What is your definition of a True Moderate?

[tom_paine]

Here's mine:

My definition of a True Moderate is as thus: A True Moderate does not have all views directly in the middle. The True Moderate has both a Rightist and Leftist side. The True Moderate believes that the Founding Fathers designed this nation to be a Moderate Nation, and the Constitutional Form of Government they laid out for us is designed to keep extremes from power, and also meant for each extreme to balance out the other over the long run.

The True Moderate distrusts both extremes equally.

The True Moderate would, if the Democratic Party was doing the mirror opposite of what the Busheviks are doing now, as regards fraud, theft, corruption, collusion, and the attempted destruction of the Old American Republic for personal gain, the True Moderate would stand on the side of the Republicans as any aware True Moderate should be standing with all their might on the side of the Democrats now.

Now, I know there are lots of moderates on DU of all stripes from the "every single one of my views is in the middle" to the kind of True Moderate I think I am (and thus my human vanity paints it as the "True Moderate").

What does everyone think of my definition? Is it wrong? What's yours?

Am I flame-worthy for saying that I would support Republicans if the Democrats became Totalitarian Scum like the Busheviks (I'm wearing my asbestos undies so fire away!)?

I'd love to hear some good old old fashioned intelligent DU debate on this topic.

[BradCKY]

1. Maybe

I wouldn't call myself a "true" moderate, I have many more views to the left, and some like guns, and (FAIR tax cuts for all, not the kind Bush gave) that lean a bit towards to right. Really I just dispute with the left on certain subjects. I guess that makes me a moderate on here anyway. :)

[camero]

2. If dems went totalitarian I would go Green

Leftist economics gave us SS, Medicare, the interstate highway system, SSDI, Public Schools, Medicaid, TVA, the GI bill, almost universal college education, the list goes on and on. And let's not forget the best military in the world. The Hoover pubs had us equipped with wooden tanks.

I'm not giving that up. It's also my problem with the DLC. Too embedded with the corps while the electorate is becoming more left economically. Good way to disenfranchise the vast majority of voters.

I agree with them playing down social issues in this election but the pubs are going to bring them up and I hope they have a way to deal with them.

[cryofan]

3. anyone who is not far left is deluded

The Far Left is the only side that sees things as they really are. Just ever-humble opinion. Moderates are like agnostics...they are aware of the idea of intellectual openness and truth, but they are afraid to go all the way. Almost ALL Democrats are Moderates. Rightists are like theists/believers--they are LOST. Out of it. Deluded. Hopeless....

Lefties are like atheists--they just let it all hang out. They have decided that life is short, and they have embraced intellectual courage and openness...they have gone all the way.

:-)

[wyldwolf]

4. now THAT was funny!

[tom_paine]

5. Good one!

[wyldwolf]

6. I think you're on to something...

...as a left leaning moderate, a do distrust both extremes. I used to distrust only the right extreme until I saw how equally loony the left extreme is, too.

It would be difficult for me to stand with the republicans in your scenario because I feel that once they gained power again, they'd do the same things and worse.

[tom_paine]

9. Yes, but the True Moderate (in my definition anyway) seeks balance

You might be correct about the Republicans (at least the Bushevik/Nixonvik part of them), but that wouldn't matter given the situation.

If indeed life is a see-saw of power imbalance (and when the Old American Republic was alive and strong, it was more than that IMHO), then we True Moderates should be jumping up and down on whichever side is in the air.

In that event, I would do what I am doing now, fully throw myself into one side until that oppsition power stranglehold was broken. Then return to "normalcy" (if there is such a thing), only returning to hyper-zealotry in case of emergencies.

Of course, the Busheviks have been allowed to do SOOOOOO much damage to our beloved system of governance that I am uncertain also if such a reverse case could ever arise, certainly in my lifetime.

So in the end, practically speaking, I cannot see applying this in theory because from this point it looks as if the opposite is so far from happening as to be infinitesimal in chance).

However, if I am an old man and Hardcore Socialist take over the Democratic Party and intimidate Non-Party "News" into silence or compliance. If the Commie Democrats began appointing Commie Judges with no regard for the Law, only loyalty to the Commie Party. And so forth..

In that event, the Republicans (if they can disentangle themselves from the Totalitarians in their midst) will have one old, feisty dude helping them out.

[Q]

7. The problem is...

...that only a moderate believes there ARE extremes. First you have to define 'extreme'.

- Is social welfare extreme? Feeding the hungry with tax bucks? Social security? Choice? Affirmative action? The RWing considers ALL of these things 'extreme'.

[tom_paine]

12. Kind of a trick question

You mention Is social welfare extreme? Feeding the hungry with tax bucks? Social security? Choice? Affirmative action?

I would say that NONE of these concepts are extreme, per se, but that within their application, they can be extreme.

By example: The overall concept of Social Welafre is NOT extreme. Hell, it was one of the defining characteristics of the Enlightenment. But, let's say, taking Social Welfare to the level that the Trash Collector makes as much as the Neurosurgeon (be it through overt top-down Communism or insanely high confiscatory taxation) IS extreme.

And so on: Feeding the hungry with tax $$$ is NOT extreme. Taking it to the level where every person is guaranteed a meal even if they don't wish to EVER work would be, in my book, excessive and extreme.

It is important to remember that many Bushevik Lies are wrapped so with a tiny grain of truth in the middle. There have been liberal excesses and there will be again (if the Left is allowed by Diebold to ever get in power again if they/we have the votes).

Also, judging by what Modern Busheviks say is extreme is unhelpful to say the least. They are Extreme Totalitarians in that they unequivocally worship Leader and have been programmed by Nazi-STYLE propaganda into accepting no information from anything besides Party-Approved Sources.

It is this more than any particular belief that makes them extreme, as they have yet to be "sold" on Nazi-LEVEL propaganda.

[sangha]

23. Very astute, Mr Paine

IMO, moderation is more of a temperament than an ideology or set of positions. Sometimes, I think our biggest problems aren't between liberals and conservatives, but between moderates and extremists. It's something that comes up even on DU. I think it might even be able to explain most, if not all of the major flame wars on DU (IWR, Green vs Dem, etc)

[rdfi-defi]

29. if you can subdue your dislike for the following question......

why would it be extreme for a trash collector to bee compensated the same as a neurosurgeon? sure the surgeon has to be highly educated and skilled, but why is his job more important than the trash collector? every now and again a few people need brain surgery, but millions of people put their trash out to be collected every day. if no one picked up the trash our society could not function. every person has human rights one of those human rights is meaningful work. but why one person should do one type of meaningful work and not be able to afford health care and other rights, while the other does meaningful work and can afford human rights as well as luxuries. both people are a benefit to the society.

again, i say it is related to economics. by working the middle of the political spectrum, as it is perceived in the us, you are advocating a type of economics that is authoritarian in nature. perhaps this is considered a balance by some but i do not see it that way.

