Why does the far right AND far left hate moderates?

[BradCKY]

You know I hear rush limbaugh and the rest of the right bash moderates and call them liberals or that they don't stand for anything. Then I hear this forum bash us too as if we are "traitors".

I'm TIRED of that I stand for plenty of things, I just don't follow the left-right line on EVERY issue. Yes I am quite a bit more left than right, thus I am on this forum. But to be blamed for the destruction of the democratic party and have your ideas discounted because they are different is offensive to me.

So why does the left bash the center-left, and the right bash the center-right? I'm just curious for opinions here.

[boobooday]

1. I don't bash the center

But right now we are being taken over by the far right, and I don't think that being centrist is going to correct the imbalance.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[wyldwolf]

139. when you say "we" do you meant the country or the dem party?

[MikeG]

2. I'm kind of ambivalent about moderates.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. We must be forceful, since the middle seems to be drifting right

[xultar]

5. No they aren't, they may have but I think they are coming back to the

left. IF they know enough to be on the center which is mostly a conservative on the $$$ but liberal on social.

They are probably disgusted with Chimpy and want him out.

[rdfi-defi]

140. as the political/economic situation in the us stands right now,

to be "conservative on the $$$," means, by definition, that one is not "liberal on social," unless you mean change (liberal) on social issues to the right.

your attempted definition of a moderate contradicts itself.

[xultar]

4. OK you have that DLC thing as an Avatar...what does that mean 2 U?

Why have a DLC and a DNC?

I didn't even know about the DLC until I joined DU. I still don't know much. I guess I don't really care. I think a Democrat is a Democrat.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just wanna hear what the difference is between the DLC & DNC 2 u. :)

[BradCKY]

9. edit

edit

[Maat]

6. You know, more and more, I am beginning to be resolute...

that I will not let other people tell me how to think. I, too, am generally left-of-center, particularly when it comes to social issues. I also greatly resent imposition of Religious Right values on me -- I am a member of a minority religion -- Religious Science. But I don't hate anything having to do with a corporation -- selling their corporation enabled Wes and Joan to found and fund MoveOn. Likewise, selling our corporations has helped me to fund my liberal Democratic causes, such as the Democratic Underground (by the way, even I hope to increase the donation as the budget loosens). Anyway, that's an example. I also would draw the line at taking away the tax exemption of a church just because it believes certain things about homosexuality or a woman's role in society. And I'm a human-rights-supporting feminist! But ... churchs are free to be themselves -- as long as they don't try to put their beliefs into legislation. Then I will fight that imposition. Their tax exemption goes if they pass out Voter Guides though. That's just an example of how I might not tow the liberal line exactly. Sorry. EOR.

[BradCKY]

12. Exactly

I am socially liberal, and moderate of fiscal issues

[MAlibdem]

47. I find it is hard to be both

You can't take care of people without spending money.

You can't make great changes in society to liberate people from the circumstances into which they were born without spending money.

[Maestro]

66. As am I

Socially liberal and moderate on fiscal issues and probably on issues of foreign policy as well, but to speak that way many here are just as hawkish as Cheney when it comes to attacking from the far left.

[doni_georgia]

7. I wish you were hot or cold, but since you are lukewarm

I vomit you out of my mouth. Something like that.

I personally don't have problems with Mods. My husband is a Democrat, but FAR more moderate than I.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Because so much of what is called...

a "centrist" or "moderate" looks remarkable like full-on "right" of 20 years ago.

When I see "Democrats" who don't believe in the core values of the modern day Democratic Party, it turns me off.

[tigereye]

30. hell compared with some of these current right-wingers

Nixon ( at least on some issues) almost looks moderate!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. You know you're in trouble...

when you "pine" for the days of ol' Tricky Dick! As big a nutter as he was, Dick was still pragmatic in many, many ways.

[tigereye]

50. believe me I am not pining for him!

but the people now seem much worse?! There were some issues where his positions seem more aligned with Dem -type views, compared to the present day Reps.

I have gone through phases where I compare right wing goon politicians... where Henry Hyde(horrifying in the old days and still bad now) seemed not as bad as Santorum and Frist, where Orrin seemed a voice of reason compared to hmmm... Delay or the Clinton impeachment tribunal. I don't know. You think that they can't get any worse and they do. The guy they have running against Specter in my state is truly bizarre - probably one of those "bible - quoting women subservient to men" type guys. I just shake my head in wonder.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

130. Those GOP folks today....

are in a class of their own. They are TRULY frightening.

I think they are a product of 20+ years of programming by Rush & Pat and the pushing of God, Mom, apple pie, and the flag as "values". It's like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

And when I see candidates like Bayh and Ford, Jr. presented as the next generation of Democratic leaders I cringe.

Now some may call them "moderates", but to this Bobby Kennedy Democrat they smell like GOP of olden days.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Jesus doesn't like moderates, people that are lukewarm, either!

Revelation 3:15-16

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

[BradCKY]

15. OK

so I either follow one line or the other, NEVERMIND making up my own mind on certain issues right?

[IndianaGreen]

19. I am merely quoting the Book of Revelation

which deals with the End Times (a topic that many people find credible).

[0007]

28. Yawn, I thought they were seeking information to confirm

or complete a survey.

[corporatewhore]

58. gee thats how a lotta of us lefties feel about the moderates

that we are forced to toe the dem party line even if we dont agree with us

[rdfi-defi]

141. you can make up your mind on what ever issues you choose to engage,

but based on those stances your politics will be comparable to a spot on the political spectrum.

if your criteria for being a moderate is just making up ones own mind, then hitler was a moderate because he made up his own mind about the politics around him. perhaps i chose an extreme example to illustrate my point, but i think you get the idea.

[lastknowngood]

11. There is no center anymore didn't you hear the shrub

your either with us or your against us. I'm against that vicious lying hate mongering misogynistic Nazi son of a bitch and your either with me or your against me.

[BradCKY]

13. Yes

And HE said it, so it means little. LOL

[patchdickens]

43. oh you disappointment me!

[LoZoccolo]

14. Stick around and you'll see some patterns.

I'm a pretty dedicated center-left guy, and it's usually not that I have different overall goals. It seems like usually the difference between what I think and, say, a Nader supporter thinks, is what I think it takes to actually accomplish them in the real world, and how complex I think the situation is that we're dealing with. I think the complexity thing is actually the bigger issue - I might see, say, capitalism as needing to be regulated but still generally good and really the only system there is underlying any more socialistic structures we might build, but because I'm holding the one thing in tension with the other I might be seen by some as a sellout. At least give me some credit for not being a complete sellout!

I think another part of it is that the more extreme elements want to be sure of one another's loyalty to a cause, and the sure way to do that is not be moderate.

[cally]

24. You just described my position

I think my goals are progressive but I see a different way to get there. Most see me as a moderate but I don't see myself that way. :shrug:

[sangha]

42. I have a slight different take on the complexity issue

In addition to there being a split between the right and the left, there's also a split between those whose beliefs were formed on the basis of reasoning things out, and those whose beliefs were formed by being handed down by an authority figure of some sort. Though this latter group is often associated with the right, and IMO justifiably, I believe we have a few on the left too. I'd be surprised if there weren't a significant portion of us who "inherited" their liberalism from their parents, or peer group when they were teenagers, etc.

IMO, people whose beliefs lie at the extreme poles, tend to rely more strongly on arguments by authority. Since their beliefs are not supported by an understanding of the facts, evidence of complexity is extremely threatening to them. Not only could it prove them wrong in a particular instance, it also threatens their entire means of securing their beliefs.

People often get mad at people they fear. Politically aware "moderates", by raising evidence of complexity, scare those who rely on authority, and so they hate them and call them names, like "moderate", regardless of the "moderates" actual positions. For the extremists, "moderate" is an epithet.

[LoZoccolo]

52. What's funny about moderates here and throughout the Democrats is...

...that there's so much agreement that Bush* is so far right that the moderates and less moderates here seem to agree on a lot. Like you'd have trouble picking out the moderates here because there's such a bold common enemy that's doing so many things wrong that we're all adopting very agressive and vigorous rhetoric. I mean, look at Howard Dean - probably the second if not the most centrist candidate (and I supported him knowing that), confused by the media as being an ultraliberal simply because of his style and his antiwar stance.

This is from someone who actually went and contemplated between Bush* and Gore in the 2000 election (remember, Bush* was running as a moderate Republican, and I would have thought that he was closer to the center than Gore was - in the end I decided that Gore seemed smarter).

