POTUS Donald Trump

[PseudoSABR]

 

I would say, from your second paragraph, that you have fallen into the trap I'm talking about.  Being moderate isn't insincere or muddled.  That notion comes from the idea that you have to think just like everyone on your side of the aisle to count as having a firm, consistent world view.

 

And that, frankly, is BS.  And I think that mentality, the one you just laid out so perfectly, is such a HUGE part of the problem.  Frankly, change a few words in there and you don't sound dissimilar to how Limbaugh talks about rhino's or moderates.  

You missed my point.   Moderation is a good thing, but it's not a belief system.  It is a compromise between belief systems.  And those compromises from person to person alter considerably.  Without specific consensus on a host of issues, it's hard to deliver a platform, much less run a campaign. 

 

As a political message, it's empty.  It's like saying we're the party of 'doing the right thing.'   In my mind it's no way to build a party.   It's a great lifestyle choice; and in that sense, everyone here is a moderate, as few of us are outright ideological and most engage in good faith.   

 

Personally, you've always struck me as a reasonable conservative (any many others who post here) who should have their own party.    I don't blame the Democrats for tracking to the middle to get your vote (as Republicans kept tracking to the right), but it left progressives without a voice in politics.  I think our current economic and political structures would greatly benefit from a host of liberal ideas, you disagree and that's fine, we can have different parties.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

You missed my point.   Moderation is a good thing, but it's not a belief system.  It is a compromise between belief systems.  And those compromises from person to person alter considerably.  Without specific consensus on a host of issues, it's hard to deliver a platform, much less run a campaign. 

 

As a political message, it's empty.  It's like saying we're the party of 'doing the right thing.'   In my mind it's no way to build a party.   It's a great lifestyle choice; and in that sense, everyone here is a moderate, as few of us are outright ideological and most engage in good faith.   

 

Personally, you've always struck me as a reasonable conservative (any many others who post here) who should have their own party.    I don't blame the Democrats for tracking to the middle to get your vote (as Republicans kept tracking to the right), but it left progressives without a voice in politics.  I think our current economic and political structures would greatly benefit from a host of liberal ideas, you disagree and that's fine, we can have different parties.  

 

Sure, it's hard to have a party platform for moderates, but it's not hard to appeal to moderates if you use sound judgment, common sense, and compromise as your vehicles of governance.  We need not agree on a platform of ideas, we could instead agree on a method of governance.  I think the path of "Everyone get on our platform!" is part of the problem.  It encourages people to either feel left out (because they have specific disagreements) or to compromise their beliefs to stay with the crowd.  It also stifles growth and change in the party when you approach things as "here is our platform - in or out?"  

 

I think where many of us like kab and I feel left out is we don't just agree with lists of party platforms.  Rarely do I ever unilaterally agree with any list shoved in my face, including the grocery list with my wife.  Why would i do that on something as complex and critical as politics?  Yet, should we raise our meager voice and say "You know...this political correct/safe space stuff isn't helping" - we get kicked off one side.  If we raise our meager voice and say "You know, this outwardly racist and xenophobic rhetoric isn't good for anyone" - we get booted off the other side.  So what exactly are we to do?  And how is it good to make political ideology so rigid as to be such an and/or choice.  

 

I'd like to vote more based on how the politician or party tries to solve problems.  Which is why I'm more inclined to vote Democrat right now.  But if the current progressive wing takes that over, I'm not so sure I could stomach that side either.

[PseudoSABR]

I certainly didn't hear Clinton pitching a platform (and she lost).  Sanders did, and I'd like to give such ideas more public airing, if not a chance at governance. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I certainly didn't hear Clinton pitching a platform (and she lost).  Sanders did, and I'd like to give such ideas more public airing, if not a chance at governance. 

 

I disagree, I heard the platform - make America a place where everyone has a fair shake and not just the rich/elite.  It's hollow a bit, coming from her, but it was the platform.  The problem is no one listened because they disliked the candidate so strongly IMO.

 

As for the rest - I'm the opposite.  I could care less what you tell me you want to change.  Tell me how you're going to do it.  That has been a major sticking point with both left and right wing policies.  It's one thing that seems to be common ground: They're both good at telling us what will get better and then finding a way to make it worse.

 

I wish we'd get away from grandiose promises and platforms and get back into ideas and policies that work.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't agree that "moderate" isn't a stance, if that is what you are saying. It isn't only a compromise, it can be a prinicpled belief in the right thing is to do this, not the thing to the left or right. Maybe this is semantics, but I don't feel you feel that...

