• 

  Barry Switzer
  May 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

  Please explain to me what objective, consistent principles drive the positions of “moderates”. I doubt that you could provide any.

• 

  Phil
  November 9th, 2009 at 7:20 am

  Moderation is a principal, dittohead. Not good enough? How about Taoism? So much for your doubt. Not to mention the objective, experiential fact that extremism in any form is inherently self destructive. How about the objective, consistent way our current system is stuck in perpetual gridlock between the two polar opposites, both of which are based on outmoded, and far from objective, principals.

• 

  Phil
  November 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am

  Of course I meant “principle” and “principles”. Cut me some slack, it’s early.

• 

  XReader
  December 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  Taoism, if anything, is more conservative than moderate. Taoism is about subscribing to a nature of things, whether the particular nature means a monithilic god or a secular version of mother nature is open to discussions. The most important aspect of Taoism is minimal restriction and regulation and almost to the political fringe of libertainism. Truest ideal of moderates ought to be the strongest sense of secularism while not forsaking all of the elements in religious beliefs.

• 

  George
  February 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am

  Oh yeah? Well I bet a bunch of people are progressives and they don’t even know it. Progressivism is alive and well in America and we’ve all been brainwashed with it for the past 100 yrs. Progressivism will be the downfall of America. This is a republic, not a socialist democracy like Europe. We are the last hope of the world.

• 

  AL
  February 10th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  How many of the FOUNDING FATHERS would you call moderates???Moderate is NOT A POSITION !!!!!!! it is a WAIT AND SEE

• 

  David Simms
  February 16th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

  What principles drive moderates, you ask Mr. Switzer? I’m a
  moderate, and I believe you should make policies that benefit the United States as a whole first before favoring particular individuals.
  I believe in fiscal restraint, even if individuals have to make a personal
  sacrifice to achieve it. But I don’t believe that government is evil and needs to be gutted or reduced to a minimum. Government is not the problem, as Ronald Reagan claimed. It is part, but not all, of the solution.
  I believe that we should use both moral principles and ration analysis when formulating policy. I don’t believe in giving handouts to able-bodied people who don’t want to work. But I do think there should be some
  safety net for a working person who paid taxes but lost his/her jobs in an economic downturn.
  I could ramble on longer Mr. Switzer, but let me just end with the point that not only do we moderates have principles, but we also have passion and conviction. And we believe in our instincts.

  David Simms
  Lake Worth, FL

• 

  condennett
  March 10th, 2010 at 10:45 am

  This refreshing to see moderates defending a position that borrows from both sides.

  The principle of moderates is basically pragmatism: Letting facts drive ideology.

  Finding facts is not an easy thing to do and usually requires digging deeper into the issues and learning to discriminate fact from fiction.

  Right now, I must say, as a moderate, I find much more in common on the issues of the day with liberals (i.e. health care and climate change).

  I also find that conservatives are less likely to offer up sources or facts on the issues, whereas liberals gladly offer them up.

  Asking questions also get me in more trouble with the right than the left where I’m much more likely to be confronted of accusations and labels.

  In any case, I am a moderate and I love what David said about individual sacrifice. Almost all of the difficult problems we face will require solutions from some individuals more than others. If solutions could be delivered equitably, we wouldn’t have problems in the first place.

• 

  Stepphen
  March 10th, 2010 at 4:36 pm

  Principles of a Moderate:

  Common Sense and Reason

  A moderate will take in new information from various sources, think about the information critically, and come to their own conclusions about an issue. Moderates resist “group think” and the sources of information that come from the political extremes of either side. They try to not let their emotions or power politics rule when they are navigating complex issues. Moderates attempt to vote as rationally as they can. Moderate are more concerned about all of society than they are about propping up their side while ensuring the other side loses. They may “step back” and decide to vote a certain way to keep the whole system worknig properly. (IE – voting against a given candidate to maintain a balance of power.) The moderate despises irrationality, which leads me to the next section.

  Belief in Science

  A belief in science is absolutely essential to the identity of a moderate. To discredit the basics of science is to exhibit an utter disregard for reason and rationality. In most western countries this is not an issue like it is in the United States of America.

