Moderation vs Extremism in Politics

[TGHusker]

In our "Palin and Syria" thread, we got off track talking about centralist vs extreme political positions. It got me thinking - is extremism in politics ever wrong and is moderation always right. As I was thinking of this, I thought of some of the great presidential leaders in our nations history.

 

It could easily be argued that the 2 greatest presidents of last century were FDR and Reagan - both were transformational in the real sense of the word - affecting politics for decades. Both would not be considerate moderate. Take FDR- He faced a dire economic crisis and faced it by expanding govt in ways unheard of at that time. He also took strong measures to confront the isolationism from world events (Hitler's expansion in Europe) that had taken a strong hold in our country. Reagan approached communism like no other president before him. He rejected the concept of detente and MAD and said he would end the cold world with us being the winner. He wasn't afraid to call the Soviet system evil and confronted it as such. Both FDR and Reagan were not moderate in their approach to resolving the great issues of their day. The resent Lincoln movie also shows that Lincoln was no moderate as he tackled the issue of slavery - he confronted the issue head on and was willing to tear the nation apart so that it could be put back to together in a way that created equity and justice. Lincoln is considered our 2nd greatest president behind Washington.

 

These great presidents were not willing to be moderate in the most important issues of their days - they detested the status quo and compromise that produced it.

 

This reminds me of this great quote by Barry Goldwater, a man before is time: Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1964

 

 

So, my questions are: When is extremism warranted and moderation to be avoided? Are there seasons or times that call for extremism?

 

Can a man be called extreme today and yet his same positions be seen as needful in a later time - example was Goldwater a man before his time - the nation wasn't ready for him but was ready for Reagan?

 

Is Pres Obama a moderate or extreme - as he continues his transformational agenda - or is he a man before his time, or a man needed at this time due to the failure of others to move on health care, immigration, global warming etc in the way he has.

 

What situations could justify extreme right or left policies in taxation, foreign affairs, social justice, etc?

 

Definition:

Moderate

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Look up moderate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan, nor radical.^[1] In recent years, the term political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword.

The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Many people claim to be moderate because of a lack of adherence with the more radical sides of the political or religious spectrum, rather than advocating a specific stance.

Aristotle favoured conciliatory politics dominated by the centre rather than the extremes of great wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants.^[2]

As a political position

 

Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor right-wing politics. Gallup polling has shown American voters identifying themselves as moderate between 35–38% of the time over the last 20 years.^[3] Voters may identify with moderation for a number of reasons: pragmatic, ideological or otherwise. It has even been suggested that individuals vote for ‘centrist’ parties for purely statistical reasons.^[4]

[BigRedBuster]

I have said for a long time that the biggest part of our government that frustrates us the most is actually one part that makes it work. We all get frustrated all the time that nothing can get done in Washington.

 

Well, I have thought most of the time that is a good thing. Having a certain level of gridlock doesn't allow one political thought process to come into power and make radical changes to all of a sudden 4 or 8 years later have the same wild swing the other way.

 

Now, if liberals come into power, they may sway the way the country works a little to their side. Then, when conservatives come into power they then sway it a little their way.

 

This may be my centrist/moderate mind talking but I like it that way. One of the reasons why our economy has been one of the strongest in the world for so long is because most things stay pretty constant here and business knows how to plan and operate.

 

That doesn't mean that from time to time radical change doesn't need to take place. What it does prevent us from that radical change to take place every time a new President comes to power and wants to make a name for himself.

[strigori]

The issue is more about the hyper-partisanship that is dominating right now. Especially in heavily gerrymandered red areas the only thing that matter is winning the primary, something that of late is dominated by the extreme right wing, where Reagan would be considered a liberal. Or use the Iowa Presidential Primary where Santorum won. It kills a real open dialog and exchange of ideas, and promotes a race to the right.

[zoogs]

I think extremism is mainly a favored attack word used to attempt to discredit people or policies.

[TGHusker]

The issue is more about the hyper-partisanship that is dominating right now. Especially in heavily gerrymandered red areas the only thing that matter is winning the primary, something that of late is dominated by the extreme right wing, where Reagan would be considered a liberal. Or use the Iowa Presidential Primary where Santorum won. It kills a real open dialog and exchange of ideas, and promotes a race to the right.

 

Strange - but the repubs always end up nominating a moderate in the end. I would like to see the primaries spaced out a bit more where more dialog could occur - to develop a fuller story of the candidate's positions. As it is the big money wins out as their is a rush to seal up victory in the first few primaries thus freezing any money going to other candidates who need more time to get out their story.

[TGHusker]

I think extremism is mainly a favored attack word used to attempt to discredit people or policies.

very true - it is like throwing the race card at someone - it must be so since someone was offended. Most big ideas start out as extreme at their initial presentation. Status quo is hard to change.

[carlfense]

Most big ideas start out as extreme at their initial presentation. Status quo is hard to change.

Those seem like odd statements for a conservative to make . . .

