1) “Moderate” is, by definition, determined by two more extreme points. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about what a moderate is without talking about what a moderate is not.

2) Our political system was founded on a series of compromises, and the design of checks and balances is meant to force our government to act slowly and deliberately – and to introduce multiple points where compromise (moderation, if you prefer) can be introduced. Anyone who thinks moderation is a bad thing should read The Federalist Papers. Particularly “Number 10.”

3) Political ideologies are, in some manner, a model of reality. Like a physical model, they seek to re-create reality, but on a scale that is more easily handled. A necessary by-product of this is that some amount of detail is lost. A moderate, in my mind, remembers that some of the details left out of their favorite model are still important, and sometimes it is important to look at another model to get a better view of reality.

4) Reality is paradoxical. For example, government regulation, by definition, limits the ability of people act; therefore limiting liberty. However, without government regulation, there is only so much liberty as it allowed by the nearest person willing and able to impose their will on your actions; therefore absence of government regulation limits liberty. Extremists are too locked into their model (see above) to understand that, without a counterbalance, their prefered actions will result in the loss of liberty.

5) I find that most moderates are much more concerned with the realistic outcomes of governmental action. In part, I think this is because they are not sold out to one or another intellectual model that says this necessarily follows that. Holding the paradoxical nature of reality in mind makes one consider how one's favorite model might be wrong as well as right.

6) “Centrist” really makes no sense at all. It depends on a left-right plot that finds some people's aggragated votes as falling somewhere between the party lines. In reality, very few people are 100% party people. That means everyone is a centrist, and therefore no one is.

7) “Independent” is meaningless. Various studies have shown that those who say they are independent are actually just as partisan as those who openly join the parties. “Unaffilliated” is a better descriptor.

Not agreeing with a party 100% is a poor reason to forego membership. If all moderates abandoned both parties, then, by definition, the nominees would be chosen by the most extreme members of the parties. This would lead our country to lurch first one direction, then the other as the majority over-reacted and fell out of favor, and the cycle repeated with the other side. By flexing their muscle in the primary, moderates can ensure that the eventual nominee is more in line with the overall population – and our system is more stable.

9) A moderate, at very least, understands that someone can disagree with them and still be a good human being. I think that everyone, probably, has at least one topic on which they are not moderate. For me, it's torture – I really don't think someone can claim to be a reasonable person if they believe other human beings should be tortured. There's just no reason anyone can give me that would make me believe otherwise. But that's my non-negotiable belief. Other people have others.

Moderates are people that refuse to be defined by the American versions of left or right. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, they just don't fall into “left” or “right”. We need more parties. Maybe one day I will find one to which I can identify.

Example, the abortion issue does not affect me, therefore I could go along with a variety of solutions vs. I believe there are severe moral shortcomings in people who for reasons other than rape and incest decide to abort, however, they are free to choose hell of their own volition, so if you want to make abortion more accessible, I can live with that.

Yupyup. Even though I realize that isn't necessarily true, there's no escaping the fact that I disagree with at least some of each party's platform. And thus, have found it impossible to affiliate with them. I so understand you there.

“When's the convention? ”

Oh…. don't I wish!

The greyness you talked about resonated strongly. I've often said, “Tell me one problem you have in your own life where there is only black and white solutions.” Yet this is exactly what we are asked to chose between in American politics.

If a moderate is someone that uses their own intellectual rigor to arrive at a position, and

if a moderate refuses to allow the sound bite and the culture of crisis spawned by the media to drive his decisions, and

if a moderate is someone who is willing to work with disparate positions to hammer out a workable solution to common problems,

then you've helped me find a label. When's the convention?

5. Moderates do not waste time worrying about irrelevancies like whether or not one's car choice makes an appropriate political point.

:>

For years, moderates had the best of both worlds while shopping for cars.

Conservatives thought it was their patriotic duty to “buy American”, while no liberal in good standing would be caught dead in a domestic car. Moderates, by virtue of their yellow-striped, squashed armadillo middleness, got to play both sides of the automotive street.

The automotive tables have turned for the “extremists”.

Chrysler and GM are now a socialist experiment owned by Obama and the UAW. Toyota, Honda, BMW etc. all continue as non-union bastions of capitalism.

So, I’m sure we’ll see San Francisco and Martha’s Vineyard fill up with Chevys and Dodges. Atlanta and Houston will be overrun with Japanese and German luxury vehicles and the mushy middle will continue to drive anything they feel like without having to take a stand.

“can you help me see the difference between moderates and independents?”

Dang. Drat. I definitely should have had a point on that — because that's a great question, and it's been on my mind recently.

Independents can be, and often are, moderates — but the reverse is not a given.

The recent polling showing the growth of self-declared “independents” is, I think, pretty misleading, because there are people dropping from the Republican party (I know a lot of these folks) because they're disgusted with the party in recent years. But their disgust is more along the lines of, (for example) “they didn't close the borders and kick out all the dirty illegal aliens”…. or, “they expanded government, and what I really wanna see is a full return to states' rights”.

I assume that there are similar movements on the left (though those shifts don't appear to be so dramatic just now).

In other words, everybody moving to the “I” column is not necessarily moderate.

“Is that due to the fact that moderates have been defined by the ends of the political spectrum?”

Yes, that's exactly why. One early draft this morning was kind of a “myth-busters” thing.

Thanks for this post. Your four points certainly required some reflection on my part before I responded. Generally, it seems to me you define being a moderate not so much as a political creed like 'liberal' or 'conservative,' but as a philosophic technique for navigating political issues. If you agree with this assessment, can you help me see the difference between moderates and independents?

Also, I found it curious that three or your four points defined a moderate by what a moderate is not. Is that due to the fact that moderates have been defined by the ends of the political spectrum?