[tom_paine]

32. 'Sup, fellow Night Owl...

Sure, I can subdue. I like civilized, polite debate. Though I'm often so fired up that people don't realize it.

My reasons, with extreme politeness and absence of rancor:

1) I believe in incentivization. That is something a Communist (see, I'm even avoiding the epithets :evilgrin: ) cannot understand. If I knew I could pick up a check for doing NOTHING and pay the mortgage and live comfortably, you think I'd work? :silly: I'd be off hiking the Pacific Crest Trail...SEE YA! Most people think like me. Some don't. People who do harder stuff that requires mor talent and study...should be paid more. It's not perfect (scientists/teachers/firefighters should be paid much more realtive to service/sacrifice) but it's somewhat free (as it's working when it was strongly regulated, not Bushevik Imperial Amerika).

1a) Dialectical Materialism (and I have read my Marx) is all well and good in theory. The Manifesto is all well and good except for one thing. People can never follow that. They will automatically, as happened in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, seek their seperate levels. There is great Wealth Dispoarity between the leaders of China and their Serfs, their small Middle Class. As great if not greater than here. Practically speaking.

2) Time and effort and specialized skill required deserve reward. Is it harder and does it cost more to become a Neurosurgeon than a trash collector, regardless of need? 8 years and 3 years of inetrning and whiny patients and malpractice insurance and HMOs. You can walk in off the street and be a trash collector. Again, if you believe in Dialectical Materialism, if I recall correctly it's been awhile, you disagree. So be it.

3) I believe that risk should be rewarded same as #2

4) Real-World Capitalism vs. Real World Communism: Capitalism (regulated is best, of course) kicks Communism ASS! --sorry to sound so juvenile :evilgrin: / Capitalism=USA (before Bush) and Free Europe
Communism: Cuba, China, Soviet Union Warsaw Pact dreary unfree horrible (good people everywhere, though, no doubt)...oh and Khmer Rouge, the murderous fucks!

That's a IMHO

5) Too much flatness vs. too much disparity in Wealth Distribution Curve Too much flatness (extreme), can't work Communism, been tried, people won't fit, jamming square pegs into round holes breeds oppressionand Gulags. Too much Bushevik-ness and wealth diaprity and wealth hoarding is medeval England. Isn't that what the Founding Dads broke away from? I like the middle on this particular issue. Post WWII partial social safety yet well regulated capitalism of late 1970s early 1980s, good environmental programs started then and earlier. Constitution and Bill of Rights: The Jeffersonian Vision. That's the ticket!

And let me make one thing perfectly clear. The opportunities and wages for the working man, uneducated and eduacted alike, should be flatter and more equal. A lot of upper management making 5X and 20X and 50X what they should. Looting the pension fund and all that. On this Im sure we would mostly agree.

Hope that doesn't sound mushball. That's how I feel. having a thing threatened makes you REALLY come face-to-face with how much you appreciate a thing.

Like not living in "1984" nor "farenheit 451" and not condemning my descendants and others to such a fate because I failed to try and stop it.

I Miss the Old Republic. I'd like to have these types of discussions more often.

[rdfi-defi]

42. yeah, i know what you mean by "fired up"

i agree with you on many points, one of which is that sate run authoritarian communism is not an ideal political/economic system. i do not believe that such a system will evolve into something more (ala marx).

now it is my turn: i think you read me wrong

i also believe in incentivization, my incentive is to actually be free from political and economic tyranny. of course this would be a best case scenario, something that most people in the world are ready for, unfortunately most people in the us are not. not utopian, something along the lines of spain in 1936-37. did i tip my hand? :evilgrin: incentivization is fine as long as the incentive system in place does not interfere with the human rights of others. and our current form of economics does just that. i am not hard line though, and i am willing to compromise, we can regulate and constrict capitalism for the good of the majority, but the incentive in this system drive capital to break, or whenever possible to rewrite, the rules (as we have seen). i think a better compromise would be to take human rights out of the market. really i think you and i agree on a lot of things as it relates to our society's current standing. and thank you for the bone, "wages...should be flater and more equal."

"having a thing threatened makes you REALLY come face-to-face how much you appreciate a thing." the thing i appreciate is life, even so, i do not want to condemn "my decendents and others to such a fate because i failed to try and stop it."

thanks again for the discussion

[tom_paine]

46. Not a bone, rdfi-defi...it's how I feel

If I didn't feel it, I wouldn't say it.

[rdfi-defi]

47. sorry, my humor did not come through

i know you are sincere, i can tell books/ideas you reference

[tom_paine]

49. ok, cool

:hi:

And by the way, thank YOU for adding your wit to this very enjoyable discussion.

:toast:

[IrateCitizen]

50. Question for both of you -- have you read William Greider's book...

The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy?

The reason I ask is because it directly ties into many of the problems you mentioned with communism, Tom. It also discusses many of the contradictions within the American economy, and how it actually encourages immoral/unethical behavior in pursuit of profit, rather than seeking ways in which the two can co-exist side-by-side.

I won't go into it all here, but I would highly suggest you take the time to read it, as it is quite illuminating and provides many real-world examples of how people are currently trying to re-create a more moral brand of capitalism in hopes that it can catch on and force real reform.

[tom_paine]

51. No, I haven't yet read it

It's on my list, but since I left coolege and started working full-time, let's just say my reading quantity has suffered.

Don't know if I'll ever get around to that book, but based on your recommendation I'll try.

[rdfi-defi]

52. speaking of well read, sincere individuals........

no i have not read that book, thanks for the recommendation

[IrateCitizen]

60. Flattery will get you everywhere, rdfi-defi

:D

You can find out a little bit about it by visiting Greider's website, http://www.williamgreider.com.

He's also a regular contributor to The Nation, so you can find his articles in their archives.

[rdfi-defi]

15. good questions

to find the center of a squed political spectrum we would need to define terms like "extreme." and answer questions related to what human rights should the state be responsible for providing.

