We want to be the most well-spoken movement around on why America’s “Moderate Middle” matters. A post by smhiott called Thanksgiving Lesson got us thinking about our power to be a catalyst for change. Help the members of our online community – arm us with the words. Let’s work together to come up with the top 10 reasons.
Smhiott has already inspired us for our reason number one. What are the others?
1. Moderates are the only ones with the desire to find common ground.
Tell us your reasons by posting a comment below.
Subscribe
Throughout our history when the going got really tough in the political arena and the two sides representing two totally different solutions knew they had to reach an agreement to move the country forward, there were moderates poised to act. I submit it was the moderate who pulled the two sides to the common meeting point, the middle and a compromise was forged. It seems as smhiott suggested the two opposing sides have forgotten the moderate or as she said, considered them "weaklings or fence riders" I believe most of the American voters are in the middle of the political spectrum and in the last election told our leaders in clear and lucid terms, stop the bickering, blameing, and meet in the middle and find solutions to our immense problems. I have serious reservations if the two major parties can do this without a strong kick in the behind. That kick must come from Unity08 or it will not come for quite some time.
A Sooner Independent
I have heard many pundits mention what MFV says, "in the last election told our leaders in clear and lucid terms, stop the bickering, blameing, and meet in the middle and find solutions to our immense problems." While I agree that many voters intended that, I don't think it was very "clear and lucid," and was interpreted very differently in Washington. It looks to me that all we have done is switch from the Republicans thinking 51% is a mandate to do whatever they want, to the Democrats thinking 51% is a mandate to do whatever they want.
I hope they prove me wrong.
I agree that anyone thinking 51% is a mandate from the voters for Democrats to do whatever they want is silly. But I also agree that that is how its trying to be sun by the spinmeisters.
When you have to choose between two polarized sides, one wins the other loses, but in the end we all lose that way.
Still though I think its all a sham, the repubocrat-democans are all the same party, the party of naked self interest rules all.
I agree with Boomer's comments - but the middle has not had a voice and so becomes known as the "silent majority" or some other thing.
Rather, maybe it's more appropriate to say it's not that we haven't had a voice but that we haven't used it. We've been content sit back and watch the long tails of both parties fight it out. I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere in this forum - just like we need to see the Iraqi people (the middle of the spectrum) stand up and fight for their country, we in the middle in America need to do the same.
One of the things I'd like to see happen is a "moderate" march on America. We see protests and marches all over the world usually by isolated minorities... how many of us are there? Millions? Wouldn't it be amazing to see a million Americans in every city and town take a day off work to stand in the street with one voice and defend American values. What kind of message would that send?
Just for the record, I am a he. Thanks
What though if the two opposing sides are really on the same team. The team of those who rule vs the team of those who don't?
I believe that that is what it has come down to now. What our elected folks say and what they do are often very very different. If we believe that they are all pretty much out to feather their nest, what then?
How best to keep in power than to take opposing positions and divide the voters? We keep thinking that this is about issues when it may be about those who want power taking it for their own ends.
smhiott: I thought you were a he, but the moderator referred to you as a she. Sorry for the mistake. Have a good day.
A Sooner Independent
Don't see much of a list forming yet, so here are a couple possibilities. Some may be more defining who moderates are than why they matter, and several are somewhat redundant, but it's a start.
- Moderates care more about the issues than about their own egos.
- Moderates may have strong personal opinions (left or right) on the issues, but are willing to sacrifice some of their personal wishes to gain viable solutions; it is better for everyone to get some of what they want than for nobody to get anything.
- Moderates recognize that governance is neither science nor religion; most political issues do not have a clear "right" and "wrong" answer.
- Moderates are rational and open-minded, and are willing to change their minds given new evidence. And new evidence will always come.
- Moderates reject the "winner-takes-all" and "majority rules" and "its our turn for power" attitudes of the political parties. There is no reason 49% of the population should be punished.
- Moderates are good enough at spelling to know that "compromise" is not a four-letter word.
- Moderates respect the right of others to disagree; people are entitled to their opinions, and probably have good reasons for holding them.
- Moderates do not believe that people they disagree with are inherently stupid or evil.
- Moderates believe that the only opinions that don't count are ones gained without learning about an issue.
- Moderates do not have a single mind; they understand that their specific opinions on the issues differ, and understand that there is great diversity of opinion even within the established parties.
- Moderates try to find flexible solutions that accomodate and respect diversity of opinion, rather than trying to subdue or eliminate it.
- Moderates do not claim to know all the answers to the world's problems; we claim to know the best way to find the answers.
