I will admit, I am frustrated and upset.  Mostly because I posted a comment.  I posted this not as a bash, but as a way to try and get people talking about something that disturbed me.  But yet again, people felt free to criticize me and take that comment as "Bashing", even though that was never the intent.  The comment that disturbs me the most is this:


Stop pretending to be a moderate.


First of all, lets all read the definition of the word in question, Moderate:

mod·er·ate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mdr-t)
adj.
1.  Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.

2.  Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.

3.  Of medium or average quantity or extent.
      a.  Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
      b.  Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.

n.
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

OK.  Now we have a good definition of what the word means.  Now how many of you can honestly look at yourselves, and claim that the definition really fits?  I can only think of a small handfull in here that it might apply to.  The biggest problem is that a lot of people think or claim they are moderates, when nothing could be farther then the truth.

Most of those that have read my posts in here for the last several years know about most of my views.  I classify myself as a Moderate, with Conservative views.  I believe in the Freedoms espoused in the Bill Of Rights.  I believe in Freedom of Speech, even if I think the person is a detistable worm.  After all, everybody has the right to make an ass of themselves.  8)

The core of my beliefs lies in my Faith.  One of the rules quoted in the bible quite often is "Love one another".  This simple rule is what I base most of my life on.

I know a lot in here consider me a "Radical Conservative".  Well, my 2 best friends in the world are homosexuals.  One is a Gay "Hollywood" male (a producer-director), the other is a Lesbian in Alabama.  My Ex-Wife is from Argentina.  My best friend when I was in the Marines was a Black guy from South Carolina.  But that has never mattered anything to me.  They were all people, and that is all that ever mattered.

When you look at definition 3b, that is almost exactly what I feel.  I am opposed to abortion (when used as a form of birth control) on moral grounds, but do not think it should be illegal.  I support the "Welfare System", but think it should be an assistance, not a life-long entitlement.  I believe in a strong defense, but not at the expense of the populace.  I believe in conservatorship of nature, but that we can coexist with it.  Exploitation should be allowed, but reclamation should be done afterwards.  Stiff fines and penalties should be levied on any companies that fail to do this.  I believe in a strong central government, but that it should in the end follow the will of the people, and not try to controll their lives.

Do I sound like a Rabid Conservative?  Do I sound like a Rabid Liberal?  I find it ammusing that I agree in here with Don Carlos as often as I do with GW Bush.  In fact, in many areas I agree with him more often then with GW.  Now how can that be, unless I am for the most part a moderate?

One thing that I am most often against is radicalism.  Radical Environmentalism, Radical Militarism, Radical Evangelicism, Radical Anti-Abortion, Radical Economics, I do not like any of these.  In fact, most of the time I strive to find a "Common Ground", where hopefully both sides can make an accomidation and live in peace.  And both sides get something they both want.

One thing that still sticks out in my mind was a topic we had in here about a year ago.  There were several tests posted in which you can show how "Conservative or Liberal" you were.  Of those that posted their results, they tended to be skewed to the left (sometimes VERY far).  Of all those that I remember, mine was the closest to the middle, and only slightly to the left.  And the funny thing is, everybody seemed to agree with their placements, and yet they still tended to consider themselves "moderate".

For me, there are a few questions that you should ask yourselves.  And answer them honestly:

1.  Do you believe in the practices of any "Radical" political parties or causes?  This means the Communist, Libertarian, PETA, Right For Life, Earth First!, John Birch, PTL, NOW, KKK, Citizen's Flag Alliance, Republic Of Texas, IRA, Sinn Fein, Ulster Democratic Union, Wake Up Or Die!, or any other group that supports a radical agenda?  (Notice I am not including some groups like ACLU and NRA, which are based more on Constitutional issues then political issues).

2.  Do you tend to agree with your chosen political party (Republican-Democrat) 75% of the time or more?  Conversely, do you dissagree with the opposing political party more then 60% of the time?

3.  Do you listen to your favorite Political Commentator (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Bill O'Riley, Anne Coulter, Al Franken, Tim Noah, Pat Buchanan, Bill Moyers, etc) and agree with them 60-70% or more?  Conversely, do you dissagree with the opposing commentators more then 50% of the time?

