“Moderates by definition have no principles"

[jonks]

Agree or disagree?

Going down that road would seem to me to lead to a one-note party where any dissent is viewed as sedition. In fact, I would think that if one were to make this argument that such a charge would be more appropriately directed at those who toe party line on each and every issue without question or consideration. A party endorsing such a view could never compromise or seek middle ground on anything, and as such wouldn't be effective at engendering any positive change, as they saw it, in any legislative efforts unless they had majority power.

From a practical standpoint, evincing hostility towards any moderates would over time drive them out of your party and only diminish both your constituency and your elected representative base. Not a winning strategy come elections I'd think.

I understand there are some issues that people hold so closely that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who didn't represent a shared view on that issue. This is different from wishing for the exile of all moderates because your representative could agree with you on the issue you hold dear, and perhaps reach across the aisle and be more moderate on other issues to which you assign lower priority.

 

[werepossum]

Well, there is an old saying that the only things you find in the middle of the road are moderates and dead skunks. LOL

I would think that moderates would fall into three main groups - those that are totally out of touch with politics, those that have mostly moderate views that could fit with either party, and those who aren't particularly moderate, but whose mix of views fit with neither party and thus get lumped with moderates as swing voters. All three are okay with me, it's a free country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Some "moderates" have no principles. Some have a smaller set of core principles than others. Some also have a purposely vague set and will compromise them when the situation arises.

I don't mind "moderates" who have a smaller set of core principles. The other two types I reject and have little/no respect for. I respect people who have a set core principles and can back them up - even if I am directly opposed to such principles.

When it comes to the politics of principles, I dislike the game playing. Like in NY23, the lady had very little if anything connecting her to the R party except for the (R) at the end of her name. I don't understand why people try to label themselves as something when they don't even come close to the party platform(except the politics of getting elected).

 

[blackangst1]

Some "moderates" have no principles. Some have a smaller set of core principles than others. Some also have a purposely vague set and will compromise them when the situation arises.

I don't mind "moderates" who have a smaller set of core principles. The other two types I reject and have little/no respect for. I respect people who have a set core principles and can back them up - even if I am directly opposed to such principles.

When it comes to the politics of principles, I dislike the game playing. Like in NY23, the lady had very little if anything connecting her to the R party except for the (R) at the end of her name. I don't understand why people try to label themselves as something when they don't even come close to the party platform(except the politics of getting elected).

I was going to post something similar. +1 instead.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think some moderates get grouped in the middle simply because there are really two distinct scales at work in the political realm. On the one hand, there are social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage or gun control. On the other hand, there are fiscal issues, such as taxation or government spending. It is easily possible for someone to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative or socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Unfortunately, the two major parties we have now try to hold themselves as fully liberal or fully conservative (although both are pretty fiscally liberal), so voters who find themselves split don't necessarily have a major party that caters specifically to their viewpoints. I think a lot of moderates end up as "moderates" because of this divide. I don't necessarily agree that this indicates a lack of principles, but rather that their principles cannot be pigeonholed into the beliefs of only the Republican or Democratic party.

 

[fskimospy]

When it comes to the politics of principles, I dislike the game playing. Like in NY23, the lady had very little if anything connecting her to the R party except for the (R) at the end of her name. I don't understand why people try to label themselves as something when they don't even come close to the party platform(except the politics of getting elected).

I've heard this several times and it is simply false. For an interesting analysis of her position (as well as links to other interesting analysis you can go here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/10/scozzafava_is_a_conservative_r.html

In short: these researchers found her moderately to the right of the average New York state Republican, and about dead center on the national scale. If you look at her place on the issues you will see she wanted to lower taxes, decrease welfare, increase prison sentences, was for prayer in public schools, anti-gun control, etc... etc... etc. All important parts of the Republican platform. While she deviated on quite a number of issues, she also agreed with a great number. Sayign that she 'had very little if anything connecting her to the Republican party' is an absolutely absurd statement. Furthermore, if you want to kick her out of the Republican Party, you should want to kick out about 60% of the Republicans elected in New York state. Why stop with her?

What she WAS, was a moderate who fell a little more on the Republican side than the Democratic side. Since we have a two party system, she went with the one she was closer to. People decided she had insufficient ideological purity however and they backed an ultra-right candidate... and that made them lose.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I've heard this several times and it is simply false. For an interesting analysis of her position (as well as links to other interesting analysis you can go here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/10/scozzafava_is_a_conservative_r.html

In short: these researchers found her moderately to the right of the average New York state Republican, and about dead center on the national scale. If you look at her place on the issues you will see she wanted to lower taxes, decrease welfare, increase prison sentences, was for prayer in public schools, anti-gun control, etc... etc... etc. All important parts of the Republican platform. While she deviated on quite a number of issues, she also agreed with a great number. Sayign that she 'had very little if anything connecting her to the Republican party' is an absolutely absurd statement. Furthermore, if you want to kick her out of the Republican Party, you should want to kick out about 60% of the Republicans elected in New York state. Why stop with her?

