posted
Moderate - How it is used: Anyone who don't support one party to the exclusion of the other.
- What it actually is supposed to mean: A person whose positions tend towards the center of the political scale.
- Personal example: I don't like either party. I reject many of the attacks on President Bush as I reject the line of BS that I think he and his administration are trying to sell me. My beliefs about the right way to go include some of the things from the traditional Republican platform, some of the things from the traditional Democratic platform, and a whole mess of things that neither party wants to touch with a 10-foot pole (or poll as the case may be). In current parlayance, I would be a moderate, but I am most assuredly not.
Progressive - How it is used: Someone who is far to the extreme on the liberal side of the liberal/conservative scale.
- What it actually is supposed to mean: A person who relies much more on the bottom-up, data driven rather than the top-down, theory driven way of resolving issues. Regarding any specific issue, a progressive is willing to say that they really don't know what the best or right thing to do is (or is willing to show what they think should be done and the data they used to come to this conclusion), and is always looking for new and better ways to do things. In contrast, the conservative (in this context, this includes the traditional definition of both liberals and conservatives) applies theories to situations and is primarily concerned with making the world adhere to these previously created theories. In general, the conservative thinks that the right way to do things has already been established and problems come either from unfavorable outside conditions or people not following these right ways.
- Personal example: I am a strong, strong progressive. In the current usage, that would mean that I favor things like taking all the money away from rich people, spitting on them and then tarring and feathering them, and then distributing the money around to poor people. What I use it to mean is that, while I'm aware that our current economic system is largely an improvement on previous systems, I think that there are also large problems with it, not the least of which is that any set system is never going to be the answer for all circumstances.
Likewise, I believe that a political system should be viewed more as a utility function on the population is applied to. That is, the "rightness" of a political system isn't what theory it is most like, but rather what it's actual effects are. I think that there may be cases where fascism is actually the best political system. I think that there are other cases where anarchy is the best thing. I don't believe in democracy or personal rights, except in regards to the actual real and/or potential effects that they have.
I don't fit on the scale between liberal and conservative, because they are on the opposite end of the progressive/conservative scale from me. But this is a scale that we don't talk about and that the two major parties hope that people don't realize even exists, much like they don't want people who disagree with both of them to be considered as anything besides a "moderate" who sits in between them.
posted
Hmm. It's funny, yesterday I was watching educational TV. I guess this is resources for history classes, probably high school. One thing I thought was interesting is how they used gallows and electric chairs as a visual for "cruel and unusual punishment". But I guess a guy strapped to a gurney in a Carrot Top performance was about the only other way they could go that wouldn't be too disturbing for young minds.
But they had a bit on Fascism and the animated gold 3-D lettering that introduced the topic was accompanied by a heroic John Williams-style brass fanfare. I thought that was kind of funny.
Then there was a separate segment about federalism. They made it sound pretty good.
The next installment was liberal and conservative. They seemed to adhere to the principles of the Little Libertarian test. Economic vs. personal freedoms.
I'm not really sure what you are saying about moderate and progressive. One of the Saxons (sorry, guys, I really don't remember) had an article by Bill Moyers about progressivism. But I still don't really understand it.
The though that stayed with me from the "everyone deep in their heart is a lefty" quiz that Xap posted is that the market is, ultimately, free. Unless you believe in a god that cares deeply about the economic system, the market ultimately is what it is. Saying it should being either more free or more planned is kind of silly. There are some very elaborate contracts operating, such governments and taxation for public works. I don't know.
Maybe I've just departed from the ability to have meaningful discourse on political and economic theories. But even as the extreme conservative I am, I know a corporation can't only produce profit for shareholders. It has to dispense wages to employees to create consumption commensurate with the profit taking, or it is robbing the market. That was the genius of Henry Ford, as I recall.
P.S. I guess I'm saying that there is no economic freedom. Consequences can at most be deferred through various constructs. And I sort of feel the same what about personal freedoms.
posted
The funny part of this political season, at least for me, is that I really am not as liberal as I sound here. Sometimes I am arguing a point ans I want to see how it will go, and sometimes I am discussing things here to help me define what I believe, because I am not sure.
Then, out of nowhere, I am labeled a liberal.
Not that I mind too much, as I don't see that as a slur.
But it isn't what I really am, at least not to the exclusion of every other view I have.
I believe a strong military is needed to protect our freedoms. In freedom of choice for most things, unless it heavily infringes on others freedoms. I think some sort of gun control is needed, but that we DO have the right to bear arms, and should be able to have them as long as we aren't a risk to others. I think that religion plays a huge part in this country, and that it's charitable works are largely unnoticed....but that if they were stopped, THEN everyone would notice, because of the number of people they help.
But that the government should stay out of the religious business....that it is required to do so.
I don't think the world will end if Bush wins....or if Kerry does.
And any mention of that makes either viewpoint sound like Chicken Little shouting "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"....
My biggest fear isn't that Bush will win...it's that the political views in this nation are becoming so polarized and partisan that nothing will get done by either one after this election.
Most Conservatives aren't evil....most Liberals aren't hedonists.
We are neighbors, for heavens sake, and we all live in the same country. Eat a lot of the same foods, drink the same water. Worry about our families in the service. We worry about having jobs, and raising familes...
If we remember that, we will be fine, no matter who wins.
A complete win for either party would be disastrous, because they need each other to work best.
posted
I'm curious where you are hearing Moderate misused to mean "independent voter." I do not recall ever having encountered that misuse. The term "Independent" is used quite widely in society (in my experience) to describe a voter who votes for candidates of either party, especially since so very many states have "Independent" as a class of voter registration.
I am a self-identified moderate (all my friends on the left think I'm conservative, all my firends on the right think I'm liberal). I have never had to correct anyone on that usage. Is this something you observe conversationally or in the media?
posted
I am guilty of this misusage. In fact, I wonder if it's my post in Noemon's thread that prompted this thread. Intellectually, I know it's not accurate and I have thought about it before, but I do find myself referring to myself as a moderate because, on the whole, I don't fit into either major camp.
I'm not as sure about your definition about progressive, but then, to me, progressive is a word that has come into use much more recently, and is still hazily defined for me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, now I always saw the word "Progressive" as meaning someone who wants to change things, to "progress" forward to a new and better world, in their view. I've also always seen the word "Conservative" as someone who is resistant to such change, who wants to "conserve" the way the world is now and who rejects change for change's sake.
Both are problematic.
My vision of progressives make changes to "fix" things without giving much regard to any merit the current way of thinking may have. For instance, progressive education has made some great strides toward equality, but has seen the overal quality of education decrease. Certain traditional methods work, but the word "traditional" has become anathema in most schools, and is even used as a derogatory term.
My vision of conservative resists change without truly evaluating how that change might improve things. For instance, someone who is very conservative may fight against sexual education in schools, despite the fact that ignorance of the issues only contributes to the transmission of STDs and incidence of teen pregnancy.
My definition of Moderate falls between these two. Moderates weigh both sides. They aren't going to change for change's sake, but they also aren't going to resist change for tradition's sake. Proposed changes are evaluated on merit, then accepted or rejected based on that evaluation. Moderates don't blindly push forward or blindly hold back - they make educated decisions.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: My definition of Moderate falls between these two. Moderates weigh both sides. They aren't going to change for change's sake, but they also aren't going to resist change for tradition's sake.
*nod*
If you truly have moderate positions on all issues, can you truly be said to have any position at all? Is your motto "I dunnno"? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it’s a mistake to try to divide people into three groups -- progressive, conservative, and moderate. Progressive-conservative is a spectrum, and moderate just means you’re not too far out in either direction. How far is “too far,” depends, of course, on your perspective.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conservative-progressive scale (or I guess I'm really presenting more as a dichotomy) is not about not changing at all versus changing for changes sake, but rather about where one's ultimate values lie. The conservative end believes that we already know what the best things to do are and we should be focused on getting people to do these things. The progressive end believes that our understanding can and is generally increasing, thus providing us with new and likely better ways of doing things.
