What makes a moderate a moderate?

[RJ]

Like the title says.

I never liked that term:"moderate." I think even less of the term "centrist." Still, I think it's worth discussing.

There's the traditional meaning that it's someone who doesn't share his/her respective party's views on many or perhaps a major issue(s). For instance, moderates are generally associated with examples such as pro life Democrats and anti big-business Republicans. I think of a moderate as someone who doesn't wholeheartedly look to persue change in every political issue there is, especially the major ones. I think many Democrats believe in abortion or be against gun control yet place them as a lower priority, just as there are Republicans who want the death penalty nationwide or be against the War in Iraq. However, "moderates" find other issues that aren't as nationally prominent such as fiscal stability or trade imbalance to be more important.

[MaC]

to me "centrist" sounds like a term liberal politicans make for themselves because they don't want to be called liberals.  Something like "supporting a strong central government" comes to mind. 

I call 'em moderates, or apathetics without opinions, or Gabuists...

[Gabu]

I personally consider myself a moderate not because of the stances that I hold, but because I'm willing to listen and consider other people's stances on things.  I don't just latch onto everything that I agree with and swat down everything I don't; I consider everything that seems to be the truth, even things I don't want to be true, and base my positions on which side I feel has the best and most substantial argument going for it.  Essentially, I feel that what's important is not necessarily what you think, but how you arrived at that conclusion.

I agree with you that people who like to call themselves "moderate" just because they don't form any opinions at all are kind of annoying.  I personally do have opinions on most subjects, I'm just not rabid about them.  If you asked me about any topic, I could probably give you an opinion on it, although it might take a bit of research, as I simply don't have the time to investigate every single issue under the sun.

[MaC]

yeah, I know, take the joke Gabu

[Jake]

A moderate is by definition someone who is not an extremist, so the definition of a moderate is directly affected by your views and how extreme you think they are. Someone as deluded as opebo does not think his views are extreme, so his definition of a moderate is skewed some (a hell of alot) by his view that those to the right of him are raving extremists.

[opebo]

A moderate is by definition someone who is not an extremist, so the definition of a moderate is directly affected by your views and how extreme you think they are. Someone as deluded as opebo does not think his views are extreme, so his definition of a moderate is skewed some (a hell of alot) by his view that those to the right of him are raving extremists.

No, I look both ways.  To the right I see you capitalists, fascists, etc.  To the left I see the socialists.  I'm right in the middle, a moderate, tolerant liberal.  Incidentally I'm also more of a realist than any of you 'extremists'.

[Citizen James]

Perhaps the term 'pragmatist' would be better, in contrast with 'ideologue'. 

After all, it is those who see the world in polarased terms and insist that their philosophy is infalable - be it communism or neoconservatism, that tend to wreck the most havok in this world.

Pragmatists are more interested in what gets results - though they are often called moderates as they tend to look at the facts rather than what fits neatly into some oversimplified theory.

[Bono]

the fact that they have no backbone.
*hides in bunker*

[John Dibble]

A moderate is by definition someone who is not an extremist, so the definition of a moderate is directly affected by your views and how extreme you think they are. Someone as deluded as opebo does not think his views are extreme, so his definition of a moderate is skewed some (a hell of alot) by his view that those to the right of him are raving extremists.

No, I look both ways.  To the right I see you capitalists, fascists, etc.  To the left I see the socialists.  I'm right in the middle, a moderate, tolerant liberal.  Incidentally I'm also more of a realist than any of you 'extremists'.

You are hardly moderate, and you're hardly a realist. You are one of the most extreme people there are on this board.

[A18]

A moderate is someone who has no actual principles, and tries to disguise that as 'reason' or 'pragmatism.'

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

At the heart of most issues lie two or more contradictory principles.    Both may be good and worthwhile principles, but they are inconflict.  In these instances, a balance must be struck between the two.

For example: the freedom of the individual vs. the security of many.  Both are good things, but if we swing all the way towards freedom and ignore security, we allow the public to be endangered by drunk driving and all manner of wreckless and criminal behavior.  If we swing all the way towards security, we end up with law-abiding citizens being strip-searched before boarding an airplane.  Neither extremes are tolarable.  A balance must be found.

I am very moderate in my opinions because I believe most issues are a question of finding the proper balance.

