Posted on 06/10/2009 3:58:20 AM PDT by Nils Bergeson
Al Qaeda are not moderates. You know exactly what to expect from them. I dont trust them either.
All politicians decide issues on what “makes them look better”. Its just that their core constituency is different.
Is that because they hold those opinions dear, or because they know if they went against them they would be out of office in double quick time, and no one would be paying them anything again?
Interesting interpretation of scripture. Try this one:
“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.” Philippians 4:5
What you are explaining is an appeaser or one who compromises morals. The article explains how a true Moderate is neither of those things.
Good question. I think what you are describing is Centrism, which in my mind doesn’t necessarily equate with Moderation. As you explain, there are some things which do not balance well. While we don’t want to be somewhere in between “freedom” and “unfreedom,” as you say, there can, however be balance between things such as anarchy and complete government control.
In short, I agree with you that “balance” doesn’t always imply the direct center between two extreme viewpoints.
Can’t say I recall anyone named “O’Bozo” on the ballot. Perhaps he/she was only on the ballot in certain states.
Perhaps I could rephrase: A Moderate is content to get a good solution.
I appreciate your distinction. Thank you for clarifying. I agree that moderation (which in the case of your post, appears to be related to Epicureanism) is an approach rather than a position. Centrism connotes an ideological position.
Neither are they leaders. They are crowd followers and politically moral relativists.
Interesting you should bring old Adolf into the discussion. In 1928 the Nazis were a minor party of what was called the extreme right. In the elections of that year they got a derisory 3% of the vote. He got into power because after the wall street crash and the onset of the great depression, German political opinion polarised very rapidly. The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.
So who’s to blame then?
Interesting you should bring old Adolf into the discussion. In 1928 the Nazis were a minor party of what was called the extreme right. In the elections of that year they got a derisory 3% of the vote. He got into power because after the wall street crash and the onset of the great depression, German political opinion polarised very rapidly. The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.
So who’s to blame then?
Not so. Washington wasn’t a gung-ho revolutionary republican. Lincoln was no rabid abolotionist. Jeff Davis believed secession was legal, but not that the South should secede. At the time all of them were regarded as moderates on the great issues of their day.
What does “politically moral relativist” mean? A cynic might explain it thusly. Certain political opinions (like gun control, pro-choice, national health service) have become thought of as “leftist”. Others, (such as anti-abortion, pro death penalty, free market) have become associated with the right-wing.
This has become so entrenched now that someone who holds an opinion on say, creationism, is by definition also expected to be in favor of, say, tighter immigration controls. Someone who thinks for themselves and refuses to buy into this, by say, believing in increased defense spending and also that we should reduce Carbon emissions, is accused of being “unprincipled”!
Political moral relativism - its just another excuse not to think.
No Im not saying that Democracy is between two “extremes”. As far as I am concerned, the political spectrum meets round the back. The extreme “left” is no better (and no different basically) from the extreme “right”.
I’m saying that moderation is not a political position. Its not centrism. It is an approach, a method, a way of doing things. That is why I agree absolutely with your last paragraph,
That is because the “moderates” you met were either centrists, or people whose moderation was actually indifference or apathy. As the original article clearly states, true moderates are not like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.