion.About the only difference is that Kerry was willing to allow third trimester abortions for sake of the mothers health, or in cases of rape and incest. That is actually not out of step with the mainstream either, but made a clear definition between himself and Bush who said he would not allow it under any circumstances. You are correct that is my vice. I do not mind if you indulge in it as well. My only concern is a consistency in argument and sticking to facts. His appointments, policies, and other statements not on the campaign trail completely reveal the nontruth of those statements.That he might have fooled you once, shame on him. After four years of solid records on how he wishes to treat the nonreligious, that you would be fooled again... shame on you.I mean at the very least didn't you see the public declarations of Ashcroft regarding how anyone that is nonreligious and/or nonmonotheistic (of Abraham's descent) were barbarians that had to be stopped? Did you not see Bush say that was okay? That is exactly what I have been suggesting, and why I think your ripping into Democrats is so misplaced. The Reps were the party that actually sold out and the next four years will have to be a fight between centrist and far right elements that were welcomed in with promises.Remember I didn't say I was worried, just saddened. This election showed the triumph of partisanship and fanaticism over pragmatic decision making. I still trust the system will work, but Reps will be the ones that pay as they will only have themselves to blame.If Dems take your advice and try to go right then they will deserve to lose all over again.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

About 30 years ago liberalism and conservatism could probably be defined by the positions of Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater. Moderatism would be when they compromised their respective positions to "meet somewhere in the middle".I'm inclined to think that a broad spectrum of views in the Congress is a good thing, as it will hopefully boil down to a moderate result. I also think that the President should be a moderate.I think it can't be a good thing for the Presidential leadership to be swinging between extremes from election to election.Moose

My definition of a moderate:A moderate is someone who "leaves the books alone". That is, prefers to keep things the way they are without major modification. This applies to current Supreme Court decisions and would not include a gay marriage ammendment. A moderate would look to balance spending and taxation. A moderate would create a strong national defense that is both effective AND economical. A moderate would rely on alliances to solve world issues while keeping America's foreign clout. A moderate would try and run the country like a business, making sure everything functions smoothly both here and abroad while allowing personal freedoms in the same manner as your boss at work allows personal freedoms.This last part is how I look at the government. If my boss told me what I could and couldn't do in my time outside of work (ie sexual partners etc.) I would feel very offended, and rightly so. The government, under a moderate, should take the same direction. Leave moral issues to the individual. A moderate would answer the Pro-Lifers by asking them to create a society where a women no longer feel it necessary to have an abortion. A moderate would create a society where all people feel safe in public regardless of worldview or sexual orientation. Does this type of moderate exist? If he or she does exist they probably wouldn't be elected president, but I wish they would be elected.

paisano writes:

quote:

---

I agree, although with such criticism, especially by a Presidential candidate, comes the responsibility to offer credible alternatives, articulated in a fair amount of detail.

---

You seem to be saying that one is free to criticize the policy or policies or a president or candidate so long as one offers an alternative means to the same end. I disagree. For instance, although there was much I liked about Bill Clinton's presidency, I disagreed with his national health care proposal. I am NOT philosophically opposed to national health insurance, but I had problems with his plan. I was active on CompuServe at the time, and I can remember posting my criticisms on forums like this one.I believe one should be specific in one's criticism, but I did not then nor do I now feel that I should have offered an alternative national health insurance plan in order to criticize the one Clinton offered.

I like it, for as far as it goes. Now for members to expand on it.Largely, it sounds like your modern moderate is what I would call a "real conservative".Moose

Salazar does appear to be a good bet for the list. At least he defeated Pete Coors - even I couldn't stand him.

"Moderate" is a term that means "someone who agrees with me".
"Extremist" is a term that means "someone who doesn't agree with me"The argument to and from "mainstream" politics and "the centre" is the abnegation of politics itself.Michael Moore, for example, is a moderate. By comparison to the Black Bloc, the militant anti-capitalist movement, active communists (as opposed communist sympathisers), and the Tutti Bianco.Being a moderate is not a virtue - it is only indicative of political ignorance or political opportunism. "Extremist" is merely an emotionally evocative term applied to ones political enemies, for the purpose of discxdreditiing their argument without having to actually level a criticism; its base political slander.But it also doesn't worrry me much - a hundred years ago 'radical' meant 'bomb-chucking anarchist', but the term has been so reinterpreted that even Tony Bliar can now stand under the label. Once the political ineffectiveness of the politics of the centre is again demonstrated, "extremism" will be rehabilitated as well, and normal, real political service in which opposing ideas are actually discussed and challenged will resume.Paisano, above, demonstrated that he was a frothing religious fanatic and political extremist by his very reference to abortion on demand at the public expense. Religious dogma should have no relevance to matters of health care - these are political and medical issues not religious ones. If a given person has an ethical objection to abortion, they don't have to have one - applying that dogma to public policy is a violation of the seperation of church and state.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-12-2004 06:48 AM

quote:

---

Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote, and many of those voters fall into the above category. I think the Democrats naively expected to get more Hispanic votes becuase many are poor. The thing is, many are becoming non-poor through entrepeneurial efforts, just like Italians and Irish did before them, and they hold fairly socially conservative views.

---

Well done for catching up with Marx. Yes, the pettit bourgeoisie are predictably conservative, often among the most fanatical of conservative segments of society.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-12-2004 06:48 AM