[DemExpat]

19. I would say that social welfare can be taken to the extreme....

which results in very diminished self-motivation for some people and a huge national budget. Add to this the effects of globalization and human movements across borders, this system of lavish social benefits for everyone is unsustainable imho.

The social benefits and subsidies here in The Netherlands had become so lavish that costs were exploding and people were learning to sit back and enjoy the gifts instead of working to contribute.
Absolutely extreme IMO, although basic health care, a good education, and unemployment pay while looking for other work is NOT extreme and necessary for a humane and more stable society.

I believe that all things you mentioned above can be taken to an extreme, which is where true conservatism (not modern day Repubs!) or even moderation, comes in to check the course.....

DemEx

[Freeforever]

8. Moderates believe in compromising

I consider myself a straight-down-the-middle person…not necessarily because my opinions are balanced left and right, but because I take a moderate position on most issues. I'm pro-gun but I believe we need restrictions such as zero access to convicted and ex-felons and strict qualifications to legally own one. I think public schools should incorporate both things left/rights battle over: the pledge with "God" and sex-education.

I think moderates are more willing to compromise on issues. For example a moderate might not support gay marriage but would be against a law barring it. And in my case, we want to both keep the pledge the way it is but also support sex-education versus Bush's unrealistic "preach abstinence" approach.

[rdfi-defi]

22. "moderates believe in compromising"????

how so?

[sangha]

24. Because extremists tend to be ideologues

for whom it's not enough to merely implement a policy that benefits the people; It must also comform to some ideological ideal, and that makes compromise difficult for them.

[rdfi-defi]

27. i did not ask for a characteristic of an extremist

i asked how a moderate is considered one who compromises

[sangh0]

37. It's called comparative analysis

You compare something to something else that's related in order to better understand it. It's a form of reductionism.

[rdfi-defi]

41. it is called "not answering the question"

[sangh0]

43. Then I'll spell it out

for the thinking impaired

Moderates don't tend to be ideologues. For moderates, it's enough to merely implement a policy that benefits the people; It need not also comform to some ideological ideal, and so they tend to not object when and if a policy does not perfectly conform to their ideology.

[rdfi-defi]

44. i don't know about that

a few references have been made to "cautious moderates," those moderates seem to be unmovable from their fence perch, which does not benefit people in any way. as for the "true moderate" as explained by the original poster, that position does make some sense. but to just arbitrarily call people with certain view points "extremists" and "ideologues" with out defining any specific positions, seems rather, ideological.

[sangh0]

56. Yes, I was talking about "True" moderates, not the cautious ones

and again, I don't think there are any specific policies that identifies an extremist. I think it's more of a (pre?)disposition than a position.

[IrateCitizen]

54. I guess that would explain the "moderates" in the USA...

... who currently recoil at the idea of single-payer healthcare because it would inject socialism into the United States.

People are slaves to ideology on the left, right AND center. Likewise, there are those who are NOT that exist away from the center of the spectrum, whether you are willing to admit they do or not.

[sangh0]

57. I'm not sure I understand

I havent come across any moderates who reject single payer health care because it's socialistic. I know conservatives like that, but no moderates.

People are slaves to ideology on the left, right AND center. Likewise, there are those who are NOT that exist away from the center of the spectrum, whether you are willing to admit they do or not.

Actually, that's similar to my point. Extremism isn't a left or right thing. It's more of an attitude.

[IrateCitizen]

59. A woman on my town democratic committee...

... made the statement that she couldn't support single-payer health care because it just seemed too much like "socialism" to her.

This is from a stalwart, partisan DEMOCRAT -- not a conservative by any stretch.

[sangh0]

61. Well, color me shocked

I wish I had been there to see it (and respond to it)

[tom_paine]

62. Many Dems are brainwashed by Bushevik Pravda

So afraid of the word "socialism" as wielded by Bushevik Blowhards like a blunt instrument, that all thought goes out the window upon hearing it.

MANY Dems have yet to wake up and shake off their mental chains? Does that mean embracing Socialism? Not really, but it does mean being able to give it a fair hearing.

Try telling her, "Einstein was a Socialist and a strong supporter of socialism at that, far beyond single-payer healthcare". Try telling her anything that stimulates her brain to perhaps think outside the tiny Imperial Pravda Box the Busheviks have set for all of us.

[Leilani]

10. That's a very interesting definition & discussion

As I consider myself a moderate, I think your answer makes a lot of sense. As in "Common Sense" & old Tom would be wondering about us today.

I tend to see both sides of an issue; I like to hear both sides of an argument & then make up my own mind. And my decision is very rarely the most left or the most right.

For example, I'm pro choice, but I don't think either extreme makes sense. Abortions should not be used as birth control, & late term abortions are wrong, except for the health or life of the mother. The people who say NO abortion at any time are extremists..they don't care if women die, yet late term abortions may also take the life of a viable baby. And really, I think this is a medical situation & the govt has no business being involved. It should be between a woman, her doctor, & her partner, if she has one.

I think the political climate is like a pendulum. When it swings too far to an extreme, you need moderates & independent thinkers to come in & balance the scales.

A long time ago, I considered myself a Conservative at a time when Liberals had run the country into the ground. After Republicans gained power & moved towards the right, I found my views lining up more & more with Democrats. But I have never joined a party; I've always been a proud Independent, & politicians have to earn my vote.

Therefore, I guess I agree with your thesis. To me, the political climate we have today is pure poison. I have never seen such hate & vitriol, & I put most of the blame on Republicans. The Gingrich era, along with talk (hate) radio is most responsible. And although Bill Clinton had many personal flaws, he was under attack from the day he was elected. The extremists drove the Impeachment, which should be saved for High Crimes & Misdemeanors. IMO, Bush is much more deserving of Impeachment, rather than Clinton. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by the use of Impeachment for personal foilbles, & yet ignore the incompetence that led to 9/11, & an illegal war based on lies, deceit, & political aspirations.

Hope I haven't rambled too much, but your thesis was very thought provoking. This election will be interesting: a pure Liberal, against a pure Conservative. IMO the Dems would have won in a landslide if they nominated a Moderate, but we have moved too far right, & I hope Kerry wins & moves us leftward.

[tom_paine]

16. Thanks for the compliment and yes "the political climate we have today is

pure posion".

Problem is, due to the success of Bushevik poison, it's going to get worse as the Democrats' fight back (which I wholeheartedly endorse).

