Here is my analysis of what political moderates believe.

[LoZoccolo]

Every now and then an argument is presented against political moderates that implies that they do not truly believe in anything, but I would argue that they in fact take a stand on the nature of solving crises.

We'll start by discussing the poles of the political spectrum: radical and reactionary.

The word "radical" comes from "root"; a radical believes that the political system can be uprooted and replaced with one that anticipates and prevents crises before they happen.

A reactionary political regime reacts to crises as they emerge.

There is an implication in the way that the two poles deal with crises: a radical looks to form or replace an institution or system to solve a problem, a reactionary does not change the institution or system, but instead looks to the individuals to solve a problem.

A moderate simply believes that some problems are best solved by institutions, and that others are best solved by individuals, or some combination of the two. It is an admission that not all problems can be solved using a radical or reactionary approach.

[Electric Monk]

1. It's like being a little bit pregnant

[LoZoccolo]

2. Now no one will reply, because this reply would still be the best one. n/t

[tekisui]

3. Moderates are actually the reactionaries in that they don't act

proactively. They are reactive and timid. In the face of much needed direct and decisive action to either correct a current wrong or prevent a worse situation, they acquiesce far too much to the status quo.

[LoZoccolo]

4. People from the John Birch society say that fascists are actually left wing. n/t

[tekisui]

5. I don't thnk they would, and I don't think you understand the words you use.

[LoZoccolo]

7. It was in this book.

http://www.amazon.com/None-Conspiracy-Allen-Larry-Abraham/dp/B0036J3OUK

I'm sure someone will try to come along and confuse the moderators into thinking that I endorse the view in the book, but I'm not; I'm using it as an example of how redefining political terms to mean something different is not compelling, as we do not find much of what the John Birch Society members say is compelling.

[LoZoccolo]

8. And the correct definitions are? n/t

[JackRiddler]

34. Actually, many reactionaries are smart enough to call themselves "moderate."

More than a few reactionaries even call themselves progressive, or join up with the Democrats.

People always seek to apply positive labels to their politics, even when these are terrible.

Words like moderate, bipartisan, centrist, pragmatic, realistic, responsible, reformist, practical, non-utopian, non-extreme are a kind of rhetorical armor that can be worn by any underlying concept. Nowadays no one's going to tell you they're a fascist or a racist, not if they want votes.

(I saw a quote recently from Atwater I think saying that until 1964 they could still talk about "blacks" or "negroes" as a problem to get votes for Republicans, but by 1972 they needed code-words like "urban" or "drugs" so it wouldn't backfire.)

The only practical moderate position on the present United States and in fact present civilization is that pretty much everything needs to change radically in a process of many decades of hard work, if we and our posterity are to survive and live well: the addiction to war, the global military empire, the overconsumption, the power of private finance, the fetish for techno-fixes, the demand for constant growth in GDP, the crises that arise whenever growth stalls, the hydrocarbon dependence, the lack of democracy, the constant intensification of ever more scarce labor, the ever smaller ruling class owning and profiting from ever larger private empires, the "war on drugs," the "war on terror," the surveillance state, the fake patriotism, the secret government, the corporate personhood, the mind-debilitating media, the constant acceleration of daily life, the automotive transport system, the nuclear power complex, the poverty of the discourse that's had us talking about someone's dick for two weeks, the attack on the public sector and public education, the hatred for labor, the panics about immigration and foreigners, the widespread ignorance about the rest of the world... did I mention the still powerful racism and sexism we pretend went away?

These combine into an overdetermined recipe for global and national disasters without precedent.

There is nothing moderate in terms that disguise the truth.

[valerief]

6. Political moderates say they believe what they're paid to believe.

It's political extremists who actually believe.

[Forkboy]

9. I think it's the most cowardly political ground a person can stake out.

One can claim to stand for things, scold the people who do the heavy lifting on those things, and then get to claim credit for getting it done.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Now do you understand why I post one-sentence OPs?

Explain too much and it's tl;dr time, or people take it as an opportunity to go off on a tangent that may vaguely resemble a response to the content, but isn't. If my posts are only one sentence, it's harder to change the subject, and apparent that someone has done so.

[Forkboy]

11. Message boards probably aren't for you then.

And if the connection made escapes you, especially skip the political ones.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I would say that the anger that I generate is at least partly due to my ability to

sidestep a lot of the common obfuscatory tactics employed on political message boards, like using arrogance to mask incompetence.

[Forkboy]

17. I don't think that's it.

But, on the topic of arrogance, there's a lot of it in your post here. What do you use yours to mask?

[LoZoccolo]

23. I don't want to make this thread about personal attacks on me. n/t

[Forkboy]

24. Expected copout.

You brought up arrogance in response to me. You had a reason for doing so, one that wasn't very well masked. When it's pointed out that what you were hoping to point out about someone else is actually what you're doing the focus changes quickly.