Conservatives (both the liberals and conservatives) want to change society just as much as progressives do. They just want to change it to fit some established pattern or theory or perceived golden age which they would then strive to maintain, while the progressive goal is more or less constant change to fit our constantly changing understanding of the world.
---
The moderate thing was supposed to be a completely separate issue from the progressive thing. I mean that in relation to the conservative end (i.e. liberals and conservatives) of the progressive/conservative scale. I was trying to get at the idea that 1) there are only two ways to see an issue: the Republican and the Democratic (or if you prefer, liberal and conservative) and 2) the only issues of importance are those believed so by these two sides. The idea of moderates has been used to claim that the people who don't believe in one or both of these two things are really just moderates or centrists, who just fall in the middle of the political ground formed on the Democrat/Republican axis instead of people who fall onto a wider political ground.
It's partly that type of thinking that makes the Democrats believe that it's my and many other people's fault that we're not going to vote for John Kerry, instead of their fault for doing nothing to win my vote. I choose to believe that it is their job to convince me to vote for their candidate instead of my job to vote for whoever they throw up. I am not a moderate. I really don't like the job George Bush has done. But that doesn't mean that my only other option is to become a Democratic supporter.
And the reasons are just as Mr. Squickly pointed out. Neither side has done anything to win my vote, because each side has put up a stuffed turkey instead of a candidate.
But, Mr.S, it's the system that is to blame. We have fallen into the trap of the two party system, in that there are only two points of view that matter. Third party candidates haven't had a voice in decades, so if you want to matter at all you have to get in line behind one of the two ideologies.
Any talk to the contrary, that you should be able to vote your mind, or vote for a third party candidate, is met with the "you're wasting your vote" mantra - dismissing the true moderate who doesn't fall into lockstep behind a political machine.
I really think this is why 50+ percent of the country doesn't vote. There's no one to vote for.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC, I had a nice string of rants about blaming external forces for what people have allowed to do to our culture in a thread we had about FactCheck.org. Here's the one where I really worked up some steam.
The basic idea being that the American people are not oppressed and they are not victims, except of a very willing sort. We are not forced to keep the system that we have; we just can't muster up enough will to do something constructive about it. Blaming it all on the two major parties and their (possibly unwitting) accomplices in the mainstream media is misssing the complicity of the American public with the current state of affairs. I think this leads to what I regard as one of the major mistakes of all the third parties I'm familar with, focusing on the political arena, especially the structure of the arena, instead of more important facets of American society. The third party message is out there for people who really want to get it. Giving it time in mainstream markets might lead to minor effects as the largely unmotivated majority might give some slight consideration of what was said before flipping over to the infinitely more important world of professional sports or celebrity worship. Until American society changes in such as way that the vast majority of people no longer feel helpless in the face of seeming large forces, almost willfully maintain a state of ignorance, and prefer it when they are only presented two choices (or, considering the current state of affairs, only one, which is at least as much a team you root for as a statement of policy), there are only going to ever be two main parties.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, no doubt that the public's complicity is a large part of the problem, but we're dealing with a largely uneducated and easily manipulated population.
And two parties with obscene amounts of money.
Lobbies don't go for the Libertarians, and major corporations don't generally contribute heavily to the Greens. They pressure the two parties in power, and fund their continued control of the governmental system.
We are a country run by what amounts to a landed aristocracy. A very large oligarchy, really. Under 600 people governing 290 million? No one is represented. Only those with the loudest voices (read: largest wallets) get to influence the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the population that is in power.
Can that remaining 50% rise up and overcome their apathy to change the world? Technically, yeah. Will they? Sure... they'll ride to the polls on their winged pigs.
Pardon me, I'm a cynic. The glass was half empty, until the government came and took their cut. Now the glass is merely damp on the inside.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