4.  Do you wait to see what a political party thinks about a topic before you make up your own mind as to wether you will oppose/support the topic?

If you can answer "Yes" to any of those questions, then you are most likely not a moderate.  If you answer "Yes" to 2 or more of those questions, then you are definately not a moderate.

I am sure that this will start yet another coprolite storm, but that is OK.  I am just getting tired of being named something I am not, and seeing others claim to be something that they are not.

You are right that moderates seem to be lost in this world lately. I think that many Democrats are moderates but because the Republican party is so far to the right these days, anything even close to the center seems far to the left. This was true when Howard Dean was running. He IS a moderate but they tried to paint him further left than Michael Moore-which is totally absurd (not saying that Michael Moore is so far left as he is portrayed. There are some moderates in the Republican party but they are being pushed to the side by the "vast right-wing conspericy". That is why Jim Jeffords left the party (or as he said, the party left him).  I would much rather have the moderates in power than then far-right.

As for me-I think I lean a bit too much to the left (but not WAY too much) to be concidered a moderate.




Cat

You are right that moderates seem to be lost in this world lately. I think that many Democrats are moderates but because the Republican party is so far to the right these days, anything even close to the center seems far to the left.


Actually, that is not really true.  One of the reasons I wrote those questions the way I did, is that they will apply to any time in history.  Simply replace "Democrat" or "Republican" with "Whig", "Tory", "Know Nothing", "Democratic Republicans", or any other past party.  Or replace one of the organizations with "Sons Of Liberty" or "Anarchist" and you have past groups with similar aims of more modern groups.  While the goals change over time, the concept of "Radicalism" remains the same.

Of all the "Heros" of the American Revolution, George Washington probably comes closest to being a "Moderate".  He strove hard to keep the Colonies a part of the Empire, while holding onto the freedoms that they were supposed to have.  This is a contrast to Jefferson and Adams, who were very much "Radicals".  He was a Tory, and only became a reluctant Whig.  This is one reason he spoke long and hard against political parties of any kind.

Radical is radical.  While the exact causes can and will change over time, the extreme will remain.  There was a time that even the Republicans were considered "Radical Liberals", because they dared to endorse emancipation, and equal rights towards all men (they were not so extreme liberal as to espouse those rights to women in the mid 1800's).


As for me-I think I lean a bit too much to the left (but not WAY too much) to be concidered a moderate.


OK.


I guess I am a moderate based on my answers to the 4 questions:
1.  No
2.  Well, I don't really consider myself a "Democrat" or a "Republican" so I can't really say.
3.  I don't listen to political commentators because I think they're all biased and for the most part, rude.
4.  I don't make up my mind on things based on what ANYBODY thinks except myself.  Not my friends, not my husband, not a church and especially not a political party.


Well, as for #2, it is not as much as if you belong, is if you agree/dissagree.  You can be an Independent, and still lean one way or another.

As for commentators, they are all biased.  You do not listen to them for unbiased facts, you listen to them to get an idea on what they believe. 


On the political compass thing:
I'm almost even with Gandhi:
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really know.:-\\


Here are my scores:
Left/Right:                              3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:  1.95

I am a tad more Conservative thern you are Liberal, but I am also closer to center in reguards to Libertarian/Authoritarian then you are.  So over all, we are probably similar, my being Moderate-Conservative and you being Conservative-Liberal.  And there is nothing wrong with either.  I also see nothing nessicarily wrong with being "Radical", as long as you recognize that you are Radical, and not Moderate.

FYI, Cat regognizes that she is not Moderate.  Her scores are:

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Authoritairan/Libertarian: -6.82

That is like double either of us as for Right/Left, and over 3 times for Authoritarian/Libertarian.

The term "radical" refers to finding the root cause, ie the radical of 25 is 5 in math.  In politics I would have to agree with Barry Goldwater, Something like moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue, extreemism in the pursuit of freedom is no vice.  I am for liberty with every fiber of my being, and as much for human freedom.  I recognize, as many others do not, that these are collective goals.  The can not be achieved on an individual basis.  We either all have them, or none of us realy do.

