This is the natural result of politics degenerating from "government must do the best for this complex country and its diverse people" into "my political party MUST win power at any cost, regardless of the country and people". The emphasis changes on who is "winning". The latter leaves no space for moderates.
LIBERALS: universal health careThere is no middle ground. For instance, lets try something here. Anyone can participate.
If you claim to be a "moderate" or a "centrist" tell me one policy you really like that the GOP is actively pursuing, followed by one that the liberals are pursuing. Not something vague like "oh I'm a fiscal conservative and that's why I'm a centrist". I mean like a specific policy that each party has put forward that you genuinely stand behind.
LIBERALS: universal health care
Pre or post Reagan?Ok, and for the Right\GOP?
Pre or post Reagan?
Then every politician who is not a Trumpite is a "moderate", because MAGA is just SO far to the right. That includes soft-right and even solidly conservative Republicans. So you can pick and choose any "compassionate conservative" policies you like. They will be moderate in the current climate. So "moderates" are not really extinct at all.Current. I'm trying to figure out what is considered "moderate" nowadays. If the question is "Are moderates extinct", I'm kind of trying to place where the line for "moderate" would be and what would be "extremist". I don't know what a "moderate" or "centrist" Republican looks like.
Certainly an endangered species at best in this time of extremists. Wondering if there are any others out there as I've found pretty much all family/friends are on one extremist "side" or the other and so impossible to have an objective or even rational discussion about politics with. God forbid you suggest that any liberal (or conservative) idea ever had any merit of any kind ever...it's like blaspheming their holy cause. Sad and scary.
Elephant, donkey, cicada.They aren't extinct. Just hiding underground until it's safe to poke their heads up again.
Ah, the ol’ “some here seem to” comment of self satisfaction. Just copy & paste, amirite?Uh, in this forum some ..by no means all.....on the left have shown totla contempt for moderates.
In the spirit of this season of giving, maybe give it a rest? You could put a bow on it, if you like.Angry a majority of people in the UK and the US are not as far to the left as you are, right?
Trump is not a moderate.Uh, in this forum some ..by no means all.....on the left have shown totla contempt for moderates.
I'm also not entirely sure what moderate should mean. I think people are using moderate as centrist or basic liberal/libertarian.
Waaaay back when I was in school, they taught the political spectrum as being thus, from right-to-left:I'm also not entirely sure what moderate should mean. I think people are using moderate as centrist or basic liberal/libertarian.
Yeah, but what those terms actually mean depends on where you happen to be standing.Waaaay back when I was in school, they taught the political spectrum as being thus, from right-to-left:
[Right Side] Reactionary - Conservative - Moderate - [center point] - Progressive - Liberal - Radical [Left Side]
They're segments of a spectrum. Any given individual may occupy any given point, if they're within the range of a named segment they would be whatever that segment is. They'd be more X or less X relative to another point on the spectrum, but a moderate does not become a reactionary simply because there's another moderate a few steps to the left of them.Yeah, but what those terms actually mean depends on where you happen to be standing.
Public schools in the American South in the 1980s and 1990s were many things, but "progressive" (under absolutely ANY usage of the term) they were not.You must of gone to a very progressive school.
Also, why would moderate bet right of center, that seems odd to me. Strikes me that you can be moderate on the right or a moderate on the left.Waaaay back when I was in school, they taught the political spectrum as being thus, from right-to-left:
[Right Side] Reactionary - Conservative - Moderate - [center point] - Progressive - Liberal - Radical [Left Side]
He was more or less hounded out of conservative politics shortly after his peak though.Nothing conservative about Trump? I would agree he's politically incoherent and above everything an opportunist.
But within the Trump movement I think there is a sizeable faction that is conservative like the paleoconservatives---generally illiberal, think Civil Rights legislation is stupid, think modern Republicans are too similar to Democrats, unafraid of being called racist, etc. What some might call radical they might be truer to the Conservative movement overall.
Was Pat Buchanan an extremist? He kind of softened his tone later in life but during his peak many Conservatives considered him the savior of a dead movement.
Well, the whole thing was invented during the French Revolution, it was the seating arrangement in the National Assembly. Montagnards happened to sit on the left side, Girondins on the right side, and everybody else between them. Communism and Fascism hadn't been invented yet, those were future examples of political philosophies that could be fit into the spectrum.Also, why would moderate bet right of center, that seems odd to me. Strikes me that you can be moderate on the right or a moderate on the left.
