Who's a Moderate and who isn't? (Political thread)

No, this isn’t about our Moderators. They’re all nifty ('cept slythe-renamed-czarcasm, who’s mean to me :D).

And, yes, I know that the whole “liberal/conservative” thing is relative.

Okay, now that I’ve got those out of the way…

I’m really wondering about which political (or even non-political) figures out there in the public forum manage to retain a decent level of objectivity when discussing stuff of a political nature. I mean, few people would ever claim that Jesse Jackson or Jerry Falwell are nonpartisan, it seems.

Me, being the relatively inexperienced youngster that I am, have been unable to develop a sense of who’s partisan and who isn’t (well, outside the 'Dope, anyway :)), and I’d prefer to listen to the words of someone who manages to maintain an objective outlook than someone who’s words are all slanted in a particular direction.

Help, anybody?

Among political commentators, David Gergen seems one of the more objective observers.

Among politicians, Georgia Senator Zell Miller (a moderate Democrat) seems not to care much about partisan politics. His political positions seem to be determined by his personal convictions rather than a concern for his standing in the polls. (Witness his action as a Governor in taking on the Confederate flag supporters. Not many in the South have had the courage to do so.) On various issues, he has not been afraid to challenge the right wing or the left.

Colin Powell and Gov. Whitman are two Republicans that strike me as moderate.

I think a rough standard for a moderate would be:

A Pro-choice Republican who supports “common-sense” gun-control.

…or…

A Democrat who is Pro-Life and a Second Amendment Supporter.
Throw out some moderates and we can test the equation.

Are you drawing a distinction between a moderate and a centrist? I would suggest that one exists.

I disagree with the implication by the OP that there is some (positive) correlation between the moderate/extreme scale and the partisan-polical/nonpartisan-principled one. These are totally separate, and if there is any correlation it is the opposite - it is probable that an extremist is more likely to be nonpartisan than a moderate.

Jesse Helms is certainly an extremist in terms of the national political spectrum, to use one example, but he’s as principled as anyone out there.

I am a most moderate moderate. Every word that slips from my lips is the most logical, reasoned, and balanced that anybody has ever heard. However, nobody agrees with EVERYTHING I say, so it follows that you must ALL be radicals of the most dangerous sort.

QED.

If I gave an implication of this sort, it wasn’t deliberate, and I apologize. I’m just curious as to which sources of information are impartial about their information, as opposed to those that have their own alterior motive and twist the truth (or even outright lie) to achieve their own ends.

So, are you drawing a distinction between a moderate and a centrist? 'Cause, y’know, I would suggest that one exists. :wink:

Ok I’m gonna go out on a limb and say Chris Mathews was a moderate and barely partisan before the election, but now he has moved a little more to the left. I guess I would too for all the publicity he got for it. Selling out is worth it if the moneys right i guess;). But seriously, I still think he is one of the most prominent moderates out there. Powell too, but Mathews is on televison every day so he stands out more.

In my opinion John McCain is a moderate.

A moderate is pretty much a shady character for the most part and he serves the center. These are the most political types because they take no stand on anything until they find the middle ground. This is what I think about John McCain and even Al Gore. Of course I would have voted for McCain but maybe I was wrong. He sounded good though.

Gore tried to be a Democrat but the fact is that he has changed his position on many things in the past 15 years. That is exactly the reason that he didn’t win his home state of Tenessee. If they knew Al Gore they would have voted for him. What happened is that he changed position so maany times that they didn’t recognize him as one of their own.

It may have won him more votes overall but it lost him the election. Forget Florida because Tenessee was the difference.

The only thing in the middle of the road are dead skunks and moderates.:slight_smile:

Uh, Gadarene what distinction are you trying to draw between “moderate” and “centrist.” I consider them synonyms. My copy of Webster’s sez:

and

spoke:

To quote Jeff Cohen,

Obviously his characterization of the right is loaded. The full article can be found here.

My point is that people whose belief system places them squarely in the middle of the mainstream ideological spectrum can still be as partisan, unyielding, and immoderate as the most dogmatic liberal or conservative–vis a vis Thomas Friedman’s unswerving devotion to the free market, expressed to the point of sneering condescension towards anyone with divergent points of view.

Is that more clear?

So, I suppose we’ve developed two kinds of political “gray areas”:

The Centrist: Tries to keep things the way they are with only slight adjustments to keep the majority happy (since there’ll always be unhappy minorities). (Did I get that right, Gad?)

The Moderate: Someone who weighs information to reach the conclusion/decision that they believe would be most beneficial for the country as a whole.

Agree? Disagree? I guess I need to hammer out my own personal definition of “moderate” before I can ask questions about moderation, huh? :smiley:

I’d agree with that, SPOOFE. It seems as if the kind of moderate you mean, per your OP, would be someone who–regardless of their ideology–attempts to weigh facts impartially, someone who is willing to accept compromise or acknowledge shades of gray, someone who is honest enough to reexamine their position in light of evidence to the contrary. Someone who sees the two prevailing sides to an issue, and is able to find merit and deficiency in both. Does that sound about right?

Of course, even given those parameters you have to identify and exclude politicians whose beliefs are so lightly held as to be subject to change as circumstances and self-interest dictate; such people are less moderates than Machiavells.

It might also be acknowledged, then, that there are certain issues for which there is seemingly no moderate position. Which, in turn, begets another type of moderation: What if a politician had no intrinsic opinion on abortion, for example, and was personally content simply to follow the rule of law on the subject? Would such person be considered a moderate, or simply weak of conviction?

Defining such things is muddy indeed, especially considering the entrenched “left-right” polarity perceived to exist in American politics. I view the moderate described in your OP as basically the antithesis of the ad hominem partisan we’ve discussed before. Position along the spectrum in a multiplicity of issues matters less, in that case, than a general intellectual honesty.

Which brings me to my answer for your question. We might be able to reach a considered consensus here about which politicians we thought to possess moderate qualities (or, more likely, which decidedly lacked those qualities), and inherent in our individual judgments would be a fair amount of bias towards people who held our positions or thought in the same manner that we ourselves think. I, personally, think that Paul Wellstone–an unabashed progressive liberal–to be moderate in his temperament; you might disagree. (And I hope that, confronted with evidence to the contrary, one of us would be able to change our mind.) But I’m sure that every politician–as every person–thinks themselves to be moderate in this manner. You’re not gonna find many who’ll cheerfully acknowledge, “Yup, I’m a myopic ideologue and proud of it!” Everyone claims to have the facts (and objectivity with which to judge those facts) on their side. In short, it’s tough to tell. :slight_smile:

(Oh, and a quibble–I’d say the centrist ideology is more concerned with maintaining the existing power structure than with keeping the majority happy. A small but important distinction.)

So, as with all things political, “It depends on the issues.” Your comments are greatly appreciated, Gad.

Well, when used in the national media, ‘moderate Republican’ means pro-abortion.

All Democrats are ‘moderate’ by definition.

This is pretty much the same as saying ‘moderate = good’.

Well put, Gadarene. One might quibble with your definitions, but your points are on the mark, and I hate debates over semantics, as you know ;).

It occured to me that Senator Russ Feingold might be a moderate, by what seems to be the evolving definition.

Just to further cloud the issue:

Let it be known that when I refer to myself as a centrist it is not because I have the mistaken notion that my political views tend to fall in the middle, I know I am on the left, but rather it is an indication that I generally favor the concentration of political authority and power into the central government.
I am a centrist as opposed to a localist.


Hi! I’m a Weenie
What’s your sign?

All generalizations are false. :smiley: