There is no such thing as a "moderate" ideology.

[ClassWarrior]

According to an amazing new "handbook for Progressives," swing voters are made up of "biconceptuals" - people who hold a mix of left and right viewpoints. There are few, if any, true "moderates." That means we should be speaking to the center in the same language we speak to our base.

The book is "Thinking Points," by framing guru George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute. It's available at your favorite independent bookseller for just $10. In particular, read "Chapter 2: Biconceptualism," which you can download free here: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints

NGU.

[cyclezealot]

1. Being moderate means not taking a stand.

the marshmallow center does not exist. It is just a brand of selling out to REpug /corporate corruption. I hate labels. For all that what is liberalism . The only ism, i believe in is 'Reformism.' The kind that gives the American people some control over their lives. And provides them with basic services such as jobs, healthcare, freedom, representative government, civil rights, econimic justice' a vibrant economy, and stuff like universal education.
As Jim Hightower says, the only thing in the center of the road is 'dead armadillos.' Often, I think the reason people call themselves moderates, they are somewhat uninformed ; and it's just easier to join the middle where no reform is carried out, since they dance with the special interests. IT's easier to join in the center of the road than study issues and maybe offer a solution the corportate owners of the country will not like.

[Vorta]

3. I thought this was funny

If she wasn't so vicious, she could be funny more often.

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

[Finder]

4. Moderates are in the majority...ideologues on both sides...

of the spectrum are few. (Although they speak the loudest.)

I think assuming all moderates are apathetic or uninformed is a mistake.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Biconceptuals are in the majority. In other words, we're ALL ideologues.

If one's collective ideologies all go left or right, then one identifies that way.

If one has a mix of left and right ideologies, they tend to balance one another, and one identifies as a "moderate" or centrist.

But the book contends that there is no "ideological spectrum," that nobody really has a truly moderate ideology - i.e., invade that nation moderately, or moderately fund schools, or use the death penalty moderately.

Read the book. It explains it much better than I can.

NGU.

[Finder]

9. I agree with that as well...there is no moderate ideology...

Perhaps moderates should be called Balancers.lol

[NaturalHigh]

17. I haven't read the book...

but I see your point and agree. Most of us have some liberal leanings and some conservative leanings. Moderates is much easier to say, though, than biconceptuals. :)

[sampsonblk]

21. Why haven't they organized?

Why don't they form their own party if they command such numbers?

And what is the moderate position on Abu Ghraib? Signing statements?

Fool's gold, I say. There is no moderate ideology. They're either apathetic, uninformed (by choice) or self-interested.

[seabeyond]

22. prove it. go thru my post and prove i am apathetic, uninformed or

work out of self interest. your post is uninformed and bias. it is not factual. it is shallow, hollow, and empty of fact. it is solely based on emotion

[sampsonblk]

28. I have two answers for you.

1. YOUR post is uninformed and bias. it is not factual. it is shallow, hollow, and empty of fact. it is solely based on emotion - right back at ya.

2. I stand by what I said. There is no such thing as a moderate ideology. If someone says they're moderate, what does that tell us about how they think, or how they will vote? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Its an inaccurate description of something that happens all too often in politics, if ya ask me (which you did).

[seabeyond]

29. that is not what you said. you said the moderate is uninformed, apathetic

or self interested.

now you say something different. i challenged you on claiming the moderate were any of the three. you ran away from you proclamation.

[sampsonblk]

31. Must have touched a nerve

You are a self-described moderate. If you have a policy preference you want to debate, that's fine. But this self-description of yours is a an invisible target. And you are making this personal with your line of questioning.

I stand by what I said, 100%. This is not meant to be offensive to you. In fact, I have serious doubts as to whether you are a "moderate." And I refuse to be silly enough to research all your posts to determine whether I think you personally are a one or not, and then debate you on the merits of your perceived status.

If you have strong, coherent positions on the issues then I don't consider you a moderate, regardless of how you classify yourself.

And this is getting boring.

