For a century, the sphere of political moderation was filled with giants. Gladstone in Britain, Benito Juárez in Mexico made up the nineteenth century; Lloyd George, de Gaulle, Nehru made an inspiring twentieth century group. And now what? Such uninspiring figures as M. Chirac and Fr. Merkel rule supreame. Indeed the only centerist that could be called inspiring is Sr. Zapatero, who has the added advantage of being 46 compared to M. Chirac's 74.
Posted by Giant-Size Man-Thing (Member # 9546) on :
Isn't the word 'moderate' a term so subjective as to be meaningless?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It is if Pelagius considers himself to be one. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
If by moderate you mean people that reject the current leaders on both ends of the political divide, then i think there are tons of them.
But if you mean people who somehow try to wrestle out a position between what they see as the major parties, then you might not find very many.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It seems that in America, the two parties are so entrenched that anyone claiming to be moderate must still fall well within the standards of their party to be taken seriously.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The men I cited are all moderates in that they rejected simple partisan politics, working for the common man while still rejecting the evil of populism. They were great men.
Icarus, vas? I would consider myself a moderate conservative/Christian Democrat on economic issues and a moderate liberal on social issues, within the scope of liberal democracy (I would indeed be a radical in Saudi Arabia or China.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug*
Not only have I never seen you take a stand I would consider conservative, I have seen you be openly scornful and derisive of conservatives. Could be I'm wrong; I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
You doubtless have an idiosyncratic view of the political spectrum, as most Americans do. I am certainly not a Bushista, but I find much to admire in the conservative stance adopted by, for example, The Economist.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Such as?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that taking the worst ideals of both groups makes you a moderate.
Naw-- it makes you a Libertarian.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Such as what?
You mean my views which are conservative?
I suport free trade and privitization. There, that has already placed me firmly in the conservative sphere.
Like I said, I am, on Economic matters, something of a Christian Democrat and a disciple of the great conservative Konrad Adenauer.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Long time passing... Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I could be wrong here, but it seems like people are not attacking you because your views are inconsistant, but rather because you present them in the most pretentious manner I have ever seen someone do.
quote:I don't think that taking the worst ideals of both groups makes you a moderate.
Naw-- it makes you a Libertarian.
Scott R, Enemy of Freedom.
Seriously, though, how could someone think the Libertarians are wrong about all issues? You don't think personal autonomy matters in some way?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think Libertarians are terrible people. I like 'em just fine-- my brother in law is one, so he says.
But they're still wrong.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Angiomorphism, it might, but it is a subscription-only service, having read the abstract, I cannot see how it is of any significance here, although it does look interesting. The longest word I used was "moderation," nor were any of the words, or indeed ideas, particularly erudite.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Pelagius views the demolition of buildings as the same, morally, as murdering innocent people. That's his idea of "moderation".
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Lisa, I would thank you to avoid bringing irrelevant topics into this discusion. I most certainly do not view " the demolition of buildings as the same, morally, as murdering innocent people" nor I have ever said anything of the sort. You extrapolate what I said a. "destroying people's houses is wrong" and b. "killing people is wrong" to form something I did not say c. "killing people is no more wrong than destroying buildings." That is what might be called lying, and slander for that matter, through faulty logic.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
gsus please get off of your high horse of intellectualism. speaking with the illusion of intelligence doesn't make people think you are smart, it makes them think you are pretentious and immature.
there is something to be said about clarity and conciseness, maybe you only learn that when you leave high school and enter real academe.
and please, spare me the syntax attack
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But they're still wrong.
I've got to admit, Scott, I find the opposite view -- one that you share with OSC -- to be just as alien to me. I can't understand the appeal in totalitarianism.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:evil of populism
Do Moderates have "evils" of things?
quote:There are people in the world who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that
</Tom Lehrer>
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Conservatives are moderates, they are just conservative compared to the way-out-there Liberals that want to give us the joys of a socialist atheist eugenics driven utopia.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good grief, Bean Counter. Do you even attempt to be civil?