[sangha]

57. IMO, on DU the term "moderate" is often propoganda

I think you're using the classic, and more accurate, definition. But for some DUers, I think "moderate" means something like "anyone who doesn't hate, or would vote for, a Dem that voted for IWR" or "anyone who doesn't "take a stand" on every issue". In those cases, I think it's a derogatory term meant to polarize by anathemizing a position for being to moderate (which really means "weak", "frightened", "corrupt", etc) as demonstrated by the fondness for terms like "pink tu-tu", "spinless", "DLC/PNAC centrist" and "pro-war" (as opposed to those who identify as "anti-war leftists" - as if this place were ripe with "pro-war rightists")

What you describe seems to be the flip-side of the polarizing I mention. Bush*'s extremism is making it seem as if real moderates are becoming more leftish, and some leftists are thinking that if they give them a shove (by discrediting their moderation) the moderate will end up being more left than they would have without the shove. What they don't realize is that the extremists reliance on authority will lead the moderate to reject their beliefs.

It's like with Kerry's IWR vote. Kerry has expressed his opinion on several occassion over several years. He has said that he would support the use of force against Saddam, but only as a last resort. Even though it's clear that Bush* didn't use force as a last resort, some of the far left still insists that "Kerry agrees with Bush*" and "Kerry is pro-war". For the extremists, it's important that every situation be presented as offering only two choices: their position, or an evil choice. A complex and nuanced position like Kerry's is very threatening for the extremists.

[OHdem10]

70. If moderates feel unfairly treated,

could it be because several factors?
1. Everone who does not say I am left or left of center, gets thrown into that batch called Moderates. For what ever reason
our party and the Media call everyone whom they do not perceive as left Moderate. The truth is we have Conservative Democrats, Moderate Democrats and Liberals. Over the past few years what i call Conservative Democrats have a pattern of over-reaching to vote vote with the Republicans.(Here I am referring to Congress and Senate. I thkink thkis has so angered the base of the party primararly Liberals that it has created a degree of distrust.
. I used to consider myself a Moderate., but I have been forced to recognize I identify more with the Liberal Principles of the Party
than the Conservatives. The Media and some in our party call Zell Miller moderate. There are quite a few whose votes are similar to Zel Miller when it is down to the crunch. Moderates need to take a stand--We are not conservative Democrats.

2.This is only my observation. Liberals are like the conscience of the the Democratic Party. I call them our "true believers".
Moderates (no disrect) are not as committed to any one or more issues. They are willing to listen and reach compromise. Without them often nothing would be accomplished..The problem we have discovered in recent times is our Moderates in House and senate
have lkost their core Democratic Principles. You do not have to comporomise on every issue. Sometimes it is better not to compromise than pass terrible legislation. The Medicare Bill is a perfect example. Our party made it possible for this pass. Now they including Republicans are try to scramble to "fix it".

3. In conclusion I really do not believe anyone here hates Moderates. It is an ill-defined term. You may be receiving the anger and frustration that really belongs to the Leaders and our officials. Is this fair ? No it is not. Keep the faith. Remeber
many here feel hurt , betrayed by what they have seen. In time
hopefully it will all be sorted out.

[sangha]

81. Yes and no

I don't think it's 100% accurate to say moderates feel as if they're treated unfairly. I think it's more accurate to say moderates feel that the "far left" treats them unfairly. I think most liberals who are not "far left" treat them fairly.

However, I think your point about how "moderate" Dems who are really conservative and vote with Repukes regularly are part of the reason for the hostility some show towards moderates.

[Deja Q]

16. Simple

Moderates don't go "right" enough for the right. They think moderates cater to the left because they think the left is wrong. (remember, the opposite is true.)

The left know what the right does, so any catering to them only adds to the mess we're in. So that's why some on the left dislike those who stay center.

[tigereye]

31. but there are a lot of gradations of moderate and left as well

[JanMichael]

17. It comes down to: Who's side are you on?

If it takes a person hours to figure out what the sides actually are then they might be a Moderate.

And: The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow line and dead armadillos. And: Fence sitters have chaffed thighs:-)

[BradCKY]

18. No

I know WHERE I stand it just depends on the issue. That is exactly how Limbaugh framed it. You either think one way or the other, no free thought to decide on your own.

[JanMichael]

22. I don't agree with you but that's OK.

I don't see things as fixable as I used to either. This system is a Polarizing machine and frankly I can understand how "Moderates" could feel left out, but I'm not one...

Hmmm

Unless of course "Moderate" is believing that ALL people have a Right to Quality HealthCare at all times...Or that ALL people deserve Safe Housing...Or that ALL people deserve a Living Wage...

Wait a minute...I'm a Moderate!

[Maat]

49. You know...I consider myself left of center..

I believe in a Living Wage, regulation of corporations (since they benefit from our social/economic policies and corporate welfare), and universal healthcare. But I do not hate the market economy or corporations per se. I believe in encouraging the health of the market economy but also encouraging/promoting/enforcing social responsibility. I dedicated 10 years of my life to the community between being a volunteer therapist-intern working with the mentally ill and a social worker (who sometimes dipped into her own pocket to provide food to a family). So I don't have to prove my liberalism -- but I don't believe in blindly following what some sites advocate, such as counterpunch. So in this way I support what was said previously. I welcome moderates to the Democratic party.

[JanMichael]

61. Who are you refering to as "Following Blindly"?

That's an awfully interesting label to apply to, who?

Also I don't believe I ever challenged your "liberalism"...Maybe you weren't responding to me?

[tigereye]

33. not just black and white

but intervening shades of gray... complexity is often gray. I really don't like the "for us or agin us" line, it is often easier to change opinions of those who are closer to your position.

[yardwork]

20. I think we're talking about two separate issues.

The hate-filled rants that Rush and his buddies spew in place of news is one concern. Sure, we on DU disagree with their opinions, but the big problem is that they present themselves as news, and people listen and believe their lies.

The second issue is that of free speech. Anyone has the right to say anything they want. Here on DU we make a distinction between news (that requires a link) and opinion (that anyone can express).

I don't care whether people think my personal opinions are up, down, or far out. It just doesn't matter to me.

What does matter to me is that the news media is taken over by the far right, who have financial conflicts of interest with reporting the truth. That's the problem that we need to fight, not the right of anyone to say what they want.

[Guava Jelly]

21. Could it be that

The far Right mainly consist of Neocons ,Religous extremist,DitoHeads ,gun nuts Those who get their opinions served to them by the conservative media Outlets.

The Far Left Consist Mainly of Greens, Naderites,Activist (I lean closer this way although I have never carried a picket sign)

then you have the Libertarins Who Borrow extremes from both sides.

And you have the moderates on both sides. like Lou Dobbs,John Mccain (most of the time)and even Bill Clinton those americans who may be in a party by just being born in a family that was that Party or Are pro Choice Yet Fiscally Conservative .
Or just hate nasty politics..
This is the block that will Elect the next president.
The independent Moderates

Oh FYI
I used to be the webmaster of "theproudliberal.com" But shut it down because I couldnt do it justice.
I even helped Stranger with the concept Of "Terrible things" for
www.takebackthemedia.com Take back the Medias Rush Boycott so I am a freaken liberal ... And damn Proud!!!!
After all i Am a blue collar Guy.( And i Smoked a Bowl) :)

[Reciprocity]

23. The problem is getting people to vote.

I live in Texas and I am outnumbered 10 to 1 yet I still manage to get my skinny Irish ass off the couch and go and vote. If more of my fellow Democrats would do that no telling what could happen.

[rdfi-defi]

142. i do not agree,

the problem is, our electoral process does not allow candidates from all points of the political spectrum to participate. a candidate must be a tool of the moneyed interests, or be an independently wealthy person (moneyed interest) to get promotion. as a result people identify our political process as corrupt. if we reformed our elections to give more people a voice, they would vote. unfortunately, our current system encourages apathy.

[leanings]

25. I don't really see a lot of difference

between the mindsets of people on the far right and the far left. From what I've seen of Free Republic, it seems to be something of a photo negative of DU.

[charlie]

26. Where did you get the notion

that you're getting selective attention from the right? When the right starts whupping, they face leftward. I've never heard nutcase wingers squalling about "moderate" traitors or the insidious DLC.

It can just as easily be said that everyone from the hard right to the moderate left whacks on the hard left. Read the NDOL and PPI missives, they have little use for those more liberal than them.

[kaitykaity]

27. Because they depend on fire and brimstone on television for

ratings.

Nobody watches the reasonable chat shows. People want the yelling on Crossfire rather than the measured tones of The NewsHour.

