Nomenclature - Moderates vs. ________.

[bryant69]

This springs from thoughts about a conversation held the other day, about the difficulty of the Moderate Label. As a self described Moderate, It occurs to me that I be staking out a rhetorical position. Each time I describe myself as a Moderate, I am taking the people who's views are to the left of mine and putting them in a box.

The obvious solution is for us to not use labels to describe others our ourselves - but i don't know if this would actually work - our brains naturally categorize things. We are naturally going to look at our fellow DUers and see them as "more liberal than me" or "less liberal than me" and put them in the appropriate box.

So what should the other label be? Moderate and what? Extremist seems too pejorative, Leftists is less negative, but still has negative connotations for some - obviously socialist doesn't describe all non moderates. Liberal of course implies that Moderate liberals aren't really liberals. The best one in my mind is Progressive - Progressive and Moderate - neither one seems too negative or too positive (I will say that I may be showing my own biases by claiming Moderate as one of the two terms. I couldn't think of any non pejorative alternatives to Moderate (although my sense of humor is sense that Sell-Out Vs. Extremist does appeal on some levels).

What do you think is best to slide into the slot opposite Moderate?

Oh, and if you find this boring, I apologize in advance.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Moderate is the confused middle.

And of course your poll is silly. The opposites (note the plural) are left and right, the confused middle is labelled 'moderate'. The opposite of moderate is anyone who has a core ideological basis for his political positions.

For example, Universal Health Care. On the left we support universal health care like almost every other modern industrial democracy. We view access to quality healthcare as a basic human right. Generally we believe that medicare should be extended to everyone and that hideous plan D bullshit should be scrapped and replaced with a real prescription benefit and long term care should be part of the deal. On the right they believe that you should get the healthcare you can afford, nothing more and nothing less. In the confused middle healthcare access is sort of a right, or maybe an entitlement, but moderates are worried that socialized medicine means that the IRS will appoint your doctor and you will have to stand on line for 37 days to get heart surgery and that the best thing is to let Big Pharma and HealthCo continue to farm our tax dollars and wages for huge profits.

[bryant69]

2. I don't think that's accurate

For one thing it seems to posit one "left" and one "right."

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

3. No there are many variations on left and right.

Moderates are stuck somewhere in the middle. Your poll has the opposite of moderate being various flavors of left. That happens to coincide with the general MSM brainwashing, which positions everyone to the right of progressives and liberals as 'moderates' even though they are spouting extreme rightwing nonsense.

[bryant69]

7. Thank you.

Well I did specifically locate it here on DU not in the real world. A moderate DUer is still a liberal.

Bryant

[Sapphocrat]

39. "A moderate DUer is still a liberal."

No way. Absolutely wrong.

Case in point (avoiding so much detail as to get in trouble for calling out another DUer): There is one DUer with whom I agree 100% on certain basic "liberal" values (healthcare, fiscal stuff, etc.), but who, due to religious beliefs, refuses to accept the idea of even civil unions for gay people -- and actually fed me the "love the sin/hate the sinner/I'll pray for your salvation" line.

Would you call that "liberal"? I certainly don't.

A "moderate" can swing far left on some issues, and far right on others, and the far-right attitudes cancel out the far-left attitudes, putting that person square in the middle. Go left on social issues and right on economic issues, and you're a Libertarian. Go right on social issues and left on economic issues, and you're... well, I guess a conservative Democrat.

Go left on both social and economic issues, and you're a liberal.

No moderate -- DUer or otherwise -- is automatically a liberal. I know from liberal -- I am a liberal.

[On the Road]

13. Does Howard Dean Strike You as Confused?

or Bill Clinton, for that matter? Because they're both moderates.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Bill Clinton?

End welfare as we know it Bill? Healthcare reform disaster Bill? War Hawk Bill? Yeah he's confused. Nice guy, real charismatic, but his political agenda is a mishmash of confused (deliberately?) center right 'moderation'.

[On the Road]

41. OK, Bill Clinton Strikes You as a Confused Politician

Just wanted to establish that. While I don't agree with him on everything, he probably articulates his positions and political philosophy better than any other politician I can think of.

[kiahzero]

14. That's some nice binary thinking there.

Believe it or not, there are numbers other than 0 and 1.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I'm counting three in my calculation.

Left Moderate Right. 3 not 2. And yes of course the political spectrum is more complicated, however the OP basically offered a choice between moderate and left.

As for moderates being muddled, how about the 'moderate' position on the Iraq war?

Left: get out, the sooner the better. The war was wrong from the start and based on deliberate lies.

Right: stay and win, whatever it takes. The war was right and we can win it. Nobody lied about anything. We have to fight them there or we will be fighting them here.

Moderates: some variation on 'well we can't stay forever, and yes the original reasons for the war were wrong but we can't afford to fail, so we need to have a new plan that does something (lots of hand waving here) and then everything will be ok.'

[kiahzero]

25. You said there were only two valid options

And a bunch of invalid ones in the middle. 0 and 1, and anything else is just a confused 0 or 1.

