Moderates Are Problematic Members of Their Party

[Theodarzna]

Exactly this.

When people call on others to be moderate it means little else but serving the status quo of the neo-liberal and neo-con elite at the top that has the entire world in their pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Welp, a spade is a spade.

This is my assessment as well. Moderates today are nothing more than naked ideology masquerading as "non-Ideology" or a kind of faux pragmatism. Calls to Centrism are just calls to subservience to the consensus of the ruling class.

[Livnthedream]

Welp, a spade is a spade.

Indeed. This pic is totally not symbolic.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The problem of moderation isn't that its milquetoast or what have you, its that it is often a lie. A term applied to the absolute adherence to an as of yet extremely dominate ideology that has masqueraded itself as not an ideology.



The issue is that we both lack the above sorts of people, but that today's self professed moderates are anything but the person described by this sentence. What we have at best right now is a dominate ideology that forms an agreed upon consensus by the socio-economic class that rules society, not the absence of ideology. The issue of calls to moderation and listen to moderates is thus merely a call to listen to the current crop of people whom call themselves Moderates and Centrists, these people tend to be the Clintons, McCains, Ryans and Obama's of the world. People who both already rule or have ruled, and wish to see their so-called "Non-Ideology" continue to rule. This refusal to see so-called Moderates for what they are is part of a larger problem we have. It is the refusal to interrogate or even conceive of a ruling class of elites reflects the once prevalent—and still lingering—belief that ideological conflict ended after the Cold War. Without a critique of the dominant ideology, the distinct class consciousness and interests of the elite seem to disappear. If there is no critique of the general political consensus, then there is no critique of the political elite, for it is that elite which constitutes and defines the larger society.

But a politics that sees itself as non-ideological is always politics at its most ideological. The issue for so-called moderates is that they are bold faced liars. Apparent political consensus is not the end of all ideologies but merely the temporary triumph of one.

EDIT: To add, by that schemata, I am the Moderate since I frequently entertain and fuse ideas from wildly different camps. And yet I surprisingly enough, would never be called a Moderate by anyone who takes up the label or by anyone really.

I'm on board with this, since I've fallen into the label trap several times. I generally informally would refer to myself as 'centrist', just because I don't know what else to call it. On some things my views would be termed 'middle of the road' or 'bland/generic compromise'. On some things I skew sharply left or right. On a lot of things I don't really fit on the line and could only describe it as 'other'. So I just shrug and default back to 'I'm centrist' though I'm not sure I would be referred to as such by someone else (would probably depend on the specific topic) and I'm not really sure I could even articulate what a true 'centrist' position would look like.

[Theodarzna]

I'm on board with this, since I've fallen into the label trap several times. I generally informally would refer to myself as 'centrist', just because I don't know what else to call it. On some things my views would be termed 'middle of the road' or 'bland/generic compromise'. On some things I skew sharply left or right. On a lot of things I don't really fit on the line and could only describe it as 'other'. So I just shrug and default back to 'I'm centrist' though I'm not sure I would be referred to as such by someone else (would probably depend on the specific topic) and I'm not really sure I could even articulate what a true 'centrist' position would look like.

Finding an accurate political label is difficult. I think I as a matter of technicality fall on the political right, possibly the far right simply because I reject certain (IMHO critical) ideas central to the Left in general. Mainly the vision of history as a progressive narrative, which is not something I share. For that alone I cannot really fall into the Left. But really I cannot comfortably sit on the Right either, but for lack of a "home" I vaguely live somewhere on the Right. While in policy terms me and Bernie Sanders might have more than a few common ideas, we might have them for radically different reasons.

Nobody of-course calls me a centrist, because IMHO being a centrist is something very specific. It is an agreement with a Neo-liberal/conservative (Which honestly we need just one term since they constitute one contiguous ideology) view of the world and policy prescription. A Centrist in my estimation adheres to certain conventional pieties about politics and the "way things are or should be" which I've never adhered to.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Finding an accurate political label is difficult. I think I as a matter of technicality fall on the political right, possibly the far right simply because I reject certain (IMHO critical) ideas central to the Left in general. Mainly the vision of history as a progressive narrative, which is not something I share. For that alone I cannot really fall into the Left. But really I cannot comfortably sit on the Right either, but for lack of a "home" I vaguely live somewhere on the Right. While in policy terms me and Bernie Sanders might have more than a few common ideas, we might have them for radically different reasons.

Nobody of-course calls me a centrist, because IMHO being a centrist is something very specific. It is an agreement with a Neo-liberal/conservative (Which honestly we need just one term since they constitute one contiguous ideology) view of the world and policy prescription. A Centrist in my estimation adheres to certain conventional pieties about politics and the "way things are or should be" which I've never adhered to.

Well if you come up with a better label let me know, I'm always open to suggestions.

