Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing I've noticed is that it appers some are confusing moderate with being an Independent or an independent thinker. Just because one identifies oneself with the views of conservatives or liberals does not make unable to think for themselves. Just as calling oneself a moderate does not equate with being independent.
It is part of the human experience to want to be part of a group that you agree with, to share ideas and experiences.
Some people are so proud to call themselves an "independent" And they feel somehow set apart from what they perceive as the common drones!
Also, people who agree with some conservative issues and then some liberal are not, by definition moderate either. I've know fiscal conservatives and social liberals who are quite militant in their beliefs on both sides.
No, I'm afraid it is you who is confused.
What you have to understand is that there are certain views loudly and passionately espoused by self-described "conservatives" are not conservative at all. And there are certain views equally loudly and passionately espoused by self-described "liberals" that are really more conservative than "liberal", defined classically.
So no - no one who lines up issue for issue with today's neocons is thinking for themselves. Unless, of course, they are schizophrenic by nature.
Now, you can define "moderate" in a number of different ways. I merely suggest that the definition I laid out makes more sense in today's climate than that of a person who is "middle-of-the-road" regardless of topic. And I think the former is closer to what the OP had in mind.
Last edited by CrownVic95; 06-15-2010 at 02:39 PM..
Completely fed up with the juvenility of partisan politics and the growing irrelevance of both the Democratic and Republican parties I'm trying to get a feel for how many regular City Data posters on this forum would describe their political views as moderate. Just trying to get to know my people.
I consider myself a moderate. I'm not going to just tow the line for either party. I think capitalism is the best economic foundation, but I don't think that it should be left completely unrestrained. I don't like people abusing public programs, but I think some form of a safety net is needed. I don't favor government eliminating all private activity in the health care system, but I do favor reform away from the employer-based model.
Sometimes Republicans are right on certain things; sometimes Democrats are.
I consider strict partisan adherence to be a mental disease.
The good thing about being a moderate is that one does not need to be in a majority to be influential. Both Dems and Reps play to the base during runoffs, but come election time, both shift to the center and the heated logic of primaries subsides. The center controls the elections, and this is generally a good thing. For example, Palin may be a super star with her base, but actually chases away many independents.
I consider myself a moderate. I'm not going to just tow the line for either party. I think capitalism is the best economic foundation, but I don't think that it should be left completely unrestrained. I don't like people abusing public programs, but I think some form of a safety net is needed. I don't favor government eliminating all private activity in the health care system, but I do favor reform away from the employer-based model.
Sometimes Republicans are right on certain things; sometimes Democrats are.
I consider strict partisan adherence to be a mental disease.
Good points. On issues like these, such compromise is by far the most sensible public policy.
And I agree with you about strict partisan adherence.
Al Gore didn't invent the "inconvenient truth", there are many such examples of the truth being subjected to a carnival of doubt and debate by those who read very little and yet have an opinion on things that normally would require a hell of a lot of study. I don't follow party politics simply because it is such an obvious part of the modern theatre of contrived consensus. One of the worst aspects of our political climate is that the average American no longer is willing to do the research that is necessary to the democratic process. Talk radio and it's cousins in the print media are now considered to be valid sources of knowledge, forget reading books, they are way too loooong and booooring for the sped up version of the newwell informed citizen of modern America.
To put names to the whole of a persons political savvy is really an injustice to the notion put forth by Franklin that a well informed republic is essential to our democracy. I don't know if I qualify as a "moderate" simply because I don't subscribe to the idea that the two parties are the answer to the problem of citizens gaining control over their government. Many people are joining the ranks of those folks who are disillusioned with the state of affairs that exists between the government and those in high places that exert the absolute control over it. Our dimmed down society has come to the point that it can't tell a socialist from a Harvard educated supporter of capitalism, nobody but nobody makes it to the White house without the blessing of Wall Street, and talk like that surely doesn't show much in the way of moderation.