 

(You do think of yourself as a moderate conservative, right? Or am I imagining that? )

[BigRedBuster]

I think extremism is mainly a favored attack word used to attempt to discredit people or policies.

 

 

 

I think many times you are correct. However, there are extreme sides in our political environment. Example:

 

1) Raising taxes on rich people to raise money to help poor people is not extreme. People who praise Hugo Chavez and believe that is the direction the US needs to go are extreme.

 

2) Limiting government's control over private industry so it doesn't stifle economic growth is not extreme. Believing all governmental control and regulations are bad and need to be done away with is extreme.

 

PS....I am not saying anyone on this board believes any of the above points.

[carlfense]

I think many times you are correct. However, there are extreme sides in our political environment. Example:

 

1) Raising taxes on rich people to raise money to help poor people is not extreme. People who praise Hugo Chavez and believe that is the direction the US needs to go are extreme.

 

2) Limiting government's control over private industry so it doesn't stifle economic growth is not extreme. Believing all governmental control and regulations are bad and need to be done away with is extreme.

 

PS....I am not saying anyone on this board believes any of the above points.

+1

[TGHusker]

Most big ideas start out as extreme at their initial presentation. Status quo is hard to change.

Those seem like odd statements for a conservative to make . . .

 

(You do think of yourself as a moderate conservative, right? Or am I imagining that? )

Yes, moderate conservative. Not odd when you think about it. - There can be "extreme" ideas proposed by conservatives - In a day of progressive spending, severe cuts or returning to a conservative spending policy would seem extreme relative to the current situation. In 5 years (if our debt became truly unmanageable), a call to severe fiscal restraint may not be extreme at all. Going to a 'flat tax' or a 'fair tax' might seem extreme now but maybe not in 10 years. Societies can 'go back to the future' instead of always passing over that 'bridge into the 21st Century' in order to fix what needs to be fixed in the society. Note: I'm not talking about conservative 'fundamentalism' as in Iran style. I think over the long history of societies, there is a cycling of progressive/conservative movements - both working together in their own way to improve the society. That is why we shouldn't consider the other side of any issue and enemy -as long as they have the best interest of the country at heart. Easy to say - hard to do in this political atmosphere. And there are times I get my feathers ruffled and I can be just as partisan as the next guy - but then I fail to hear what they are saying. So, I'm trying to listen more to you and others Carl. I appreciate your intelligence - I don't want to be a conservative who cannot learn or find the good in the views and intentions of an opposing view.

 

I had a Bible school teacher tell me a long time ago (He came to SDSU to do a seminar for us) to "Major on things Christ majored on and minor on things Christ minored on and you won't go wrong when it comes to theology and relationships etc." Well it is true in political debates it is easy to get worked up about a lot of minor things and fail to recognize a lot of major things we have in common and agree on. I think often what we view as difference aren't a difference in the desired end result but the method of getting there. So we major on the method in error and not the commonly desired end result.

 

sorry for the long rambling answer - you caught me in a reflective mood.

[TGHusker]

I think extremism is mainly a favored attack word used to attempt to discredit people or policies.

 

 

 

I think many times you are correct. However, there are extreme sides in our political environment. Example:

 

1) Raising taxes on rich people to raise money to help poor people is not extreme. People who praise Hugo Chavez and believe that is the direction the US needs to go are extreme.

 

2) Limiting government's control over private industry so it doesn't stifle economic growth is not extreme. Believing all governmental control and regulations are bad and need to be done away with is extreme.

 

PS....I am not saying anyone on this board believes any of the above points.

Excellent

[carlfense]

Most big ideas start out as extreme at their initial presentation. Status quo is hard to change.

Those seem like odd statements for a conservative to make . . .

 

(You do think of yourself as a moderate conservative, right? Or am I imagining that? )

Yes, moderate conservative. Not odd when you think about it. - There can be "extreme" ideas proposed by conservatives - In a day of progressive spending, severe cuts or returning to a conservative spending policy would seem extreme relative to the current situation. In 5 years (if our debt became truly unmanageable), a call to severe fiscal restraint may not be extreme at all. Going to a 'flat tax' or a 'fair tax' might seem extreme now but maybe not in 10 years. Societies can 'go back to the future' instead of always passing over that 'bridge into the 21st Century' in order to fix what needs to be fixed in the society. Note: I'm not talking about conservative 'fundamentalism' as in Iran style. I think over the long history of societies, there is a cycling of progressive/conservative movements - both working together in their own way to improve the society. That is why we shouldn't consider the other side of any issue and enemy -as long as they have the best interest of the country at heart. Easy to say - hard to do in this political atmosphere. And there are times I get my feathers ruffled and I can be just as partisan as the next guy - but then I fail to hear what they are saying. So, I'm trying to listen more to you and others Carl. I appreciate your intelligence - I don't want to be a conservative who cannot learn or find the good in the views and intentions of an opposing view.