Moderates are boring. No offense, but there's no passion. Moderates tend to be the most reasonable of people, who are willing to change their minds if presented with a coherent argument. To many ideologues, that means that you're a flip-flopper and you change your mind on things. Changing one's mind seems to be a cardinal sin.

Back to point, though, one way to get a moderate to change his or her mind is to bash them to death. It's so easy to hate swing voters because they're the ones who decide everything.

[BradCKY]

29. Thank you

You made my point for me. Sorry but that stereotype of "moderates flip positions too much" or "moderates have no passion" is EXACTLY what I meant.

In you definition, I'm not a moderate then but a person with his own opinions. Because I believe there are many people like me who have strong deep rooted opinions on a VARIETY of issues. That doesn't mean we change our minds, it means we feel strongly about a variety of things without following the far-right/left on every position.

[kaitykaity]

38. I'm sorry, I was not clear.

You asked why.

That is not my personal opinion. I try to categorize issues and positions. I try to leave the qualities of the person out of it, especially when arguing with others of my stripe.

You asked why, and I told you. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

[BradCKY]

40. Its ok

Just a bit edgy today :)

[kaitykaity]

41. Yeah, I know the feeling.

Great question, too. ;)

[patchdickens]

46. WOW

I WOULD HAVE REPLIED IN THE EXACT SAME WAY! I'M NOT EDGEY...HOPE I DONT GET A LASHING THE SAME WAY BRADCKY DID!!!!!JUST BECAUSE I AM NOT ON THE EXACT SAME PAGE !! HOPE WE ALL CAN GET ALONG!

[Maestro]

67. Oh but I fight for what I believe in and I have passion

and I call myself a moderate. I fight especially for education concerns and the environment as well as good foreign policy. Moderates can have passion. We just debate a bit more diplomatically.

[kaitykaity]

73. But no true ideologue [far left OR far right]

can ever admit the weaknesses or flaws in the ideology he/she is wedded to. Moderates by definition aren't so wedded, and so are the enemy. The ideologue will attack anyone who can potentially harm the ideology.

I hope that synthesis makes more sense.

[Maestro]

76. It does.

Which makes me think that DU is not the place for me unless some of the other 43,000 less than sanctimonious DUers start posting more coherent, salient arguements.

[kaitykaity]

78. I'm sanctimonius, am I? Well, thanks for that.

NOT!

If you can't stand the heat . . . This is not the place for the faint of heart.

:smirk:

[Maestro]

79. Jesus

I wasn't referring to you. Calm down.

[Maestro]

80. And I can stand the heat.

I fight daily for the special population of children I teach. Please see, http://www.irvingisd.net/~spollard/bilingual_debate.htm

[kaitykaity]

82. And I get irritated when

people make sweeping, negative generalizations about this place and
the people who come here to save our damn sanity. I tend to take
that personally.

I'm glad you do good works. But it's not productive to generalize,
because it gets the discussion off-topic.

No harm, no foul.

[Maestro]

84. It works both ways and I too get extremely irritatated

The sweeping generalizations come just as much from the left as the right it seems. Some here, perhaps a vocal minority, can not stand the idea of democrat being just slight right of the far left. I can't stand the republican party, yet because I am socially liberal and a fiscal moderate as well as moderate in regards to foreign policy, I'm bashed for being wishy washy and not standing up for core democratic values. Whatever!

You want to talk generalizations. Just check out the Latest Breaking News forum. There it seems that all soldiers are murderers. Generals are assassins. The US is Nazi Germany. God, what is wrong with some people. Yes, the situation is bad. The economy is horrible, but the above sweeping generalizations from the far left in my party are wrong! So if you point to me and say don't make generalizations, please tell that to the left as well. We expect that from the far right, but the left needs to cool off as well.

[kaitykaity]

91. Interesting.

One image that has always stuck with me is that getting liberals organized is like herding cats. (There was a commercial a couple of years ago on the superbowl for a now defunct dot.com that showed this.) If you want a monolithic, overpowering idea set, this is not the place for it. We argue, we have circular firing squads. But we're all united in our pursuit of the defeat of GWB.

If you don't think the fascistic tendencies of the Bush Administration are important or compelling, don't read the threads that talk about that. If you are not anti-military (as some are here), the same applies.

It's not hard to adjust your lens to find the folks who are on the page with you. Take what you want, and leave the rest.

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Because

when you have too many moderates replacing far left people in a far-right dominated Congress (or replacing far right in a left-dominated Congress) you are more likely to wind up with policies that favor the more extreme party.

This is one reason I am against a 2 party system and prefer a multi-party (along with other election and government reforms) one instead. Odds are better that you'll get a better variety of people in office.

[leftofthedial]

34. because the right hates everyone

and the left watches "moderates" vote fascists into office over and over and over again (Nixon--twice!, Reagan--twice!, Bush the First). Any group as gullible as American moderates deserves contempt.

[Barbara Ann]

36. The far of anything are the extremists. They hate moderates because

they aren't extreme. Get it? ;-)

[rdfi-defi]

146. no i do not understand your statement,

please explain the concept of "the far of anything are the extremists." please explain the concept of "far" as used in your statement. i would be most appreciative of your wisdom, if you could explain in detail.

[Skittles]

37. well it depends

but when a person tries to call themselves a moderate because they disapprove of gay marriages, I just call them bigots.

[Maat]

51. I fight hard for human rights including same-sex marriage.

I was against going to war in Iraq. All I'm saying is that doesn't mean I would tow, say, the Far Left Talking Points Line. I would not vote for a Republican president or candidate at this point (except in a rare, rare, rare situation perhaps). But I don't hate the word moderate and people here should not assume that because one labels oneself a moderate that one is against universal healthcare. I welcome all who call themselves Democrats to DU and enjoy hearing different opinions -- except perhaps Zell Miller and his ilk. Remember, we are the Thinking Ones, unlike dittoheads, who are told what to think.

[Skittles]

60. sure, I understand

when I hear the word moderate I think, OK, they're not yellow-dog like me but they can still be OK. I could never, EVER vote for a republican because of what their party has come to represent. There have been a few Democrats, however, that I could not vote for either. :o

[jbm]

39. it depends on how you define moderate...

If it means someone who is either left or right but not extreme,then I respect that. I also understand why people might be conservative on fiscal issues,liberal on social issues,and define themselves as moderate.(Although,I've never met anyone who claims to be liberal on fiscal issues and conservative on social issues so I'm thinking if you're liberal on social issues you're a liberal).

Occasionally though,I've encountered people who deny any left or right leanings and I don't see how that's possible,so I tend to shrug my shoulders and walk away cause I don't get it. I guess it seems to me like they're avoiding the commitment.

[Selwynn]

44. There's nothing in the middle of the road by yellow lines and dead....

....armadillos, so says Jim Hightower. :)

[seabeyond]

45. i am with you brother

:)

[Selwynn]

48. Because in US, Right = fascist right; Moderate = far right; Left="Right"

...and there IS no actually left with any real voice in national politics.

That's why.

[camero]

55. I agree with that

In fact anyone who even says they are for anything on the left economically is branded a -gasp- socialist. Like what is happening now is any better.

[charlie]

56. You betcha!

Hell, just watching the confrontational political shows should give anyone a clue. When they introduce the liberal chair -- FROM THE LEFT! ***drumroll*** -- and it's invariably some tepid moderate, ill-suited to do battle with the teeth-baring ideologue on the right, you know the landscape is anything but level.

When the label "liberal" carries a taint of the irrational ideologue, so that politicians with national aspirations must carefully firewall themselves from its contamination -- "I'm kind of a liberal of sorts, but not THAT kind of liberal" -- and conservatives are free from concomitant contortions, then it's a bit obvious that the political bell curve is artificially skewed to the right.

It's a pretty amazing con, the way the right has buffaloed the left into self-policing for elements that might appear immoderate to the right.

[rdfi-defi]

53. to be economically conservative in the us makes one 'on the right'

in terms of a real world political spectrum. i think you need to define what a moderate is for starters, i have my own ideas but you would probably not agree. tom_paine started a good thread a few weeks ago. we kicked around some ideas, he was giving a definition for a "true moderate." if someone can find that thread it might help to move along this conversation.

[BradCKY]

54. Good idea

I was thinking about that earlier, but again my definition is really varies depending on the issue and doesn't really represent true "moderates", (if there is such an agreement among them).

