I have heard it said that most of America is just ever so slightly right of center politically. As a Pub I think my party should cater more toward its moderate side and less toward the far right (even though many of my personal beliefs tend to be further right, I don’t think you can legislate morality). There is talk that Obama will aim for more of a moderate position, at least initially. In another active thread there is talk about extending olive branches to the other side and I was surprised to see so many “why should we do anything for *those *people” type responses (ummm, cuz you are trying to be different and supposedly more decent than *those *people?).
So the question is, if so many people want a moderate position in their candidates, why isn’t there a Moderate party? Couldn’t you grab like sixty percent of the most moderate people from both parties, form a party that a majority of American could mostly agree with and just go from there? The twenty percent of loony lefties and the twenty percent of rightwing nutjobs would be marginalized and ineffective as they could never unite or agree.
Would it be possible or would there be too many sticking points on what the new party’s platform would be? Would there be too many old grudges? Or would you run into a bunch of people like my oh-so-aggravating coworker “I don’t know what any of the Democratic positions are, or what any candidate has proposed to do, but the Democrats did so much for black people in the 60’s I will always vote for them no matter what” from both sides of the aisle?
Well, how does compromising with bad people make you good ?
That’s pretty much what the Democrats ARE. The Democrats are the moderate right, the Republicans are the extreme right, and everyone else either doesn’t matter politically or doesn’t exist.
Because it makes you the better man? The “bad people” are bad because they had refused to put aside differences and compromise with people they had deemed “bad”. You need to break the cycle if you want to be the party of change. That is why it is good.
Everyone can’t be right of center or we would have to move the center point.
Obama just want a majority of the votes in the election. The Democrats control both houses. It seems to me if the majority of people are voting for one party, then that party is at the center. It seems to me that the Democratic party as it is currently operating is more or less your “moderate” party. Why is it that you think they aren’t?
The best thing would be to junk the whole political spectrum altogether, which has pretty much outlived its usefulness. An idea isn’t a “liberal” or “conservative” one, it is either a good (workable) one, or a flawed onel; the map is not the territory, esp. if the map oversimplfies some things and exaggerates or ignores others. I’m convinced that, if our civilization survives another 100 years, by then nobody will be bandying about any words indicative of the spectrum at all.
If you actually read those responses carefully, none of them actually suggested that moderate Republicans be excluded, or that anything like the partisanship of the previous Administration be maintained. Indeed, nobody there was saying that people like Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe, or others of their calibre, wouldn’t be welcome voices at the table who could provide meaningful contributions.
What was explicitly pushed back against was this almost surreal insensitivity and aloofness about the emphatic victory of the Democrats, and the rejection of the Bush Republicans. This idea that somehow this desirable spirit of team of rivals made it appropriate, realistic or desirable to be filling every second or third cabinet post with just-defeated Republicans - including Sec Def AND Sec State combinations - which is purely insulting.
It wasn’t even limited to moderate Republicans who’re vaguely on the same internationalist page with Obama, but people like Joe Lieberman and John McCain who’ve publicly tried to eviscerate Obama and genuinely hold antithetical neo-conservative beliefs.
In other words, it was just a kind of gross sense of entitlement for all these Republican seats at the table, without coming to grips with the loss.
The math just doesn’t work is why. If the 52% that voted for Obama are the center. And the 46% that voted for McCain are right of center. And the other 46% make up the “left of center”. That’s 144%. In order to be the center you would have to have equal amounts on either side of you. I do think that the Dems might be courting more of the moderates than the Reps are, but that doesn’t make the party moderate.
They are bad people because they do bad things. Invasions, and torture, and mass murder, spying and corruption and lies. In a just country, they wouldn’t be compromised with; they’d be under investigation and probably go to prison.
And that’s exactly was has happened; all of America has gone farther and farther right, until the left barely exists and the country hangs on the edge of toppling into fascism or anarcho-capitalism.
I think it would be hard because people are moderate in different ways.
I mean some people are very conservative fiscally, but more moderate socially. Others are the opposite.
What would be a moderate position on gay marriage? Abortion? Any of those 'social issues?"
Moderate is in the eye of the boholder.
Ok, that’s fair. But there must be some concrete way to define “moderate” right? So what is that?
Oh, I have no problem with, if people felt the Dems much more fit the “moderate” tag (which they might), saying we take 65% of the most moderate Dems and 35% of the most moderate Pubs to make the new party if that would better fit the “dead of center” demographic.
I do fear, as people have pointed out, that deciding what the party’s core issues would be, would be the hardest part if not impossible. But in response to this:
I don’t think that there is a consensus in either of the two major parties either. There must be a statistical consensus with the American people though, even if slight. I get the impression from the people I meet that most tend to be at least a bit conservative fiscally on the whole and more moderate socially. As to the specifics…I don’t know…be…moderate. Gay marriage doesn’t seem to be eroding the country so, sure, why not. If calling it marriage is a sticking point, call it something else but make it equal. On abortion, find a middle ground even if it doesn’t make everybody happy. Things like that. I don’t think it would be perfect and I am not sure if it would even be possible. But I want a party I can get behind and having a big (U) next to my name all the time is getting old. Perhaps instead of trying to get a new party maybe I can get the party that more often than not at least pays lip service to the issues I identify with (the Pubs) to move more toward social moderation and actually, you know, follow the tenants they say they support (smaller more streamlined gov, less tax, tougher on crime and immigration, etc).
Oh well.