As I have shown, I am willing to respectfully (I hope) debate specific issues from my perspecive, but I never claimed to be a "mederate", nor do I think that is a good thing, especially when it comes to human rights, human freedom, or democracy.  In one's personal life, thats another story.  Moderation in drinking booze, sure - as I sip my rum...

As I have shown, I am willing to respectfully (I hope) debate specific issues from my perspecive, but I never claimed to be a "mederate", nor do I think that is a good thing, especially when it comes to human rights, human freedom, or democracy.  In one's personal life, thats another story.  Moderation in drinking booze, sure - as I sip my rum...


And you notice, I have never had a problem with that.  :)

In fact, while we debate quite often on the "Liberal-Conservative" issues, we almost always agree on the "Civil Liberties" issues.  I myself have no problem with those that dissagree with me, as long as there is respect involved.

With me, it is because of 2 things, tact and respect.  Some of my favorite quotes in respect to tact are:

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. - Abraham Lincoln
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. - Howard W. Newton

Or as I used to describe it (tongue in cheek) when I was in the military:

Tact is the ability to call somebody a horses a** to their face, and have them thank you for it. - Michael Martin

::)

I like the last defition best, Mushroom. I used tact on my right-wing Government teacher many a times. ;D

And I have no problems with other's views as long as they are respectful and can engage in open debate(i.e. they actually atempt to formulate an argument). The only thing that bothers me about Moderates is that a lot of them seem to look down on those with Liberal or Conservitive views, as if their own views hold inherently more intellectual legitimacy just because they are moderate. ::)

And you notice, I have never had a problem with that.  :)

In fact, while we debate quite often on the "Liberal-Conservative" issues, we almost always agree on the "Civil Liberties" issues.  I myself have no problem with those that dissagree with me, as long as there is respect involved.

With me, it is because of 2 things, tact and respect.  Some of my favorite quotes in respect to tact are:

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. - Abraham Lincoln
Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. - Howard W. Newton

Or as I used to describe it (tongue in cheek) when I was in the military:

Tact is the ability to call somebody a horses a** to their face, and have them thank you for it. - Michael Martin

::)


I have noticed, and you are one of the few self proclaimed conservatives (you have, I think called youself that - if I am mistaken I do appologize) that I enjoy debating.  You'r comments are always well informed, logical, and reasonable.  I like all your definitions of tact,

There is one thing I have noticed before in here, and I thought I would point it out again.

Some people in here really need to get a grip on themselves.  And I do mean that.  They seem to feel that anything they say in here is fine, but don't you dare dispute them on it.  People they adore are put up on a pedistal like saints, and those they do not like are fair game for any and all slander, insults, and filth they want to say.

And to these people, who the person was is nowhere as important as where they stand on the political fence.  Somebody can be vile and do dispicable things, as long as they have the "right take on issues".  And on the reverse, those on the opposite side can do no right.  Everything they do is wrong, and nothing can convince them otherwise.

I think this is one of the things that disgusts me most when it comes to fanatics.  Hitler was a disgusting man, but he did do a lot of good.  But it seems that in here, if he was a "Good Liberal", a lot would have been forgiven.

To me, this self-dilusion is almost to the point of being a mental disease.  Cakk it a "Political Sociopathy".  Because these people are so "Right", anything they say or do is perfictly all right, and anybody that does not agree with them is obviously "Wrong".  And they can not seem to emphathize with them at all, seeing no common ground at all.

Of course, because "Moderates" dissagree with these people roughly half the time, that makes them the target of these "Political Sociopaths" from both sides.  Both Tight and Left see them as "Fence Sitters", and fair targets, since they obviously can't "make up their minds".

I have noticed, and you are one of the few self proclaimed conservatives (you have, I think called youself that - if I am mistaken I do appologize) that I enjoy debating.  You'r comments are always well informed, logical, and reasonable.  I like all your definitions of tact,


Thanks Don.  :)  And no, I do not take it as an offense that you call me a "Conservative".  It is true, after all.  In the same way, I do not consider the term "Liberal" offensive.