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Maybe this is BC being civil, he just appears to be a jerk compared to the unfailingly polite Hatrackers that want to have the joys of a refined, civilized discourse?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Methinks Morbo has a point.
--j_k
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He is channeling Ann again, can't you tell? Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Angio, agreed. Obfuscation is not cool.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I think I gave the precise answer to the posted question. Now we all know where the moderates are.
The thing about Ann is she matches Hysteria for Hysteria, I love the way she meets liberals at their own emotional intensity level and they act so indignant and shocked that she is there with them, as if it is their personal property and they have it staked out. I love her for it.
BC
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lisa, I would thank you to avoid bringing irrelevant topics into this discusion. I most certainly do not view " the demolition of buildings as the same, morally, as murdering innocent people" nor I have ever said anything of the sort. You extrapolate what I said a. "destroying people's houses is wrong" and b. "killing people is wrong" to form something I did not say c. "killing people is no more wrong than destroying buildings." That is what might be called lying, and slander for that matter, through faulty logic.
I'll let people decide for themselves who is telling the truth here. You said both sides target innocent civilians. When challenged on the fact that Israel has never done any such thing, this was what you came up with to justify your odious comparison.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I love her for it.
I can't wait to meet the children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I've got to admit, Scott, I find the opposite view -- one that you share with OSC -- to be just as alien to me. I can't understand the appeal in totalitarianism.
Well, happiness, general prosperity, safety and liberty are big draws for me.
I'm not sure what drives your van, Tom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I love her for it.
I can't wait to meet the children.
6/6/06 is already past. They have to wait another 100 years before they can procreate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, happiness, general prosperity, safety and liberty are big draws for me.
I'm going to object to the presence of liberty on that list, given that you're advocating increased state control of finance AND society. This would pretty much be the antithesis of liberty, as far as I can tell.
That said, with liberty removed, you can still argue that you believe that increased governmental regulations in all things will lead to greater prosperity, happiness, and safety. I think you're not only wrong but profoundly wrong on that point, but I'm willing to accept the assertion. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm going to object to the presence of liberty on that list, given that you're advocating increased state control of finance AND society. This would pretty much be the antithesis of liberty, as far as I can tell.
Well, I guess it depends on which side of the liberty line you're standing on. On my side, everyone has enough to eat, a good education, competant medical care, and the liberty and resources to choose their future career. The prison system is a place of reform, not a breeding ground for better criminals.
The school band has similarly sized budgets as the athletics department.
All because the government began to exert its role as a protector of society a little more seriously, with a little more citizen oversight.
More. Liberty.
On your side-- well, we know what happens on your side of liberty, because we're mired in it right now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. *grin* You believe Americans currently labor under insufficiently extensive regulation, especially as regards school band expenses?
I've got to admit that I especially like the way your hypothetical government manages to get more power while increasing citizen oversight and picking up a sense of responsibility from somewhere. Maybe the pony.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Scott, I get the feeling that your idea of liberty rests on the notion that everyone who doesn't live the white-bread suburban life would rather live that life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For starters, in my government, Tom, you're in charge of ethics.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, I get the feeling that your idea of liberty rests on the notion that everyone who doesn't live the white-bread suburban life would rather live that life.
Leave aside the fact that the terms "white-bread" and "suburban" have become a bit derrogative in modern usage...
Sorry to give you that impression, Destineer. The suburbs aren't for everyone. But the ghettos, and the reservations, and the ghost towns, with their crime and poverty rates, the subjugation through lack of education and opportunity-- that's not for anyone. Of any race, creed, religion, etc.
I'm not looking to make a nation of picket fences, if that's what you're afraid of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Even if I were to grant the possibility that I'd be a benevolent dictator, that leaves me unable to guarantee that my successor would be equally benign. Which is the problem with a powerful government: it works only until the wrong people get in and begin to reinforce their own positions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ethics is a department in my government, Tom. Not THE government.