The Totalitarian Busheviks will take it to yet another level (what will that be...only time will tell) BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE. Totaliatarian Follwers and Bullies.

I'm with you on the "pendulum" (as it used to work and is supposed to work), but consider this

The Pendulum Cannot Swing Back if the Clock is Broken

Which brings us back to the spirit of True Moderate opposition. I suppose I am more disturbed at the Parasitization of the Constituton, Bill of Rights, Media, and Voting Systems than I am per se at the philopshical disagreements.

Which doesn't mean that I am not damned upset at Bushevik Policy, but it's the rigging of the whole game, legislative, media, voting, that has me worried and angry.

If the System was helathy, we could fix the damage. Now, we have to be concerned with fixing the system and making it Totalitarian-Proof (without becoming Totalitarians ourselves) given that we now know what is possible (Thanks Busheviks and "Their Kampf", we couldn't fix it without YOU showing us where we are vulnerable to Totalitarian Scum).

[rdfi-defi]

11. imo the "moderate" way of viewing/participating in politics

is way of avoiding action. the 'i am doing all right' mentality, tends to make one not want to rock the boat, even for positive social change. moderates are the true conservatives, but things ARE changing. furthermore, to pretend things are not changing, or that you can work to prevent change in our society will lead to the end of anything politically moderate in america.

[tom_paine]

13. That is true for Cautious Moderates, but do you really think

it is true for the True Moderate, as I have defined him/her?

[rdfi-defi]

20. yes i think it still applies

in your definition you imply that the "founding fathers" wrote the constitution with a sense of a political spectrum. i do not think that is true. to any degree that they formulated their ideas to prevent an aristocratic monarchy (right), or a popular democracy (left), they did so to protect their monetary interests. the 'i am doing all right' mentality, but if i can get the king and his taxes off my back i will be doing even better. on the other hand if i have to share resources with slaves, indentured servants and women there will be less for me.

do not miss understand me, some of those men were quite ingenious and deserved to have their political work studied. but, to suggest that people should be moderate in their politics because the founding fathers were also moderate, and not equate that to personal economics is avoiding the issue of what does it mean to be a moderate in american society.

[tom_paine]

28. The Founding Fathers WERE unique among all aristocrats

in that they believed in the Common people. In our ability to be educated, to make our own decisions and play at least a part in those decisions.

Were they Demigods? No. Perfect human beings? Far from it. Were they hypocirtes? Sometimes. Aren't we all. But they created the framework of something great. Within something greater grew.

When Washington refused the crown he did something nearly unprecednted in history (Roman Dictator Sulla and Frank Costello, New York mafia Don are the only ones that leap immediately to mind) which is turn down the Ultimate Prize to Do What's Right. Tell me it's not one of the greatest examples of human nobility (if there is such a thing in this charnel house) in history.

I do not suggest that we remain moderate simply because they were, just aping them. I suggest that the moderate path, the gently oscillating pendulum of post WWII America, is the way in which our nation has evolved, most efficiently for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Now the Busheviks threaten us all by dismantling the system in order to rig. Now the oscillations grow greater, and the People's Voice, which would have been heard louder years ago, has been muted, Orwellian Style.

Call it what you will, with your rhetoric of king and taxes off my back (which I agree with to some extent), but this "I'm doing all right" mentality tempered with the compassion of the Old American Republic (of the Berlin Airlift & Marshall Plan, of Civli Rights and Women's progress) along with the bad, some terrible I know.

It has worked well, created a great nation and a good place to live for many. Many flaws, many tragedies. More righted than most other nations, I think.

It is not personal economics. It's stroctly self-preservation. We had (still have, sort of its not too late) somethign good going on here. let's not blow it. Let's try to save ourselves and our species.

You have me read wrong, I think.

[rdfi-defi]

31. thank you for your inteligent and thoughtful response

"let's try to save ourselves and our species," i agree. thanks again for the conversation

[DemExpat]

14. Well, I certainly am a Moderate, and most of my ideas and ideals

are NOT in the middle......many leftist and some Rightist (at least to DUers...)


I also believe that the Founding Fathers tried to design Government to prevent extreme factions from taking over - a design which I greatly fear may fail now for the first time in history in a major way because of modern media and corporate monopolies. (Although rightists say the same thing when Dems are in power)

I see great value in true Conservatism (caution and protection of positive traditions/values) providing a brake on too much change and forward movement with time to assess whether the direction and decisions made are positive....just as true Liberalism provides vital courage, vision, and stimulus for positive change.



The True Moderate distrusts both extremes equally.
I do.....as a True Moderate :-)


Pertaining to this, I support a general movement to the Right here in The Netherlands for reasons similar to what you describe above...the Left was in power for 8 years here with an arrogance and short-sightedness leading to enormous problems that can only be tackled by a swing to the right IMHO.

One of my "True Moderate" core beliefs:
Equilibrium and balance constantly needs to be re-adjusted, and will NEVER be a permanent state. A True Moderate as you describe it knows and accepts this.

I also have seen how power corrupts and makes leaders incredibly arrogant....from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Here is to the True Moderates of the world, Tom!


:toast:

DemEx

[wasichu]

17. a moderate is somebody who isnt paying attention

or they are willfully ignorant
or never been discriminated against
or never struggled for anything
or is afraid.

The right wing is fighting for their extreme agenda and a moderate response is the same as appeasing them.

Moderate is just a slow paced PNAC.

[tom_paine]

18. Man, did you even read my posts?

You are speaking of the Cautious Moderate, not the True Moderate as I have defined.

If you think me wrong you are going to have to back it up.

If you think the True Moderate doesn;t struggle for anything, then you haven't been reading my or ANY of the True Moderate posts here at DU.

Again I say, you are confusing the Cautious Moderate with the True Moderate.

[rucky]

21. Swing voters are not real moderates

they're not really anything - they just bend with the wind.

if they were truly moderate, we'd have no problem reaching them.

[Walt Starr]

25. The same as the definition of a True Liberal 20 years ago

And that's the blunt truth of the matter.

[tom_paine]

30. Sorry, Walt. I don't buy it.

How are you doing, by the way? Good, I hope. :hi:

Gotta disagree with you like Claudius and Gallus in "I, Claudius" Part VII. If you haven't seen it, rent it from the Public Library. Picture Gallus as Bob Byrd and Sejanus (played by Capt. Picard!) as Ashcroft. I promise a smile!