What she WAS, was a moderate who fell a little more on the Republican side than the Democratic side. Since we have a two party system, she went with the one she was closer to. People decided she had insufficient ideological purity however and they backed an ultra-right candidate... and that made them lose.

To further this sidenote - You are dead ass wrong.

Taxes - She voted to extend or raise taxes how many times? Oh...but "she wanted to lower taxes" by raising or extending them I suppose...
Welfare - who wants to increase "welfare"? Even you leftists don't come out and state it like that. Good going... +1 to you...
Prison sentencing - wow, that's a tough one too since people campaign on letting criminals out sooner. +1 to you
school prayer - I find no such support from her on this/don't remember her supporting this. She could have.
Guns - yep, see seemed to be anti-radical gun control. +1 to you

+3 for you but in reality many Democrats would have those same 3 points.

Now for what you and many like you leave out.
*VERY pro-union and cardcheck
*VERY pro baby killing - even received the margaret "human weeds" sanger thingy to prove it.
*backed by and ran on? the "progressive" Working Families Party of New York.

But I guess that sounds like a Republican "moderate" to someone like you...since it seems that "moderate" to far left libs is "agrees with me most of the time"
*************


Now that should end the duhversion by eskipie. I wonder if he's going to respond to the OP or not...

 

[shira]

Agree or disagree?

Going down that road would seem to me to lead to a one-note party where any dissent is viewed as sedition. In fact, I would think that if one were to make this argument that such a charge would be more appropriately directed at those who toe party line on each and every issue without question or consideration. A party endorsing such a view could never compromise or seek middle ground on anything, and as such wouldn't be effective at engendering any positive change, as they saw it, in any legislative efforts unless they had majority power.

From a practical standpoint, evincing hostility towards any moderates would over time drive them out of your party and only diminish both your constituency and your elected representative base. Not a winning strategy come elections I'd think.

I understand there are some issues that people hold so closely that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who didn't represent a shared view on that issue. This is different from wishing for the exile of all moderates because your representative could agree with you on the issue you hold dear, and perhaps reach across the aisle and be more moderate on other issues to which you assign lower priority.

I think moderates are MORE driven by principle than party-liners. If you're principled, you recognize that for most issues there are conflicts of objectives and/or rights. For example, the conflict between the rights of a woman to control her own body and the rights of her fetus. And that awareness will lead a principled person to take moderate positions (for example, legality of abortion, but not without restrictions).

 

[BoberFett]

Some who might be considered "moderate" have as much principle as those on the right and left, they just lean left on some ideas and right on others.

If moderates lack principles, then the hardline right and left lack intelligence.

 

[BoberFett]

I think moderates are MORE driven by principle than party-liners. If you're principled, you recognize that for most issues there are conflicts of objectives and/or rights. For example, the conflict between the rights of a woman to control her own body and the rights of her fetus. And that awareness will lead a principled person to take moderate positions (for example, legality of abortion, but not without restrictions).

Agree completely, and the issue you brought up is a great example. The radical pro-life say abortion is never an option, the radical pro-choice say that an unborn human has no rights. They're both wrong.

 

[AbAbber2k]

I'd say that's a pretty dumb and baseless assertion.

Just because someone doesn't fit into the black and white, left and right political system we currently enjoy (put up with) doesn't mean they lack conviction or principles.

 

[Moonbeam]

To a fanatic a moderate is a fanatic. To a moderate a purist is a fanatic. All believe that their particular view is the one that makes sense. If humans are evolving, and looking back over history we can make some assumptions that we have, then the only party that makes sense is the Progressives. We are evolving that way so that way is where our future is. What is conservative today was wildly liberal yesterday. It is a case of maybe 2% of the population who can actually see and think dragging the 98% along for the ride kicking and screaming all the way.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Many would consider me a moderate but that doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions...I just have opinions opposed to the 2 major parties.

Anti-abortion
anti-death penalty
anti-gun control
pro-universal healthcare
pro-drug legalization
pro-gay rights and marriage
pro-free speech (anti fcc)

I have strong opinions but some are strongly to the left and some strongly to the right.

 

[StageLeft]

Blanket statement applicable in some cases.

 

[QuantumPion]

People can be moderates and have varying principles.



When politicians do it, it's because they want votes from both sides of the aisle.

 

[fskimospy]

To further this sidenote - You are dead ass wrong.

Taxes - She voted to extend or raise taxes how many times? Oh...but "she wanted to lower taxes" by raising or extending them I suppose...
Welfare - who wants to increase "welfare"? Even you leftists don't come out and state it like that. Good going... +1 to you...
Prison sentencing - wow, that's a tough one too since people campaign on letting criminals out sooner. +1 to you
school prayer - I find no such support from her on this/don't remember her supporting this. She could have.
Guns - yep, see seemed to be anti-radical gun control. +1 to you

+3 for you but in reality many Democrats would have those same 3 points.

Now for what you and many like you leave out.
*VERY pro-union and cardcheck
*VERY pro baby killing - even received the margaret "human weeds" sanger thingy to prove it.
*backed by and ran on? the "progressive" Working Families Party of New York.

But I guess that sounds like a Republican "moderate" to someone like you...since it seems that "moderate" to far left libs is "agrees with me most of the time"
*************


Now that should end the duhversion by eskipie. I wonder if he's going to respond to the OP or not...

That analysis is based off of her voting record, genius. You know... when she actually took action. So no, according to an independent analysis of her voting record as it relates on the ideological scale compared to other Republicans in New York she is a conservative. On a nationwide scale she is almost perfectly centrist. (slightly on the conservative side) If you have another scientific analysis of her voting record that comes to a different conclusion by all means please post it. Otherwise, you are simply attempting to combat my facts with ultra right wing rhetoric because one again you opened your fat mouth without understanding what you were talking about, and again you were busted.

To address the OP, the idea that moderates have no principles is silly in my opinion. As shira mentioned, every policy is a tradeoff between competing interests, and the vast majority of issues do not have clearly defined right/wrong areas. (and when they do, the vast majority of these issues are so clear that they are embraced by both parties making it a non-issue) This makes a moderate position not only plausible but in many cases desirable.

I think that the zero sum/winner take all nature of American politics has radicalized both sides to the point at which moderates are looked down upon more for the fact that their votes can't be depended on for the 'team' than anything else.

 

[sandorski]

BS argument. Similar to how "Godless" People are Mass Murdering Fetus Rapists.

Moderates lack Ideology, not Principles. Big difference.

 

[Deeko]

That's BS. Some call me moderate - and I have very strong principles and very strong convictions.

The difference between me and most moderates is that I'm really not middle of the road with anything - I am strongly aligned with one viewpoint or another - my collective viewpoints just don't mesh with the collective viewpoints of either major party.

Politics is a VERY diverse subject, to think there are only two answers to the overall question is EXTREMELY ignorant.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Totally disagree. I think it's more like anyone who is partisan is an extremist. I tend to respect only unaffiliated or moderates. They seem to be the only ones who don't need medication.

 

[Lemon law]

BS argument. Similar to how "Godless" People are Mass Murdering Fetus Rapists.

Moderates lack Ideology, not Principles. Big difference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I tend to disagree with what everyone says, even if sandorski starts to touch on the correct answer.

In my mind, those on the extreme right and left hold strong views, but lack the respect to understand that there are opposing views to their own.

And its the understanding and intelligent moderates who understand the views of the extreme right or extreme left are incompatible with each other, and seek the compromise that will hold the greater nation together.

And its in the larger moderate sense that allows social progress and evolution, and in the larger sweep of history it works as follows. New and radical ideas are proposed, gradually some of those radical ideas are adopted as needed reforms, then they become more mainstream, after a time conditions change, newer and more radical ideas are proposed while the former ideas cease working as reforms, and then become the new far right dogma as we have a crisis in the old order.

And now the good ole USA is at one of those crisis of the old order points, we have had no real progress for decades while conditions changed, and to some extent, GWB was the unlucky smuck to preside over the resultant collapse.

And now in the narrowness of partisan politics, we can't see that Obama is a centrist reformer, or that its the moderates that need to come to a compromise that allows some of those needed reforms.

Because its adapt or die. In not choosing the former we choose the latter. And its the moderates who need to step up to the plate and unite.

 

[Kadarin]

*VERY pro baby killing

IMO you lose your credibility right there by inserting inflammatory text in what should be a simple, informative post.

 

[BoberFett]

Obama may be centrist, but he is no reformer.

 

[Lemon law]

Obama may be centrist, but he is no reformer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be a view point thing, because BoberFett seems to be an extremist that cannot accept the fact changes are needed.

And given the resultant economic collapse we saw in the late stages of the GWB administration, its hard to argue changes are not needed.

 

[shortylickens]

I have very strong principles and am moderate with most things. Liberal in some others and conservative in the rest.

Having said that, I am not in political office or running for political office. Seems like in order to get elected you have to believe very strongly one way or the other.

 

[BoberFett]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be a view point thing, because BoberFett seems to be an extremist that cannot accept the fact changes are needed.

And given the resultant economic collapse we saw in the late stages of the GWB administration, its hard to argue changes are not needed.

Typical Lemon Law response. If you disagree with the nature of reform, you're an extremist.

I think changes are need. They're not the changes you think are needed. I just happen to be right, while you are wrong.