Why is it so Hard for People to be Moderates?

[Torto]

The problem of our time is, that everone wants their problems be solved by politics, but only their way of solving the issue is the "right" way.

The people have to realise that only a small portion of their lifes should be regulated by politics and the rest is up for their making, than these people would become "moderates"...

Yes it's the classic "I'm fat, bald and stupid, what's the government going to do about it?" complaint. A large section of people have become reliant on large government, they have become incapable of thinking for themselves. So they expect governments to make decisions for them, think for them and control their lives. You hear them complain about governments all the time, but would be terrified if governments weren't around. This is why governments keep getting bigger, when in fact they should be getting smaller.

[Elegiac]

Yes it's the classic "I'm fat, bald and stupid, what's the government going to do about it?" complaint. A large section of people have become reliant on large government, they have become incapable of thinking for themselves. So they expect governments to make decisions for them, think for them and control their lives. You hear them complain about governments all the time, but would be terrified if governments weren't around. This is why governments keep getting bigger, when in fact they should be getting smaller.

They tried that in Australia, all that's happening is the Liberals have run out of public assets to sell off to prop up their crap budget policies.

"Small government" and "big government" are made up talking points that don't have any actual relevance to policy.

[Sevyvia]

This is why, boiled down into a short (and amusing) format.

[Cuppy]

Basically, what it boils down to is that the vast majority of people shouldn't identify as "democrats" or "republicans", to use the American context as the example. Nor should they identify as "left" or "right", even.

This, and as a follow up it boils to this:
People most likely wish their lives to be peaceful and happy.

I see no point in dividing us more than that. Politics and religions however, tend to do this job very nicely.
Not republicans nor democrats wish war, unhappy life, misery or anything in that matter.
Everyone wants this world to be a good place.

[Cyanu]

No candidate had over 50% of the votes this last election so any candidate who won you could make the argument didn't have america backing him/her. Past that the electoral system is working exactly as intended giving ALL avenues of American life a say in how the U.S. is going to develop not just dumping total power and control into to the super city's of the country.

As for using the U.S. to push climate change why not actually just lead by example, if your way of life is truly better the people will speak out and demand it be made apart of their way of life (See the chines people rising up and demanding some workers rights now a days.) Don't go demanding that people change because you want them to if you force someone into something they don't want they will abandon it the first chance they get and in the future will be much more hostile to you as a result.

Finally as it goes for the wall, I would much rather pay for that (and additional manpower to actually secure our border.) then pay to support bunch of untrained, Higher risk, illegal immigrants who come to better their own life while bringing their troubles with them, and siphoning resources that could (and should) have been used on our own underprivileged citizens.

You can argue with me all you want about if these people truly bring such hardship to the U.S., but until Europe is able to handle its own immigrants properly without making its own people feel like second class citizens you have to get off your soap box.



The same thing Hillary said about Benghazi I would spouse "Its in the past now, dose it REALLY matter?"

yet the difference remains:

a moderate president can lead even with a boarderline case of majority

if our president is a reasonable man, that tries to see both sides of the issue and reach an acceptable compromise we can live with it right?

Obama might have had a clear political ideology which is actually central-left (emphasis on central) but he always tried to reach out to the republicans, he tried to work with them, he tried to explain his actions to them

Trump is the opposite of that, it's unclear what he want to do (other than that it will be crazy and very very very right) but what is clear is that whoever disagrees with him will get nothing but insults at best

if you combine that with the fact that he barely won the elections the mixture is explosive, such radical policy shifts need a strong majority to support them, otherwise they cause massive unrest and division

Trump is a 'hate him or love him' persona and that's exactly the opposite of what a leader should be, because division always weakens a country

the two major parties have a responsibility in that sense: since their candidates are potential presidents they should be careful about who they put there, people that are either too extreme in opinions or too short in qualifications must be dismissed and this time republicans managed to hit both targets with one bullet, fucking wow!

ps: for EU pushing for the climate change, well simply put we have neither the power nor the influence to do this, we just can't and believe me we're sorry, someday others will be too

[Slant]

What about people having to compromise on their opinions to be a republican/democrat?