But man, plenty of libs, I think, would support a Tyranny of the Hardcore Dems.

I ran up against them in the English Department at college. They tried to get me fired for speaking my mind. Almost did it, but a right-centre prof gave me the names of some Free Speech laywers and they caved right then and there.

Up until that moment I had foolishly assumed that all Libs, by virtue of their Leftist Enlightenment, were Good People. Let me tell, you those Lefty Limbaughs showed me the error of my ways and forced me from being a lib to become a True Moderate.

Good people in almost EVERY group. bad ones, too. Neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on Human Failings.

that's what Checks and Balances are for.

[LWolf]

26. Using that definition, I'm a moderate.

I seem to be farther to the left than even most of DU; but that's a natural reaction to right-leaning forces.

1. The Bush administration. The harder they pull one way, the harder I pull back the other.

2. My region; I've been here since 1980, and it is a right-wing stronghold. I've developed left-leaning ideas and positions in direct opposition to the world I live in.

3. My nation; I perceive that we have been, as a nation, moving steadily to the right during my lifetime. So I provide the resistance.

In the end, the goal is balance. I resist any extreme I perceive to be wrong or harmful. Actually, I also resist the status quo when I perceive stagnation, corruption, bureacracy, and other conditions I consider to be harmful.

I would rather see our evolution occur as a spiral journey than as a pendulum. The farther the pendulum swings one way, the harder it swings back. And the motionless center goes nowhere. In a spiral, the tension between opposing ideas will drive us upward, and we can continue to grow and change.

[tom_paine]

33. Well said and hear hear, sir!

:toast:

I agree.

[corporatewhore]

34. Umm the founding fathers were radicals jefferson really was a radical

if i rember my history correctly jeffeson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. and he also supported a riot started by farmers and thought it showed that this country was doing fine i dont think he was any where near a moderate

[tom_paine]

36. Jefferson was the most radical (with the exception of my namesake perhaps)

of the Founding Fathers.

there is no question they were all radicals for their time.

However, it is worth noting that, at that time, the Founding Fathers were considered radical for their endorseemnt of this MODERATE small 'r' republican government, instead of a brutal authoritarian Monarchy complete with heedles, cruel and hoarding aristicracy (yes I know the Busheviks are turning us back towards that and worse)

Having said that, I must state my strong disagreement with you thesis in this post and your other below.

What was Extreme Left in 1776 (Those Crazy Liberal Founding Dads and their ideas about Liberty) is now the Moderate Middle.

And their Radical Idea, those Crazy Liberal Founding Dads had WAS A MODERATE REPUBLIC!

PS I agree with much of what you say in post #35, we probably just have different ideas about implementation and level of governmental control required to achieve these ends (and whether we want to go "all they way" in achieving them, but THAT is a conversation for a whole 'nother "academic"-type thread.

Which is my point. I am truly enjoying yours and the many other civilized, polite, non-flaming posts. Unfortunately we've all become so sadly accustomed to the other :grr: kind. This a refreshing break from that. THANKS EVERYBODY!

I have told you why I disagree. Rebuttal?

:evilgrin:

[corporatewhore]

35. What is a moderate and a radical any more

I think that a society where people have to think twice about getting treatment to save their lives or ease their pain because they cant afford to see a doctor is radical
putting the bill of rights through the shredder was radical
I think spending money on colonialism/imperalism when are schools are crumbling is radical
free trade is radical
(i thinkthat our jobs going away to slaves is radical
The rape of land is radicalthe stealing land from indigenous populations is radicalthe gross violation of human and workers rights is radical
freet trade is so radical it drove the population it oppressed to havea revolution in bolivia)
"It is a sign of just how bad things are that even the modest proposal that everyone on the planet gets fresh water and enough to eat is fighting talk. One can imagine launching revolutions in the name of some exorbitant utopian ideal, but to disrupt people's lives in such a spectacular way simply so that everyone may be guaranteed a supply of fresh vegetables seems oddly bathetic. Only extremists could argue against it, just as only extremists could endorse a global capitalist system which in 1992 is said to have paid Michael Jordan more in advertising Nike shoes than it paid to the entire South-East Asian industry which produced them. Revolutionaries are those realist, moderate types who recognize that to put such things to right would require a thoroughgoing transformation. Anyone who imagines otherwise is an idle utopianist." -Terry Eagleton

[x-g.o.p.er]

38. I agree, but I would not call them moderates....

I would call them patriotic Americans. I think any true American is above being labeled as a Democrat or Republican...country rises above party, and I think that's what a moderate is. Sadly, more people want to be identified as R or D, as opposed to A.

Nice post, Tom.

[tom_paine]

39. Hey, x-g.o.p.er, I totally agree! Thanks for the compliment.

:hi:

Hope you're doing well. How is every thing going with you and your family? How is your job situation (if you know what I mean)?

(if you feel uncomfortable giving out personal info about yourself on a public board, and you should, IMHO, please PM me with your "latest news")

By the by and without breaking my arm patting meself on the back, here's how you tell one of the Patriotic Americans from others.

Ask them, is there any situation they can imagine that would lead them to support the Opposing Party (this works for both sides)? If their answer is "no" or absurdly farfetched, then you can be sure you have a Party Loyalist there, not a Truly Patriotic American. Not necessarily Bushevik Totalitarian because not all Party Loyalists, even Republican ones, are Bushevik Totalitarians.

By examples, I point to True Patriotic American (which is why the Busheviks HATE him) Sen. John McCain's response to the Lewinsky allegations, while the Bushevik Loyalist Scum were shrieking their bile from one end of the dial to the other 24/7.

McCain said, "I pray these allegations are not true for the sake of the nation."

What a True American! Agree or disagree with his Reagan Conservatism. Of course, as the Busheviks have revealed themselves as Caesers and Totaitarian Scum, it is not possible to be so charitable to the Imperial Family and their Stooges.

I do look forward to one day, if we can throw off this Imperial Cabal and sever their fangs from our necks, returning to this state of mind.

Maybe a pipe dream, but I'm dreaming it anyway.

[x-g.o.p.er]

40. McCain was an excellent example...

Unfortunately, men like McCain are few and far between. John Glenn is another.

I think your dream is a pipe dream, unfortunately. Too many Americans are intellectually lazy, and don't seek the truth, they just seek what they think their version of the truth should be, both left and right. And they don't evemn seek, they just accept.

It's sad, truly sad.