Do you enjoy making straw men? You make a lot of them, so it would seem that way. For instance, claiming that the moderate position on Iraq is: "well we can't stay forever, and yes the original reasons for the war were wrong but we can't afford to fail, so we need to have a new plan that does something (lots of hand waving here) and then everything will be ok."

What about the people who say it was wrong to go, but we're there now, so we have to deal with that fact and try to stabilize the country? What about the people who say we were right to go, but the Bush camp is incompetant? Do those positions just not exist in your mind? There are plenty of intellectually honest ways of looking at the war. Breaking it down into "You either want us out now, or you're a confused moron or a Republican" is hardly accurate.

[Telly Savalas]

23. In every other modern industrial democracy Moderates

support universal health care. In the U.S. most people called "Moderates" don't support it, because the far right has been allowed to impose their own definition of the term "Moderate." By playing along with this, you're only helping them.

[Greyhound]

4. Extremist here, although my views are on both ends of the spectrum

they do tend to, what is now considered, extreme.

[yurbud]

21. what if the center has moved far, far to the right?

Which views here do you consider extremist?

[Greyhound]

40. I am told by folks on the left and the right that my views are extreme

so I think I'm either on the right track, or completely crazy. :crazy: :silly:

RW examples;

I believe in the 2nd amendment was written to ensure the people had the power to remove the government at any time it became unresponsive to their needs, therefore I would reject all restrictions of the private ownership of weapons (remember that most of the artillery we had in the revolutionary war was initially privately owned). Now before somebody goes off on the neighbor with a nuke argument, I do think restricting the production, and therefore the availability, of plutonium, enriched uranium, etc., is just fine.

I think the politiwhores of both parties have mis-spent, stolen, and generally wasted far too many tax dollars and therefore should be forced to live within the budget we provide.

I believe the government has far exceeded its initial mandate and is involved in hundreds, if not thousands, of areas they have no business being involved in.

LW examples;

I believe that the fields of Justice, Medicine, and Education, should be entirely socialized. Nobody should have their access to these areas restricted or enhanced due to the quantity of their assets, or the family they were born into, period.

I think the government has the responsibility to care for all of its citizens throughout their lives, by ensuring that their is no lack of the basics of food, shelter, and clothing, under any circumstances.

I think the government has no right to prohibit any behavior or consumption, as long as all parties involved are involved voluntarily, and of sufficient capability to give that consent.

I believe that we, as a nation, should adhere to the foreign policy standard of Thomas Jefferson, basically be friendly and trade with everybody that wants to, and make alliances and commitments to none.

So, what do you think?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. They used to call "moderates" mugwumps.

Someone with their mug on one side of the fence with their 'wump' on the other side.

In Revelations:


15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot.

16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.

[TahitiNut]

6. What would we call a 'moderate' in 1935 Germany?

A "Good German"? :eyes:

In the 70s, I called myself a 'moderate' - but I was young and stupid. In the face of the Reich Wing of today's GOP, I see nothing virtuous about claiming to be a 'moderate.' Nothing.

[bryant69]

8. Well I guess i don't see things the same as you

Bryant

[yurbud]

20. DLC in Nazi Germany: We could do a BETTER Holocaust and a kinder, gentler

invasion of Poland and Russia.

[Radical Activist]

26. McCain: Hitler should have told us this war would be long and hard.

[yurbud]

9. I disagree with "moderate" versus any of those. The conflict with Dems

is public interest versus private interests.

Jack Murtha was arguable moderate to conservative on a lot of issues, but he let the facts reshape his position on the war.

The same is not true of supposed moderates and even liberals who are actually in Congress to serve private interests. Facts don't change their mind because they are paid to believe and do specific things, like Joe Lieberman saying Iraq is going swell when he went to visit. Something similar occurs with one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, who has a reputation as a liberal, which is undeserved on business and foreign policy issues.

[yurbud]

10. better way to put it: is government a public or corporate servant?

[bryant69]

11. Fair enough

I can't blame those who aren't moderates for wanting to stack the decks in their favor (which this nomeculture clearly does). You might take it a step further and say those who are for the people vs. those who are for the corporations.

Just don't expect that everybody will see things that way.

[yurbud]

17. the DLCers are not as much moderate in ideology as they frame ideology

to appeal to voters without alienating corporate donors.

Then they take care of corporate donors.

that is not moderate. That's corrupt, just a different flavor than the GOP kind where it is part of their core ideology.

[bryant69]

22. But there are moderates who are not DLCers

I am a moderate and not in favor of theDLC for the reasons you mention.

Bryant

[yurbud]

24. good. We agree. How they react to reality is the dividing line

or which plain facts they choose to ignore.

[bryant69]

30. I don't know about that

Obviously opinions on how to react to reality can differ - for example there are those who believe that it's a foregone conclusion that we will lose in the fall, thanks to Republican perfidity and we need to start preparing for a revolution. There are otherse who think we have a good chance in the fall and that as bad as the Bushes are they aren't really going to institute a totalitarian dictatorship.