[LoZoccolo]

25. And you took an issue of theoretical political science and made it about personal failings.

I provided a rather dry reading of different political philosophies, and your post is to the effect of "no, that's not true, it's all about cowardice". I tried to clear up the issue of political distinctions on DU in order to bring about understanding in the community, and you saw fit to accuse those who hold a moderate position of doing so because of some deficiency.

Is it divisive to accuse people who hold a philosophy of doing it for lack of moral rectitude and/or courage, or not?

[Forkboy]

27. I see the two as intertwined.

If differing takes bother you, as I said, perhaps political message boards aren't for you.

Is it divisive to accuse people who hold a philosophy of doing it for lack of moral rectitude and/or courage, or not?

That's up to you.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I see radicalism as being intertwined with substance abuse and fascination with automatic weapons.

That's just my different take, and if you can't see the clear connection between my OP and the subject line of this post, then maybe you should stay completely out of politics and not just political message boards.

[Forkboy]

31. Flipping the game around only works when there's actual relevance.

Try again.

And you sound angry.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Don't worry, I'm not going to do anything self-destructive like

deliver an ultimatum to the moderators to tombstone me or you. I don't get that angry, and plus, I would probably display such cowardice as to slink back the next day like nothing happened anyways.

[Forkboy]

33. LOL...you're trying so hard that it's almost kind of cute.

And you're saying that you're not angry.....lol.

We need to play poker some night.

[LoZoccolo]

26. And yes, you either changed the subject or made a fallacious ad hominem argument. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[LoZoccolo]

14. My post says nothing about moderation in principle. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "A moderate simply believes..."

World English Dictionary

belief (bɪˈliːf)

—n
1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true

[LoZoccolo]

20. Yes, that is my principle.

That each problem needs to be evaluated as to whether an institution, or individuals, can best surmount it. I firmly believe that. One example of a time when I "moderate" the principle is when I go along with the re-election of more radical candidates like Dennis Kucinich for the good of the party. I guess you could accuse me of that.

[kctim]

15. Moderates truly believe in country

whereas radicals believe in country according to them.

Moderates believe in the Constitution and working together for a better future.

Radicals believe that ONLY they know what is best for all, so they work amongst themselves for a better future as defined only by them, and with no respect of the beliefs or values of others.

[bluestate10]

35. Exactly. The only difference that this poster see between a freeper

and some progressive elements on DU is the side of the political spectrum they are on. The same sense that they know what is better for citizens of the country that ANYONE else is part of their fiber. I am a moderate democrat. I wager that just this week, I have done more concrete action to feed hungry people and create jobs than any progressive on DU. I will now leave progressives to their spectacle of protecting a disdainful politicians that not only shot himself in the feet, but is shooting a lot of outstanding public servants in their feet.

[hfojvt]

18. huh? What do 'crises' have to do with anything?

Reactionary is not about 'reacting' to crises. Nor is radical about eliminating crises.

Taken to their basics, 'reactionary' is about a form of society which is divided into an elite ruling class and a majority of 'the ruled' and radical is one that serves the people instead of the elite.

Obviously a real society is somewhere in between, but the reactionarys are trying to pull it towards their ideal and the radicals trying to pull it towards there. Many, if not most other people are somewhere in the middle, just trying to get their little piece of the pie within the system and not really trying to change much of anything. Those are the moderates, who in some ways are reactionary as they serve to prop up the system that is and will dig their heels in against radical change from either direction.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Why do you suppose they settled on the terms "radical" and "reactionary"? n/t

[xchrom]

21. Moderates create destructive legislation all too often.

They are, by nature?, beholden to interests other than the Good of their constituents.

Behold the Golden Years of moderate politics & legislation since Reagan.

In other words there is nothing 'moderate' about a 'moderate' - except that they say so - endlessly.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Do you think that radicals have never done anything destructive? n/t

[rug]

28. Why are you writing in the third person?

[LoZoccolo]

30. Because I'm talking about theory? n/t

[mmonk]

36. A moderate in today's terms is an conservative.

I say that because they work within the Chicago School of economics framework. That is why I look at the terms "moderate" and "centrist" differently from many. They are just degrees of conservatism in today's reality. That may have something to do with my age and when I studied economics at the collegiate level.

[Fumesucker]

37. Moderates want to split the difference...

And over the last thirty years splitting the difference has meant a steady move to the right as conservatives have gone all the way to falling-off-the-edge-of-the-world nuts.

The conservative position has been unequivocally shown to be utter garbage and yet they still dominate the political debate in this country, a good portion of the blame for that is due to moderates always wanting to split the difference instead of fiercely opposing horrible right wing policy.

[Forkboy]

38. Moderates are babies needing constant affirmation.

And they'll take that from either side. Whichever side makes them feel important is the side they go for. When both kiss their ass they practically explode with delight (due props to John Cleese for lifting his line for my own purposes lol). For the most part, they don't really stand for much except wanting to be liked, and playing it safe is the way to do that. They'll hide behind the "practicality" facade, but it's really just insecurity. Don't let them fool you, they just want to be liked more than anything else, and they'll take that acceptance at any cost, even if it means giving up on the ideals they claim to stand for. (though I doubt you need to be told this ;) ).