I'll PM you on the other stuff later....

[IrateCitizen]

45. I'm not much into "definitions", but I'll offer my thoughts...

If I were to apply a label to those you just described, I would not necessarily call them "moderates". I think "concerned citizens" might be a more apt term.

I'm just about as left as they come, Tom. You should know that about me from these boards. But one thing I try to pride myself on is to not be a dogmatic, ideological leftist -- but rather a THINKING one. Part of this lies in knowing that I do not have all the answers, and that sometimes those answers can come from unexpected places.

Furthermore, despite the fact that I am a left/progressive, I do not suffer tyranny easily -- no matter what side is perpetuating it. If the Democratic Party was trying to do the things the Republican Party is right now, I would also be denouncing their actions.

But when it comes to using the word "moderate", you should be careful. Take, for example, your namesake. Thomas Paine was actually quite a radical guy -- even if he didn't wear a beret with a red star on it, like Che Guevara. In fact, some of Tom's ideas would probably be denounced as "communism" should they be presented today -- most notably his idea of a "common inheritance" of the "natural capital" of all national resources, a government-held trust from which the profits and proceeds derived from national resources would be distrubuted amongst the public from generation to generation. (I pulled this little gem from the book The Soul of Capitalism by William Greider, p. 283)

In short, there is no such thing as a "true moderate", just as there is no "true progressive" or "true conservative" or "true liberal". What there are, however, are thinking, concerned citizens who believe in the free debate of ideas in order to come to the best solutions to the problems that confront us as a society.

You and ex-g.o.p.'er discussed John McCain above. Personally, I find most of Senator McCain's beliefs on specific issues to be anathema to mine. But I have great respect for not only the way he pushed CFR -- but also his stated reasons for doing so. He did it because he believed we should live in a society in which ideas that arise from political debate are weighed and judged solely on their merits, not on the amount of money that is backing them. IMHO, that's a pretty good definition of a thinking, concerned citizen -- no matter how much I may disagree with them on general world outlook.

[tom_paine]

48. Nicely said and I agree, IC

Yes, the original Tom Paine did have some of those kinds of Socialist ideas (so did Einstein) but I tend to look at things like the Nat'l Park System, Land Trusts etc., as perhaps being closer to Mr. Paine's vision than direct wealth distribution, which if I'm not mistaken, Tom Paine never mentioned in his works.

It is a matter of interpretation.

I agree with your interpretation of McCain and concur.

[IrateCitizen]

53. Hmmm... I don't look at it so much as "socialist", Tom...

As much as I look at it as a real idea for "promoting the general welfare".

Look at it in this manner -- currently, huge oil, gas and timber companies are given "exploration rights" for pennies per acre to exploit the resources on federal land. The problem is, that this land is actually owned by you, me, and the other 250 million-plus residents of the USA -- and we don't reap any of the reward of resources taken from OUR land.

Furthermore, we bear the environmental costs associated with extricating resources from OUR land as well.

It's a sweet deal if you're a large oil, gas or timber conglomerate -- but it sucks if you're a citizen. It's the age-old American strategy of socializing risk, while privatizing profit.

There's no reason that these companies should not be forced to not only pay for exploration rights at a slightly higher rate -- but also pay a percentage on all resources gleaned from their efforts, along with assuming all environmental costs associated with their work. The royalties could then be placed into a government trust that would be used for public works projects and other programs aimed at genuinely improving quality of life for present and future generations. Wouldn't THAT be a true committment to the public's well being?

The companies would not be prevented from making a profit, but they would be expected to assume risk as well, and bear the costs associated with their profit. This way, the "socialization" part of the equation would be placed where it properly belongs -- on the side of society, since it's society's land we're talking about here.

Can ya dig it, Tom?

[tom_paine]

55. That individual point seems good and not socialist per se

However, I daresay there are plenty of economic issues where your stances are more so and where I'd strongly diagree (that last post ain't one of 'em).

That, however, is a topic for another thread.

[IrateCitizen]

58. Yes, but I have mellowed considerably since I hit the big 3-0...

And become much more receptive toward others views and much less trusting of those who insist on ideology in the face of realities that suggest a different approach might be more feasible.

I think Rev. William Sloane Coffin summed it up best in his recent interview on Bill Moyers' NOW: "Continue to ask the socialist questions, but don't depend on the socialist answers."

[ulysses]

64. heh

I always expected to mellow in my thirties, but I think I've gone the other way instead. :D

One must keep an open mind, yes, just don't lose sight of the goal. Isn't there an axiom when chopping wood that one should aim *past* the wood, not directly at it?

[ulysses]

63. interesting thread.

I'd start one to get definitions on the "true progressive", but I don't want to make a career of copycat threads. :)

Coupla thoughts:

and also meant for each extreme to balance out the other over the long run.

I think that's true enough, and points to why I've railed for so long against the DLC in particular - trying to counter conservative extremism with centrism fails, and leads to the rightward slide of what is understood to be the center. Does that mean that I think we should drum the moderates and conservatives out of the Democratic party? No, but we need to give much more voice to what now gets called "traditional liberalism" and ideas even further to the left, if only as a counterweight.

Am I flame-worthy for saying that I would support Republicans if the Democrats became Totalitarian Scum like the Busheviks (I'm wearing my asbestos undies so fire away!)?

No, but we're so far away from anything remotely like that happening in our lifetimes that I'm not sure why anyone would worry about it now except as an academic exercise. Sort of like telling a homeless man that you'd like to help him but for the fear that he could eventually become a Fortune 500 CEO and fire you. :shrug:

[tom_paine]

66. Nice analogy, ulysses.

You are right about us being so far away from that possibility as to being an academic exercise.

I said it as part of my Complete Defintion. It needs to be said, if only that I hear it myself, lest I fall too deeply in the well of Zealotry and become that which I despise.

[ulysses]

67. fair enough, tom.

I guess we all face a variety of chasms and remind ourselves of things as we go, don't we? I keep wondering how much many of us are actually divided more by the inadequacies of the language and differences in aim than by the things we desire - not to shortchange the differences in desire, which are legion, but still. There's a lot more common ground than the rhetoric allows access to.

Again, good thread. :thumbsup:

[LPFabulous]

65. This is a definition?

Son, you haven't defined anything at all here.

You say "The True Moderate has both a Rightist and Leftist side," but give no reference as to what that might possibly mean. Do you mean the "True Moderate" takes conservative positions on some issues and liberal positions on others? Where does the "True Moderate" stand on gun control? Abortion? School vouchers?