[rdfi-defi]

59. "you can't be neutral on a moving train" h. zinn

[Zorra]

62. Example: Moderates pushing a republican for VP on a Democratic

ticket. When liberal Dems see moderates pushing for conservatives like McCain to be elected, we get a frightening picture of just how far the Party is swinging to the right. Although this seems sensible to many moderates, it is insanity and tantamount to treason to a liberal Dem. Don't moderates understand that if something happened to Kerry, a republican would become President? A republican with all the power to appoint a conservative Federal Judiciary. This is so shortsighted on the part of moderates that we feel an urgent need to protect the Democratic Party from this type of nonsense. We don't want to be republicans. We don't like republican ideology and practice.

What many moderates seem to fail to realize is that when the Democratic Party swings to the right, the center subsequently moves farther to the right.

Republicans 1, Democrats 0.

[Maestro]

64. I'm a moderate

and I want no part of McCain. None whatsoever, especially since he is friends with the pompous, self-righteous Bill Bennet!

[Maestro]

63. You got me.

I have left many boards because they were infested with right wingers that just made me sick. I am starting to feel very unwanted here as well because of the extremist lefties. God, the people on the fringes are just angry, malcontents and nothing will ever satisfy them. They can get along with no one.

Perhaps DU should make a section for Centrist Democrats or just plain moderates. God, if the Democratic Party is heading this far to the left then consider me an Independent. I certainly won't vote for Bush/Cheney but if the party moves this far to the left, consider a Bush/Cheney ticket a winner because too many will be too scared to vote for a party so far to the left. I have been attacked by those that say I am a disruptor, for trying to defend soldiers who supposedly are only targeting women a children. I have been told the Alamo never happened. I have been told that basically I am fucked in the head. Really.

I think it is high time some people get a reality check here.

[BradCKY]

86. I like that idea

I feel exactly like you do about the fringes taking over boards and if you don't agree with them you are a "right winger" or you are in "won't accept the truth" about a situation.

We do need a moderate dem section lol.

[camero]

95. Oh great

A chance to take another whack at DU? :eyes:

[Maestro]

96. Come again?

I don't understand.

[camero]

99. Of course you don't

Look at your post again.

[Maestro]

103. Sorry bud

I didn't take whack at anything. I'm expressing a point of view. Can not that be done here or do I have to tow the extremist far left dogma to be a true DUer?

[camero]

108. Another whack?

Nice going pal with the sweeping generaliztions. Can you read minds? :eyes:

Look again.

[Maestro]

111. Do you understand English?

Whack as in where did I take a swipe at DU? Do you think I called someone a whacko? What is your problem? You have completely lost me. I expressed a point of view and you take it personally. Lighten up.

[camero]

114. Do you?

I think it is high time some people get a reality check here

I think this is a cheap shot mind you.

I certainly won't vote for Bush/Cheney but if the party moves this far to the left, consider a Bush/Cheney ticket a winner because too many will be too scared to vote for a party so far to the left.

A vote for Bush/ Cheney eh?

You will never be satisfied ever as you look for your Utopia

A cheap shot against a poster who is for human rights.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

117. No

I am calling you out for labeling posters extremist.

[Maestro]

122. Then let me fry in hell!

What a sin. I call it like I see it.

[camero]

123. That's up to you pal n/t

[Maestro]

137. No I am expressing opinions

-nt

[Mountainman]

65. Because moderates see the best and worst in both extremes

I think that moderates understand that taking anything to the extreme is a formula for failure. Those on the extreme left or right are blind to their negative points. Moderates can accept some lack of perfection because they understand that that is how the universe is made up. I tend to think that a moderate point of view is the most mature point of view.

[Maestro]

68. I agree

Extremists see the world has black and white. There is no room for discussion. You can't discuss anything because if you don't see this as black and that as white you are wrong, period.

[Selwynn]

74. You make an incorrect assumption or three...

Here's why. You incorrectly assume there is such a thing as an "either extreme" in American politics. That's just not the case. In national American politics, what is called the "Far Right" is an understatement for extreme fascism and totalitarianism. What is called "moderate" is simply "far right" wing politics by another name. What is called "liberal" or "left" in national American politics is simply right wing politics. There is no truly "left wing" politics in Washington that has any seriousness or clout.

The scope of the spectrum of debate in the US is so narrow, that we take a small slice of right wing ideology and then rename that and call it a "full spectrum of debate" between "liberals" and "conservatives." That is simply untrue.

Second, you incorrectly assume that different political positions rest on some kind of related linear political line with certain kinds of perspectives on opposite "poles" which is false. Progressive politics is only extremism to those whose political ideology is unsupportive to progressive politics. Not only this but you equivocate the need to balance idealism and practicality with the avoiding extremism. But "extremism" is basically a political language game - people who disagree label each other "extremist" and its unfair and pretty ignorant, but of course its a great tool to tear down someone else's position.

We shouldn't be "moderate" about our commitment to social justice. We shouldn't be "compromising" when it comes to our commitment to make human rights our number one concern, never sacrificing them on the alter or profit or power. We shouldn't equivocate when it comes to our defense of civil liberties, women's rights, GLBT equality, etc. We shouldn't water down our conviction that the poor matter, and that society can and should strive for a more egalitarian system where the disparity between haves and have nots grows less and less.

"Extremism" does not mean understanding that we don't have all the answers on how to best do that and there may be more than one right way but still believing in principles of equality and justice. Extremism does not mean being committed to fundamental ideals such as the ones above which are quite simply morally right. "Extremism" does not mean knowing that progress must by slow," not standing out with clear conviction. "Extremism" does mean hating all those who disagree with you, whatever your position, and does not mean believing that radical change is necessary.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not "moderate" in his demands for civil liberties, he was a radical. The woman's suffrage movement was not "moderate" In fact, "moderatisms" greatest weakness is that it reinforces the status quo. Change comes from people labeled as "revolutionary" or "extremists." Being progressive does not mean being closed-minded, nor hating your opponent, nor unwilling to compromise, nor unable to see the merit of someone else's argument. Basically "extremist" is more often a cheap shot used by someone who disagrees with you than a label that holds any significant weight. And in history we know that it is the people labeled "extremists" who change the world, usually while directly fighting against people calling themselves "moderates" and fighting for the preservation of the status quo.

As for the "moderate" is the most "mature" point of view, it just seems pretty clear that history is the best possible refutation for that claim. What "moderate" has been throughout history is enabling of despicable injustice and normalcy when change is clearly and desperately needed.

[Maestro]

75. Then this is not the place for me.

You will never be satisfied ever as you look for your Utopia.

[camero]

100. and look at your post here n/t

[Selwynn]

125. We should never be satisfied, but always strive to be better...

And I stand in good company with other "radicals" of history courageous enough to stand up and boldy say, "I have a dream...."

"Some men see things as they are, and ask, Why?
I dream of things that never were and ask, Why not?"
~ RFK

Betterment doesn't come from those rigorously committed to maintaining the status quo. In fact, such people have always been the enemy of progress. If you can't see that, then you're probably right about yourself and "this place."

[rdfi-defi]

127. i do not see any utopianism in that post.

what elements of that post are utopian?

[gpandas]

69. hating the center

this thread made me me change my signature

[Maestro]

71. What was it before?

:)

[gpandas]

72. FREDWARD, just a personal joke nt

[rdfi-defi]

133. it is not about "hating the center,"

it is about changing the status-quo

[Doomsayer13]

77. There's this assumption by the extremes

that things can be done in this country by kicking and screaming as loud as possible, no compromise no nothing. Both extremes have a hard time dealing with the fact that no matter what you do there will always be a conservative/liberal faction of the country you need to deal with in order to get anything done. Moderates who attack the left wing of their party are misguided, but to attack moderates who try to work with both sides is foolhardy.

[charlie]

89. Tell that to the wingers on the right

who upended the country with their tantrums throughout the 90's and all but run the show today. What hard-left factions rammed through off-year redistrictings in Colorado and Texas? Initiated a recall movement in California? Stole the 2000 election? Who are the Democratic equivalents of the noxious DeLay, Santorum, Frist, et al, and who matches their effectiveness? Where are the left analogues of Pat Robertson, Rev Moon, Roger Ailes, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc? Which leftie on the NYTimes editorial board has the naked partisanship of David Brooks?

I'm not as left as many here, but I routinely throw my lot in with them, and for good reason. Compromise with the current strain of Republicans and you'll get bitten, screwed, and forfeit 20 yards towards the right.