Moderate being the opposite of radical not necessarily on either side. Same is true of radical. Sure, a true conservative can't actually be a radical but a reactionary can, that's kind of what they are, radical rightist. Fascists and NAZIs are on the right but are also clearly radical. Anarchist are mostly on the left but not always and are pretty much always radicals.
Center obviously depends on time and place, a Conservate soviet citizen in 1981 would generally be considered left by most folks estimation. There was a time when a conservate American was a liberal, from 1776 to IDK, 1820 or so. Then originally Right was monarchist and left was anti-monarchist. Honestly the more I think about the less value the spectrum has.
The version I remember from school was more like
Communist - socialist - progressive - liberal - center - conservative - fascist - NAZI
And, tragic, sorry about the nitpic not trying to overly snarky and of course I'm not saying anything new here.
ETA: South might explain it, the south was a at on point a hot bed of progressive racists. Woodrow Wilson for instance.
Synonymous is the wrong term. Conservatives are more tolerant of racism, or at least think the government shouldn't do much about it on the level liberals and leftists do, because anti-racist efforts largely come from liberal universalist thought.I would ask, what exactly is conservative about Trump? Anti-immigration but there he takes much farther than anyone before.
Tariffs? Industrial policy? Anti FBI/CIA. He nominated a gay man to a cabinet position. In 2015 he said anyone could use whatever bathroom they wanted to in Trump tower. So, if you think being racist and misogynist is synonymous with being conservative. I guess he's conservative.
...to the extent that the change increases equality.Well, the whole thing was invented during the French Revolution, it was the seating arrangement in the National Assembly. Montagnards happened to sit on the left side, Girondins on the right side, and everybody else between them. Communism and Fascism hadn't been invented yet, those were future examples of political philosophies that could be fit into the spectrum.
The idea of the spectrum isn't about specific policies,
it's about resistance to change vs making change. The left side wants change, the further left the more drastic the changes wanted. The right side resists change, the furthest right (reactionaries) wanting not only to stop change but undo prior changes.
But that, at least as I was taught, was the classical, original right-left spectrum. And, as noted, it probably no longer applies. Politics has grown much too weird to fit onto a single spectrum anymore, or even fit onto a spectrum that only occupies three or four dimensions and isn't full of holes and bitemarks!
Not in the classical spectrum. The rightmost wanted to revive the monarchy and return power to the aristocracy, reducing what steps towards equality the French Revolution had thus far managed. Whereas the leftmost wanted to persecute the former aristocracy and thus treat them worse than everybody else, therefore also leading to inequality. When you're assessing attitude to change it's all relative to the current state of who's being assessed....to the extent that the change increases equality.
But that doesn't really contradict what I said besides persecuting the former aristocracy being an inequality thing. Justice was pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊ back in the day. The important point is did the revolutionaries believe in a natural hierarchy like what was supposed before or liberty, equality, fraternity? Seems like the following century in France, Britain, and the US was quite different to the normal before.Not in the classical spectrum. The rightmost wanted to revive the monarchy and return power to the aristocracy, reducing what steps towards equality the French Revolution had thus far managed. Whereas the leftmost wanted to persecute the former aristocracy and thus treat them worse than everybody else, therefore also leading to inequality. When you're assessing attitude to change it's all relative to the current state of who's being assessed.
Note that places moderate at the center right. Why? Well, because generally only Republicans require the "moderate" or "good doggy" label; Democrats who break with their party get the "conservative" (bad doggy) label. I would generally say that liberal is less far left than progressive; the House Progressive Caucus is not made of up people on the right side of the left party.Waaaay back when I was in school, they taught the political spectrum as being thus, from right-to-left:
[Right Side] Reactionary - Conservative - Moderate - [center point] - Progressive - Liberal - Radical [Left Side]
A moderate becomes "radical left" if they're being described by someone a few steps to their right.They're segments of a spectrum. Any given individual may occupy any given point, if they're within the range of a named segment they would be whatever that segment is. They'd be more X or less X relative to another point on the spectrum, but a moderate does not become a reactionary simply because there's another moderate a few steps to the left of them.
"A moderate" is a nebulous term, that is thrown around as either an insult or a compliment, and exists somewhere on a slippery scale.
Much like the term "common sense", it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.