[A18]

No, pure freedom means there's no public property. There would be toll roads, on which the owner could set his own rules.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No, pure freedom means there's no public property. There would be toll roads, on which the owner could set his own rules.

There are many types of individual freedom.  Property freedom is not the only one, but it's a good example.  In this case it's a balance between individual property freedom and the overwhelming good of many.  A balance between these two is the concept of Imminent Domain.

[A18]

Property is freedom.

[MaC]

right to own property, liberty and life are the basic unalienable rights.  There's nothing about this I consider extreme.  The extremeness comes into play when one says that there's a broad expansion of these rights (claims right to free health care) or a broad contraction of these rights (you don't have the right to own your own money, or guns, or have sex with who you want, ect..)

[Emsworth]

Both are good things, but if we swing all the way towards freedom and ignore security, we allow the public to be endangered by drunk driving and all manner of wreckless and criminal behavior.

I disagree: "freedom" does not equate to anarchy. Freedom necessarily entails protection against crime.

In this case it's a balance between individual property freedom and the overwhelming good of many.

The "overwhelming good" cannot, I believe, be served if no person's right to property is secure.

[opebo]

Property is freedom.

Property is power.

[Democratic Hawk]

Perhaps the term 'pragmatist' would be better, in contrast with 'ideologue'. 

After all, it is those who see the world in polarased terms and insist that their philosophy is infalable - be it communism or neoconservatism, that tend to wreck the most havok in this world.

Pragmatists are more interested in what gets results - though they are often called moderates as they tend to look at the facts rather than what fits neatly into some oversimplified theory.

I agree

Dave

[Gustaf]

Being a moderate is mostly about seeing things from more than one perspective and not being an idelogical zealot. If you take in the whole picture, it's hard to not be at least somewhat moderate. This is also what most voters tend to be.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Being a moderate is mostly about seeing things from more than one perspective and not being an idelogical zealot. If you take in the whole picture, it's hard to not be at least somewhat moderate. This is also what most voters tend to be.

^^^^^^

[Huckleberry Finn]

A moderate is one who prefer common sense before strict ideological position. I can understand ideological way of think though. There are many situation when principles are only right basis to act. Abortion comes first to mind.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Both are good things, but if we swing all the way towards freedom and ignore security, we allow the public to be endangered by drunk driving and all manner of wreckless and criminal behavior.

I disagree: "freedom" does not equate to anarchy. Freedom necessarily entails protection against crime.

Let's say that I am a very well-trained driver, and I have taken lessons on how to drive safely while moderately intoxicated, to the extent that I am safer that most sober drivers on the road, even when I have a 0.10 BAC.  If there is no law on the books against drunk driving, am I committing a crime by getting behind the wheel with a .10 BAC?

However, for the security of the public it is necessary to have a law against drunk driving, even if this curtails the freedom of those who can safely do so.  Because most people are hazard to others at that level of intoxication.  The security of many in this case outweighs the freedom of a few.  And this is the case in many other instances.  The freedom to carry a 6" Bowie knife abord an airplane is in conflict with the secruity of the passengers and anyone else in the path of that aircraft.  In this instance I would also say that security is more important than freedom.

Most issues are a matter of finding a balance between conflicting principles.

In this case it's a balance between individual property freedom and the overwhelming good of many.

The "overwhelming good" cannot, I believe, be served if no person's right to property is secure.

So you don't believe in imminent domain?  Of any sort?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Property is freedom.

I agree.  But property is not the only freedom.

[Emsworth]

In this case it's a balance between individual property freedom and the overwhelming good of many.

The "overwhelming good" cannot, I believe, be served if no person's right to property is secure.

So you don't believe in imminent domain?  Of any sort?

Of course I believe that the government has the power of eminent domain (provided the property is taken for public use, and just compensation is provided). It is not inconsistent with my approach to property rights: for example, I don't oppose taxation on property rights grounds, either.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Of course I believe that the government has the power of eminent domain (provided the property is taken for public use, and just compensation is provided). It is not inconsistent with my approach to property rights: for example, I don't oppose taxation on property rights grounds, either.

Well, that's what I mean about there being a balance between property freedom and the public good.  These are two principles in conflict, and it's important to balance one against the other.  The reason I'm a moderate is because I am a strong believer in finding balance.