[Maestro]

94. Granted

It is very hard to find equivalents for those instransigent narrow-minded biggots, but I still refuse to align myself with an extreme that only sees my country as full of hopeless fascist pigs. It is just not like that. Believe it or not there are some nice republicans and moderate democrats. I would never vote for a republican but there are some democrats that would make me throw away a vote on some liberterian sometimes. :hippie:

[sangha]

104. I wouldn't grant that assumption a free pass

It claims that Repukes have won by being extreme, but the truth is that even the Repukes campaign by moving to the center.

Remember Bush*'s "compassionate" conservatism? His support for "Affirmative Outreach"? His debate promise to sign Kyoto, and make reductions in greenhouse gases MANDATORY, and not just voluntary? His promise to use some of the surplus to pay down the national debt?

Does that sound like Bush* was trying to appeal to the conservative extremists?

[Maestro]

149. I never bought anything he said

so even though he might have tried to court the moderates, it didn't work with me and it obviously didn't work with many moderates as Gore really had the popular vote.

[sangha]

179. Neither did I

and even though Bush* didn't fool enough moderates to actually win the elction, he fooled enough of them to steal it.

[charlie]

166. Which part of my post

mentioned campaign styles? None that I can see.

[sangha]

180. You're right, you didn't mention campaigns

And the left doesn't have the roster of firebrands, both in office and out, that the Repukes have, but I would think that the lack of support groups on the left does at least partially explain the lack of extremist rhetoric coming from liberal politicians. When the right makes one of it's many extreme statements, there are plenty who will back them up on it, including many on the media. That's not there for the left, either.

There's also the issue of party loyalty. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem for the Repukes, while the left does seem to have a problem supporting the most liberal Presidential candidate in many years. When a conservative goes a bit too far, their supporters like it all the better, but if a liberal misses the mark by a hair, it's a capital offense, plus they get pilloried in the media.

Which all goes to prove that a group could move the center to the left or the right by being extreme, but it seems to me that it requires that certain prerequisites be fulfilled, like media support, a loyal and large base of supporters, etc

[Kanary]

90. Democrats have already compromised away the integrity of the Party

And that's exactly the point that many are trying to make.

We've compromised and compromised, til the Dems are now what used to be called conservative republicans.

There's not much more to compromise.

More compromise, and there will be a merger.

Repubdem Party.

Gak.

Kanary

[rasputin1952]

93. While compromise can be a good thing...

it only works when the other party has integrity. The GOP is bereft of integrity, they want what they want NOW, there is no tomorrow for them when it comes to shoving back the progress of the past 100 years.

I am of the opinion that we cannot compromise with the current flock of republicans. It is time to take the paper tiger by the tail and whip it out of DC. One must be reasonable to be reasoned with, and the current neo-con led R's are anything but reasonable. They are animals that want to destroy womens rights, human rights and take the country back to 1885 and the acceptance of Robber Barons and crushing policies that destroy people in 30 years of life.

The neo-cons MUST be taken to task, and shown as the devolving creatures they are.

:grr: I despise the RWnuts that would destroy this nation.

[Maestro]

97. A moderate wouldn't compromise

with a Neo-con.

[Kanary]

102. But to those of us dismissed as "lefities"

That's exactly what we see has happened in the last 20 or so years.

Kanary

[camero]

106. They already do

By labeling themselves fiscal conservatives. They don't seem to have a problem with CEO pay being almost 500 times the average worker.

Which is exactly what the neo-cons want. More wealth for them, none for the little guys. It would help if you stated your position instead of going into broad generalizations about the left.

[Maestro]

109. I'm totally against CEO pay being that high.

It's outrageous, but at the same time I do not want to be overly taxed. I pay too much in taxes as it is. I want more controls on the spending. I'm livid about the wild spending going on currently by the republicans. Yet, I am not holding up democratic values? Oh well, I can't win.

BTW, good luck with Orioles. I hope my Rangers can beat ya'll this year.

[camero]

110. You don't win

By being vague about what you are for. That's what's wrong with the moderates. Now just who is going to be taxed if you are taxed too highly? The poor and middle class? or the wealthy?

And calling anyone who suggest a little economic leveling "extremists" gets you nowhere.

[Maestro]

112. With the current batch of idiots in power the working class like me.

But I still do not want to see taxes run amok with any set group.

[camero]

116. How do you plan on doing this

The free market? :eyes:

[Maestro]

120. Do you have a better idea?

[camero]

121. Do you?

[AntiCoup2K4]

185. Then why have the DLC "moderates" co-opted their agenda?

Well, actually I guess you're right. They aren't compromising with the neocons. They're surrendering control of our party to them. There is now literally a PNAC signator working out of the DLC office, and he's writing policy and speeches for John Kerry!

Wouldn't you say that's beyond compromise?

[wyldwolf]

187. zzzzzzzz

More DLC trashing from AntiCoup2k.

They're surrendering control of our party to them (neocons)

Proof?

[Maestro]

193. I never even knew who the DLC was until I saw the avatar

in the orignal poster's message. I've subesequently been to the website but haven't had time to read through it.

[Selwynn]

126. "extremes" is a term that really needs defined.

[bain_sidhe]

83. I am not moderate in my passion

for balance. Balance between the rights of corporations and the rights of individuals. Balance between the responsibilities of corporations and the responsibilities of individuals. Balance between the rights of the wealthy and the rights of the poor. Balance between the responsibilities of the wealthy and the responsibilities of the poor. Balance between the rights of the powerful and the rights of the powerless. Balance between the responsibilities of the powerful and the responsibilities of the powerless. Balance between the rights of society and the rights of individuals. Balance between the responsibilites of society and the responsibilities of the individual

I am not moderate in my belief that, above all, government's function is to maintain that balance.

I am passionate about all these things... but to hear some here (and elsewhere dedicated to the far left) tell it, I'm a lukewarm bucket of spit that must be either too confused or too timid to make up my mind about what I am "for" and what I am "against." Well, guess what? I know EXACTLY what I'm for and EXACTLY what I'm against, and I fight as hard as any "leftie" for my beliefs.

So there! (And thank you for starting this thread, Brad. I've been feeling this way for a while, and not participating in the discussions as much as I used to because of it.)

[Kanary]

101. Do you believe there is Now a balance between individuals

and corporations?

Kanary

[bain_sidhe]

164. Good lord no!

AT the moment, corps have just about all the power. That's one of the things I'm fighting to change.

[Kanary]

168. Glad to hear that, and glad you answered

because I believe you've struck at the heart of the matter.

Just remember, it's the "moderates" of the DLC who've steered the Dems more toward the corp end.

That means the poor, like me, are falling off the edge.

Kanary

[bain_sidhe]

174. I have a "doings" to attend tonight

So I can't get into a deep discussion on this, but I really, really think we need to think about defining moderate before we talk further. The "DLC" moderates you're talking about don't have a lot in common with me - I use "moderate" to mean that (in this case) I don't think corporations are, in and of themselves, evil. I just think that, due to their ability to "aggregate" power and money so that they're much more powerful than any single individual, they should be regulated to prevent them from doing "evil" things (evil in this instance meaning using their power to exploit or harm others).

Aaahhh... I'd love to go into this further, but I've got to go get dressed or we'll be late!

Later tonight or tomorrow then...

:hi:

[Kanary]

177. you mean... a "doings" is more important than a political discussion?

You, you, ... you.... *traitor*!

~~guffaw~~

Have fun! :toast:

What you're saying about regulating corporations isn't "moderate". After all, even the most leftist Socialist Democratic countries have corporations, and they are regulated.

It's the "moderates" in the Dem party, such as the DLC, who are working to "deregulate".

Among many other evil things.

So, I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, (I'll be as gentle as I can), but if this is your reason for being "moderate", you've qualified yourself as a leftist liberal punk in today's world. ~~chortle~~

Now, aren't you ashamed of yourself?

~~gigglesnort~~

Kanary, who wishes she was off to a "doings" ^_^

[bain_sidhe]

194. ::Hanging head in shame::

Traitor to the discussion board creed... leftist liberal... How will I ever hold my head high again? One thing's for sure, I won't be, tonight! I are tired and my brane are fried.

But it was a very nice "doings" so I have that to comfort me!

Night night!

[ContinentalOp]

85. Maybe people on the left dislike moderates because...

self-proclaimed "moderates" keep calling people with left-leaning IDEAS "extremists." An extremist is someone willing to throw bombs or incite hate crimes. How dare you call a democrat on DU an extremist for simply being economically liberal. And that's really the dividing line as pointed out above: socially liberal but economically conservative vs. liberal all around.

I think it's also just an issue of labelling and how people choose to define themselves. You could probably find a self-proclaimed progressive, leftist, and a moderate who all agreed on every issue but simply choose to identify themselves differently.