Those are two different opinions - both derived from what the holders hold as solid facts.

Bryant

[TahitiNut]

12. My uncle (a New Deal Dem) has said it for years:

"The Democratic Party is the party for people; the Republican Party is the party for property."

As an (anti-partisanship) independent, I fully recognize the dichotomy ... but I do not believe that the Democratic Party is free of those who place the interests of property above the interests of people. Not even close. In fact, I see almost no "Labor Party" any more. That's fucking criminal!

[yurbud]

18. there aint even a labor party in britain. It's like coke without the

brown food coloring, corn syrup, caffeine, carbonation, or even water. It's just the can.

[yurbud]

19. When former Reagan and Nixon admin people agree with the "far left"

are we still the lunatic fringe?

Or is it actually looking at facts instead of MSM and right wing spin that bothers you?

[Radical Activist]

27. moderate v. strong convictions.

You probably won't like that comparison but I think it works. I'm with Saul Alinksy in his description of moderates as those who believe something but won't follow those beliefs to their full logical conclusion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. Moderate: one who lacks the courage to have convictions.

The opposite of a moderate: someone who believes in something, and believes in it strongly enough to fight for it.

[bryant69]

31. I like your literary reference but your opinion is bullshit

Being moderate does not mean one does not have convictions - it means that the convictions one has are considered to be in the middle of other peoples opinions. I have very strong opinions, opinions not derived from cowardness.

Bryant

[aikoaiko]

29. Good luck, as you see, nonmoderates despise moderates.

It all about peace and love until they talk to someone with whom they disagree.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. I don't believe in the term "Moderate"

It is a rhetorical trick, and little more. There is no left, right, and center. People think of politics as a straight line, with right and left "poles" (the extremes). This is nonsense. Political positions are much more like the dots on a Twister mat: no center, no left, no right. The dot that is strongest at any one time pretends to be the center, but this is just a lie propogated by the one view that happens to hold power at any given time, which calls itself the "Center" as a result. Therte's no scale, just a multitude of positions. The pretentions to being a "moderate" are ridiculous, and rely on the outright falsehood of some gradual political scale with poles. Moderates are as extreme as any extreme. They just don't appear so because they are either suckers for the current regime, or its propogandists.

[bryant69]

33. Moderates are either suckers for the current regime

or it's propogandists?

That's interesting.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Let me clarify

By "current regime" I don't mean the Bushies, but the prevailing form of social organization, which happens to be just one form among others.

[bryant69]

35. Ah that's a bit clearer - and yeah I'll cop to that

I'm not in favor of any revolution or any revolutionist; rather I think as bad as things are right now under Bush a revolution would almost certainly be worse.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Well

That's neither here nor there.

[Rex]

36. Nothing, it applies to both Dems and Reps.

Why do you trying to divide us so? Did Rove pay you! :sarcasm:

[Sapphocrat]

38. Why do you have to modify "moderate" at all?

But if you do -- and if you really want the opinion of someone far to your left -- then you need to dig a little deeper and decide where your core values put you. In other words, are you sure you fall on the left side of center? You might believe so, but -- again, as someone well to the left of you -- I probably wouldn't. And someone to the right of you would probably think you're a flaming liberal. So why not just stick with "moderate" (or "centrist")?

As far as "progressive" goes, the very word "progressive" is, to my ear, a squishy, vague, "moderate" word, for those too nervous to come right out and commit to "liberal". But if you're really not liberal, then "progressive" seems fitting. It's so... moderate.

For the record, I'll say it again: I was once considered a moderate, and now I am considered a radical-fringe leftist -- and my politics have barely budged in more than 30 years.

May you one day find yourself in the same position, Bryant. In a way I can't really explain, it's quite a relief to finally own your own label, no matter what it is, or what people think of it. I can make people blanche by calling myself a "liberal dyke" -- but it sure feels nice to own that phrase; it's all mine, and I know exactly what it means.

[LWolf]

42. I'll bite.

Moderate is already a loaded term in the same way that "liberal" is. It all has baggage. Currently, it raises the hair on the back of my neck and screams "republican-lite," and other less pc things.

How about "pragmatic." Isn't that something like what the "middle" does?

If a pragmatic person is someone who philosophically may be to the right or left (not a "leftist" or "rightwinger" or "neocon" or "socialist" or other value-added term), but is willing to meet the opposition part way if some of his/her agenda is acknowledged and given a place at the table, is that "moderate?"

Instead of indicating an indecisive "middle of the road," it indicates a willingness to collaborate, cooperate, and move forward on issues by including all stakeholders. Much more positive. Maybe "inclusive" would be a positive term. Or "balanced."

Personally, I'm miles further to the left on many issues, and more "balanced" on others. I find that when the majority seems to be loading the teeter-totter/pendulum in one direction, I'm always playing counterbalance. As long as things are out of balance, I'm the extreme on the other end. When some sense of balance is achieved, I'm suddenly much more moderate, myself. I'm a sliding weight on the scale, I guess.