posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelagius views the demolition of buildings as the same, morally, as murdering innocent people. That's his idea of "moderation".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