[Maestro]

87. Not quite

That is not my definition of extremist, but some would resort to that so don't be so offended.

[BradCKY]

88. I disagree

Extremists are the ones that refuse to even listen to what you have to say and if you have a difference of opinion then try to berate you. Those are the extremists on this board that I am talking about.

[damnyankee]

92. I would love to be able to bash moderates.

But since November 2000, I haven't had that luxury. Besides, the right are the champion moderate bashers nowadays; the left just can't compete.

[TXlib]

98. The far left and far right are populated by ideologues, generally.

They view compromise as unacceptable, so they view the moderate elements of their party as sell-outs.

[Maestro]

105. It's too bad

We have much to offer the party.

[pollock]

107. Reagan and now Bush are far right wing.

Clinton was never as far to the left as they were to the right.
Since Reagan,then, "moderate" becomes a fairly conservative position.

[Maestro]

113. Then I am not moderate

but a conservative democrat or whatever, I'm lost then. Shit, screw it. I'm an moderate lefist independent.

[camero]

119. You have a chance to state your positions

You're not doing it. Only attacking other's viewpoints.

[Maestro]

129. And you are not attacking my viewpoint?

You want to know my positions good ole buddy Camero. It really doesn't matter because you seem just as instransigent and narrow-minded as Cheney/Rove and that group but here goes.

Economy: Free market but there needs to be reform. I am not sure NAFTA was a good thing. My wife lost her job due to outsourcing to Mexico. There needs to be some sort accounting reform for corporations who need to pay what they owe instead of it falling on the working class. CEO's definitely need to earn less. It is just disgusting what they earn and then don't pay in taxes. Hello, Tyco executives...you lucky bastards. I believe in strong unions and companies concerned about health care.

Health care: Here is where I want more government control. Pharmaceutical companies have too much influence in Washington. The cost of medications are enormous. I am currently going through cancer treatment right now and the cost of medication and treatment is incredibly high, too high. Insurance companies also have to be reeled in and tighter controls put on them. How to do this? Not sure, but something needs to be done.

Education: Total No Child Left Behind that is. It is high time that politicians start listening to those that have actually studied to be educators instead of relying on so called watchdog groups that among other things want more religion to be taught in secular schools, want kids taking high stakes exams regardless of what the teacher sees in the child, forcing teachers to use a curriculum that is just plain wrong, etc... I fight this fight everyday. See www.irvingisd.net/~spollard

Foreign Policy: Totally opposed to the arrogant and ignorant foreign policy of today. We need to rejoin the world.

Environment: We need to take better care of this world. I want to see a switch from fossil fuel technology to more Earth friendly technologies. There needs to be mandate for companies to start with the change-over. The mandate could be that within the next thirty years, x and y industries must be using x technology. For example, I would love to see more power plants using wind technology to produce energy. Heck setting up "wind farms" from Texas to Minnesota would probably produce enough energy for the whole of the US. My backyard is so windy, I would love to have a personal windmill. I would also love to see the auto industry move to more alternative fuels for its vehicles, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, electrical cars, etc...Heck even hybrids. More conservation of forests needs to take place. Bush, under the guise of protecting the forests from fire, is permitting too much logging of pristine forests. The air *cough, cough*. God, someone force these steel, electrical and other industries to install more filters to allow for cleaner emissions. I won't even go into how polluted most of our rivers are. It is truly disgusting.

Social issues: I am for marriage, gay or hetero. I really don't care with whom you sleep as long as you don't flaunt your sexuality at me. That is why I do not like homosexuals that flaunt their "gayness" or heteros who flaunt their bodies around like they are God's gift to humans. You hear that Pamela Anderson. I think you are disgusting.

Abortion: While I am not ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I don't understand the problem with saying that abortion is wrong except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother. I mean if you are going to engage in sexual activity that might result in pregnancy, then accept the responsibility. But again, I am sure there are exceptions so I am not ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade

Stem Cell research: All for it.

Separation of Church and State: All for it. There should be no religion in government. None.

What else. I'm too tired to think now. So what am I?

[camero]

131. Nice personal attack pal

Now the whole thing is out there for all to see. Stating your positions is alot better than throwing out labels as you are doing. Now your views are out there for all to see.

Nice way to attack me pal. :eyes:

Edit: On your first point, how do you go about making sure CEO's pay their fair share? That is rather vague.

[Maestro]

135. I don't know

Do you have any ideas? I never said I was onmiscient and had an answer for everything. You just seem to like saying that everything I say his vague. Whatever.

[camero]

147. Sure I do

Just do a search and check my posts. They're all there. I see nothing but hyperbole and rants in your posts here.

[camero]

132. As a matter of fact those are all vague

No solutions at all. Just rants. Maybe that's why you're a moderate.

[pollock]

124. "I feel your pain."

But seriously. This election is not about comprimise. Bush said, "You're either for us or against us." If you are against Bush, then you can't comprimise with his extremist right wing agenda.
Dean showed this first and Kerry is trying to carry this postion on.
This is the crowd who impeached Clinton for a blow job; they are not our friends.

[Maestro]

134. Well hell, I just can't win@camero

I didn't realize you wanted me to write a thesis on my views. All just rants uh? Well okay.

BTW, I would never, ever compromise with a neo-con as I have already stated. They all go to hell with me.

[camero]

136. Where are the solutions?

I see nothing there of value but you complaining about this and that.

No progressive taxation
No UHC
No help for the poor and disabled
Nothing on IWR
No solutions on the environment
I see you like Bi-lingual education. No qualms there. Se Habla Espanol?

Nothing but rants and personal attacks on other posters. Why are you here again? I think you should read the rules.

[Maestro]

138. I've already stated in this thread

that apparently I am in the wrong place. Are you even reading the thread or just looking for my name so you can harrass me? Why don't you read the rules?

[camero]

143. apparently you are

So why are you here? Actually I am pointing out your cheap shots on other posters and myself. Disguised as "opinion" of course.

[Maestro]

144. I came here because I was sick of right wing rhetoric

Apparently, now I am sick of far left wing rhetoric as well.

[camero]

145. Define far left rhetoric

Your name calling does nothing to further debate.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

150. You just mean this is not reasonable to you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1427205&mesg_id=1427205&page=

Now where did I call you anything but point out where you just use hyperbole to attack other posters?

That's nice. :eyes: Bye Bye now.

[Maestro]

152. This is so funny - I'm being censored

I'll state it again. Other people offer no solutions for their positions and political desires but when I do as I did a few posts up, you slam me for offering no solutions. Now why is that?

[camero]

154. Where are they?

All you kept saying was how to fix it I don't know. There's lots of ideas out there. You just have to look for them. Your posts are being eliminated for name calling. Not allowed here.

[Maestro]

155. Name calling?

I called no one names unless extremist is considered name calling. What about freepers? Is that name calling? Thin skin around here. Are you a mod or something or friends with one?

[camero]

156. Read the rules

Or Ask the Admin. I didn't make the rules.

[Maestro]

158. I did

and the admin has not responded. I sent my first email at least 1 hour and half ago.

[camero]

159. ask here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=120

[rdfi-defi]

160. the solution to all problems in society, is to organize democratic

majorities and implement the desired results. it is that simple. therefore, if we can not come together and agree on what will benefit the majority, the tyranny of the minority will continue. most "far" advocates understand this, and prop up their desired goals. in the case of the "far left," the goals usually consist of something along the lines of implementing all human rights for all humans. if the "moderates" (a term not yet defined in this thread) do not agree with the goals, then they divide the potential majority, thus preventing the organization needed to implement changes that will result in a more just society. when this occurs the "moderates" become coservatives and defenders of an tyrannical status-quo. i believe that this comes from the "i am doing alright" mentality, usually in terms of economics.

[Maestro]

161. But why can't moderates

also disrupt the far right. Why do say that we break up the idea of implementing the far left agenda and then we become conservatives. Can't we also not agree with the far right? I certainly do. Why don't you join me in attacking that? Then let's work on coming together on the other more leftist views.

[rdfi-defi]

169. when i say conservative, i am using it in the technical sense, basically

someone who opposes change. that term can be applied to individual issues, but our discussion in this thread is pretty broad.

i do not think that a moderate position (do we have a def. of moderate for this thread yet?) is indeed disruptive to the right. and while you may not openly agree with the right, endorsement of the status-quo is in fact right on the global political spectrum. i would most certainly be willing to join you in attaching the far right, are you will to join me is the question?


