I am so loving the primary/caucus season and hope it goes until the conventions. For once people are actually getting a say in who gets the nomination. Keep it nice and close...for as long as possible.
I don't much care for moderates or independents. They're undependable. How can you be moderate on abortion? How can you be moderate on the 2nd Amendment? How can you be moderate on the 1st Amendment? How can you be moderate about acting against terrorism? How can you be a moderate on the definition of marriage?
"Moderate," is seems to me, is a liberal that needs everyone to believe they're open minded.
"Moderate," is seems to me, is a liberal that needs everyone to believe they're open minded.
Nah. A Moderate is someone who hews to the political center in many cases. The "problem" is that the center always shifts Leftward, so that a centrist of 1908 is very different from a centrist of 2008. That's actually OK by me, because it pulls the entire spectrum along - consider that you, an arch-Righty of 2008, would've been a crazy fire-eating Radical in 1908.
Kevin: i'm a social liberal who thinks that the government ought to balance its budget and believes that market-driven programs are more likely to work than state-driven ones.
So i'm a moderate: I can't get behind most Democratic economic proposals, but I can't get behind either Republican tax cuts or views on social issues.
Saying you are moderate is next best thing to saying nothing at all. Any political stance can be characterized as a point between two extremes. You could say, for example, that Hugo Chavez occupies a middle ground between Mother Teresa and Osama Bin Laden.
being moderate doesn't mean taking no hard positions on any single issues. It means leaning left in some areas, right in others. As Mark points out the definition is ever-changing, but currently it seems to mean those who lean free-market but are also laissez-faire on social issues.
That said, I consider myself a moderate between:
- out of control government spending financed by debt
- out of control government spending fueled by taxes
So I consider libertarians the true moderates.
out of control government spending financed by debt
"out of control government spending" is, I agree, a Bad Thing. Less so with "financed by debt" [bad, just not as bad, to me] primarily because I place more importance on the scope/breadth/scale of our economy and in keeping that healthy than I do on managing the debt. Its part of why I dislike socialized healthcare, by the way - because it removes an important private sector of our economy, reducing breadth when we should be encouraging innovation, and incurs new spending and taxes.
'out of control' is pretty bad with anything, although I am not sure that it applies to government spending as that seems to me to be quite well controlled (albeit perhaps not controlled in a manner that everyone likes.) Government spending by itself is of course sometimes good, sometimes bad and quite often somewhat of a wash.
Financing of government spending should be done with an appropriate mix of taxes and debt with a goal toward keeping a stable debt-to-GDP ratio.
I don't think that's what it means at all. You can be free-trade oriented and still believe in the power of well-run government aid organizations. And even if you weren't, there's nothing in an economically conservative viewpoint that prohibits you from donating to a non-governmental charitable organization. Also, how about "I'd love to help you, let's find you a job."?
I am passionately opposed to some of the Religious Right’s objectives in the Republican party. And I am passionately opposed to the socialist objectives of some of the Democrats.
Does that make me a moderate? In a way, maybe. I can see myself as a “moderating influence” between extreme positions.
And I consider myself a “financial conservative”. I believe in lower taxes, reduced government spending, and smaller government. Basically, I think the government creates more problems than it solves when it tried to meddle in wealth creation and redistribution.
Now, I also feel the same way with social issues. I think the government creates more problems than it solves when it tries to meddle in changing or enforcing social mores.
That's the funniest contradiction in those silly labels -- statist interventionists in economics are called "liberals," statist interventionists in social issues are called "conservatives."
And the Liberal party in Australia is what the Brits would call the Conservative party.
I consider myself to be a Christian, conservative, capitalist, with a dash or two of objectivism, a "liberal" dose of libertarianism, and a couple sprinkles of anarchism (just to always be on the ready). I try to filter the latter five through the first, and note it's the only one capitalized.