 

I had a Bible school teacher tell me a long time ago (He came to SDSU to do a seminar for us) to "Major on things Christ majored on and minor on things Christ minored on and you won't go wrong when it comes to theology and relationships etc." Well it is true in political debates it is easy to get worked up about a lot of minor things and fail to recognize a lot of major things we have in common and agree on. I think often what we view as difference aren't a difference in the desired end result but the method of getting there. So we major on the method in error and not the commonly desired end result.

 

sorry for the long rambling answer - you caught me in a reflective mood.

I subscribe to the definition of small "c" conservative that tries to preserve the status quo.

 

You, apparently, subscribe to the definition of conservative that wants to force change.

[TGHusker]

Most big ideas start out as extreme at their initial presentation. Status quo is hard to change.

Those seem like odd statements for a conservative to make . . .

 

(You do think of yourself as a moderate conservative, right? Or am I imagining that? )

Yes, moderate conservative. Not odd when you think about it. - There can be "extreme" ideas proposed by conservatives - In a day of progressive spending, severe cuts or returning to a conservative spending policy would seem extreme relative to the current situation. In 5 years (if our debt became truly unmanageable), a call to severe fiscal restraint may not be extreme at all. Going to a 'flat tax' or a 'fair tax' might seem extreme now but maybe not in 10 years. Societies can 'go back to the future' instead of always passing over that 'bridge into the 21st Century' in order to fix what needs to be fixed in the society. Note: I'm not talking about conservative 'fundamentalism' as in Iran style. I think over the long history of societies, there is a cycling of progressive/conservative movements - both working together in their own way to improve the society. That is why we shouldn't consider the other side of any issue and enemy -as long as they have the best interest of the country at heart. Easy to say - hard to do in this political atmosphere. And there are times I get my feathers ruffled and I can be just as partisan as the next guy - but then I fail to hear what they are saying. So, I'm trying to listen more to you and others Carl. I appreciate your intelligence - I don't want to be a conservative who cannot learn or find the good in the views and intentions of an opposing view.

 

I had a Bible school teacher tell me a long time ago (He came to SDSU to do a seminar for us) to "Major on things Christ majored on and minor on things Christ minored on and you won't go wrong when it comes to theology and relationships etc." Well it is true in political debates it is easy to get worked up about a lot of minor things and fail to recognize a lot of major things we have in common and agree on. I think often what we view as difference aren't a difference in the desired end result but the method of getting there. So we major on the method in error and not the commonly desired end result.

 

sorry for the long rambling answer - you caught me in a reflective mood.

I subscribe to the definition of small "c" conservative that tries to preserve the status quo.

 

You, apparently, subscribe to the definition of conservative that wants to force change.

the small c - status quo - is the typical view of conservative. I would say I believe that conservatism can be a change agent as well - but should never be 'forced' as you mention. So, I would reject the 'forced idea'. There are times when progressive ideas are best for our society - and times conservatism is best. Societies change slowly - unless forced to change by an outside force - military force (think Hitler, or communism), the force of a failed economy (think great depression, or our recent great recession) - so I think the society as a whole choose what is best at the time - progressive change or a more conservative path. Now when a political party or ideology tries to 'force' change before its time, I think the society responds in kind - think of the 1994, 2006, and 2010 elections in Congress. Clinton, Bush and Obama may have overstepped causing a reaction in the congressional elections. I think 1980 and perhaps 2008 were times when society wanted a major shift - once towards conservatism and another toward the progressive path.

[carlfense]

the small c - status quo - is the typical view of conservative. I would say I believe that conservatism can be a change agent as well - but should never be 'forced' as you mention. So, I would reject the 'forced idea'. There are times when progressive ideas are best for our society - and times conservatism is best. Societies change slowly - unless forced to change by an outside force - military force (think Hitler, or communism), the force of a failed economy (think great depression, or our recent great recession) - so I think the society as a whole choose what is best at the time - progressive change or a more conservative path. Now when a political party or ideology tries to 'force' change before its time, I think the society responds in kind - think of the 1994, 2006, and 2010 elections in Congress. Clinton, Bush and Obama may have overstepped causing a reaction in the congressional elections. I think 1980 and perhaps 2008 were times when society wanted a major shift - once towards conservatism and another toward the progressive path.

+1

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmm....interesting conversation. I consider myself a moderate conservative. I'm puzzled by the notion that conservatives are only interested in the status quo. There are a number of issues that they don't like the status quo on.

 

(note: not all people who view themselves as conservatives agree with all of these topics just like not all people who vie themselves as liberals agree with everything attributed to "liberal" points of view.)

 

1) Abortion = A conservative who doesn't like abortion doesn't want the status quo.

 

2) Taxes = Many conservatives don't like the status quo of the tax policy and want it changed either slightly or drastically.

 

3) Government program waste and fraud = Clean up fraud in programs like Medicare and it could be amazing what we could do with the money.

 

There are three big issues that various conservative groups find important.

 

Just because one side fights the other side over their main issues doesn't mean the first side always just wants the status quo.