  Fact-Based Decision-Making

  Moderate are willing to openly and honestly examine facts and draw conclusions that may go against the grain of established party politics. Moderates are wary of tainted sources of information, and strive to find a rational approach to making decisions, voting, etc.

  Non-Idealogical Political Views

  Moderates often describe themselves as “independents”, not affiliating themselves with any specific political party. However, they can favor one party over the other, hence the terms moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. When moderates’ party of choice starts to move too far to the left or the right, they can become uneasy. Candidates who take far left or right ideological positions are not appealing to average moderate voters.

  When the media reports that independents decide elections in places like the United States and Canada, what they are really saying is that moderates decide those elections.

• 

  David Segal
  March 26th, 2010 at 12:58 am

  Moderates believe in balance, and fairness (unlike Fox News, which incorrectly claims to be fair and balanced).
  Many moderates believing in voting for the person, not the party.
  Moderation is a philosophy that maximizes potential benefits while minimizing potential risk.
  Moderates believe in compromise, adapting the best ideas of the left and the right to benefit the nation.
  Moderates do not believe that anybody has a monopoly on truth or morality.
  Moderates are open to new ideas.
  Moderates are open-minded, and capable of admitting that they were wrong.

• 

  Rick Mann
  March 28th, 2010 at 12:53 pm

  I would consider a moderate philosophy as believing there are valueable ideas on both sides of the policitcal aisle when not taken to extremes.

  A moderate believes people should first and foremost provide for themselves and their family, and should be reasonably responisble for their own success or lack of it. But a moderate versus the far right knows that not everyone can do that, for whatever reason, and that as a society turning our back is not an answer. A moderate view would be to help those, but not solve their problems for them.

  A moderate would avoid choosing candidates based on a single flashpoint issue such as guns or abortion. And generally speaking a moderate would avoid these types of morality legislation. Want to own a gun, fine by me. If you don’t want people to have abortions, talk to them about their options.

  There would be some understanding that you can’t legislate everything, and if there is not a clear public demand or mandate, the government should sit out intervening. If the American people are tied on an issue, the government should not be the tie breaker.

  And of course, first and foremost, understanding that party zealots will never represent more than the fringes of our society

  Those are a couple thoughts.

• 

  Andy
  April 13th, 2010 at 1:53 pm

  THIS ARTICLE WAS AWESOME! SLLLAYYYERRR!

• 

  James
  April 13th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

  Andy, that post was useless. Although I too love SLAYERRRR!!!! you should make comments pertaining to the article.

• 

  Briana
  April 13th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

  I love SLAYER too!!!!!!

• 

  Thomas
  April 13th, 2010 at 2:06 pm

  You three are obviously liberal bastards because you listen to that disgusting music. Just saying.

• 

  Keri
  April 27th, 2010 at 8:48 pm

  Thomas, you are ignorant.

• 

  Ruth
  May 22nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm

  Very good article, well-stated, and (most importantly) the truth. As for the comments…is it so hard to be respectful of another person’s opinion? You don’t have to agree, but Thomas, for example? Your “liberal bastard” comment doesn’t help your position any.

• 

  Iris
  May 23rd, 2010 at 9:11 pm

  Article:
  While Democrats and Republicans each sling mud at the other camp, the most shrill and heated arguments originate not from the center of each party, but rather from the most outspoken minority on the fringe. These are the people who we don’t want driving policy. end quote.

  If you want a consistent principle that underlies moderation, it is certainly this: the process of decision-making on issues should be non-ideological and rational.
  Nothing has undermined reason in this country more than ideology.

• 

  Iris
  May 23rd, 2010 at 9:13 pm

  The most important right anyone has, and it is implied in the Constitution certainly, is the right to change his or her mind.

• 

  Paul
  May 25th, 2010 at 11:12 am

  “Moderate is NOT A POSITION !!!!!!! it is a WAIT AND SEE”

  That right there is a good example of what a moderate is not. We of course do fall short of our goals and give in to !!!!!!!! and ALL CAPS at times, but we are only human.

  But it doesn’t do much good to define yourself by what you aren’t. When you look at what we are, we are a jumble of ideas. We average out in the middle, but on any individual issue any individual moderate can be liberal or conservative. For example, I favor fiscal conservatism but don’t believe we need to deny gay couples equal marriage rights to accomplish this. I favor regulating the financial markets, but not punishing them.