And my government isn't a dictatorship-- it's a democracy. I think you're right about benevolent dictators, and that's why citizen oversight and control is neccessary.
I wonder if having career politicians is debilitating to our national sanity in a more minor way than having a dictator...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with increased federal control is that it strongly encourages the creation of a political class. Career politics becomes a more viable -- even a more necessary -- approach once the government's influence on other spheres becomes more important than accomplishment within those spheres.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB]
quote:Well, happiness, general prosperity, safety and liberty are big draws for me.
I'm going to object to the presence of liberty on that list, given that you're advocating increased state control of finance AND society. This would pretty much be the antithesis of liberty, as far as I can tell.
As opposed to the Democratic Party's obsessive over-regulation and over-taxing of businesses (in a capitalist society of all places) putting people out of jobs and businesses out of the country.
My problem with the Libertarians is that they put way too much faith in free market economics, and don't seem to care to regulate businesses enough (if at all). Other than that though, they're pretty cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My problem with the Libertarian Party is not their free-market policies, believe it or not. It's the zany, spittle-flinging craziness of their prominent members.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It's the zany, spittle-flinging craziness of their prominent members.
We're working on it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I've been agreeing with Tom way too much.... Something is amiss...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that most of its most outspoken members have come to it from an outright anti-government perspective, complete with tin hats and really, really obsessive fear of gun registration. While I can certainly sympathize with a loathing of driver's licenses, for example, I think you can make the argument "some regulation is useful" without automatically stepping onto a slippery slope that ends up at "all regulation is useful." The LP spends so much of its time on what are essentially its OWN wedge issues -- like full-auto gun ownership, fluoridated water, legalized marijuana, etc. -- that the more interesting elements of its philosophy are lost as it panders to its base.
Somehow we went from "the government can help us do these things" to "we should help the government do these things." And that's the problem the LP should be trying to address.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
When I was living in California, this guy ran for Lt. Governor on the LP ticket. His entire platform was "ferret legalization". Yeah, like that's not too embarrassing.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
My problem with the Libertarian party is that they are, frankly, insane. And I say that as a libertarian.
Teshi, yes, we do. All moderates are, in fact, united by their belief in the evilness of other systems. Nehru and de Gaulle were different in many respects, but they agreed that Facism, Communism and Populism were evils.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Angio, agreed. Obfuscation is not cool.
The funny thing is that by using the word "obfuscation", you are forced into obfuscation.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Clarity AND pedantry. It's possible to be precise without also being stuffy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Clarity AND pedantry. It's possible to be precise without also being stuffy.
Ok you made me lol with that comment. Here I am trying to write an essay for Chinese class and pulling my hair out because its so hard to understand, so I browse this thread and come across "obfuscation" and of course I have to look that word up too.
DAMN YOU TOWER OF BABEL!!! ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!
That said, I think the problem with the word moderate is that the words liberal and conservative are always in a state of flux. Our founding fathers were considered liberal and yet their ideas in todays political arena are considered ultra conservative in many respects. Now yes it could be argued that they were also conservative in many of their views when compared to the mindsets of their time, thus the nation they created was blissfully moderate.
I really do not know how anyone holds on to eternal truths and yet remains open to the new truths that are revealed down the road.
I just think I am doing it I suppose Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
I think both parties (all 3 including Libertarians) are out of touch with the nation at large.
Check all these polls. Seems like a lot of moderates to me.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
You need to go outside.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: The funny thing is that by using the word "obfuscation", you are forced into obfuscation.
And if I use "circumlocution," I am forced into circumlocution.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it. At the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack.
Not the most convincing of argumentative tones.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
quote:Originally posted by Mintieman: Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it. At the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
While I recognize the comma, and the clauses which follow it, is out of vogue, it is, in fact, a valid piece of punctuation which saves one from the having to use parentheses every time one wishes to make a parenthetical comment.
