• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is a "Moderate"?

So you think owning another man as property is a moderate position?

In today's world? No. In the era of slavery? It depends.

There was a time when owning slaves but ensuring their health and giving them a room in your house (as opposed to a shack outside) was considered the moderate position. Things have changed.

In any case, your argument has nothing to do with anything I originally said. You are claiming that moderates are really leftists, but you have no proof other than your "personal experience". Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
 
But that was exactly my point. They don't want to brand themselves, although they still take a hard stance on each issue that they are not ignorant of. They are not moderates, they are just choosing to not properly label their views. All it means is you have to do a little extra work when debating them to find out what sort of partisan they are.

How would you define someone who is for low taxes and a pro-business environment, but is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage?
 
Someone who thinks that the things that make us alike and allow us to work together are more important than celebrating our differences and vilifying those who disagree with them.

Someone who realizes that the "other side" are actually not Hitler and the Nazis, nor are they the harbingers nor architects of the Republic's imminent demise.

Someone who realizes that it's okay to disagree with your neighbor over politics w/o wanting to burn him at the stake.

Someone who doesn't seek ideological purity for themselves nor for the rest of us.

Someone who realizes that we all live and work together everyday and we really aren't actually as bad as the talking head politicos tell us we are.

Someone who realizes that politicians et al get paid for exaggerating and creating issues out of thin air, and therefore doesn't take all of the indignation of these talking heads into their own heart.

Creepy weird ideas like these are the hallmarks of moderates.
 
Reasonable people tend to think for themselves and don't rely on others telling them what to think.

So people who support traditional marriage don't think for themselves, or they're unreasonable? :confused:
 
We just had the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert "Million Moderate March" ;) in Washington. Can someone please tell me, what is a "moderate"? For example, do moderates believe that Americans have a fundamental, individual right to own a gun? Do moderates deny that Americans are overtaxed? Do moderates favor keeping "Obamacare"? Do moderates believe in traditional marriage, or do they think that marriage should be sex blind? :confused: Also, what makes a "moderate" position any less political than a "conservative" or "liberal" position?

Someone who thinks conservatism is manly and liberalism is required to some degree.

Or, someone who thinks liberalism is visionary and conservatism is required to some degree.

I mean, some things are black and white, like the view that Americans do or do not have an individual right to own a gun, or that marriage should or should not be defined as between a man and a woman. Reasonable people could argue that any effort to legally redefine marriage is, in fact, a "radical" position.

Pretty much nothing is black or white. Americans could have a limited individual right to own guns, for example. That means there are conditions where the right to own or carry firearms could be reduced, but those conditions have to be grounded in federalism. A moderate position on firearms would be that local governments should enjoy the most authority on the regulation of firearms and that have to provide "good reasons," that can be reviewed by state and federal courts. A hyper-conservative position would be that firearms are unconditionally a right, that no reason is good enough, and a hyper-liberal position would assert that fire arms are a privilege, not a right, and pretty much any reason is good enough to take them away.
 
Last edited:
No, reasonable people would consider all options to discover the best solution. Reasonable people are not bound by tradition and customs created by others in the past. Reasonable people tend to think for themselves and don't rely on others telling them what to think.

The legal view of a reasonable person is
Ordinary, prudent person who normally exercises due care while avoiding extremes of both audacity and caution. Used as a test of liability in cases of negligence, this standard is not applied uniformly on all persons because varying degrees of reasonableness may be expected from a minor (infant), an adult, an unskilled person, or a professional such as a doctor.

These expectations ARE often based on tradition and customs and this changes century to century and region to region.

So, depending on *where* you live and who surrounds you - opposing gay marriage might be expected of a reasonable person - or, in other areas, being in support of gay marriage might be expected of a reasonable person.

It's fickle.

I, classifying myself as a moderate, support gay-rights and gay marriage for a variety of reasons and i *do not* expect others to look at my view and *think* it's reasonable. It's is, quite bluntly, very *out of place* for my location, region and surrounding society values.
 
Last edited:
A moderate is a person who is afraid to express their actual beliefs, or is too wishy-washy to be able to define what is right and what is wrong. You know, a person who tries to play both sides of the fence.

no, that's an undecided voter; yeesh; if there is one group of people i can't understand, it's that last few percentage points of 'undecided voters' that get trotted out two weeks before an election. they always try to tell me "well, i want to see where they stand on the issues or some such crap... but they never even bother to look up what those issues are.


they are why i support poll tests.
 
It has nothing to do with defining right or wrong. What is right for one is wrong for another. Moderates understand that and have the capabilty to compromise and find a middle ground, not trying to play both sides of the fence. Most people have a combination of conservative and liberal positions on issues. Only the most narrow minded and irrational people are 100% left or right.

So if you're not a moderate, you're an idiot. Got it.
 
So if you're not a moderate, you're an idiot. Got it.

Most people don't embrace their 'left' or 'right' to that extreme.
I've seen them make the news - but I've yet to meet anyone I'd consider 100% left or right - or who would claim to be 100% left or right.

And often when those particular individuals *do* make the news the common consensus is that, yes, they're idiots - from the left, center and right.

That fringe is who I thought he was referring to with that comment, anyway.
 