You don't need to be a republican or a democrat. When someone asks you, tell them you think the current political system is inadequate in representing your political stance. It's the system that should change, not your opinion.

[Ryme]

My guess is because they never seem to get anything done.

[CostinR]

Because the last 16 years have led to a situation where moderates get attacked from both sides. People want radicals, radical left or radical right.

It's going to be a long road to undo the damage of the last 16 years. Damage from 9/11, Iraq War and the Economic Crash.

[Noradin]

The idea that people should aspire to be moderates is just an instance of the middle ground fallacy.

That "moderate" equals "middle-ground"is a fallancy in itself.

[Flarelaine]

Honestly, both the left and right political spectrum have valid and invalid issues. Why do people cling so aggressively to one side or the other?

[...]

Am I asking for too much?

Yes.

Committing time, effort and neurons to each and every problem is so much more difficult than tribalism.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the blind party allegiance thing is an American aberration, for the most part.

No, it isn't. People make a decision, then they defend the decision and it becomes an identity.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea that people should aspire to be moderates is just an instance of the middle ground fallacy.

Possibly, but the idea that people should take a stand on each separate issue on its own merits is not.

[Deleted]

For example, I am left leaning democratic socialist, in favor of stricter immigration laws, oppose tax cuts for corporations and the super wealthy, pro-gun, pro-choice, and an advocate for free college/healthcare. I am hated by both he left and the right because I actually read studies and gravitate toward evidence instead of just picking a side and sticking with it.

People need to stop mindlessly picking sides when it comes to political issues, and instead actually use critical thinking and unbiased evidence analysis to reach solutions.

The "middle-ground" in the US is somewhere between conservatism and fascism.

Someone like Bernie Sanders, who might have been a typical centrist Democrat going back a few decades, is now some kind of radical socialist.

[ItachiZaku]

For example, I am left leaning democratic socialist, in favor of stricter immigration laws, oppose tax cuts for corporations and the super wealthy, pro-gun, pro-choice, and an advocate for free college/healthcare. I am hated by both he left and the right because I actually read studies and gravitate toward evidence instead of just picking a side and sticking with it.

lol I'm actually about the same, except NO free college (purely greed reasons, I paid off my college debt, so I expect everyone else to, OR give me back a % of what I paid back). I've pretty much voted Green, just because it's NOT D or R. I like and dislike enough on both sides that I don't want to affiliate myself with either of them.

[Deleted]

The "middle-ground" in the US is somewhere between conservatism and fascism.

Someone like Bernie Sanders, who might have been a typical centrist Democrat going back a few decades, is now some kind of radical socialist.

And yet in somewhere like Norway Bernie is very much a CENTRIST. His policies are very middle of the road.

You have to laugh at the ignorant idiots who think Bernie is some kind of Communist... anyone who says that is clearly a political fukkwit.

[Danner]

Honestly, both the left and right political spectrum have valid and invalid issues. Why do people cling so aggressively to one side or the other? Why not just look at the actual issue first then decide which side of the political spectrum is correct based on studies and evidence?

For example, I am left leaning democratic socialist, in favor of stricter immigration laws, oppose tax cuts for corporations and the super wealthy, pro-gun, pro-choice, and an advocate for free college/healthcare. I am hated by both he left and the right because I actually read studies and gravitate toward evidence instead of just picking a side and sticking with it.

People need to stop mindlessly picking sides when it comes to political issues, and instead actually use critical thinking and unbiased evidence analysis to reach solutions.

Am I asking for too much?

I'm gonna use the term moderate as a person who sees multiple sides to a given political issue.

Moderates exists. Most people are moderates. Very few people see the world in black and white.

You just don't hear moderates speak much, because it's much easier to scream your lungs off "Trump is the devil" or "Hillary is crooked" than say "I really don't like Trumps populism and fascist baggage; and his political direction seem impulsive and erratic. I am not sure how much of it he actually means and how much of it that is just for show, but I am very reluctant to ever vote for a person who flirts with that ideology. However, I do not really think that cooperation with USSR is a bad thing regardless of what I really feel about Putin, nor do I think that a slimmer state with less over-regulation is necessarily bad. On the other hand, I loathe how Hillary pushed Sanders out of the primary, and she does appear to be a candidate that is way too accustomed to the power. I can not see how the hell she is the best candidate the democrats could come up with, and that makes me very un-enthusiastic about supporting her as well. In fact, i fully believe she is in the pockets of big business (tm). Basically, neither candidate truly appeals to me, but if given an ultimatum between the two I would vote Hillary. And I would hate the people who put me in that dreadful choice."

