Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Moderation Means (Mega Barf/Hurl Alert)
NY Times Op-Ed ^ | 10-25-2012 | David Brooks

Posted on 10/27/2012 7:56:10 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot

Over the past month, Mitt Romney has aggressively appealed to moderate voters. President Obama, for some reason, hasn’t. But, in what he thought was an off-the-record interview with The Des Moines Register, Obama laid out a pretty moderate agenda for his second term.


First, let me describe what moderation is not. It is not just finding the midpoint between two opposing poles and opportunistically planting yourself there. Only people who know nothing about moderation think it means that.

Moderates start with a political vision, but they get it from history books, not philosophy books. That is, a moderate isn’t ultimately committed to an abstract idea. Instead, she has a deep reverence for the way people live in her country and the animating principle behind that way of life. In America, moderates revere the fact that we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream — committed to the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise.


The moderate doesn’t try to solve those arguments. There are no ultimate solutions. The moderate tries to preserve the tradition of conflict, keeping the opposing sides balanced. She understands that most public issues involve trade-offs. In most great arguments, there are two partially true points of view, which sit in tension. The moderate tries to maintain a rough proportion between them, to keep her country along its historic trajectory.

Americans have prospered over the centuries because we’ve kept a rough balance between things like individual opportunity and social cohesion, local rights and federal power. At any moment, new historical circumstances, like industrialization or globalization, might upset the balance. But the political system gradually finds a new equilibrium.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; Politics
Yikes! IOW, David Brooks' "Moderates" means the meaning of our Constitution evolves overtime.

Not if conservatives can help it.

1 posted on 10/27/2012 7:56:15 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“Moderation” means infecting the GOP with liberalism.

The GOP has been moderated into a coma while the democrats have been racing to the left completely unchecked.

2 posted on 10/27/2012 7:59:19 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

NYT needs to go bankrupt. Irrelevant echo chamber rag that hasn’t covered Libya.

3 posted on 10/27/2012 8:00:37 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

We need to kill the fantasy that compromise is what the founders intended. They didn’t.

The founders set up and worked in a far more contentious political environment that led to beatings and duels.

4 posted on 10/27/2012 8:03:56 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

NYT needs to go bankrupt. Irrelevant echo chamber rag
Take a look at their stock price over the last week — down by about 20%!!!

5 posted on 10/27/2012 8:09:58 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

There is nothing moderate about Obama.
He is the single most polarizing politician of our lives.
With Obama it’s “my way or the highway”
“I won”

Remember when these jackasses changed the locks to exclude the Republicans from the chambers when obamacare was being shaped?


6 posted on 10/27/2012 8:13:48 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

On NPR, when Liberal EJ Dionne debates the issues of the day with Conservative David Brooks, I often get the sense that Dionne is the more rational of the two. Dionne can see pluses and minuses of what Obama does (he, of course, sees the pluses far out-weighing the minuses). Brooks, on the other hand, basically sees Romney as 100% bad, and Obama as being about 60% good.

7 posted on 10/27/2012 8:26:20 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I concur. (Not that I listen to NPR or Dionne)

I almost choked on Brooks words in his description of

“a moderate second term agenda”


8 posted on 10/27/2012 8:40:03 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I am just going to say it. David Brooks is a mental midget. I bet his IQ is average at best, but he thinks he is wildly educated. He finds the most circuitous path to form left-leaning opinions so he looks lofty and intellectual. Only a mental midget would judge a potential president on the crease in his pants.

9 posted on 10/27/2012 8:40:46 AM PDT by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“War is politics carried on by other means.”- Karl von Klauswitz

“Moderation in war is imbecility.”- Admiral Sir John Fisher

The reverse being also true, politics is war carried on by other means, ergo, moderation in politics is also imbecility. The current state of the nation and the GOP is a good example- imbecility has reigned in both far too long.

10 posted on 10/27/2012 8:48:03 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
"Moderate," within the semantics of the "progressive" movement, implies a willingness to compromise the principles of liberty outlined in the Declaration of Independence and underlying the Constitution of government for this once great bastion of individual liberty known as America.

A history lesson might be in order for Brooks and the NYT.

John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President and, until his death, in the Congress. His words on this subject might be instructive.

In 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. Adams' 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:

"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.

"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-

"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.

"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.

"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.

"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.

"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.

"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.

"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.

"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.

"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.

"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.

"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."

In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."

(Underlining added for emphasis)

11 posted on 10/27/2012 8:52:54 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

why does he keep calling the moderate she?

12 posted on 10/27/2012 9:01:59 AM PDT by edzo4 (You call us the 'Party Of No', I call us the resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
a moderate isn’t ultimately committed to an abstract idea.

Moderates are skeptics in regard to basic principles, and deny that the government has any single purpose, and that there are many proper government goals.The purpose and goals of government are not connected to or deducible from any abstract formula.When a moderate is asked for the ideology validating their moderation,they reply that they need no ideology. They are concrete bound and value pluralism,flexibility,balance, eclecticism, pragmatism, and utilitarianism in government.

13 posted on 10/27/2012 9:30:31 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

World’s smallest book, “Great Moderates in History.”

14 posted on 10/27/2012 9:35:03 AM PDT by dfwgator (World Series bound and picking up steam, GO GET 'EM,TIGERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Justice would be air-dropping the commies into the middle of the ocean from 30,000 feet without a parachute.

Moderation would be providing them a flotation device.

15 posted on 10/27/2012 10:30:57 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson