Please Answer This Question

[LiberalEconomist]

I know what liberals stand for. I know what conservatives stand for. What do centrists/moderates (especially those that call themselves Democrats) stand for?

[Ignoramus]

1. Equivocation

It means someone who defines them selves in terms of stereotypes, instead of in terms of ideals.

If it were an expression of an ideal, it would be like saying "I believe in half of what I believe in, and half of what I disagree with."

[Dark]

2. Compromise. They try to find a happy medium between the two

philosophies. Liberals say more tax and more services. Conservatives say less tax and less services.

Moderates try to combine the two.

Also, some moderates are lazy and apathetic. So they just vote on who manages to call who a chickenshit better.

[Maple]

3. In Canada, we call it the Government

or the other name, the NRP...the 'natural ruling party'. :7

[lildreamer316]

4. Ha ha!! n/t

[LiberalEconomist]

5. Thanks for the input

Now, explain to me how is the DLC either moderate or centrist. How can corporatocracy be equivalent, in anyway, to moderation/centrism in terms of the democratic party?

[longship]

6. Appeasement.

n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

7. As a moderate...

I would have to say that is not just about compromise. It is also about listening to everyone's opinion and trying to come up a solution that works for everyone when possible. Its about not being an elitist and believing I am always right, not looking down on those that disagree, being tolerant, open minded and civil. Its about not believing "Your either with us or against us."

I personally am not a Liberal or Conservative. I do however at times agree with what are considered traditional views of both groups. I am Pro-Choice and Pro-Death penality. I am for national healtcare and partial privitization of Social Security. I oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and increased gun laws. The list could go on.

A Moderate Democrat believes in a big tent party. A MD does not believe in attacking or eating or own if with disagree on one issue.

[Maple]

8. Nice summation

I think that's why it works so well in Canada...neither left nor right, but able to strike a balance between the two that most people can agree or live with.

[Ignoramus]

9. You are probably describing liberalism

Being open to other people's ideas and not believing in "you are either with us or against is", is liberalism. It is based on respect and idealism.

Where people who call themselves liberal are being unwilling to listen to people's opinions, they are not being liberal.

However, it is neither idealistic nor respectful to simply accommodate characterizations of people's concerns.

If you base your ideas and how you interact with people on where you stand with respect to what you perceive to be the majority of people's positions on issues, you are operating on stereotypes, not on respect.

It is opportunism based on compulsive equivocation.

Liberalism is not robotic compromise.

If 2 extreme opposites of popular opinion appear to be "cannibalize the elderly" on the left and "mutilate and then cannibalize the elderly" on the right. It would "work for everyone" (meaning, appease the rhetoric of two falsely championed extremes) if you cannibalized the elderly, while only slightly abusing them. That is not liberal, nor is it respectful.

There is a false analogy of LEFT vs. RIGHT. Which implies that the domain of politics is like a pendulum and that therefore sanity lies in the middle.

This doesn't describe the basic dilemma, which is liberalism vs. totalitarianism. A better analogy is like ecosystem vs cancer, or equilibrium vs. collapse. A moderate in these analogies is one who doesn't grasp the situation. If you are half for equilibrium and half for collapse, then you are for collapse.