The latter statement would drive people to boredom. And it's not backed by any religious zeal, unlike the first two. When faced with a political zealot, I would simply quit the debate. It's not a debate when the other party is immovable and abusive to anyone not sharing their view.

And that's why you do not hear much from moderates.

[NineSpine]

Honestly, both the left and right political spectrum have valid and invalid issues. Why do people cling so aggressively to one side or the other? Why not just look at the actual issue first then decide which side of the political spectrum is correct based on studies and evidence?

For example, I am left leaning democratic socialist, in favor of stricter immigration laws, oppose tax cuts for corporations and the super wealthy, pro-gun, pro-choice, and an advocate for free college/healthcare. I am hated by both he left and the right because I actually read studies and gravitate toward evidence instead of just picking a side and sticking with it.

People need to stop mindlessly picking sides when it comes to political issues, and instead actually use critical thinking and unbiased evidence analysis to reach solutions.

Am I asking for too much?

The difference is that nothing you said would actually make you unwelcome in the Democratic Party, because it is still a big-tent party with a lot of members that hold the views you do. However, the Republican Party has become about mainlining far-right orthodoxy and disallowing any dissent over those positions.

- - - Updated - - -

lol I'm actually about the same, except NO free college (purely greed reasons, I paid off my college debt, so I expect everyone else to, OR give me back a % of what I paid back). I've pretty much voted Green, just because it's NOT D or R. I like and dislike enough on both sides that I don't want to affiliate myself with either of them.

That's not greed. That's self-destructive envy.

[Ehrenpanzer]

What about people having to compromise on their opinions to be a republican/democrat?

Because they are polar opposite.

Republicans= Theocracy: Live under Bible rules because jesus cries if you dont!
Democrats= Democratic Socialism: Lets try moving out of the Bronze Age shall we?

The 2 ideologies are completely incompatible.

[The One Percent]

Because most people are morons and they treat politics like it's some stupid sport where they pick a team.

[Deleted]

The difference is that nothing you said would actually make you unwelcome in the Democratic Party, because it is still a big-tent party with a lot of members that hold the views you do. However, the Republican Party has become about mainlining far-right orthodoxy and disallowing any dissent over those positions.

You are kidding right?

The Democratic Party is corrupt as fukk and that is one of the main reasons they lost the last election... Basically if you dont fit exactly into what the corporatists tell you to say then you are NOT welcome at all.

Bernie Sanders is clear proof of this... the collusion within the DNC to ensure he didnt win the Primaries.

The DNC must be totally overhauled if it wants to appeal to the people again.

- - - Updated - - -

Because most people are morons and they treat politics like it's some stupid sport where they pick a team.

Couldnt agree more.

Its called 'tribalism' and this behaviour shouldnt be in politics. It just makes you look like a dickhead when you blindly fanboy your party without any criticism whatsoever..

[Mehrunes]

Basically, what it boils down to is that the vast majority of people shouldn't identify as "democrats" or "republicans", to use the American context as the example. Nor should they identify as "left" or "right", even. Parties are tools, not sports teams. You vote for the party that most closely represents the change you want to see. But that should be open to changing every election cycle. If you think the "other party" are the devil and something to be opposed at all costs, you're not making an informed or rational decision.

By "other party" do you mean "all parties other than mine" (which would fit the sports teams part of your post more) or "that specific other party". In US' context, which is present at least in the first half of this paragraph, they are pretty much one and the same, but not so much in countries using a multi-party system.

[Casterbridge]

Because most people are morons and they treat politics like it's some stupid sport where they pick a team.

This. So very much this.

The political parties themselves don't help, they freaking will not work together on anything anymore, even on things they agree need reform.

It's insanity.