[Finder]

23. Or busy working and raising families, building businesses, etc...

Ideologues are those who are zealots for a specific set of doctrines and many spend their lives studying and advocating said ideology. Both moderates and ideologues are necessary in a democracy.

Moderates tend to focus more on local issues and can be dems or repubs with the majority being independent or undeclared.(swing voters)

[cyclezealot]

24. they dont have the time to take a stand.

that's what I think . Since they don't know the depth of the issues, they say go to the center. Either you are for corporate control of our health care or not. There is no middle ground. same with domestic spying, etc.

[seabeyond]

6. not taking a stand... not only false, but full of sh*t

that is the easy jab at moderate just like the easy jad a repug does to a liberal or dem. they favor terrorism. offensive? of course. and you know it. there is no fact, or thinking in your spew, just offensive to spew to giggle at. arent i the clever dude.

i am moderate, and i take stands in every position. or.... i am a flaming liberal, if the stand i am taking is liberal.... depends on the issue i take the "stand" on, to the label i get

bullshit comment, offensive comment and for a simple example for the small of mind contradicting what you just posted

this is a stand on the modrate position.

do you see any wavering non stand position. of course not. but you will continue in your offensive coments for a jab. what does that make you? the thinker?

[cyclezealot]

25. I agree. I hate labels, even tho surveys would call

me between a liberal and a socialist. But, what the hell, they have no right to define liberal/socialist. Only I know how I define these isms. Labels only puts us into some kind of a box that limits our ability to analyze different situations.

[leftofthedial]

2. bingo

and on many progressive issues, the huge majority of Americans come down on the progressive side.

when Democrats run to the "center" by watering down progressive ideals across the board, they alienate as many (or more) in the center as they attract, plus they alienate their actual progressive base.

[CTLawGuy]

7. I believe Moderates are non-ideological

they don't vote based on preconceived principles but rather they vote based on what they feel best serves their interests at the particular time they vote.

For example, moderates in 2006 opposed continuing the Iraq War. It doesn't mean they are anti-war, or even anti-preemptive war (because they weren't in 2002), what it means is that in 2006, under these circumstances, the war affects them in a negative way in their view.

Another example, they might vote against the Repbulicans having power. This doesn't mean that there is a solid anti-Republican majority in the country, what it means is that moderates thought putting Republicans in power was not in their best interest at this point.

My point is, to appeal to moderates, it makes no sense to shift to the "center" or the right, becuase they have no preconceived ideology. To appeal to them, you must link progressive principles with what they value at the particular time. Then you get their votes.

Dems won in 2006 becuase they finally had a message. Our message was: the Iraq War must be ended and if you vote Dem, we will end it. This message was a recurring theme across all campaigns in some form, giving the message a national nature. For the first time, Bush's message of "vote for me and I'll keep you safe from terror" didn't persuade.

[seabeyond]

8. what if it isnt selfish, their best interest. what if it is a more looking at the

whole picture of..... what is hte best interest for the nation?

or must we make the word modrate as offensive as the right has made the word liberal?

[CTLawGuy]

11. its neither offensive nor selfish

It is a practical philosophy. What works in my best interest now? We wish all the time that people would vote in their best economic interests. They're just not ideological and they consider both sides.

[seabeyond]

14. since i take car eof me really well, i hardly ever look at my best interest

i just do not.... i do not need govt to do my best interest and i dont place myself above all else.... i see the best interest of the whole IS my best interest. hence my post. now thinking as i do, and watching repug vote for their selfish best interest and the damage it does to us as a whole

do you see how it can be taken as offfensive

[ClassWarrior]

10. That's a good analysis of what the book says.

Swing voters aren't "moderate" across the issues - they hold either left or right positions on each of the issues. But those positions balance one another enough that the individual doesn't identify with any single ideology. Therefore they vote based on whatever they believe is most important at the time.

NGU.

[CTLawGuy]

12. Right

and the DLC needs to understand that moderates are not Republicans who forgot to register, so stop treating them like Republicans.

