Are moderates at a political disadvantage?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:49 pm

I was reading how Hillary Clinton was booed by fellow liberal democrats because she is not in favor of a timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. Some in her party feel that she is trying to stay moderate for the general election, and thereby just assuming the Democrat nomination is a given.

This has me thinking about the state of being a political moderate. Why don't we have a moderate party and then have relatively extreme Democrat and Republicans have their own party? Does this example of Hillary Clinton suggest that more extreme views dictate the party platform even though there are more moderate voters than relatively extremist views? Is there something evolutionary behind this phenomena? Does it apply on a wider scale toward religious views, or anywhere the terms liberal, conservative, and moderate labels apply?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 pm

It does seem to me that there are definite political disadvantages to being moderate.

Party politics requires a great deal of energy and enthusiasm, and it seems that the more passionate or extreme views are often more effective in creating this energy and enthusiasm. Thus, politicians are motivated, at least within the party, to gravitate to the extremes and are often tempted to play into the current 'hot button issues.'

I think that this dynamic produces public policy driven by emotion more than reason. There are a whole host of issues for which I think this is true, including the current immigration flap, abortion, homosexuality, stem-cell research, the war on terrorism, and even more mundane things like tax policy (e.g. recent national and state-level debates on the inheritance tax).

If moderates were not at a disadvantage, I don't think you would see things like Howard Dean being the head of the DNC, or James Dobson and formerly Pat Robertson being leading lights of the Republican Party.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:08 pm

There are no parties that cater to moderates today, either political moderates (who favor a middleground) or philsophical moderates (who are not utter fanatics for the cause). Modern politics emphasizes a race to the extremes because it's the only way they can show how different they are from one another. They cannot be substantive, they need to differentiate themselves by rhetoric.

It's sad because there are so many moderates, like myself, who are utterly unrepresented today.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:32 pm

I don't know about that. The Republicans (or at least wide swathes of them) are certainly extremist now, but from what I can see, the Democrats are moderate and try to go about it the wrong way. Committed moderates devote themselves to figuring out what works and then backing that, instead of following a set platform with the goals already laid out. What the Democrats do is try to be a moderate party not by figuring out what works but by trying to appeal to everybody. Of course, that doesn't particularly work.

While Republican economic policy has been growing increasingly neoliberal and their social policy increasingly reactionary, the Democrats have been waffling on whether they support a neoliberal or a regulated economy, whether they're anti-war or pro-war (but anti-Bush), et cetera. I think if the Democrats really want to set themselves up as a truly moderate party, they've got to articulate a vision of what they'd like America to look like in fifty or a hundred years.

... But the Democrats, extreme? Is that a joke?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:00 pm

How many democracies are there in the world that pretend to be representative democracies but only have two parties? That is only one party better than the one party states. Before you jump on me, I do realize that party discipline is somewhat weaker in the USA than in many democracies, allowing for a certain range of position within each party. But the truth is, for most voters in the USA, there is a grand choice of two (2) options. The Republicans who represent a range of viewpoints from right to far right and Democrats who represent a range of viewpoints from center to center-right.

How is it that anyone expects such a system to be properly representative of the views of the voters?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:00 pm

The Republicans who represent a range of viewpoints from right to far right and Democrats who represent a range of viewpoints from center to center-right.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

BTW, I think some of us are confusing moderatism with centrism. Centrism is a presumed middle point on a political spectrum. But being a moderate means to have reasonable limits on one's political actions. Radicals or extremeists are the ones who use violence or crime in support of their views. (I realize that there is a lot of leeway in how these terms are used, and I'm not trying to make any hard-and-fast rules.)

The point is that anyone committed to peaceful political activism, regardless of where their views are on the spectrum are moderates. I can well envisage moderate far-right persons who for example think that the civil rights of ethnic and religious minorities should be curtailed, but are committed to the democratic process to achieve that. That person is a moderate, while Timothy McVeigh was an extremist.

Also, I think most islamic extremists are political centrists as we would view them if they weren't terrorists. They do not actively support the rights of minorities or labor unions, but they also do not support mega-corporations.

I only want to observe that I find it shocking that opposition to war could be viewed as an "extreme" position.

DanZ

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:13 am

McCulloch wrote:How many democracies are there in the world that pretend to be representative democracies but only have two parties? That is only one party better than the one party states. Before you jump on me, I do realize that party discipline is somewhat weaker in the USA than in many democracies, allowing for a certain range of position within each party. But the truth is, for most voters in the USA, there is a grand choice of two (2) options. The Republicans who represent a range of viewpoints from right to far right and Democrats who represent a range of viewpoints from center to center-right.

How is it that anyone expects such a system to be properly representative of the views of the voters?

I find that I'm not. In fact, I envy you, since at least you get the option to vote Clear Grits and not have your vote wasted. I must say I agree with the Grits a lot more than I do with the Democrats, let alone the Republicans.

As far as the way I've been using 'moderate', mea culpa. I think, however, that the Democrats are both moderate (non-violent and committed to the democratic process) and centrist, though not centrist in the proper ways, as I explained earlier.

juliod wrote:I only want to observe that I find it shocking that opposition to war could be viewed as an "extreme" position.

Amen. It should be the mainstream position, but I'm afraid we've a long way to go in our current political climate.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:35 am

McCulloch wrote:The Republicans who represent a range of viewpoints from right to far right and Democrats who represent a range of viewpoints from center to center-right.

juliod wrote:BTW, I think some of us are confusing moderatism with centrism. Centrism is a presumed middle point on a political spectrum. But being a moderate means to have reasonable limits on one's political actions. Radicals or extremeists are the ones who use violence or crime in support of their views. (I realize that there is a lot of leeway in how these terms are used, and I'm not trying to make any hard-and-fast rules.)

Thank you for clarifying that.
So there is such a thing as an extreme center, or a moderate far-right.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:30 am

I would be oh most happy if we had more viable options at election time in the U.S. I think the two-party system has the effect of 'ratcheting down' political discourse as well as the quality of government. You only have to be a little bit better than the other party or candidate to win, and it is often easier to achieve this by degrading the other guy versus improving yourself. That is exactly how we've ended up with two terms of George W.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:00 pm

McCulloch wrote:How is it that anyone expects such a system to be properly representative of the views of the voters?

But the system wasn't imposed on the voters, it was chosen by the voters. We can have as many parties as we want, the American voter has chosen a two-party system by supporting, with few exceptions, candidates from those two parties.