The list above serves to differentiate moderates from other types of "middle" that frequent Unity08 (populists, radical centrists, libertarians, apathetics), so some of you that are in one of the other groups will likely find this list terrible.
Hack away!
On your first item: "Moderates care more about the issues than about their own egos."
That clashes directly with claims I've read here about people on the left and right being "too ideological." Ideological people are people who act on the basis of ideas -- ideas they have about the issues. Conservatives and liberals most certainly care about the issues, just not in the same way you do. And hello, Ross Perot! Hello, Bill Clinton! These two show that moderates can have big egos too.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
I especially like the notion that "compromise" is not a four-letter word.
This is a good start on a "process" for managing the discussion - a little wordy and perhaps redundant in some places but thank you for guiding the discussion. I particularly like the last statement "we don't know all the answers but we know how to find them". That sums up all the others.
Then again, it doesn't get us anywhere in terms of a "platform". Not that I have anything to offer.... perhaps we could adopt the W.C. Fields position - "everyone has to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink!". Not sure if he said that or not but it sounds right.
From what I read most moderated believe that the Democrats and Republicans represent the two opposite ends of American politics, and that someting between the two must be good.
There is little difference between the RNC and DLC, and in the middle you have the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman.
At one end of American politics id the corporate owned RNC and DLC, and on the other end are "We The People", who have no party or big money lobby representing them.
I agree with most of your list. Excellent job.
A Sooner Independent
YeGODS, but for a website proclaiming its desire to end divisiveness that's a very rude way to begin.
You may not agree with the way in which people on the left and right desire common ground, but of course they do! Conservative Christians, for instance, have a strong belief that Christ's love and sacrifice provide a foundation that bring everyone together. Liberals believe strongly that the Constitution is a document which unites all Americans.
People with your own political views are not the only ones with good intentions, and they are not the only ones to desire common ground.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
but may I kindly suggest that those people who are not Christian have found other paths to God's love? I have the utmost respect for the Christian path, but I also realize that the Christian ideals are also found in other faiths, and that these ideals can be a basis for bringing everyone together. Two I can think of is "do unto others" and "judge not".
How about adding "this final command I give to you - Love one another" - Jesus.
Jim: You are right both the left and the right care strongly about their position and are no less patriotic than a moderate. However if they too are seeking common ground why have we had so much grdilock since 1992. I for one have never questioned their patriotism nor their right to believe and act the way they choose. But maybe a moderate voice in the middle can pull both of them towards the center where most compromises are forged.
A Sooner Independent
IF there is gridlock, I think that it's there because these (and other groups, including the elephant in the room, corporate interests) want to find common ground on the terms they are interested in. Because the basis of common ground is a matter of contention, there's contention!
Just saying you want to find common ground isn't the way to find common ground. You have to identify the basis for that first. I am not convinced that "moderates" or "centrists" don't have their own parochial basis for seeking common ground -- and so I'm not convinced that "going moderate" will lead to a cessation of contention.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
Jim: I guess gridlock is in the eye of the beholder. My definition of gridlock is when both parties refuse to give ground and not compromise. That is why I like this movement they may offer a solution but they will have to get bunches of votes to move both parties toward the center.
A Sooner Independent
bp: I still think the voters sent a clear message, when the two houses of Congress change control of one party to the other irregardless of the size of the majority, I call that a clear message. But you are absolutely right about how the two parties see the results. Time will tell if they will work together and find commong ground or whether it will be the same old gridlock that has held sway in WDC since 1992.
A Sooner Independent
By the by, Sooner, I'm not so sure I see the gridlock that you do. I certainly see a 109th Congress that was lazy and low-functioning (fewer working days than the Truman-era Do Nothing Congress). But quite a bit has been accomplished during the Bush years:
1. The stacking of the Supreme Court
2. Two wars
3. Suspension of Habeas Corpus
4. Tax cuts for the well off
5. Transformation of America's voting system to electronics
6. Erection of a Homeland Security apparatus
7. Tightening of bankruptcy laws
8. Total Information Awareness
9. Wiretapping without a warrant
10. Torture
This is a huge shift, not gridlock. It's been accomplished by a powerful executive and a Congress that either acts as a rubber-stamp or looks the other way.