[Heewack]

13. I would disagree.

The country is overwhelmingly pragmatic/moderate in thought not ideological.

[seabeyond]

15. pragmatic. if one doesnt want use the word moderate, then pragmatic

will work fine. govern on fact... not emotion

[wyldwolf]

16. LOL! Of course a "Handbook for Progressives" would say that.

[dajoki]

18. This is gauranteed to piss everybody off...

I agree, but to me a moderate is just someone who can't make up their mind either way. I have many friends who call themselves moderates(they like stances of both parties)but have trouble in the voting booth. I tell them that I don't understand how you can be "pro life" and pro death penalty at the same time. Or anti-war and for staying the course. It just doesn't make sense to me. Shrub himself would be a moderate then. Before the election he was all for Rummy and he fires him the day after the election and is trying to make nice with Pelosi after calling all Dems every name in the book pre-election. I'm not naive and I know it's politics, but I feel people need to take a stand and stick with it. This is my own opinion and not meant to get anyone's dander up, so please take it with that thought in mind, and realize that I would call myself a complete liberal!!

[Odin2005]

19. IMO there are 3 kinds of "moderates"

Libertarians, Communitarians, and Centrists.

Libertarians are socially liberal and economically right-wing

Communitarians are socially conservative and economically left-wing.

Centrists don't havy any particular political leaning.

[sampsonblk]

20. You stole my quote!

I agree 100%.

[Fridays Child]

26. k/r

(will read through the thread, later :) )

[jpwhite]

27. There is a "moderate ideology"!!!!

Anyone who would say there isn't a moderate ideology has never talked to me before. There are some basic core beliefs behind being a moderate. Here they are:

1) No one group has all of the right answers. That means that the people around you deserve to be listened to, even if you initially disagree with them.

2) You can't solve problems by being a "lone ranger". Working together with others always works out better because people want to feel like they have a say in what is going on.

3) Be open minded. There may be someone out there who has an idea that you have never heard of, and that they could have a better idea than what you have.

I started coming on this website because I was challenged by a conservative friend of mine who said that most democrats don't agree with me. I am pro-military, but I am also pro-gay marriage. I am for targeted tax increases (top 5% of income and raising the FICA limit from 90,000 to 500,000) but I am also for spending cuts.

If you don't think that's being moderate, send me an e-mail at [e-mail].

James
[e-mail]

[wyldwolf]

30. yes, James,and it goes even further than that

I'm a moderate. My ideology is as follows on certain issues:

Abortion: Safe, rare, and legal
Foreign policy: I believe in the Wilsonian doctrine liberal internationalism.
Gun control: A necessity.

THAT is a moderate ideology.

[jpwhite]

32. wyldwolf, you are right and here's why

I couldn't agree more with what you said. In fact, I found this great article called "Why export democracy?" by G. John Ikenberry and here's a great quote from it:

"We led the struggle for democracy because the larger the pool of democracies, the greater our own security and prosperity. Democracies, we know, are less likely to make war on us or on other nations. They tend not to abuse the rights of their people. They make for more reliable trading partners. And each new democracy is a potential ally in the struggle against the challenges of our time-containing ethnic and religious conflict; reducing the nuclear threat; combating terrorism and organized crime; overcoming environmental degradation."

James
[e-mail]

[benEzra]

33. Define "gun control"...

which may be moderate, or extreme, depending on whether your target would be criminal misuse or law-abiding ownership, and how much you'd want to circumscribe the latter.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[wyldwolf]

35. sure

a debate surrounding the freedom or restriction of private ownership and usage of firearms.

Gun control has been a leading issue in the Democratic party since the late 60s.

I certainly don't care to enter into a debate with you on the various levels of gun control. But the term is easily defined.

[benEzra]

39. I knew that much...

my question was, to what degree. "Gun control" is a continuum that extends all the way from practically zero restrictions (i.e., pre-1934) to a UK-style, near-absolute prohibition. Depending on the degree chosen, for example, the statements "the NRA supports gun control", and "the Brady Campaign opposes gun control" can both be made true, which makes the unqualified definition meaningless.