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't agree that "moderate" isn't a stance, if that is what you are saying. It isn't only a compromise, it can be a prinicpled belief in the right thing is to do this, not the thing to the left or right. Maybe this is semantics, but I don't feel you feel that...

Sure, but it's just empty rhetoric without its application to policy, and once we begin to talk specifics, plenty of self-identified moderates will be all over the place in terms of specific policies.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, but it's just empty rhetoric without its application to policy, and once we begin to talk specifics, plenty of self-identified moderates will be all over the place in terms of specific policies.

 

Maybe that's a problem with us thinking that policy is on 1 axis.....not with moderates.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Maybe that's a problem with us thinking that policy is on 1 axis.....not with moderates.

 

Exactly!!!!

[PseudoSABR]

 

Maybe that's a problem with us thinking that policy is on 1 axis.....not with moderates.

Moderation is totally contingent on the notion of polarity.  Why don't we just reject polarity all together!?

 

Again, that's just more generic, do-right-thing, every-thing-in-moderation, empty platitudes.   You don't build a consensus out of that, nor do you operationally get things done.  Those actually aren't values or policies.  In fact, moderation is negatively defined by polarity, which points to the lack of there there; it's like making an oppositional party, or a nihilist party or something.

 

You can have parties built around shared values and beliefs without being slaves to ideology.  No ones arguing that moderation, reasonableness, and open-mindedness aren't great attributes of governance. 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Well, another issues is that how you measure the "poles" is kind of like Fahrenheit having the zero actually be VERY far from zero.....it's kind of hard to say what extreme is and what moderate is, since there are no upper and lower bounds in some kind of measurable way.

 

I disagree strongly with your second paragraph. For decades MN got things done by being moderate in its policies.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well, another issues is that how you measure the "poles" is kind of like Fahrenheit having the zero actually be VERY far from zero.....it's kind of hard to say what extreme is and what moderate is, since there are no upper and lower bounds in some kind of measurable way.

 

I disagree strongly with your second paragraph. For decades MN got things done by being moderate in its policies.  

Governance is different than politics.  Moderate government is a function having people with opposing view points come to compromise and consensus.   Which is the way it should work.  

 

Again, I think our country has gone far too right, and that's been in part enabled by Democrats tracking to the middle.  I just don't think it's feasible nor would it be a good thing for a new party to try to shoot the gap between the GOP and Democrats.  That sounds like some kind of conservative party to me.  A new 'middle' party based a non-right-left axis sounds great in theory, but it also sounds like gobbly-gook without some basis to know what shared beliefs/values constitutes such a party's consensus.

 

My gripe with Democrats over the past several decades is the overt willingness to compromise, ceding the middle ground and giving them unfavorable bargaining position, so they get worked by the GOP, and adopt right-of-center solutions.  

[TheLeviathan]

Dismissing a moderate viewpoint as hollow platitudes is sort of exactly my issue.

 

There is a whole spectrum of ideas avaliable that you are actively dismissing because it isn't ideolocally uncetered enough. I think you're doing a nice job demonstrating my problem here.

 

Moderates, untethered viewpoints have the advantage of evaluating ideas from the outside for their strengths and weaknesses. That is a tremendous advantage for good policy being ignored and dismissed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Dismissing a moderate viewpoint as hollow platitudes is sort of exactly my issue.

There is a whole spectrum of ideas avaliable that you are actively dismissing because it isn't ideolocally uncetered enough. I think you're doing a nice job demonstrating my problem here.

Moderates, untethered viewpoints have the advantage of evaluating ideas from the outside for their strengths and weaknesses. That is a tremendous advantage for good policy being ignored and dismissed.

Look I'm not dismissing it as a valid point of view.  What I'm dismissing is that there's really a shared core-belief to build a party around. 

 

I just don't buy that any moderate is truly untethered.  Like I said, you've always struck me as conservative.  That you call yourself moderate, or untethered doesn't really change the foundational beliefs and values that underlie your positions.  Nor are those beliefs and values the same as other self-identified moderates.  

[TheLeviathan]

I'm having a hard time reconciling your claim that you aren't dismissing moderate/independent thinking when you spent several posts labeling it ad little more than platitudes.

 

And the conversation wasn't about firing up a new party so much as decrying either party for being unwelcoming to more moderate, independent thinking.

 

And as a pro abortion rights, pro gun regulation, pro gay marriage, anti military spending, pro basic income kinda guy, I find your last paragraph pretty funny. You just did, again, exactly what I'm saying is the problem.

 

If I was posting on a conservative board they'd dismiss me as a reasonable liberal who pretends to be a moderate too.