I don't see gridlock -- I see a huge pendulum swing towards top-down authoritarianism. So because I don't see gridlock the remedy I see may (or may not) differ from yours. I think the way to return to moderation and centrism is to dismantle the authoritarian security apparatus and to begin to demand that presidents and members of Congress respect their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That used to be the plank that everybody could agree on. That used to be the source of unity in this country. That source of unity is gone, and it needs to come back.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
The problem isn't whether those members of government respect their oath or not. The problem is the people don't punish those members who don't respect their oath. Those people just keep reelecting the same incumbents who continue doing the same poor job. If "we the people" would take more of an interest in the job performance of our elected officials and worry less about the "senority" of our particular elected official, we would be doing a better job of policing the officials that would be given the lowest job performance ratings.
The first goal of the Democrats surprising return to a modicum of power has to be the certainty that the slight finger hold that the American People have on power is secured in a more permanent basis.
The first of this is an anti-Gerrymandering law that throws the congress to the Republicans in all but the most outlandish situations (Foley et al)that can take a 55% Democrat split in the vote and turn it to a 75% Republican Majority even before any actual vote chicanery.
Because they have been packed solid with 100% Democratic voters, to keep them from voting in "republican" seats, those few "safe" Democratic seats such as those in Florida are won by 95% no matter if the Congressperson campaigns at all.
Unless Real democracy is restored there are not any other issues that can be effectively addressed. Even votes to restore habeas corpus and ban torture can just be reversed when the normally "safe" Republican seats return to newly De-Foley-ated Republicans.
is because of poor voter turnout. I think that internet voting, voter participation, and a holiday on election day plus mandatory voting are what's needed to make incumbants realize there is no such thing as a free ride. I know my Congressman is in such a safe seat that he rarely makes appearances in my district. If he knew that everyone was going to vote, that they were going to be given information on him, and that there would be viable opposition that held him responsible for his actions in Congress, he'd do things differently.
There was a dust up recently over what holy book Congressmen and women use when they take the oath of office-a ridiculous thing, because they don't use any book--but I'm thinking that they should take their oath upon the Constitution, for it should be considered sacred to the life of this nation. If the horrible things done by the last Congress are not recinded, then I fear that we no longer have our beloved nation.
Finally common sense.
Sorry Jim, you sound like a far left loon... perhaps you and Earn should start your own party.
Someone who stands for nothing, and with a blank stare on your face ass-u-mes that the center is somewhere between what the RNC and DLC are selling us.
Which of these ten items do you find not to be far right?
1. The stacking of the Supreme Court
2. Two wars
3. Suspension of Habeas Corpus
4. Tax cuts for the well off
5. Transformation of America's voting system to electronics
6. Erection of a Homeland Security apparatus
7. Tightening of bankruptcy laws
8. Total Information Awareness
9. Wiretapping without a warrant
10. Torture
You sound very angry. Moderation stands for understanding and listening to both sides ... My guess is you never listen to any side but that which you support. BLESS YOUR HEART
mziethlow,
It matters far less what I sound like, and far more what I say.
If you want people to think that "moderates" offer any sort, please offer a substantive critique and not mere name-calling. I thought that was what Unity08 was striving for... yes?
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
I think a "Late Night Top 10 list"-esque list is devisive. It promotes divisiveness as in "my list is better than yours is" or "your list is no good" or "your list is offesnsive."
Moderates matter simply because we are in the majority.
Without a stance on the important issues backed by constitutional law, you have an uninformed opinion and talking points.
What does a "moderate" stand for...
... Mild torture?
... Most of the Constitution?
... Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians instead of millions?
Uo8 Moderator: It may be time to move to another topic.
A Schooner Independent
This platform will be like none other because of the mechanism for establishing our policy of and for the people. For this movement has no fascist agenda other than that of the American people and the future of our children because we are a ragtag army from all different political views whom have abandoned fascism. So we must use internet polling of the base to establish and refine our policies, uniting the leadership with the interests of the people, special interest and those earning their daily bread from outdated bureaucracy, criminal prosecution, armed security or prisons and those profiting off the sick, elderly and hardship. For this Modern Progressive knows the things we can and cannot resolve quickly with technology - as well as the people we must guarantee livelihood as we make the great transitions. Uniting the world in such things as a great exodus of the orphans to new U.N. secure cities not yet built in regions far away from the genocide now taking place. Uniting the big 3 auto makers in immediate implementation of hybrid technology to replace all car lot inventories within 24 months, setting a positive example for Russia, China and India to follow. Burning down the schoolhouse - college campus, the office buildings and making the leadership video conference from home rather than wasting trillions in outdated ways that also threaten national security. Making such common sense policy as transporting luggage on older cargo planes rather than under our butts during commercial flights. For these things are the keys to uniting the red, the blue and bringing those in the trees down, forming this line of battle in the next year. These things will unite all as we prepare to carry the Unity flag into battle in 2024! For it will be in-depth polling of the people, the special interests and the minorities that will establish a platform like that the American people have never seen since the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
- Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Sorry, Earn, you lost me. How about less grandiosity and pompousness - sounds like you're trying to earn your rhetoric badge.