We have a gaggle of right wingers who follow their party back in time to a more primal place in history that moralizes everything and condemns those who don't agree with their views. On the far left we have a group of folks who are really out of touch with the realities of those they profess to help. Somewhere in the center is that growing consensus that both the left and right are to blame for the political will that got us to this level of apathy and ignorance, that's to say that some of us have figured it out, keep the little men arguing and therefore separated, unable to find the common ground that would make them a truly formidable foe.
Al Gore didn't invent the "inconvenient truth", there are many such examples of the truth being subjected to a carnival of doubt and debate by those who read very little and yet have an opinion on things that normally would require a hell of a lot of study. I don't follow party politics simply because it is such an obvious part of the modern theatre of contrived consensus. One of the worst aspects of our political climate is that the average American no longer is willing to do the research that is necessary to the democratic process. Talk radio and it's cousins in the print media are now considered to be valid sources of knowledge, forget reading books, they are way too loooong and booooring for the sped up version of the newwell informed citizen of modern America.
To put names to the whole of a persons political savvy is really an injustice to the notion put forth by Franklin that a well informed republic is essential to our democracy. I don't know if I qualify as a "moderate" simply because I don't subscribe to the idea that the two parties are the answer to the problem of citizens gaining control over their government. Many people are joining the ranks of those folks who are disillusioned with the state of affairs that exists between the government and those in high places that exert the absolute control over it. Our dimmed down society has come to the point that it can't tell a socialist from a Harvard educated supporter of capitalism, nobody but nobody makes it to the White house without the blessing of Wall Street, and talk like that surely doesn't show much in the way of moderation.
We have a gaggle of right wingers who follow their party back in time to a more primal place in history that moralizes everything and condemns those who don't agree with their views. On the far left we have a group of folks who are really out of touch with the realities of those they profess to help. Somewhere in the center is that growing consensus that both the left and right are to blame for the political will that got us to this level of apathy and ignorance, that's to say that some of us have figured it out, keep the little men arguing and therefore separated, unable to find the common ground that would make them a truly formidable foe.
Nailed it! Divide and conquer. The money men and banksters behind the scenes who are really screwing us are following Sun Tzu's teachings to the letter.
Al Gore didn't invent the "inconvenient truth", there are many such examples of the truth being subjected to a carnival of doubt and debate by those who read very little and yet have an opinion on things that normally would require a hell of a lot of study. I don't follow party politics simply because it is such an obvious part of the modern theatre of contrived consensus. One of the worst aspects of our political climate is that the average American no longer is willing to do the research that is necessary to the democratic process. Talk radio and it's cousins in the print media are now considered to be valid sources of knowledge, forget reading books, they are way too loooong and booooring for the sped up version of the newwell informed citizen of modern America.
To put names to the whole of a persons political savvy is really an injustice to the notion put forth by Franklin that a well informed republic is essential to our democracy. I don't know if I qualify as a "moderate" simply because I don't subscribe to the idea that the two parties are the answer to the problem of citizens gaining control over their government. Many people are joining the ranks of those folks who are disillusioned with the state of affairs that exists between the government and those in high places that exert the absolute control over it. Our dimmed down society has come to the point that it can't tell a socialist from a Harvard educated supporter of capitalism, nobody but nobody makes it to the White house without the blessing of Wall Street, and talk like that surely doesn't show much in the way of moderation.
We have a gaggle of right wingers who follow their party back in time to a more primal place in history that moralizes everything and condemns those who don't agree with their views. On the far left we have a group of folks who are really out of touch with the realities of those they profess to help. Somewhere in the center is that growing consensus that both the left and right are to blame for the political will that got us to this level of apathy and ignorance, that's to say that some of us have figured it out, keep the little men arguing and therefore separated, unable to find the common ground that would make them a truly formidable foe.
Yup, a NeoCon is just a pro-war, big government, nanny-state, republican, and a bible-thumping pro-lifer.
Sounds about right (with use of a simpler term, edited in).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
