After the recently enacted and signed budget deal I noticed one or two of you said nothing will get accomplished until people vote in moderates. What is a moderate? What are his principles? What does he stand for? Is there a line a moderate will refuse to cross? How will things improve under moderate leadership?
A Question For The Board
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
That was a moderate budget.
I'm guessing that it just depends on what you want to apply the term to.
Yes, exactly why I asked! To what philosophy do people apply the term “moderate?”
Bill Clinton...
- cut defense spending
- did a good job working across the aisle on entitlement spending
- raised taxes on the rich (82 percent of the wealth in this country belongs to the top 1 percent)
= balanced budget last 3 years of his presidency, and first year of Bush.
How would you describe common sense spending?
I’m not looking for an argument. I’m just not clear what the terms like “moderate” and “common sense” mean to people that use them.
Does this count as the actions of a moderate?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-places-countries-did-the-U-S-bomb-while-Bill-Clinton-was-President
On second thought, please ignore that link. I’m not looking for WHO is/was a moderate. I’m looking for WHAT is a moderate. A definition, or at least a thorough description, a listing of a moderate’s political principles. (I would call a “principle” a philosophical belief about which there would be no compromise.)
Even if you find the most principled, middle ground people, it's not going to turn around the slide our country is on. There is too much spending on both sides of the aisle that no one is going to agree to cut. Republicans won't cut military spending and Democrats won't cut entitlements. And the biggest drain, social security ponzi scheme, won't be cut by either side.
Our future generations are screwed.
Our future generations are screwed.
Things that when I read them I think why the hell is my government spending money on something they have no business in. See rand Paul’s twitter the day the bill came out.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond. But your answer is too generic. On what would a moderate compromise? What would a moderate consider a “reasonable compromise?” Can you provide any specifics?
For example, in Oklahoma there is a proposal to fund the teachers raises. Part of that proposal is a tobacco tax and fuel tax increase. I'm generally opposed to that as a taxing strategy. However I'd vote for the proposal since it also has enough other revenue items to balance out those sections. There is more good than bad.
Is that moderate or pragmatic?
I know some ideological legislators will vote against it since it isn't perfect.
Is that moderate or pragmatic?
I know some ideological legislators will vote against it since it isn't perfect.
Thank you! That is an excellent example! Can you identify a philosophical principle that would defend that action? Would it be something like “it does more good than harm; I can accept the harm because I really want the good.”
I don't think this is a 'harm' vs. 'good' thing. More like a difference of philosophies among legislators and recognizing that if they get some of their and I get some of mine - then the whole is something it we can all get around. It is about creating enough overlap in the Venn diagram of legislative content to make it passable.
You make a persuasive argument, at least in the abstract. But have you thought things through to their rational conclusion? For instance, what was your reaction to the recent budget deal reached between the Republicans and Democrats? Would you call that a moderate result? Both sides relinquished their stated principles for the good of the government, just as you suggest they should. Are you happy with that compromise?
You seem to be critical of idealists because they refuse to compromise. The thing about idealists is they have a philosophy on which they base their lives. A philosophy is a blueprint of principles upon which one determines his actions. If you compromise those principles then what good are they? Why have them? Couldn't It be said that a moderate is someone who has no principles?
I think it was Ayn Rand that said anytime there is a compromise between good and evil, only evil wins. I interperate that to mean “good” is pure, unadulterated, uncompromised. Evil comes in varying degrees. If something is mostly good but partially evil, that makes it evil, right?
If an idealist, whether he be from the left or the right, betrays his concept of good, would that be someone you would want controlling your destiny?
This definitely was not the actions of a moderate and much closer to a conservative than anything. He reached across the isle to a Republican led congress. Yes, he raised taxes on the top 1.2% of the population.....and everyone was ok with that, compared to attacks on the top 25%. But he also worked with republicans to reform welfare.
Too bad your current day Dems aren't even CLOSE to that. If you compare everything Clinton did (without the moniker of Democrat), You'd be convinced he was a Republican.
Why ridiculous? What principles does a compromiser (read: moderate) hold dear? That’s the answer I’ve been looking for from the beginning.
Are you saying that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan weren't principled because they saw that compromise between themselves was best for the country? I reject that.
No, I’m asking what makes a moderate? What principle does he follow? What principle tells a man he should compromise with something he believes to be wrong? In what way could he see it as being good for the country? Can you put into words what that principle would say? And because it is a principle - a philosophically irreducible axiom - it should be followed without fail every time. If you compromise on this issue, does it make it right to compromise on that issue? If not, why not? I’m asking for a textbook answer that defines and describes that principle. I don’t know of one. But then, of course, I am a self-described radical idealist. I’m trying to understand what a moderate is.
Last edited:
No, you’re really not.
What you are really doing is passive aggressively attacking anyone who isn’t a radical idealist as unprincipled.