 

I don't know if your intent is to be the perfect example of my frustration, but it does help illustrate the point. Some of us really are untethered. I find it fascinating how frequently I find that to be this hard for people.

[kab21]

No progressives don't equal alt right in the sense that you think they do but there are too many that completely disagree with the level democratic socialism that Bernie is pushing. Luckily the far left progressive movement isn't completely illogical but it is quite frustrating to read article after article that amounts to a war on businesses. I'm sure you won't like that analysis but that is where the far left wants to go.

 

Some good aspects but it is too far, too much for many to support. An example of this would be the conservatives that supposedly could reject the alt right movement. In the last election I know many people that are good people and reject the alt right movement but voted for Trump because they wouldn't even go as far as the moderate socialism that the democratic party is pushing. They definitely won't desert the GOP if the democrats shifted significantly to the left. And that is the problem. They will continue to vote GOP even if they disdain the alt right movement.

When I was suggesting that there would be 3 parties potentially as major players in the next election I wasn't suggesting that a new moderate party would be formed. That new moderate party is already in place. The new party would be an evolution of the green party that branches off from the democratic party made up of fed up Bernie/Occupy supporters.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm having a hard time reconciling your claim that you aren't dismissing moderate/independent thinking when you spent several posts labeling it ad little more than platitudes.

And the conversation wasn't about firing up a new party so much as decrying either party for being unwelcoming to more moderate, independent thinking.

And as a pro abortion rights, pro gun regulation, pro gay marriage, anti military spending, pro basic income kinda guy, I find your last paragraph pretty funny. You just did, again, exactly what I'm saying is the problem.

If I was posting on a conservative board they'd dismiss me as a reasonable liberal who pretends to be a moderate too.

I don't know if your intent is to be the perfect example of my frustration, but it does help illustrate the point. Some of us really are untethered. I find it fascinating how frequently I find that to be this hard for people.

Being moderate is a platitude without some value/belief basis, it's not that hard to understand.

 

Being 'good' is also a platitude, saying so doesn't decry 'goodness,' it simply acknowledges that 'goodness' like 'moderation' means what people want it to mean and doesn't inherently have attributes of its own without some specificity.

 

Look you listing your liberal stances on certain issues demonstrates that moderation is more of grab-bag than an actual ideology.  There's people who consider themselves moderate who feel the exact opposite on each of those issues.  

 

Yeah, I think everyone has values and beliefs, and aren't really untethered at all; they may be reasonable, but they are guided by more than simply seeking to compromise or moderation-in-all-things...

[TheLeviathan]

I think the root of the issue here is you thinking moderate/independent is incapable of being a value/belief system.

 

I unequivocally reject that. And that sentiment is exactly what I was expressing frustration with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think the root of the issue here is you thinking moderate/independent is incapable of being a value/belief system.

I unequivocally reject that. And that sentiment is exactly what I was expressing frustration with.

Well what are the values and beliefs of that system.  Saying so doesn't make it so.   As soon as you begin to articulate those values and beliefs, you'll have less and less consensus. 

[DaveW]

The "bernie progressives" cost Hillary the election almost as much as Russia did IMO.

 

It led to a lot of people staying home on election day, or throwing their vote away on Stein or Johnson,

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well what are the values and beliefs of that system.  Saying so doesn't make it so.   As soon as you begin to articulate those values and beliefs, you'll have less and less consensus. 

 

Of course!  Because we're independent thinkers!  But that doesn't mean my system doesn't have values and beliefs.  And, to go back, many of my values and beliefs coincide with your All Mighty Platform, so why wait until we have uniform consensus?  Why is uniform consensus even a good thing?  

 

Call me crazy, but a plurality of ideas with many common values seems like a whole lot better of a way to make the world a better place than: Choose all of A or all of B or get the *@% out of here. 

 

At that point, are you even thinking any more?  Or does it just become a situation in which you raise your hand when your side is called, demonize the other side for being not-A or not-B and go on your merry way?  Because it sure feels that way these days.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Of course!  Because we're independent thinkers!  But that doesn't mean my system doesn't have values and beliefs.  And, to go back, many of my values and beliefs coincide with your All Mighty Platform, so why wait until we have uniform consensus?  Why is uniform consensus even a good thing?  

 

Call me crazy, but a plurality of ideas with many common values seems like a whole lot better of a way to make the world a better place than: Choose all of A or all of B or get the *@% out of here. 