-----------------------------------
i made reference above to a thread started a week or two ago by tom_paine, in that thread he was making a case for a "true moderate." that thread could help us define "moderate." i do not have the ability to search, since i have not donated to du.

[Maestro]

173. Of course

I have stated many times that I can't stand the far right.

[wyldwolf]

157. Disagree

I see that the left has moved further left and right further
right - which explains the growing number of swing voters.  

Clinton was very much representative of the dem party base - a
true left of center moderate

Reagan was one of the last of the old fashioned conservatives
- more moderate than the current regime.

Bush I was a right of center moderate...

<------------|||(moderates)---(center)---(moderates)|||---------->
                   Clinton                         Reagan
                 Gore                            Bush I
                  

[rdfi-defi]

162. your graph is accurate/relevant only when used in terms of mainstream

media politics in the us. there is no way clinton was left of center by virtue of his economics alone. there are more political viewpoints than what the mainstream media covers, when those viewpoints are taken into consideration, the political spectrum looks much different than what you display.

[wyldwolf]

167. the US is all I'm concerned with

there is no way clinton was left of center by virtue of his economics alone.

Never stated otherwise

[rdfi-defi]

170. perhaps you misunderstood me, i apologize if i was not clear,

your graph is inaccurate, clinton is not left of center. his economic policies are on the right, how far right can be debated, but unequivocally right. that is just one issue, but it does place clinton on the right.

[wyldwolf]

178. I disagree

..amd even if one believes his economic policies are on the right, one issue does not securely place someone firmly in one place on the political spectrum.

Taken as a whole, Clinton was left of center unless one is redifining what the traditional definitions are.

[rdfi-defi]

181. an economic policy that increases the rights, and authority of

unaccountable corporations, and further concentrates power in the hands of those institutions at the expense of the majority, is a right wing philosophy. that has nothing to do with what you or i "believe."

i agree, "one issue does not securely place someone firmly in one place on the political spectrum," but the afore mentioned economic policy added to clinton's foreign policy (disregard/violations of international law. yugoslavia, sudan) and domestic policy (welfare "reform") places clinton on the right of the political spectrum. one does not need to redefine traditional definitions to place clinton on the right of the political spectrum, in fact to place clinton on the left of a complete political spectrum one must avoid using definitions and stick to traditional misconceptions spread by mainstream media in the us.

we are off topic, clinton is not what i intended to discuss in this thread. however i know many dems have trouble looking at clinton this way so i expect some responses.

[wyldwolf]

183. an economic policy that...

..expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to cut the taxes of 15 million working families with incomes of $27,000 or less.

...an economic policy that created almost 6 million new jobs in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

...an economic policy that created the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction.

15 million working families enjoyed tax relief under President Clinton's expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Thanks to Clinton, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 1998 alone.

Clinton increased funding for the Head Start program by 90 percent in FY 2000 so 880,000 children had a better chance to learn and grow.

Clinton forced the minimum wage up from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.

The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970).

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972).

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

African-American unemployment fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record.

The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000 -- and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record.

For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March 2000, nearly the lowest since 1953 .

In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded.

Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.

...is THAT being right of center?

clinton's foreign policy (disregard/violations of international law. yugoslavia, sudan) and domestic policy (welfare "reform") places clinton on the right of the political spectrum.

Not this again. Where is it defined that intervening in a genocidal situation and going after a known terrorist is rightwing policy?

Yeah, President Clinton signed a bad "welfare reform" bill in 1996, but Clinton vetoed worse bills twice, winning concessions each time including - increased child care funding (by $4 billion), worker retraining, extensions for benefits, exceptions for "hard cases" and more.

And I did notice your use of "misconceptions spread by mainstream media in the us."

Misconceptions based on what? And who?

[rdfi-defi]

184. my answer to your economic evidence is, the anti-democratic nafta.

misconceptions spread by the mainstream media such as, clinton was "intervening in a genocidal situation" for the benefit of the people of the former yugoslavia. you do not help regular people by bombing them and their state's infrastructure, reducing a historicaly strong economy to political and economic subordination. not to mention it went through nato because it was not a humanitarian mission. clinton and clark (among others) were in violation of the un charter. we all get after bush for pissing on the un, but when someone points out that the clinton admin did also..........

like i said this off topic, i knew once the topic turned to clinton it was going to lead us waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. but go ahead, flame away in defense of your heroes

[wyldwolf]

186. but there you are again with your "misconceptions by the ...

...mainstream media."

I suppose you have the REAL story?

...and from where? The unmainstream media?

you do not help regular people by bombing them and their state's infrastructure, reducing a historically strong economy to political and economic subordination. not to mention it went through NATO because it was not a humanitarian mission. Clinton and Clark (among others) were in violation of the UN charter. we all get after bush for pissing on the UN, but when someone points out that the Clinton admin did also..........

As for Yugoslavia, I suggest you read this post from a DU'er who has spent a great amount of time researching it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=586040

As for Clinton's actions in Kosovo, perhaps the people themselves there are misinformed by the "mainstream media?"

Thousands of ethnic Albanians lining the roads near Kosovo’s main airport waved flags and applauded when former US President Bill Clinton today for a brief visit.

Guarded by an armoured personnel carrier and NATO troops, Clinton’s motorcade streamed past cheering crowds through the ethnically divided province to the capital, Pristina, where thousands more had gathered.

Clinton was to address college students and receive an honorary degree.

He is adored by Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority, who credit the United States with leading the coalition that halted the brutal crackdown of Serb forces on ethnic Albanians seeking independence four years ago.

Of course, this story is out of Ireland... mainstream media?

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/09/19/story114093.asp

Now, we both agreed that "one issue does not securely place someone firmly in one place on the political spectrum." Yet, you ignored the overwhelming good Clinton did economically for the middle and lower classes and still you hit with one issue - NAFTA - which was actually drafted and signed under Bush the first.

It isn't a matter of "flaming in defense of my heroes" but of defending them against people who would minimize the good they did because they somehow fail to meet a faction of the left's ideological purity.

[rdfi-defi]

189. my comments have nothing to do with "the left's ideological purity."

personally, i am willing to listen to others and amend my philosophy accordingly.

start a thread about clinton, i will discus with you if you like.

[wyldwolf]

190. I believe they do

It is a constant whine from that direction about Clinton...

He gutted welfare (not true)
Kosovo wasn't a genocidal situation (it was)
Clinton was responsible for NAFTA (he wasn't)

It is usually these three issues that the far left uses to "prove" Clinton isn't a liberal - or isn't liberal enough.

When you beg to differ, you're just labled a victim of the "mainstream media" (most overused phrase ever!)

Nah, I've discussed Clinton enough with those on the far left. He was elected twice and his overall record speaks for itself.

Of course, no one from the far left has ever reached that level of government.

[rdfi-defi]

191. wyldwolf, we just disagree on a few issues

and i apologize for the flame away comment, it was rude. thanks for the economic stats on clinton. i will go through them and maybe we can talk clinton in another thread.

[Kanary]

128. Please read #92 and #93 about "compromise"

Your putting down the left because we aren't willing to "compromise" is the same thing as yelling that liberals are "angry"

It's just a way to paint us as less than you.

Kanary

[Kanary]

182. What more would you like us "ideologues" to compromise?

Is compromising our constitution, our Bill of Rights, the New Deal and a whole lot of other things not enough?

What more?

Kanary

[JohnKleeb]

118. Some moderates not saying all Brad alienate the far left

by proposing such policies as welfare "reform", "free trade" gets alot of us upset too, the more hawkishness than the old democratic party is a bit upsettign too. There's other reasons too. I am a loyal dem but I want the party to be left not center but I also believe in a broad based party with leftist students, etc.

[wyldwolf]

151. simple...

moderates are a threat to both of them. The rigid fringes of the left and right are so sure that their way is the correct way that they don't want to debate the issues rationally for fear exposure.

Moderates are known for taking ideas from both ends of the spectrum and introducing and enacting them to the mainstream majority in such a way that they are more palatable. This infuriates the fringes on both sides who seldom like to compromise and feel their ideals are being bastardized.

[Maestro]

153. Very well stated

[ulysses]

163. I don't hate moderates.

Then again, I'm not really "far" left (I'm what used to be considered a liberal), but I'm considered so by many self-styled moderates.

Frustrated and annoyed at times? Sure. Hate the DLC? Oh yes, and yes, I very strongly blame them for many of the problems in the party. I have beliefs about policy that moderates, evidently, don't share, so we get to fight. So it goes.

