Moderate Republicans

[muon2]

I seem to read two quite different views of "moderate" on this thread. In one case it is a set of values that is somewhere between right and left so the positions can seem mushy to those inclined to a strict ideology. In another case it is a set of values that might be firmly to the right, but a recognition that policy is not the same as principles, and policy compromises can exist that maintain one's principles. I personally don't consider this second case "moderate" but rather an example of practical politics.

[muon2]

I seem to read two quite different views of "moderate" on this thread. In one case it is a set of values that is somewhere between right and left so the positions can seem mushy to those inclined to a strict ideology. In another case it is a set of values that might be firmly to the right, but a recognition that policy is not the same as principles, and policy compromises can exist that maintain one's principles. I personally don't consider this second case "moderate" but rather an example of practical politics.

Well that's the point. People don't look or sound extreme if they can compromise. Ronald Reagan was never really viewed as an extremist by a majority of people because he did compromise, unlike Gingrich who did not in the 1990's. In the 90's, I doubt that Bob Dole was that much further to the "centre" than Gingrich, but he knew when to be pragmatic, which made him seem less extreme.

Extremists, by definition, use extraordinary methods to achieve their aims. This is what happened with the budget shutdown of 1995. Moderates on the other hand, like to try and compromise to achieve their aims. Examples at this present point are people like Harry Reid, and (on a good day) Mitch McConnell. I would class Romney as one of these as well.

Then I can can tell you that the great majority of Republican office holders are from the pragmatic side. One problem is that even pragmatists will know when to draw the line to illustrate the distinctions between the parties so that voters know what choices there are. These of course are exactly the issues that the media concentrates on since they make the best stories. The other issues that are handled pragmatically are often lost except to insiders and aficionados of the process who follow politics like insiders (cf Atlas posters ).

[muon2]

IndepndentTX, I'm not trying to debate over what's right and wrong, I'm trying to see why liberalization of laws regarding things such as marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage should be classified as "conservative". The only answer I've gotten is "he was called Mr. Conservative". My own views on the issues should probably go under political debate or individual politics. Only reason this specific debate is here is due to Mr. Peeperkorn's assertion. Thank  you for your input, though.

Labels like "Mr. Conservative" are a product of their times. In 1964 the conservative platform was geared to a rollback of the New Deal and firm policy against the USSR. Social issues did not start to emerge until the late 70's and 80's; for example the Moral Majority was not founded until 1979. Goldwater's label accurately reflected his position and the conservative movement then, it would not reflect it today. Goldwater was never a fan of religious organizations driving the conservative movement and that led to his split with conservatives in the 1980's.