 

At that point, are you even thinking any more?  Or does it just become a situation in which you raise your hand when your side is called, demonize the other side for being not-A or not-B and go on your merry way?  Because it sure feels that way these days.

Okay, go build your party, Levi.   All I'm suggesting operationally it's difficult to build a consensus, much less a party, by mere moderation or independence.

 

And for the record, I consider liberals independent thinkers.  This notion that both the right and the left are beholden ideology like some faith, just isn't true. Liberalism, as I understand it, values progressiveness, i.e. new ways of doing things.  

 

Again, I'm fine with moderation in governance, but for purposes of political party, give me more liberal agenda, and less of the 'moderation' the Democrats have been peddling.   

[PseudoSABR]

 

The "bernie progressives" cost Hillary the election almost as much as Russia did IMO.

It led to a lot of people staying home on election day, or throwing their vote away on Stein or Johnson,

So did the non-voters, or the libertarians, or conservative Cubans, etc.. When the margin in a essential states was in the ten thousands, you can blame just about any group you dislike.

 

But the lack of enthusiasm was definitely an issue, and problem for Clinton; you can blame the Bernie Bros, but I blame Clinton and the DNC for convincing so many (like you) that Clinton would be the better general election candidate, and passing up the chance to feature an authentic progressive in Bernie.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

No progressives don't equal alt right in the sense that you think they do but there are too many that completely disagree with the level democratic socialism that Bernie is pushing. Luckily the far left progressive movement isn't completely illogical but it is quite frustrating to read article after article that amounts to a war on businesses. I'm sure you won't like that analysis but that is where the far left wants to go.

 

Some good aspects but it is too far, too much for many to support. An example of this would be the conservatives that supposedly could reject the alt right movement. In the last election I know many people that are good people and reject the alt right movement but voted for Trump because they wouldn't even go as far as the moderate socialism that the democratic party is pushing. They definitely won't desert the GOP if the democrats shifted significantly to the left. And that is the problem. They will continue to vote GOP even if they disdain the alt right movement.

When I was suggesting that there would be 3 parties potentially as major players in the next election I wasn't suggesting that a new moderate party would be formed. That new moderate party is already in place. The new party would be an evolution of the green party that branches off from the democratic party made up of fed up Bernie/Occupy supporters.

I agree the Democrats already are the moderate party, but I don't think that's a viable long-term position.  

 

(And I don't think Dems can ever win the people you describe, but they could do a much better job of turning out voters to overcome such GOPers.)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Okay, go build your party, Levi.   All I'm suggesting operationally it's difficult to build a consensus, much less a party, by mere moderation or independence.

 

And for the record, I consider liberals independent thinkers.  This notion that both the right and the left are beholden ideology like some faith, just isn't true. Liberalism, as I understand it, values progressiveness, i.e. new ways of doing things.  

 

Again, I'm fine with moderation in governance, but for purposes of political party, give me more liberal agenda, and less of the 'moderation' the Democrats have been peddling.   

 

You are welcome to favor a more liberal agenda for your party.  That's your prerogative.  That was never at issue.

 

But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You say no one is beholden to one platform or ideology, but then also seem to say that you can't build coalition without near universal agreement.

 

I disagree.  Is it more difficult?  Sure, but we've swung to a point in which the two poles accept nothing other than devotion to their platform.  Right and left wingers talk about these things.  If you waver on any point, or quibble on any point, you're no longer a "true" part of the coalition.  You use phrases like "call yourself".  And the problem there is not just that you're rejected from the coalition, you're rejected from being a voice in the conversation.  

 

I think that's a really, really bad thing.  And how that changes the party dynamics is unclear to me, but it's making governance terrible.  More independent, moderate, untethered thinkers the better.  I think that's part of why Minnesota is so well governed in fact.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You are welcome to favor a more liberal agenda for your party.  That's your prerogative.  That was never at issue.

 

But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You say no one is beholden to one platform or ideology, but then also seem to say that you can't build coalition without near universal agreement.

Look, I can acknowledge my values and beliefs, and organize with other people who believe the same things, and not be ideologically beholden to those beliefs.  That's not talking out of both sides of my mouth, that's being reasonable.  

 

I think we just need more reasonable people, I don't really care how people identify.  The problem with our current political climate is that the unreasonable wing of conservatives have taken over the Republican Party.  I want reasonable conservatives, reasonable liberals, and any other reasonable person to occupy our political offices.  The point should be less about rejecting liberal or conservative values in the name of moderation, but more about being reasonable when trying to make policy wiht those you may disagree.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Look, I can acknowledge my values and beliefs, and organize with other people who believe the same things, and not be ideologically beholden to those beliefs.  That's not talking out of both sides of my mouth, that's being reasonable.  