  If you picture a wagon full of conservative and liberal ideas, we moderates are the drivers. The horses are our emotions. We don’t let go of the reins and let them run free. We steer them down a path that sometimes veers right and sometimes veers left, but always heads forward. Any path that only turns left or right just leads you in circles.

• 

  Gmoney
  June 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

  Paul, you feel you the moderate are the driver, but to me it seems you are the passangers waiting for things to be done. -with all respects-

• 

  Franklin
  June 19th, 2010 at 6:05 am

  Almost uniformly, these writing submissions are impressively moderate. And by moderate, I mean lacking care for understandability, consistency, authenticity, or dispassionate presentation. It’s a good thing submissions pass through a spell checker; too bad there’s no grammar check.

  Reading these has been a seminal education for me. It is not that political moderates and their views are the most common or the least extreme. Like their writing, their reflexive disregard for principles obscures unacknowledged self-serving prejudice; they’re not really moderating. This aligns well with professional moderates who enrich themselves while selling out their allies, all the while insisting such compromise is a virtue.

  Above all they trot out that chimera of problem-solution. They would baffle us with what bedevils them: the illusion that there are solutions for problems. They have it backwards: there are problems for solutions. Problems exist in the perception of life. But problems are created too. Look at any problem in the public sphere and you will find it was caused by an old solution to an older perceived problem. (E.g. The automobile was the solution to the problem of pollution: horse dung and smell everywhere. Overpriced neighborhoods are destroyed and homeowners ruined by government mortgage subsidies supposedly intended to promote stable home ownership.)

  Moderates’ easy dismissal of principles and values legitimates a culture of meddling busybodies. Their disingenuous helpfulness smothers liberty. Who let the dogs out? Moderates.

• 

  Fox
  July 8th, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  Saying that we easily dismiss principles and values is about as agenda-driven as you can get. Maybe some moderates dismiss YOUR principles and values, but they have done so after thinking things through and finding them detrimental rather than waiting for the almighty liberal or conservative deputies show you the way. Your short-sighted need to classify and categorize every opposing or altered view – as other comments have stated – weak or lackadaisacal, let alone damaging to the way of life and freedom is more of a concern for freedom than our ability to think for ourselves and not let external definitions dictate our actions or morality. People like you disgust me because you think you can take the high road, acting high and mighty about your cherished declaration of wing-tendency because you have highly opinionated but well recognized speakers to back you up.
  Not everyone has an agenda, not everyone wants to spin the system, and most certainly not everyone is out to get your precious values. Some of them we agree with, some we don’t, and we have our reasons. It’s as simple as that.
  Being a true moderate is not about dismissing morality, and certainly not about compromise. It’s about choice. Take your pretentious canned speech elsewhere, and quit trying to act like intellectuals can’t be moderates.

• 

  Michael
  July 11th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

  Paul said, “We average out in the middle, but on any individual issue any individual moderate can be liberal or conservative.”

  I think I agree with the sentiment, but I have to take issue with the notion of moderates having blended, or averaged-out views. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but I want to dispel the notion as false anyway.

  I think it’s simply that most real people have a variety of views, some of which that span the political spectrum. I don’t have weak or averaged-out views on national security or what I believe is the proper use of military resources, for example. These views are fairly conservative, so I tend not to raise them in conventional “liberal” discussions. Similarly, many of my views related to social policy tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum, and I feel strongly enough about these that I’m aware how poorly they would be received in conventional “conservative” circles.

  Here’s the main thesis of the article above, which I wrote about two years ago: Most people don’t fit neatly into pigeon holes defined for us by the true believers on both sides of the conservative-liberal divide. I think I’m pretty normal, and I think that having strong feelings that cover the most of the political spectrum is probably pretty normal too.

• 

  Adam
  August 2nd, 2010 at 5:06 am

  I prefer the title: Independent to moderate. I have quite conservative and liberal values depending on the specific issue being discussed. I believe in; marriage equality (gay, straight, non-gender specific), strong national defense (including border security), and renewable energy.