I guess that in many ways, I am similar to Arnold S. in my views, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  But with the "Fiscal Conservative", I also think responsibility plays a big part.  And the same goes with "Socially Liberal".  I have think that helping others is a great thing, but at the same time they should be responsible for their own actions, and really want help.  I do not endorse people "living on the government dole", becaue they are to lazy to work.

Thanks Don.  :)  And no, I do not take it as an offense that you call me a "Conservative".  It is true, after all.  In the same way, I do not consider the term "Liberal" offensive.

I guess that in many ways, I am similar to Arnold S. in my views, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  But with the "Fiscal Conservative", I also think responsibility plays a big part.  And the same goes with "Socially Liberal".  I have think that helping others is a great thing, but at the same time they should be responsible for their own actions, and really want help.  I do not endorse people "living on the government dole", becaue they are to lazy to work.



BTW, his name is Carlos, not Don-Don is his "title".


Sorry, one of my pet peeves.  ;)



Cat

I disagree. It is the hardliners on both sides that are lost. Moderates like us base their opinions on the realism of today with common sense. The hardliners generally base theirs on the party line, which is solely political. I don't agree with some moderates, but that's what makes our country so great, that we are allowed to speak our minds without persecution just as long as it doesn't do irreparable harm to others.
You are right that moderates seem to be lost in this world lately.


Cat

I disagree. It is the hardliners on both sides that are lost. Moderates like us base their opinions on the realism of today with common sense. The hardliners generally base theirs on the party line, which is solely political. I don't agree with some moderates, but that's what makes our country so great, that we are allowed to speak our minds without persecution just as long as it doesn't do irreparable harm to others.


Simply put-BS.

Thats rather a arrogant assumption. I mentioned this earlier, one thing I don't like about moderates is that man of you are elitist and seem to think your opinions are somehow more right for being moderate. Don't look down on all Liberals or Conservatives. When people look at the issues objectively, they don't ALWAYS come down 50/50 left and right. For example, I support the Second Ammendment(with of course, gun control like we currently have). A majority of people who consider themselves Liberal disagree with me on that issue. Thats fine!

Don't generalize all of those with a political 'affiliation' as extremist. And as for the point that was made by Mushroom about moral relativism when it comes to candidates, you make another arrogant assumption. You ASSUME that everyone has the same view as you on what is moral and what is not. My morals are very, very loose. It is Clinton's business to me that he cheated on his wife. Their marriage is between them and them only. You didn't take those vows along with them. And maybe there are people out there who harp on Bush for his mistakes in the past, but not Clinton, well that is their problem. I DON'T criticize those mistakes unless they are directly in relation to his job. Thats why Clinton didn't bother me. His BJ didn't affect what kind of job he did as President. What affected his Presidency was the unconstitutional witch hunt that Star and co. conducted.

What DOES bother me, and this is actually job-related, is hypocricy. The recent scandals involving Tom DeLay DO bother me and the reason why is because he has pushed morality down the country's throat SO much, for all this stuff to be leaking out, its infuriating. If he kept that crap to himself I wouldn't care. But this clown trys to legislate morality yet he does this crap himself? THAT is what makes me angry about that.

Thats my rant.

Thanks Don.  :)  And no, I do not take it as an offense that you call me a "Conservative".  It is true, after all.  In the same way, I do not consider the term "Liberal" offensive.

I guess that in many ways, I am similar to Arnold S. in my views, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  But with the "Fiscal Conservative", I also think responsibility plays a big part.  And the same goes with "Socially Liberal".  I have think that helping others is a great thing, but at the same time they should be responsible for their own actions, and really want help.  I do not endorse people "living on the government dole", becaue they are to lazy to work.


Glad you didn't object to my labeling you.  I really try to resist doing that.

As to your second comment, there is an old socialist tradition, if you don't work, you don't eat.  No one likes a moocher.  From each according to their abilty, to each according to their need.  Nor do I have a problem with personal responsibility as long as it is in the context of the possible and the practicle, and the particular situation.  My daughter, for example, a college grad with an 18 month old, seperated from her husband, is having one he11 of a time getting help to finance her desire to become a nurse.  I will help her all I can, but that is limited.  She wants to be a productive member of society AND a good mother (so far she has been excellent)  but finding institutional help has been a carreer in itself.