I support background checks for purchase; restrictions on automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber, sound suppressed firearms, disguised firearms, Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition, etc.; am OK with requiring a license in order to carry a firearm; and so on. Democratic support for this level of gun control is what goes back decades.

I do not support banning non-automatic civilian rifles (which are rarely misused) simply because they have modern styling or a handgrip that sticks out, or restricting civilian firearms to pre-1861 capacity limits. Widespread Democratic support for THAT goes back only to the late 1980s/early 1990s, and was initially a major priority of the DLC rather than the party at large.

In the United States, the line between moderation and extremism on the issue is a LONG way from UK/Australia style restrictions, IMHO, which is why I was wondering where you would position yourself on that spectrum.

Personally, I believe there is much more common ground between gun owners and non-gun-owners concerned about criminal gun violence than most people realize, but the focus has to be on criminal gun misuse, not on further restricting the lawful and responsible possession of guns by mentally competent adults with clean records. FWIW, I own a civilian rifle with a handgrip that sticks out, and my wife owns a 15-round 9mm pistol, so you know where I'm coming from.

[wyldwolf]

40. sure

a debate surrounding the freedom or restriction of private ownership and usage of firearms.

Gun control has been a leading issue in the Democratic party since the late 60s.

I certainly don't care to enter into a debate with you on the various levels of gun control. But the term is easily defined.

[benEzra]

41. I see where you're going (well, not going)...

I would just say that IMHO, gun control can be moderate or extremist depending on the degree, and that some of the current gun-control lobby's priorities would be considered extremist in many states.

I think the party leadership has been wise to drop the issue since '04 and leave it to the states. What seems moderate in New Jersey or Massachusetts can be considered outrageous elsewhere.

[benEzra]

34. Well said. (n/t)

[greeneggs708]

36. I Proudly Worked For A Moderate

I had to decide who to work for, one won, one didn't. And one thing I really don't care about is labels. If want to rule, get get over the label crap.

But I'll play along with the nonsense.

I am Liberal, blah,blah,blah

But I worked for a moderate because it was a red state and I knew if we could turn it blue we would take the house.

And we did sweep three republicans out in Indiana.

NO. I am not taking credit. I just knew we needed to win the house, and if meant I work for a moderate, big frikin deal.

And he won for one reason, besides being a damn fine candidate. America was sick of Bush, the economy the war.

So solve those, and we will win more. Worry about labels. And Buh Bye

[calimary]

37. Shit! I came in too late to recommend this!

Hey, CW, maybe you can repackage and repost this?

I think this really is Job One: To REVERSE THE PRE-CONDITIONING.

I was just having a conversation with bobbolink about this. I think we've been so steeped in the damned preconditioning via the wrong-wing echo chamber that promotes the selfish, petty, cheapskate, mean-spirited, closed-minded, short-sighted GOP philosophy as it's now evolved - that the most serious effort needs to be mounted to counter-act the constant "catapulting of the propaganda."

We need to COUNTER-PROPAGANDIZE. And Lakoff can help show us the way.

[Cosmocat]

38. I currently are reading the book ...

And I agree totally ...

This is an important point to build from ... Lakeoff makes a couple points countering the whole "you have to move to the middle (therefor toward the right) to get the "moderate votes" ...

1) There basically is no way a conservative is going to vote for a progressive ... They are wired for needing what conservatives give them ...

2) "moderates" are not some great middle of the roaders who discern issues in a completely rationale way ... They just split in both directions specific to issues ...

3) The key is to BE YOURSELF ... Stand for what you believe in, but learn to "frame" your points in a way that is digestable not only to the left, but also to those in the middle who might favor that issue ...

4) "Moving to the right" not only makes you less genuine, it activates the right leaning viewpoints of the biconceptuals ... You end up doing the work for the conservatives ...