You say "the Founding Fathers designed this nation to be a Moderate Nation, and the Constitutional Form of Government they laid out for us is designed to keep extremes from power," but of course that can't be right. Many of the founders were awfully extreme in their own right. Jefferson, for instance, was not moderate at all. That's why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place.

You say "The True Moderate distrusts both extremes equally." That, of course, is probably just a contradiction. If the "True Moderate" has "both a Rightist and Leftist side," how in the world can he distrust both sides equally? Unless you mean he doesn't distrust them at all, which might make sense. But someone who is partially a leftist is probably not likely to be all that wary of people who are totally leftist, is he?

[tom_paine]

68. A Very Fair Und Balanced Post

I say "Fair Und Balanced" because it sounds better in the original German... :evilgrin:

Given your short post, it isn't remarkable that you didn't understand a thing I said.

That's ok. But you did miss it all.

My Guess why: because of who you are...a Fair Und Balanced Guy, you could live 1000 years and never understand.

A quick synopsis, then you're on your own. You have several thousand hours of reading ahead, including the works of Jefferson, Franklin, and Tom Paine. Until you do that, the only kind of discussion you can possibly have on this issue is juvenile in nature.

Real quick now:

1) True Moderates are an amalgam of Rightist and Leftist beliefs. That doesn't mean those beliefs are necessarily the same! By example, I am a pro-environment, pro-gun Moderate (just to choose two issues). I could easily conceive of another True Moderate who is for Gun Control and against enviromental regulation. But we would both be True Moderates, who happen to have opposing viewpoints.

Your inability to grasp this simple point is further evidence of a Fair Und Balanced Mind.

2) Same as #1. You cannot see how a bunch of Radicals could create a Moderate Nation. It is called being familiar with human faults and flaws and foibles and knowing NO ONE is immune. The Founding Fathers were brilliant and unique in that they realized that NO ONE, EVEN THEY THEMSELVES could be trusted with Unchecked Power. Hence the System of Checks and Balances they created. Even the Radical "Bill of Rights" (now mostly in abeyance in Imperial Amerika...look up that word) is a document designed to counter Human passions, Greed, Flaws, and Corruptability.

Again, I must say that I find your lack of even a rudimentary civics knowledge to be somehwat disturbing. Further evidence of a Fair Und balanced mind. You need to start before the Works of the Founding Fathers. Try an 8th Grade Civics book.

Here's one for you:

http://www.greatbooksacademy.org/GBAStore/Detail.bok?searchpath=d89e61d2fbc1ef51bea0&category=EIGHTH+GRADE+LEVEL&keyword=gba&keywordoption=AND&start=1&total=63&no=6458

Start there. You've got a lot of reading to do even AFTER you finish the Chapter on "Checks and Balances" which should adequately explain how these Radicals decided on a Moderate Republic (whihc later became a democratic-republic thanks to Andy Jackson and later, the 17th Amendment to name a couple of many reasons)

3) Again, the only possible explanation of how you couldn't grasp this EXTRAORDINARILY SIMPLE concept is further evidence that you are a Zealot, sir, and I happen to know much about zealotry these days, having one foot in and one foot out so I can avoid becoming as you.

Your staggering lack of knowledge, conscience, consciousness indicates a Fair Und Balanced Mind, as well. As does your "But someone who is partially a leftist is probably not likely to be all that wary of people who are totally leftist, is he?"

Yeah, Mr. Fair Und Balanced, but my Right half is more comfortable with red meat, fiscal responsibility (given the actions of the Imperial Family, I guess fiscal responsibility IS leftist nowadays) the shooting range, and hopes for restructuring of immigration policies to something more sane and moderated, long-term.

Funny I supposed someone Fair Und Balaned wouldn't be able to grasp why that statement is ludicrous given the context of my intial post. Not at all. Incapable. I'd say it's more than likely that someone like that has had their critical thinking faculties burned away from years of Goebbels v2.0 New and Improved Right-Wing Propaganda. Further, I might speculate that someone with little historical knowledge or background would find a home in such a place, where ignorance is reinforced and no facts that are not Party-Approved can ever get through, let alone be acknowledged.

I would feel extreme pity for such a person reading and posting to this thread, because to explain to such people how a Free American's thought process works is akin to trying to explain the color "blue" to someone blind from birth.

I apologize if you find this offensive, but I must call it like I see it.

Just remember: You can respond, but unless you are more civil and less juvenile, I'll not respond for the same reason I wouldn't try to teach cows Calculus.

It makes you dirty and the cow just doesn't understand (not that I am calling you a cow, just analogzing with whatever rhetorical tools seem best...I know you don't know what that means...look it up)

[LPFabulous]

69. An Attempt at Civil Discourse

Well, that sure was rude. I'll try to respond while simultaneously being nice. Here goes:

1. I was apparently wrong about your definition of "True Moderate." I assumed it had some valuable content, but I see it actually has none. A "True Moderate" is apparently a person who has some views that are conservative and some that are liberal. Meaning nearly every single American... with the exceptions of Noam Chomsky and Sean Hannity, probably. This is an utterly un-useful concept and I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want such a thing to work with. Not to mention that it's just bizarre to call someone a "True Moderate" while simultaneously allowing that to include multiple ideologies. Not only does that create some strange metaphysical problems with the word "true," but doesn't that also further subtract from its value as a label in the first place? If "True Moderates" have beliefs across the board, it seems unlikely that it would of any use to them to have a common label. Furthermore, you claim that a "True Moderate" would oppose any corrupt administration... but what if one of those issues the "True Moderate" supported was corruption? Then what? Though I'm not sure where I'd put corruption on the ideological spectrum, seeing as how Cheney's on the right and Byrd's on the left. However, a "True Moderate" doesn't care about that anyway, right?

2. "You cannot see how a bunch of Radicals could create a Moderate Nation." Actually, the reason I can't see this is because it's shockingly untrue. The state that was created here in America was extremely radical. A codified liberal system was something that didn't exist anywhere else in the world. Britain had a lot of the same rights by common law, but nothing like a constitution that specifically guaranteed them. It's fairly safe to say that our revolution helped prompt the one in France and the ensuing spread of liberal democracy. There was absolutely nothing moderate about our nation. That it looks moderate now is only because liberal democracy has become the norm. So, at the risk of sounding like you, maybe I need a civics lesson (though I don't, I promise), but you could use a history lesson.