All things in moderation, including moderation. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

165. I have no problem with moderate/conservative dems

DINO is a term I use VERY sparingly and is usually exclusively saved for Zell Miller. Although I disagree with Lieberman, Breaux, Baucus, etc. on many issues, I still respect them and accept that as democrats. I refuse to call moderates/centrists DINOs or Republicans because they are just not. Neocon Republicans want to use our government to cause harm to our country. Moderate/centrist dems don't. They just have a different philosophy on how government should be run.

[LeahMira]

171. Moderate takes too much time to do what we know we should.

I'm TIRED of that I stand for plenty of things, I just don't follow the left-right line on EVERY issue.

Very few people are totally left or totally right. These days, though, there really is not a far left constituency in this country. When you compare the American left with the European or Canadian left, our left looks "moderate" or a bit to the right.

Usually, the "moderate" position is to take baby steps, not to do something all at once, to be patient and understand that change takes time. The far right doesn't seem to be patient. Once they get into power, they pull the country to the right as fast and as much as they can. Look at all that Bush has done in three years!

I think that if you were a person who is a minority, you would understand that being patient is not a good plan. Most minorities in the US have been patient for decades and centuries. How much longer shall they be patient? I think that if it were your right to marry, your right to vote, or your right to live where you wish, you would not be patient... especially when others already have these rights and many more.

I don't think it is a good plan to stay in Iraq, wait for June 30 to roll around, and then wait for elections the following January. The Iraqi people have the absolute right to sovereignty in their own nation. They may certainly need UN help to rebuild, but the US was wrong to invade and IMO it's stupid and wrongheaded to "be patient" and imagine that "change takes time." We need to do the right thing immediately and get out. They have waited for decades for their freedom and they need it now.

Domestically, people need health care. We as a nation can dicker around trying to decide on the right plan, but the people who are sick right now don't want to wait for the right plan. They need help now. Canada has a good system, and there's no reason we couldn't put that system into place now. We can always tweak it later on, but those who can't get care need it now.

Sometimes, I think moderates just want to go slowly because they are hoping people will get so discouraged that they'll give up and go on with the busyness of their lives. Again, the far right has no problem doing what they want now. So what's wrong with the far left?

[Q]

172. The RWing is kicking our asses...

...and we're debating the 'far-left' vs 'moderates'?

- Liberal Democrats haven't changed a bit...which pisses off the NeoDems and their agenda to abandon the Working Class and go down on their knees for the Ruling Class. Liberals still believe in The People, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The problem is...the NeoDems and RWingers can't have what they want (corporate state) and keep Democracy intact.

- As stated above in several posts...compromise works ONLY when both sides are willing to give and take. RWingers have no such intentions.

[enki23]

175. why do moderates bash what they call "extremists?"

or "far left?"

am i "far left" because i'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, *and* opposed to issuing permits to carry concealed weapons? would changing my opinion on one of those example issues, and holding that new opinion just as fervently, make me somehow more "moderate?" obviously it wouldn't. in politics, moderate is almost always a misleading word.

if you tally the issues on which i agree with "the left" then i'm an EXTREME leftist. oddly, however, i'm relatively moderate when it comes to discussing *how* to achieve those goals. many a supposed centrist, on the other hand, is completely inflexible, and only merits the name "moderate" by virtue of being completely inflexible on issues from "both sides."

which isn't to say i refuse to work with anyone who doesn't agree with me completely. the degree to which we could support the same candidates would depend on the relative importance we ascribe to the issues on which we differ.

i'm not opposed to the DLC because they're "moderate." i'm opposed to them because their actions have sought--and sought puposefully--to advance the interests of wealthy elites over those of the majority. the way they've done this is absolutely *not* "moderate" in any way that is meaningful to me.

[salonghorn70]

176. Pleased To Meet You

Hey, BradCKY, I too am a DLC Democrat. We can keep each other company on these Forums.:toast:

I am socially liberal and moderate on fiscal policy and the role of "big government." I don't think that the solutions to all problems come from Washington. I believe in a strong national defense. Hmmm.....Sounds just like our only successful Democratic President since the '60s: President Clinton.

I firmly believe that a majority of Democrats across the country believe that President Clinton set a new path for our party and support that way. I believe that Kerry's nomination is a continuation of the changes that President Clinton brought.

Most party activists in the two parties don't understand that the majority of Americans are in the middle (moderate). This is where elections are won and lost. Many moons ago, I took a Government course at UT-Austin. I still remember that Prof talking about building coalitions as the key to winning elections and that winning candidates build from the middle outward.

[wyldwolf]

188. there are many of us here

...

[BradCKY]

199. I agree totally

Welcome to the forum!!

[JVS]

192. I guess it is because we hate America

:eyes:

[Barbara Ann]

195. The answer is in you title

The extremes bash the center, because they are the extreme. The center, or moderate, is not enough for the extreme point of view on either side..

[Cat Atomic]

196. moderate = apathetic, that's why.

I've yet to meet a real "moderate". I've met lots of people who don't care enough to educate themselves, though. They like to say, "I just don't know", and "it'll always be like that", but it's just an excuse for further apathy.

I understand that people disagree, and I'm certainly wrong sometimes. I have more respect for a passionate libertarian than I do for a "moderate". At least the libertarian is interested (even if I disagree). It's the apathy that I can't stand.

[TreasonousBastard]

197. Hoo-boy, that could take a while...

and take a lot more than a post to answer. I've seen a lot of good comments here, but not many directly answering the question.

The simplest answer is that we are pretty much stuck in a system where smaller voices can rarely be heard or have much influence, meaning they tend to be frustrated. The extreme right wing has more of a hold on the Republicans than any extremist wing has ever had on a party before, and that is an anomaly that probably will correct itself in the not too distant future when more people wake up. Even with the hold they have, though, they cry that they don't have enough.

Other than that, there are many people passionate about certain issues, and they are often issues that offer little room for compromise. Abortion is such an issue-- both sides are absolute, and compromise in the middle is seen as selling out and weakness. To the right-to-life side, there can be no compromise, as one abortion is too many. The anti-DP people are pretty much the same-- one execution is too many.

There are so many other things where reasonable compromise is possible, but there is always the fear that "our" side will get screwed. So we jump on the "moderates" as not being convincingly true to "our" side, as if they owe us that.

The two-party system lends itself to this. The truth is that a radical has little chance of being elected in a two-party system, so everyone heads for the middle. Once in a while a radical manages to get in, but almost never by campaigning as a radical.

A radical can get in when a crisis is happening, and the old ways are seen as not working. FDR got in to give us new ideas for solving the Depression, but it is highly unlikely he would have had a chance if we weren't in such trouble. I am convinced that many wingnut Republicans are being elected because a large number of fundies see us as being in a moral crisis.

But, normally, radicals on all sides end up being frustrated with little voice or access to the corridors of power.

There are problems defining just what the left or right really is. The left runs the gamut from PETA and the Mumiacs to moderate progressives who are interested in working for social justice. I'm basically a Socialist, but I've worked in international trade for most of my life and don't have any particular animosity toward NAFTA and the rest. So where does that put me? The jobs and current account problems are serious, but waging war against treaties regulating trade without proposing alternatives is silly.

I have serious environmental and criminal justice concerns, but I can't sit in the same room with some of these people without my head exploding. Fundamental concerns are lost in all the rhetoric.

I could go on, but the sun is rising and I have things to do. In a nutshell-- when people feel frustrated they often go ballistic. And the two-party system feeds those frustrations.

[BradCKY]

201. I agree with you

Much of this division on the forum is likely coming with the frustration with Bush and things swinging way to the right, there is a tendancy for people to want to overcompensate by swinging it back even further to the left.

[Q]

202. The Left isn't 'swinging' anything...

- The few remaining liberals/progressives in the Dem party have been marginalized to the point of nonexistance.

- The 'left' in the Democratic party is completely out of power...which explains why the 'new democrats' have had their way with the party since Clinton.

[markomalley]

198. Who cares???

I don't care what the right does. Let the "very" fascist pigs eat up the "sort of" fascist pigs. The more divided they are the better off the rest of the world is. We should encourage their divisiveness whenever possible.

Our job is to stick together and force the progressive agenda. Not a moderate "DLC" agenda, but a true progressive agenda at all levels from the precinct to the WH.

[NashVegas]

200. Because Moderates Are the Ones Selling Us Out to the Technocracy

Oh yes, you (that's the universal 'you') have the right positions on all the social issues, and are highly capable of using them to pump the Wurlitzer, but when the push comes to shove, you'll sell our basic Democracy and freedoms straight down the river.