So let the special interest come forth and speak in the open to the people - rather than behind closed doors to the decision makers with bribes. Require all citizens to vote, making voting records public to resolve voting fraud. Demand a draft during times of war to prevent abuse of the volunteer force. And most of all provide the people with basic social services and higher education with ease and without moderation or complication. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I think you just expressed the worst of the far left and the far right. We need to eliminate special interests by funding campaigns through a fixed allocation to each candidate. Public voting records is a total violation of privacy. Demand draft will ensure a force unwilling to fight. Access to social services and free education are a sure start to a welfare state... whatever happened to self-reliance and hard work.
If this is what you think this thing is all about one of us is totally screwed up.
The word 'compromise' has become equated with 'selling out' in the modern political world. Yet, compromise is the only course to survival for a government of 300,000,000 individuals (with as many opinions).
And compromise can only be accomplished amidst civility. For Unity08 to have a LASTING impact, its 'movement' must instinctively treasure the point-of-view of those with whom it disagrees.
Indeed, Unity08's attraction is to those --- by our very stance in the political Middle --- who disagree with folks on both sides . . . and each other. Only by demanding civil discourse among ourselves will we have any shot at compromise with the Left or the Right.
tfolan: I totally agree! We are entitled to our opinions and we should not be criticized for them. Gerald Ford once said "I do not care if you disagree with me but you don't have to be disagreeable about it.
A Schooner Independent
AMEN TO THIS
Frankly, I'm tired of arguing with people with differing opinions. So now I try to look at those with different outlooks as basically giving me another point of view, so that I can better understand a situation, realizing that whatever the truth is is probably somewhere between our positions anyway. As my grandmother taught me, politeness costs nothing, and leaves a lasting good impression.
I think you both just missed some of the point - it isn't that we don't respect the opinions of others, but rather we need to seek the common ground. It's the difference between dialogue and discussion - one seeks understanding, the other is the dissonance of multiple conversations at the same time.
To create a moderate position you have to have a central set of policy ideas that all honorable people can rally around not by pretending to find a middle ground between reality and outrageous falsehood.
I recently came across a 2024 essay on Carl Schmitt and his influence on Republicans. Of particular interest was this description:
Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end. Politics, for liberals, stops at the water's edge; for conservatives, politics never stops.
Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies; conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition. Liberals believe that policies ought to be judged against an independent ideal such as human welfare or the greatest good for the greatest number; conservatives evaluate policies by whether they advance their conservative causes.
Liberals instinctively want to dampen passions; conservatives are bent on inflaming them. Liberals think there is a third way between liberalism and conservatism; conservatives believe that anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal.
Liberals want to put boundaries on the political by claiming that individuals have certain rights that no government can take away; conservatives argue that in cases of emergency -- conservatives always find cases of emergency -- the reach and capacity of the state cannot be challenged.
When faced with folk who think that the only good liberal is a dead liberal (and anyone not them is a liberal) what sort of fool would think it moderate to accommodate their thinking?
There are conservative Democrats (two being my US Senators from Arkansas) and conservative Republicans. There are liberal Democrats (like Russ Feinstein) and liberal-or at least moderate-Republicans (Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chafee spring to mind). The traditional Dems and Reps have always been able to get along with a certain amount of courtesy and bipartisanship.
What we have seen happening in the last few years is the weeding out of moderates in the GOP-the neocon philosophy is what you have described rather than a traditional conservative Republican philosophy. Barry Goldwater, if he were alive today, would make some very pointed negative comments about the neocons.
I think that moderates are people who don't judge a person simply on their political affiliation-and also that they are level-headed enough to know that they won't always get their way, that compromise is the order of government. I also think that moderates truly love this nation and wish for us to get along and to survive. I believe there are a goodly number of Republicans, even conservative Republicans, who would agree with this and not with the neocon agenda. I have a very good friend who is a lifelong Republican who didn't vote for anyone on the GOP ticket this last November because, in her words, "they weren't Republicans, they were neocons."