Not to mention that so-called "checks and balances" tend to create a conservative state, NOT a moderate one. The United States was designed to place the major functions in the less democratic bodies, namely the Senate and the executive (the president being originally selected by the Electoral College without reference to a popular vote). Later, the Supreme Court made itself a substantial role, and it's worth noting that the Supreme Court is also undemocratic (lifetime appointments made by the president and confirmed by the Senate). In fact, the only democratic body, the House, has almost no important function, save appropriations I guess.

3. I'd prefer not to be talked down to. If you're as smart and well-informed as you claim to be, your ability to make superior arguments will be quite enough to sway me to your position. So why don't we try to stick to the merits of the position and not insult my intelligence, eh? I assure you I am more than equal to the rigors of a reasoned debate.

[tom_paine]

70. Your upset at being condescended to rings utterly hollow

Your first post was condescending (you called me "son", Mr. Fair Und Balanced), and therefore set the tone.

As someone Fair Und Balanced, it surprises me not at all that after starting the condescension, that you would now paint yourself as the victim. Sort of like a Commie Guard in the Gulag kicking the crap out of his Capitalist Prisoner and with each kick screaming "Stop...OPPRESSING...ME!!!". You know what I mean...sincere. :evilgrin:

Now for the debate you earned by your semi-civilized and falsely indignant response (did you submit to "the board" and get some help, I wonder, perhaps not, perhaps your first post wasn't indicative of your edumucation):

1. Your use of Chomsky vs. Insannity as polar opposites is quite telling also. That truly is rich... (now THAT'S A Fair Und balanced laugh icon, eh? Repeat after me: Bwa-HAHAHAHAHA!)

Chomsky is a Man of Letters, accomplished and wise, even if you disagree with him. Hannity is an uneducated fool, a carnival barker of the Nazi Variety (and I usually like carnivals and carnival barkers, so long as you realzie they're trying to milk you) and, I might add, too much of a (w)ussy to go and serve his country, as I did. Sure Chomsky didn't serve either but all his life he has stood honestly by unpopular views (I might add I disagree with many of Chomsky's views, but I respect his intellect, which goes the someone who actually IS his Right-Wing Opposite-- Francis Fukyama(?--misspelled name). Didn't he write "End of History" or somesuch (I didn't read it but would like to)?

The opposite of Sean Insannity is somebody like Al Franken, but even he was an accomplished entertainer and comedian for MANY YEARS first). People similar to Mr. Hannity: Limabugh, Coulter, O'Reichley, Julius Streicher, and the Entire Staff of the 1978 Edition of Soviet Pravda

For more on Mr. Streicher:

www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Streicher.html

Your one good point in that section was the Cheney/Byrd comment rings true and is actually what I've been trying to tell you about my definition of "True Moderate" which is, one more time for the slow of uptake the "True Moderate" wants NEITHER SIDE to gain the level of UNCHECKED POWER that would alow them to FEED THEIR CORRUPTION WITHOUT RESTRAINT. That goes for CHENEY, WHO IS CURRENTLY FEEDING HIS CORRUPTION WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR BYRD WHO PROBABLY WOULD if he got his hands ON IMPERIAL POWER!

(though he makes one HELL of a Cicero, who was also a sonovabitch...look it up)

Damn! Got it yet?!? FINALLY?

2. Again, you miss the point: One last time. You are correct that the American Experiment, for it's time and compared to the rest of the world, was indeed Radical. To understand my perspective, forget it's Historical Position relative to the world. Just speaking of the System itself, Checks and Balances is designed to lead to moderation. Now I am NOT going to go into how the different branches (again you are correct that one of them is undemocratic...don't give me that Fair Und Balanced bull about 1776-style governance, Property Voting, and the fact that the last 15 Amendmenst weren't needed blah blah blah disingenuous) check each other by having different "modes of selection", but suffice to say that they all exist to push things to the middle, moderation.

In fact you tipped your hand, Mr. Fair Und Balanced, "a conservative state". Hah! Talk about your unsupported allegations just dropped in there authoritatively! We're onto that tired Owellian Wordplay, you know. AND WE'RE TELLING OTHERS!!! Total BS. I don't care to explain it you but I do understand your Masters have spent a lot of time and money selling you on the LIE.

3. My apologies for talking down to you, Mr. Fair Und Balanced. I might add you started it with the contemptuous and dismissive "Son..." (I'm probably older than you) and went downhill from there. Naturally, as befittng a Fair Und Balanced Totalitarian (I'll even be so charitable to say that you fail to even recognize what you support, like many "Good Germans" in 1933) like Insannity, you yowl like a cat that stepped on a stove if someone gives you a tiny bit of your own back.

Had you STARTED this debate in a civilized fashion. Hell, if you hadn't grotesquely tipped your hand Mr. Fair and Balanced (shelve the Wounded Duck-Self self-righteous Bit...you guys wore that one out a LONG time ago and you never were sincere or good actors anyway)

Well boo-f*cking hoo. My heart goes out to you for getting back the tiniest taste of what you and your cohorts have spread for DECADES.

Cry some more. It's music to my ears, Mr. Fair and Balanced.

Cry me a river.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

PS If you haven't noticed I'm NOT trying to sway your position.

PPS I won't be responding to you again. Pointless, anyway. Enjoy the Last Word, if you wish it.

[LPFabulous]

71. Hmm...

Well, I don't feel like going through and addressing this point by point, so I'll just pick out a few I want to respond to.

1. You keep calling me Fair and Balanced (I'm ignoring your pretentious German) and talking about my masters, and I'm not at all sure what you mean. If you're trying to insinuate that I'm a conservative, you're more than a little wrong. But it looks like that's what you're doing. So I'll just point out that I'm not conservative and you're being weird.

2. Maybe my comparison of Chomsky and Hannity was a little one-sided. I can change it. We can go with Chomsky and Bork, or Moore and Hannity. Those comparisons are more even... not that it really matters. All four are too shrill for their own good.

3. "To understand my perspective, forget it's Historical Position relative to the world." Why would I do that? The founders didn't establish USA 2004, they established USA 1789. It was radical then. What they were creating was a radical state. That it has become the norm in the world does not change that. That the checks and balances serve to create a lot of inertia to prevent it state from changing is not important either. They created a radical state and then did their best to make sure it stayed more or less the same forever. How is that moderation?