 

I think we just need more reasonable people, I don't really care how people identify.  The problem with our current political climate is that the unreasonable wing of conservatives have taken over the Republican Party.  I want reasonable conservatives, reasonable liberals, and any other reasonable person to occupy our political offices.  The point should be less about rejecting liberal or conservative values in the name of moderation, but more about being reasonable when trying to make policy wiht those you may disagree.

 

I'm not sure what happened, because I started this line of conversation by remarking how crappy it is to be a moderate/independent thinker in this heightened, polarized environment.  You seemed to be arguing that moderates sort of deserve that because they don't stand for anything and don't accomplish much.  (I don't feel like I was reading into that because at least one other poster seemed to take away the same vibe from your posts)

 

Now you appear to be saying what I was all along: coalitions should be more diverse in their ideas and responses to problems.  As an independent, I don't feel welcome in either end of liberal/conservative nor in either party.  The rhetoric is harsh from the two ends on what they think of us.  We are phonies, not "real" liberals/conservatives, or many of the ways you chose to describe me in your posts.  So I don't disagree with anything you said in the second paragraph, what I take issue with is that neither side (be it party or ideology) is particularly interested in welcoming reasonable people into their conversations.  They simply want you to acknowledge their platform, in total, or get lost.  

 

Conservatives have been doing it for a decade and it's why we are here with the unreasonable whack jobs in charge.  Some of the rhetoric about Clinton the Evil Moderate sounds similar.  And, as an independent myself - oh too familiar.

[Bark's Lounge]

Lot of banter about conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressives. This conversation is missing the term "good people". Good people compromise, good people do what it takes to help their fellow human beings, good people are accepting of people who might believe in something different than their own beliefs. Good people would lead a just and respectable country. Good people certainly want to be financially stable, but good people would not cut their neighbors' throats and leave it to waste in a winner takes all blood sacrifice.

[DaveW]

 

So did the non-voters, or the libertarians, or conservative Cubans, etc.. When the margin in a essential states was in the ten thousands, you can blame just about any group you dislike.

 

But the lack of enthusiasm was definitely an issue, and problem for Clinton; you can blame the Bernie Bros, but I blame Clinton and the DNC for convincing so many (like you) that Clinton would be the better general election candidate, and passing up the chance to feature an authentic progressive in Bernie.  

Lot of Cuban conservatives in Penn, Wisconsin and Michigan?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bernie would have been a terrible general election candidate in pretty much ANY year. His foreign policy experience and plans were non existent (though certain better than Trump...but then again so is anyones)

He ran on a platform of forgiving student loan debt point blank and "making college free", jeez, I'm sure the blue collar working class loved to hear that. He talked about raising the minimum wage, which is fine, but again, he wouldn't have been able to appeal to the 45 year old steel worker in PA.

Plus frankly? His tax plans were asinine. I mean, I suppose if the Dems KNEW from the jump that Trump was going to win the nomination they could make the argument that Bernie was set up as the better candidate to "beat" him, (though I still doubt it, since Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million at last check), but Bernie would have been a terrible GE candidate pretty much no matter who he ran against. His ideas, while noble are frankly unrealistic in 2016. Small steps...small steps...

[DaveW]

 

 Good people would lead a just and respectable country. Good people certainly want to be financially stable, but good people would not cut their neighbors' throats and leave it to waste in a winner takes all blood sacrifice.

This is what it comes down to more than anything IMO. Good people actually caring about not only other people in this country, but around the globe. 

 

Very well said Bark.

 

[kab21]

 

Lot of banter about conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressives. This conversation is missing the term "good people". Good people compromise, good people do what it takes to help their fellow human beings, good people are accepting of people who might believe in something different than their own beliefs. Good people would lead a just and respectable country. Good people certainly want to be financially stable, but good people would not cut their neighbors' throats and leave it to waste in a winner takes all blood sacrifice.

I think this is exactly what Lev and I have been talking about. Moderate by the very nature of the word is talking about compromise and middle ground. There is a common middle ground on many issues for a lot of people. Unfortunately in order to get the party nomination for certain offices (esp on the GOP side) you almost need to take an extreme stance. And I think the democratic party will go in this direction during the next 4 years.

 

The more moderate democratic party has completely screwed up the massive advantage that they should have as the country has become more liberal. The DNC (and Hillary) should get blasted for letting a gift wrapped election slip through their fingers contrary to Dave's opinion that Stein/Johnson/Bernie/etc cost them the election.