Mintieman, if we are on the subject, your advice migh have been more elegently rendered as "Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it: at the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know it's perfectly grammatical to leave commas out of some parentheticals, right? You could have written your previous sentence as "While I recognize the comma and the clauses which follow it is (sic) out of vogue, it is in fact a valid piece of punctuation which saves one from the having (sic) to use parentheses every time one wishes to make a parenthetical comment."
Far better, of course, is to leave out the parentheticals altogether; as in my example above, they tend to be used frivolously and often condescendingly -- which doesn't help people take you seriously, especially when you're doing ridiculously twee things like advising someone to join two sentences with a colon for "elegance" and using "one" all the time, as if you were an 18th-century textbook.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I had to look up the word 'twee,' Tom.
Thus, you are pretensious.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Tom, you write (sic) where you do not need it. The Latin "sic" means something like the English "thus" and is used in English to mean something like "it was found thu;" however, such use implies a mistake on the part of the origional writer. I admit to having made a mistake in the second case "the having" being nonsensical, but, in the first case, I was entirely correct to use "is" becouse "comma" is singular the clauses following the comma having no effect of the number of the verb.
Futhermore, the word "one" is standard English pronoun meaning "An unspecified individual." There is simply no other three-letter commonly understood word that means the same thing. To criticize the use of the word "one" to refer to an unspecified individual is a bizzare as criticizing the use of the word "you" in the second person vocative.
My old English/Latin/Philosophy/Ancient History teacher used to criticize thesauri, becouse, as he said, no word is exactly synonymous in both denotation and conotation. As usual, he was right.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I think you are missing the point Pel, so let me make it nice and clear for you.
The way you speak can be summed up with a few "big words" (whose webster's definitions I am sure you can recite on command), like pedantic, pretentious, obfuscating, and condescendingly erudite. You also seem to have an compulsive preoccupation with commas, a condition which severely impacts the legibility of your writing. (see how annoying that was?)
You might notice that not many people on Hatrack write like you do. This isn't because they aren't as learned as you. In fact, it's the opposite. You might have a nice education in greek philosophy and old english, but that doesn't mean you have to be a condescending prick when you talk to people. I went to a private high school too (I'm assuming here, and I apologize if the assumption is wrong), but you don't hear me talking like a tool.
Like I said before, maybe you're just proud of your knowledge and don't mean to come off the way you do, but regardless of your intent, you do come off that way, and you need to re-evalutate the way you write if you want to have constructive debates on this forum and not piss people off left and right (and if you want to get anywhere when you go to university).
Also I'm sorry if I am speaking for the general population here and you all don't share my opinion.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Tom, you write (sic) where you do not need it. The Latin "sic" means something like the English "thus" and is used in English to mean something like "it was found thu;" however, such use implies a mistake on the part of the origional writer. I admit to having made a mistake in the second case "the having" being nonsensical, but, in the first case, I was entirely correct to use "is" becouse "comma" is singular the clauses following the comma having no effect of the number of the verb.
The subject of that sentence was "the comma and the clauses which follow it," which is a compound subject. That means it needs a plural verb.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It could have been, but "and the clauses which follow it" were inserted after a comma, and were part of a parenthetical remark, not the subject.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The fact that you set it off with commas doesn't make it parenthetical. The phrase "and the clauses which follow it" did not amplify or explain anything about the subject, "comma."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pelegius, a word of caution:
Using correct grammar is lovely; defending your usage is fine; correcting other people's usage can be pretty obnoxious (and will leave you subject to Davidson's Law).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Grammar is for people without the imagination to make each sentence unique, as spelling is for people without the imagination to spell words more than one way.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I only correct those who correct me.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Angio, agreed. Obfuscation is not cool.
The funny thing is that by using the word "obfuscation", you are forced into obfuscation.
Twas the point!
Angio, your last post made me laugh out loud. Well done, well done! Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, this was a waste of a forum page. . .
If anybody harps on my excessive use of . . .
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I only correct those who correct me.
This sentence is clear, simple and to the point. I like it! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Tom, ...
There's "Grammar Nazi," there's "KNEEL BEFORE GRAMMAR ZOD" and then there's this.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)