Last edited:
That fringe is who I thought he was referring to with that comment, anyway.

Wasn't it "the fringe" that supported the American Revolution? Or were these treasonists moderates? How can you support (necessary) radical change and still be a moderate (or civil)? If Stephen Colbert had been alive at the time of Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown, I can envision him fleeing to Canada.
 
How would you define someone who is for low taxes and a pro-business environment, but is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage?

Genrally, libertarian. How about pro-people (or anti-govt-authority)? I say liberal economically and socially; however, I'm anti-abortion (I think person begins at conception) and militant (in polite terms, a hawk), so I don't run with the libertarian crowd.


A moderate is someone who, on all (nearly all?) of the issues, is near center. Not radical in any aspect of their political ideology, be it left, right or any combination thereof.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it "the fringe" that supported the American Revolution? Or were these treasonists moderates? How can you support (necessary) radical change and still be a moderate (or civil)? If Stephen Colbert had been alive at the time of Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown, I can envision him fleeing to Canada.

Fringe to whom?
Fringe to the British Crown, indeed.
But were they considered 'fringe' in the eyes of a colonist? :shrug: Are they 'fringe' in the minds of today's people? :shrug:

Moderate is fickle *because* it changes often and depends on *what* is considered 'far right' and *what* is considered 'far left'
 
We just had the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert "Million Moderate March" ;) in Washington. Can someone please tell me, what is a "moderate"? For example, do moderates believe that Americans have a fundamental, individual right to own a gun? Do moderates deny that Americans are overtaxed? Do moderates favor keeping "Obamacare"? Do moderates believe in traditional marriage, or do they think that marriage should be sex blind? :confused: Also, what makes a "moderate" position any less political than a "conservative" or "liberal" position? I mean, some things are black and white, like the view that Americans do or do not have an individual right to own a gun, or that marriage should or should not be defined as between a man and a woman. Reasonable people could argue that any effort to legally redefine marriage is, in fact, a "radical" position.
Moderates generally believe in a mixed approach between far left and far right.

Another good way to look at a Moderate is the idea of Centrism which is basically a synonym for Moderate, they're essentially interchangeable terms.

Realpolitik is another good thing to take a look at
Realpolitik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moderate is often added on to other title qualifiers. IE: A Moderate Liberal is someone who looks to Centrist solutions but tends to lean somewhat to the left, a Moderate Conservative is someone who favors Centrist solutions but still leans somewhat to the right (No one is perfectly Centrist).

It also usually means a disregard for ideological sources, a Moderate cares less where an idea came from and more that it's a good idea.

I personally am a Moderate Socialist, on most things I strive for the middle ground but overall I lean towards the Socialistic spectrum.
 
I personally am a Moderate Socialist, on most things I strive for the middle ground but overall I lean towards the Socialistic spectrum.

:shock: That's like saying you're a moderate anarchist or communist. I just can't picture it.
 
:shock: That's like saying you're a moderate anarchist or communist. I just can't picture it.

Communism is extreme left.
Socialism is partial-left. . . and not as 'horrible' as people make it out to be. . . many of our government programs are socialist-based on theory. Someone who support an overall socialist government merely believes that we should have more of said programs.

Out government, actually, is Moderate Socialist if you're really wanting to put values on to a line - and peg us as something.

We try to be 'center' in an effort to preserve rights and equality - and that means in some ways we are on the 'right' of the line - and in other ways we are 'left' of the line . . . and we're becoming a little more 'left' than 'right' - *in* certain government areas: taxation (and to what it's applied to) and so forth.
 
Socialism is partial-left. . . and not as 'horrible' as people make it out to be. . . many of our government programs are socialist-based on theory. Someone who support an overall socialist government merely believes that we should have more of said programs.

Yeah, I realize many of our government programs are socialist based, and I think that's part of the problem. Government assumes a greater and greater role in people's lives, and with each new program or regulation they surrender a little more of their freedom. Like this 1099 thing under the "Obamacare" bill. It's a complete, um, "obomination."
 
Yeah, I realize many of our government programs are socialist based, and I think that's part of the problem. Government assumes a greater and greater role in people's lives, and with each new program or regulation they surrender a little more of their freedom. Like this 1099 thing under the "Obamacare" bill. It's a complete, um, "obomination."

Yeah - I agree that government's *too* big and overreaching.
But I also believe that there are some basics that government should help provide - as solid governments have always done throughout history.

These said socialist programs become a problem when they're unevenly distributed or when they dictate too much of our lives or dominate the government budget (or deficit, really).

The effort for out government to build the highway system - usually touted as a socialist-example.
*everyone* benefits - *everyone* uses the roads thus *everyone* had a hand in paying or creating the system.
No one really complains about that.

The problems with these programs, then, is that many of them *only benefit* a group of people - it's not *helping everyone* out - it's propping some up by taking away from others. In the end - only a portion of the people benefit and only a portion of the people put into it.

Oddly - that's more akin to communism (in theories) than to socialism (again, in theories).
 
:shock: That's like saying you're a moderate anarchist or communist. I just can't picture it.
Such things do exist. There are even Libertarian Socialists :)
 
Back
Top Bottom