[Rukh]

Nothing wrong with moderates but not every single issue has this magical "middle ground" they love to circle jerk about. And even on the stuff where there is a "middle ground" the solutions are contradictory and literally cannot work without pissing someone off.

If we only gas some jews instead of all of them, we're rational moderate people.

[downnola]

Where are these people who think that every problem consists of two viewpoints and a "magical middle ground" that has the answer? Don't get me wrong, some people believe some pretty wacky shit, but framing a moderate that way just seems like a lazy strawman.

Btw, has the term "neo-conservative" earned the title of cliche yet?

[Mittens]

Ugh, I hate this mentality of "le truth is in the middle", as a side note compromise is not something monopolized by so called "centrists".

[Wyrt]

Moderates? You mean actual conservatives? Because that's what moderates are in the US. They're not the stupidly far right of the Republicans and not the center where Democrats live. They're in between 2 political parties, but that doesn't make them moderates.

[Theodarzna]

Well if you come up with a better label let me know, I'm always open to suggestions.

As of yet; nothing. Perhaps its better that way.

If it is truly being a "Moderate" than so be it, but nearly every self professed Centrist/Moderate is a liar with an ideology as naked as the sky is blue.

[xChurch]

It's not about being a moderate or not, it's about being able to moderate your position whichever side you fall on in order to achieve a greater good. Trying to be a purist is what's messing everything up.

[Mormolyce]

"Republicans are eeeeevilllllllll!"

If the glove doesn't fit, stop wearing it.

[Gestopft]

As of yet; nothing. Perhaps its better that way.

If it is truly being a "Moderate" than so be it, but nearly every self professed Centrist/Moderate is a liar with an ideology as naked as the sky is blue.

I consider "moderate" to be more of an approach than a particular policy position- the approach that seeks consensus building and small/incremental change. A "moderate" in Sweden and one in the US would have rather different positions in many cases, because the status quo and the political center in the two countries aren't the same.

In the case of the US, I think there's a distinction between someone who is ideologically center to center-right that believes in the status quo, and one that may not like elements of it but seeks methodical, gradual change. Sometimes the distinction seems rather irrelevant in practice though.

[SirBeef]

I consider "moderate" to be more of an approach than a particular policy position- the approach that seeks consensus building and small/incremental change. A "moderate" in Sweden and one in the US would have rather different positions in many cases, because the status quo and the political center in the two countries aren't the same.

In the case of the US, I think there's a distinction between someone who is ideologically center to center-right that believes in the status quo, and one that may not like elements of it but seeks methodical, gradual change. Sometimes the distinction seems rather irrelevant in practice though.

Moderate does not mean center, IMO. That would be a Centrist. A moderate would be someone who is not at the far end of his party unwilling to compromise. Moderates are the ones who want to get things done across isles and understand give and take, which has become a no-no today as seen by the extremists which have taken over the GOP especially.

[Themius]

Except I am not a Conservative.




Not in it's entirety, but rather closely yes.

- - - Updated - - -



"Republicans are eeeeevilllllllll!"

Yep. You are totally not the problem.

Democrats have stayed fairly where they've been for... 30 years.

Republicans have gone through two radical changes over the past couple decades and both have made them more conservative and more right to the point where they are becoming more extreme.

When we are talking about whether or not you should be allowed to discriminate people by imposing Jim Crow laws from the 40s based solely on your religion in a secular country that is suppose to have a division of law and church you're an extremist.

- - - Updated - - -

This article is equating moderates with centrism so for the purpose of my reply I will equate them as well.

Centrism is incorrectly viewed by its proponents as the correct middle-ground. It is a fallacy to assume the "truth" of both sides is best met somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one side can be completely wrong. There is no "enlightened alt-centrist" position. There are merely people who pander to multiple parties and hold highly unprincipled beliefs. The media praises someone like John McCain as a "maverick" and a centrist because he sometimes praises bipartisanship. But bipartisanship is not inherently good. Again, sometimes the correct position is actually on one extreme side. In the case of our civil liberties, for example, when you're given the option of not having your government spying on you vs them constantly invading your privacy, the middle-ground isn't the reasonable position. On the issue of abortion, there isn't an enlightened moderate position. The abortions should be legal and easy to access.

I would consider myself left of center.

I think most people in the center do see clear issues and don't take all things as there is some compromise. There isn't on some things.

[Destump]

,,If you're not with me, then you're my enemy''

-Anakin skywalker, Mustafar

[downnola]

As of yet; nothing. Perhaps its better that way.

If it is truly being a "Moderate" than so be it, but nearly every self professed Centrist/Moderate is a liar with an ideology as naked as the sky is blue.

How would you define an ideology? I agree that there are plenty of people who claim they're not following an ideology, but demonstrate otherwise when they speak or act. From my observation I notice that ideologies have clear tenants with strong underlying morals attached to them. An enemy has to be defined (the state, patriarchy, the bourgeoisie, the 1%, etc), and there is some ideal to be found with their defeat. I think you can lean left or right, and have strong principles, without subscribing to all that noise. The closer you get to religious fervor with your ideals, the closer you are to being an ideologue.

I think Marxists, libertarians, and even progressives leave too much information out of their world views to be accurate. I also see how the morality that is intertwined in their worldview often blinds them from inconvenient facts. This becomes especially noticeable when they start writing history books like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression," or "The Peoples History of the United States." I think these books are worth reading mind you, I just think people need to be careful and separate the junk from the real nuggets of knowledge while reading them.

I've leaned to the right for most of my life, and consider myself a conservative at my core. I just think there are times when we need to change and evolve, and the left certainly has some insight on when and how that should happen. I think that's what essentially makes me a moderate.

[Felya]

As of yet; nothing. Perhaps its better that way.

If it is truly being a "Moderate" than so be it, but nearly every self professed Centrist/Moderate is a liar with an ideology as naked as the sky is blue.

That's the fun part... extremes do not see moderates, because they are so off the deep end, that everyone on the shore looks like an enemy. If you want to expose an extremist, present a moderate opinion and see them call you liberal/conservative. If you cannot even fathom a moderate position, than you might want to consider how extreme your views are.

[Jastall]

Moderates actually tend to be hard on their peers and foes, which is why ideologues hate them so much. People like Tom Woods and Murray Rothbard are perfect examples of ideologues who can't stand their own questioning their dogma. If you even hint that a socialist may be correct about something, all hell breaks loose and you're labeled as a heretic.

Ideology is the problem here, not moderates. Anyone who isn't a true believer in the tenants of a specific ideology is an enemy. That presents a problem, because when you examine any ideology, you find that their principles and ideals is just a narrow analysis of complex problems and they've barely scratched the surface of how the world actually works. It's all too easy to identify a problem, find a convenient cause of the problem, and describe the utopia that can be achieved if the cause of the problem is corrected. But as Mencken once said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Now, I'm not saying that ideologies never hit some fundamental truth, but they don't tell the whole story and often lead to "solutions" that cause whole new problems, and some of them are disastrous. Worse yet, some solutions are downright murderous (Communism, National Socialism, etc). Moderates, I've found, are people who outright reject these low-rent religions, that's all. A moderate on the left or right is willing to step outside the boundaries of ideological war and consider the notion that neither the left or the right has the all the answers. That doesn't mean they're centrists without any principles, it just means they have a mind of their own.

Wish I could like posts right now.

Of course I don't believe in the Golden Mean Fallacy either; the center of two opposite viewpoints is not always the right one. But when it comes to most problems, I do believe the best way to solve them is to try to set ideology aside and look at it from a pragmatic point of view, see what works and doesn't work elsewhere, and apply a solution based on what is best for society with minimal downsides. One side rarely has all the answers.

Obviously reality is not so easy most of the time. But it's far better than going for dogmatism.

[Ahovv]

How would you define an ideology? I agree that there are plenty of people who claim they're not following an ideology, but demonstrate otherwise when they speak or act. From my observation I notice that ideologies have clear tenants with strong underlying morals attached to them. An enemy has to be defined (the state, patriarchy, the bourgeoisie, the 1%, etc), and there is some ideal to be found with their defeat. I think you can lean left or right, and have strong principles, without subscribing to all that noise. The closer you get to religious fervor with your ideals, the closer you are to being an ideologue.

I think Marxists, libertarians, and even progressives leave too much information out of their world views to be accurate. I also see how the morality that is intertwined in their worldview often blinds them from inconvenient facts. This becomes especially noticeable when they start writing history books like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression," or "The Peoples History of the United States." I think these books are worth reading mind you, I just think people need to be careful and separate the junk from the real nuggets of knowledge while reading them.

I've leaned to the right for most of my life, and consider myself a conservative at my core. I just think there are times when we need to change and evolve, and the left certainly has some insight on when and how that should happen. I think that's what essentially makes me a moderate.

I believe the best way to describe my overall political views is: I'm a civil libertarian (no spying on people, make drugs legal, extreme emphasis on free speech even when it's very offensive to others, etc). Economically I believe in the welfare state as it has proven effective in areas it has been tried. This includes universal healthcare, free college, etc. This does *not* include government ownership of all industry and means of production. I am not a socialist; I believe privates industries still provide the superior product especially in certain areas, like game design, food, clothing, cars, etc.

So, you could say I'm decently on the left in economics but also very libertarian on social issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy probably most accurately depicts my beliefs but is not perfect. I think hard labels in general are a detriment unless you subscribe to 90%+ of the beliefs.