Comments on: What’s so great about moderates?

By: borisjimbo

borisjimbo — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:21:27 +0000

Turgot, it’s the GOP that loves the result of Citizens United, the ability of even foreign corporations to take to the US airwaves and try to influence our election. If we tried to do it to other countries they’d have riots in the streets.

By: Realist99

Realist99 — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:24:59 +0000

actnow: Your post hit the nail right on the head! What a topsy turvy world we live in when our politicians go shopping for their voters and not the reverse.

By: TobyONottoby

TobyONottoby — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000

One great thing about moderates is that they can keep the extremes at bay, unless extreme circumstances overwhelm the moderates’ hold on power. As the US seems constitutionally predisposed to a two-party system, it pays to have both parties run by moderates in circumstances that call for moderation – i.e. almost always. The two parties, in those circumstances, are practically one, it’s true, but fostering a multi-party system might require extreme constitutional changes, and that would be immoderate. Even if such changes ever came about, it’d probably result in one or two moderate parties that always won practically everything, and two or three extreme parties that never won much of anything. So nothing would change, really.

By: actnow

actnow — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:37:14 +0000

The root of the extreme nature of politics is the ability of state governments to Jerry Rig the voting districts. If districts were drawn in some uniformly blind fasion, you would see candidates for the House moving to the middle to win. Until Jerry Rigging by state party bosses stops, our nightmare of polarized politicians will not end. Both parties are at fault.

By: ARJTurgot2

ARJTurgot2 — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:42:04 +0000

My first reference on all of this is Alex de Tocqueville, who observed (1837) that America didn’t need its guarantee of free speech because it wasn’t using it anyway. Our culture forces moderation, indeed ‘extremism’ is pejorative. Given that, I have enjoyed this election cycle, I just wish the Libs would actually be forced to do a public examination of their rather bizarre political reasoning, which for this election seems to come down to simply buying the woman’s vote.

The problem, though, is purity. It comes as no surprise to me at all the both Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi appear to be equally mentally ill. Neither can ever accept the idea that the other side might be more correct on a subject than they are.

By: iqbal123456

iqbal123456 — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:43:58 +0000

Moderation means not to be liberated without morality that morality is a tool of judgement to measure the social, religious and political norms to resolve the contemporary problems of the societies.
The problems of the developed countries are to find the solution in strict secular norms and to avoid the human instinct that he explores divine source to get inner-satisfaction.
As John Bunyan said in his famous writing that ‘A man with a book and a man with a burden’
So we need to get guidance with books either divine or non-divine to make the world more peace and wealthier.

By: borisjimbo

borisjimbo — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 05:12:00 +0000

Jack, the Republican party has become the party of the Old Confederacy and overwhelmingly rural states. Get used to it; they’re the ones who just do as they’re told. Sarasota has a point, though, about these “supermajorities” in the Senate to get anything to move. The drafters of the Constitution put in a provision to break Senate deadlocks, the vote of the VP, but that was only for actual ties, apparently the only case they thought would actually result in deadlocks, but now individuals can hold up the nation’s business with holds and such. I don’t think this was the kind of protection of minorities’ rights the founders had in mind.

By: spall78

spall78 — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:42:31 +0000

I expect legislators to engage in thoughtful debate with their ideological opponents, take part in rational discussions with their highly educated and experienced peers and use that process of collaboration to come up with solutions that solve problems. As the parties become more polarized, this becomes closer to impossible.

Politicians can’t vote with their conscience, their brain or for the good of their constituents if any of those traitorously happen to fall outside party orthodoxy. I don’t know about you, but when I vote for someone I don’t vote for their party, I vote for the individual…

By: Sarasota

Sarasota — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 03:01:52 +0000

First of all, Shafer, the polarity of the parties would hardly be a problem if the Senate rules did not require 60 votes for cloture. Secondly, we “moderates”, or independents, see that each of the poles have room to give on their big issues, i.e., social mores and taxation/revenue. It’s the refusal of each of those extremes to see the room to move as the biggest irk of we moderates.

By: RynoM

RynoM — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:38:50 +0000

I’m hopeful that somehow someday this all paves the way for a viable third party. Just kidding. Wishful, not hopeful. But what the partisans of either side do not appear to recognize is that neither side constitutes a majority, and that elections are decided by the independents and moderates who vote against whichever party most recently overreached. What we have is a coalition voting block and what we need is a coalition government. And we should never have to hear the word “mandate” again.
As for myself, I cannot discuss politics with some liberals without being labeled as conservative, and vice versa. Additionally, I cannot disagree with either of them about one thing without them assuming that I buy into the entire polar opposite dogma. A pox on both their houses. They cannot recognize the middle for what it is.