Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Hmmmm. That’s interesting.

In some ways, I can see the vague sense that being a moderate comes with traits we generally think are virtuous. Though obviously with politics, most things don’t tightly follow those virtues.

Likewise, in some ways, I believe you're right.  If we were to look at some loose, classical definitions of our categories:

1) liberal--emphasizes rights and individual liberties
2) conservative--emphasizes preservation of institutions, norms, with controlled, slow change when necessary*
3) moderate--sees value in both, perhaps seeking a middle ground that makes the most people the most happy

then I'd say two things.  First, they all come with traits we generally think are virtuous.  Second, the first thing entails that, as you suggest, being a moderate comes with traits we generally think are virtuous.  

In the modern world--and I think this might have been your point in your last sentence--issues arise which are so far down the road on the first two that the third is rendered as merely seeing both sides, or maybe, not caring passionately about the issue at all.  In other words, when 1 and 2 are miles apart, 3 can begin to range from "vague" to "nonsensical" when the defining characteristic remains seeing both sides of two fundamentally opposed views.  However, value may certainly remain in the notion of seeking middle-ground solutions that make the most people the most happy.  And even if seeing a few points from one side and seeing a few points from the other side constitutes a moderate position, I don't mean to suggest that's inherently inferior to either "side."  I only mean to suggest it's not inherently superior.  

I've just noticed a tendency of some moderates to believe their position is inherently better because a potentially virtuous trait brought them to it, when I'd offer that there may be other virtuous traits which bring people to different conclusions (or the same virtuous trait brought them to a different conclusion), and so none of them can get an automatic leg up that way.  It seems intuitive that being on the extreme end of something is "worse" than not being on the extreme end of it.  I'm just not sure that's actually the case.  Just as we'd want someone espousing the extreme side of an issue to back up what they say with reasons, and we'd feel justified in rejecting it if they can't, so should every position in between (moderate positions, perhaps) bear the same burden of producing reasons, and not be seen as better based simply on not being the extreme.  



* That's not actually my definition of conservatism in its most basic, classical form, but I think it's probably a good working definition for many, and for our discussion here.  

Likewise, in some ways, I believe you're right.  If we were to look at some loose, classical definitions of our categories:

1) liberal--emphasizes rights and individual liberties
2) conservative--emphasizes preservation of institutions, norms, with controlled, slow change when necessary*
3) moderate--sees value in both, perhaps seeking a middle ground that makes the most people the most happy

then I'd say two things.  First, they all come with traits we generally think are virtuous.  Second, the first thing entails that, as you suggest, being a moderate comes with traits we generally think are virtuous. 

In the modern world--and I think this might have been your point in your last sentence--issues arise which are so far down the road on the first two that the third is rendered as merely seeing both sides, or maybe, not caring passionately about the issue at all.  In other words, when 1 and 2 are miles apart, 3 can begin to range from "vague" to "nonsensical" when the defining characteristic remains seeing both sides of two fundamentally opposed views.  However, value may certainly remain in the notion of seeking middle-ground solutions that make the most people the most happy.  And even if seeing a few points from one side and seeing a few points from the other side constitutes a moderate position, I don't mean to suggest that's inherently inferior to either "side."  I only mean to suggest it's not inherently superior. 

I've just noticed a tendency of some moderates to believe their position is inherently better because a potentially virtuous trait brought them to it, when I'd offer that there may be other virtuous traits which bring people to different conclusions (or the same virtuous trait brought them to a different conclusion), and so none of them can get an automatic leg up that way.  It seems intuitive that being on the extreme end of something is "worse" than not being on the extreme end of it.  I'm just not sure that's actually the case.  Just as we'd want someone espousing the extreme side of an issue to back up what they say with reasons, and we'd feel justified in rejecting it if they can't, so should every position in between (moderate positions, perhaps) bear the same burden of producing reasons, and not be seen as better based simply on not being the extreme. 



* That's not actually my definition of conservatism in its most basic, classical form, but I think it's probably a good working definition for many, and for our discussion here. 

Yeah. I more meant moderate, in theory, comes with being more willing to compromise and be agreeable. Also some ability to break with the pack.

In reality, not always so clean.

I thought you were halfway to a leftist loon when I first met you.  A very likable one, but still. 

Of course, we're talking nearly 20 years ago, and I don't even wanna say what first made me raise my eyebrows at you, because I remember it specifically, and it really only serves to highlight how much I've changed in that time. 

Maybe the best way to put it is I've stopped being a neo-con, which is pretty much how current-me would describe then-me. 

I'm no relativist, but there is a lot to be said for treading lightly with an abundance of caution and thoughtfulness, because I've been wrong before. 

Heh. That's a good one.

I'd like to know what triggered your thinking.

I recall around the same time I first met MDT, Gator and I were conversing. In that conversation he referred to me (not happily) as a capitalist - a badge I wore and still wear proudly. 

He, of course, had socialist values. He travelled extensively to Russia and other former East Block countries.

I never gave him shit over it.

It's amazing how people perceive others.

I don't understand the criticism of moderates at all.

Looks left:  wow, they're extreme.  I'm not that.
Looks right:  wow, they're extreme.  I'm not that.

Whether one takes pride in that or not doesn't really matter.  A moderate is simply (today) not extreme either way.  And how is that not a good thing?

A moderate can align with the Dems on some things and the Reps on other things.  Again, what's wrong with that?
And moderates are the only ones keeping our country from being 100% extremists, so I'm all for that.  

One can view "moderates" as "mamby pamby", not willing to take a stand or a position on anything.  I think folks closer to either extreme will often disdain anyone claiming to be a moderate.

I use the term 'extreme moderate' mostly in conversation if some stranger asks me if I'm L or C.  It's not a topic I wish to get into with strangers.    I'm interested in many liberal ideas like universal income and immigration reform, and conservative ideas like say "balancing the budget", ha.  I have some odd ideas about gun control, which I'm only partially wed to.  The notion of somehow banning assault weapons, to me, is silly, just verbiage used by folks who can't define what one is very well if at all.

I think governments often as not much with the economy to our deficit.  It should be avoided, unless clearly necessary.  I'm OK with regulations but think the CFR is a cesspool of conflicting messy poorly written garbage.  Etc.

Sure, I see a lot of folks with what I consider to be a "knee jerk reaction" to whatever.  Sheepishly, the follow whatever their perceived leaders suggest to them.

They basically have no opinions of their own, it's too much work.