I took that "Political Compass" test a few years ago, and on the grid it put me as 4.5 Economic Left/Right (midway between center and far Right), and -1.08 Authoritarian/Libertarian (on the Libertarian side but closer to the middle). On the International Chart, there was NO ONE representing me. Even though they were middle-Right like me, they were middle-Authoritarian (Bush, Blair, Howard); the closest wrt to Auth/Lib was actually Chretien (wow!), but he was just left of center.
Hmmm....I am a party unto my own: Cccola! Since I believe in the "individual," I'm all for it!!!
Although my main candidate is now out of the race, and I didn't even get to vote for him, I think it has been a good primary so far. IMO, primaries are for who we really want, and the general is for who we actually get. Two vastly different things...
By believing that a fertilized egg is indeed a FORM of human life, but not of the same magnitude as a breathing baby that was already born.
How can you be moderate on the 2nd Amendment?
By not believing that a canon, nuclear bomb, air fuel explosive, or guided missile meets the definition of 'arms' that individuals can own.
How can you be moderate on the 1st Amendment?
Some people believe SPAM is free speech, as is yelling fire in a theater
How can you be moderate about acting against terrorism?
By demanding a decent test for what is terrorism, vs vandalism vs murder vs the right of the people to peacefully assemble and plan for the democratic overthrow of their government.
How can you be a moderate on the definition of marriage?
Well, I have to agree with you there. But I guess the 'civil union' thing is the alternative.
I took that "Political Compass" test a few years ago, and on the grid it put me as 4.5 Economic Left/Right (midway between center and far Right), and -1.08 Authoritarian/Libertarian (on the Libertarian side but closer to the middle). On the International Chart, there was NO ONE representing me.
I'll let you decide whether this is scary or not, cardeblu, but that makes you far and away the closest I've seen to my score (4.3, -0.5).
I don't think that's what it means at all. You can be free-trade oriented and still believe in the power of well-run government aid organizations. And even if you weren't, there's nothing in an economically conservative viewpoint that prohibits you from donating to a non-governmental charitable organization. Also, how about "I'd love to help you, let's find you a job."?
Well, it *was* a joke. But since you bring it up, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with what you're saying, except that I don't think it's the government's role to find you a job. Its probably a matter of degree. If you're saying the Gov't should more or less 'assign' one, then thats socialism. If you mean 'we'll provide a clearinghouse for job listings', as labor depts currently do, then sure.
sorry, humor is very tough for me filtered through blog comments. but i meant "let's find you a job" in the sense of me speaking to another individual, not necessarily government action.
but i believe the government can help in ways that aren't about "assigning" work. they can help fund college, vocational programs, and retraining programs for people who have lost their jobs. i think some might make a credible case that if a government's policy is one of very lightly restricted free trade, and a result of that policy was extensive offshoring of, say, manufacturing jobs, then the government has some responsibility to its citizenry to help them defray the costs of helping them become qualified for jobs that are still here.
I'll let you decide whether this is scary or not, cardeblu, but that makes you far and away the closest I've seen to my score (4.3, -0.5).
I would say "get off my spot," but those few tenths of a point for each may make all the difference in the world. So, instead, I'll just say: Howdy, neighbor!
1.30.2008 4:17pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
"Moderate," is seems to me, is a liberal that needs everyone to believe they're open minded.
Well, not you.
Nah. A Moderate is someone who hews to the political center in many cases. The "problem" is that the center always shifts Leftward, so that a centrist of 1908 is very different from a centrist of 2008. That's actually OK by me, because it pulls the entire spectrum along - consider that you, an arch-Righty of 2008, would've been a crazy fire-eating Radical in 1908.
Fire-eating? That's awesome!
So i'm a moderate: I can't get behind most Democratic economic proposals, but I can't get behind either Republican tax cuts or views on social issues.
being moderate doesn't mean taking no hard positions on any single issues. It means leaning left in some areas, right in others. As Mark points out the definition is ever-changing, but currently it seems to mean those who lean free-market but are also laissez-faire on social issues.
Economically conservative and socially liberal = "I'd love to help you, but get a job"
- out of control government spending financed by debt
- out of control government spending fueled by taxes
So I consider libertarians the true moderates.
Financing of government spending should be done with an appropriate mix of taxes and debt with a goal toward keeping a stable debt-to-GDP ratio.
I don't think that's what it means at all. You can be free-trade oriented and still believe in the power of well-run government aid organizations. And even if you weren't, there's nothing in an economically conservative viewpoint that prohibits you from donating to a non-governmental charitable organization. Also, how about "I'd love to help you, let's find you a job."?
I am passionately opposed to some of the Religious Right’s objectives in the Republican party. And I am passionately opposed to the socialist objectives of some of the Democrats.
Does that make me a moderate? In a way, maybe. I can see myself as a “moderating influence” between extreme positions.
And I consider myself a “financial conservative”. I believe in lower taxes, reduced government spending, and smaller government. Basically, I think the government creates more problems than it solves when it tried to meddle in wealth creation and redistribution.
Now, I also feel the same way with social issues. I think the government creates more problems than it solves when it tries to meddle in changing or enforcing social mores.
Does that make me a “social conservative”?
That's the funniest contradiction in those silly labels -- statist interventionists in economics are called "liberals," statist interventionists in social issues are called "conservatives."
And the Liberal party in Australia is what the Brits would call the Conservative party.
Yes.
And thank you for not using a capital “L”!
I consider myself to be a Christian, conservative, capitalist, with a dash or two of objectivism, a "liberal" dose of libertarianism, and a couple sprinkles of anarchism (just to always be on the ready). I try to filter the latter five through the first, and note it's the only one capitalized.
I took that "Political Compass" test a few years ago, and on the grid it put me as 4.5 Economic Left/Right (midway between center and far Right), and -1.08 Authoritarian/Libertarian (on the Libertarian side but closer to the middle). On the International Chart, there was NO ONE representing me. Even though they were middle-Right like me, they were middle-Authoritarian (Bush, Blair, Howard); the closest wrt to Auth/Lib was actually Chretien (wow!), but he was just left of center.
Hmmm....I am a party unto my own: Cccola! Since I believe in the "individual," I'm all for it!!!
Although my main candidate is now out of the race, and I didn't even get to vote for him, I think it has been a good primary so far. IMO, primaries are for who we really want, and the general is for who we actually get. Two vastly different things...
By believing in some limits on the procedure but not supporting either absolute bans or absolute "choice."
How can you be moderate on the 2nd Amendment?
By believing it's important but that it has limits.
How can you be moderate on the 1st Amendment?
By believing it's important but that it has limits.
How can you be moderate about acting against terrorism?
By beliving that it's important but that it has limits.
How can you be a moderate on the definition of marriage?
By believing there are more important issues and that the state doesn't define it anyway.
Anything else?
By believing that a fertilized egg is indeed a FORM of human life, but not of the same magnitude as a breathing baby that was already born.
By not believing that a canon, nuclear bomb, air fuel explosive, or guided missile meets the definition of 'arms' that individuals can own.
Some people believe SPAM is free speech, as is yelling fire in a theater
By demanding a decent test for what is terrorism, vs vandalism vs murder vs the right of the people to peacefully assemble and plan for the democratic overthrow of their government.
Well, I have to agree with you there. But I guess the 'civil union' thing is the alternative.
I'll let you decide whether this is scary or not, cardeblu, but that makes you far and away the closest I've seen to my score (4.3, -0.5).
sorry, humor is very tough for me filtered through blog comments. but i meant "let's find you a job" in the sense of me speaking to another individual, not necessarily government action.
but i believe the government can help in ways that aren't about "assigning" work. they can help fund college, vocational programs, and retraining programs for people who have lost their jobs. i think some might make a credible case that if a government's policy is one of very lightly restricted free trade, and a result of that policy was extensive offshoring of, say, manufacturing jobs, then the government has some responsibility to its citizenry to help them defray the costs of helping them become qualified for jobs that are still here.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.