  I would not say I compromise my values on these issues; however, I might be forced to compromise on which candidate I will support as rarely do these issues fall in line for me in one political figure.

  I agree with several of the previous posts that made the point that these issues are far more complex than either side would have you believe.

  It is also important to point out that, unfortunately, because there are only 2 parties and the system allows each party to choose their candidate that the fringe of each party often steer the course of the election. Until there is a change in the system, or a third party emerges that can withstand the pressure of the political machine things are destined to remain status quo.

• 

  Timothy
  August 4th, 2010 at 7:53 am

  This thread has been interesting, but I see a fundamental flaw in the position that political Moderates are the only group that seeks facts and then looks at them objectively to form a reasonable and common sense conclusion, derived from a perspective which balances heart and head. While this philosophy seems to adhere admirably to an ideal, Platonic type of Centrism, please consider that the reality is not so ideal, but is instead very human. All people seek out facts (tricky little devils that are in fact much harder to pin down than you want to believe), sometimes to understand and sometimes to reinforce that which they already “understand”. Much more rarely, some people are honest enough to “seek contrary evidence”, or facts that contradict their apprehended understanding of things. They hope to whittle away at their preconceptions until only the enduring parts remains. Since this is undeniably true, a fundamental trait of people is that they will only look as far as they need to to find their happy place, and will often vigorously attempt to defend that contentment, even flying in the face of “the facts” People are not honest brokers of truth. Secondly, whatever facts we collect for ourselves are rarely derived from personal study and investigation, we do no have enough time and energy in our short lives to investigate everything we have opinions on responsibly, so we depend on perceived “trustworthy experts” to have done the hard work for us. So we start not with objective facts, but with “factoids” of questionable parentage. Since we lie to ourselves if we say that any of us is completely objective, (free of clouding emotions, prejudices, stubbornness or blindness), we must also admit that we all interpret the facts on hand though a worldview constructed throughout our lives which is almost always riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Only those who habitually “seek contrary evidence” can ameliorate this reality of human nature, albiet not fully. Do not rest so complacently in your own understanding, test it heartlessly and you will be amazed where you end up.

• 

  Ian Davis
  August 19th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

  One of the best examples of a common sense moderate principal is in the field of financial regulation. Small government conservatives believe there should be little or no regulation of the financial markets. Big government liberals believe the government should regulate these markets tightly. The historical evidence has shown that both ideologies are bad. Too much regulation causes stagnation and makes it difficult for companies to earn a profit. This was the case in the 1960′s and 70′s with the S&L industry. Little or no regulation causes extreme risk taking, the kind that can collapse an entire industry. This was also the case in the late 1980′s with the collapse of the S&L industry after Ronald Reagan went way too far with deregulation. We saw the same thing occur in the 1929 crash of the mostly unregulated banking system and just recently with the 2008 stock market crash where the deregulation of 10 years prior allowed banks to package and sell bad mortgages to Wall Street.

  The proper common sense approach to the financial markets is moderate regulation. Not too much to suffocate growth, but enough to prevent market crashes like the ones in 1929 and 2008. For the most part, that is what this country had during the 40′s, 50′s, 60′s & 70′s. The middle class was strong during most of that period and most people had good retirement programs. There was a recession here and there, but nothing major.

• 

  Fred
  August 26th, 2010 at 8:26 am

  What a wonderful oasis this website is! Reasonable dialogue at last! It serves to support my view that if all moderates and independents were counted as one group it would far exceed, in numbers, either the idiological right or left. I would also like to reinforce the notion that most of us, as humans, are terribly inconsistent in our views. We are driven, more than we care to admit, by emotional cues derived from our life experience. The “moderate” philosophy acknowledges and tolerates this. Facts, as stated in other posts, are truly quite rare. Core values, however, are our bedrock. Those at the extremes need to see the world in black and white terms, for a variety of reasons that are mostly emotionally based, they cannot be comfortable with the shades of gray we all live with.

Archives

• July 2008
• June 2008

Blogroll

• Everyday Citizen
• Civics Online
• Center for Civics Education
• Civics and Citizenship Study Materials
• Almanac of Policy Issues
• Havard Political Review
• Weight Loss Project