I can find ways to agree with far left liberals and with so-called neocons... the problem is the compromises both fail to make in their relationships with others. I like this idea of moderate because it can be based on belief's and still find ways to work through differences. We need to keep in mind the founding "principles" on which America was founded and helped us to survive so long, and be the most successful nation ever. We need to realize that those beliefs are what are being threatened by our political correctness and endorsement of diversity. I endorse the diversity of ideas up until the point it gets in violates the cultural, social, and political mores on which this country was built. We can accept immigrants but we need to enforce our own laws. We can accept the variety of religions that we allow to thrive in our country, up until the point they fail to do the same (removing Chrismas trees?). We can allow a variety of cultures to thrive up to the point where they violate the social mores which otherwise govern our behaviors (the thug culture). We can endorse support for those less priviledged up to the point where it becomes an entitement.
One last point, just like we now are deriding Iraqi's for not standing up and defending their own country, we are likely to lose "America" and what it stands for if we don't do the same.
Excellent point. Moderation and love for this country shoud prevail over stupid anger over politics....
I would agree that compromise is a good thing, when the disagreements are about methods to reach for a common goal. But what is the compromise on Habeas Corpus? Only noncitizens? How would you know?
Should we only have every other of the bill of rights? Keep 2,4,6,8,10 and dump 1,3,5,7 and 9? Or perhaps we keep free speech, but only in free speech zones? What is the appropriate compromise.
Perhaps Iraq would be easier, if we have one side wanting to leave and the other wants a big increase, perhaps a compromise is to leave it as it is? Or if one wants to stay forever and the other wants out now we can compromise and make it half that time.
If one reality exists and the other is a fantasy, perhaps we can build unity on half truths.
One could certainly be vigorously in favor of both the Democrat position on one thing and the Republican position on another, but is that an ally of another person who is the opposite on each?
Far better to have principles, and hold to them no matter who's ox is gored. If the principles are superior, all will flock to them. But if you just pick the white centerline because it is there, you will only be road kill and deserve nothing better.
---------------------------------------------------------
Kauffmans rule #22. Beware the empty compromise. There are also times when the middle ground is worse than either extreme. There's an old, old fable about an ass who starved to death halfway between two bales of hay because it couldn't make up its mind which one to eat first. Sometimes you just have to choose, because a compromise won't work. The only way to tell is to examine the entire system carefully and try to anticipate what the results of different decisions will be.
Again, I see too much "We're right and their wrong" thinking in the positions taken by many. One can pull out all sorts of essays funded by either side to prove any point.
I think we are citizens not liberals or conservatives. For instance my personal beliefs are about half liberal and half conservative. I am a citizen, not a robot. Basically, the polarized two party system allows groups of viewpoints to win or lose then we get these big swings from one to the other, that can't be good.
I agree though its time to get down to reaching consensus of what the majority supports. If the majority supports doing stem cell research and only marriage between heterosexuals, so be it! Why would the majority need to choose between the two?
AMEN to this... We look like fools abroad, and keep shooting ourselves in the foot with our partisan anger. The press has a field day with this, and instead of a country united, we become a country divided... What happened to basic respect for our elected officials whether we voted for them or not. We do not always admire our parents, but they are indeed our parents.....Lets restore some dignity to our love of this country left or right of the issues.....
1. CONSENSUS CONSENSUS CONSENSUS is the 'location'. If we don't agree, it doesn't become law or a political platform. No extremism.
2. SMALL GOVERNMENT, big people, results. We like this. If we need to add to a law later, we can. But start with the ONE or TWO things we all agree on. Then do nothing. Best legislation in the world is LIMITED in nature. So that freedom reigns.
3. PRIVATE SECTOR freedom, results. So people can vote with their feet or their wallet (i.e., to the causes they favor), thus leaving our nicely diverse country, free to be diverse.
4. THINK THINK THINK is the 'location'. True solutions are not soundbytes. We don't give either party time to think out the issue, which is why they polarize. So we need to be better-educated about the issues. That buys them time to be better communicators of those issues.
5. INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL is the 'location'. Not what party one is, but one's character. Not a moral character issue, but a COMPETENCE character issue. So we hold to the standard of competence, not party.
6. EDUCATE EDUCATE EDUCATE is the 'location'. We need to thresh out issues, not pontificate. For example, most people don't realize that every dollar of a corporation's taxes, is paid by the consumer who buys the product. So "tax the rich" always falls on the poor. By contrast, most people don't realize that the poor make poor consumers if they themselves, don't have a way to advance in society. But throwing money at them, doesn't teach them how to use it. We need thoughtful policies, which require we all educate ourselves about common-sense facts like the two above.
7. PATIENCE PATIENCE PATIENCE is the 'location'. Took us 200 years to get to this 'place' in our minds. Won't be instantaneous, to make Unity08 a mainstream idea which is intended to HELP both political parties, not compete with them.