« The Moderate Voice’s Jill Miller Zimon On CNN’s “Blog Buzz” Sounds Off On Campaign 2008
Clinton Surrogate Talking Points: The Photo »



Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

February 25th, 2008
By PAUL SILVER


Many of us visit The Moderate Voice because the rhetoric and performance of the party extremes do not seem to be a comfortable fit. We are looking for a different community with which to belong. Most of us like talk and performance that is moderate in tone and balanced in application. And it is a useful exercise to continually reflect on what we mean by moderate, extreme and balanced.

It seems to me that each issue can be laid out along a spectrum from one extreme to another. e.g. Nationalized businesses on one end and unfettered markets on the other with gradations of regulation in the middle. I am drawn to the gradations in the middle. For me the compelling debate is about what kind of regulation and how much.

Similarly on Taxes: Socialism on one end and Libertarianism on the other with various philosophies of taxation in the middle. For me the attractive debate is about how much taxes are necessary to provide some agreed upon level of wellbeing for our citizens. I think it is a canard to talk about any significant reduction in overall tax burdens. Even with scrupulous management, our Federal budget might only shrink from $3 Trillion to $2.5 Trillion. The real issue is how the burden is shared by those to whom much has been given.

Few of the central controversies in our society can be resolved by simple extreme answers: they do not reduce to: power versus finesse, carrot versus stick, civil liberties versus security, and it certainly isn’t liberal versus conservative. It is almost always a balance and blend. And it is the leaders who are willing and able to speak to that Centrist sensibility who attract many of the folks who turn to The Moderate Voice.



This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 1:15 pm and is filed under Moderates, Centrists. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 106 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I'm a centrist by division. Add up those Con and lib things, and most things in the middle, and I'm centrist/moderate.

    However, the tax issue has always been a canard. Those who scream for less taxes are generally not those paying the highest %. As a married man, my wife and I paid a higher % of taxes than most Fortune 500 companies. But, mention that and you get the BSers with the phony stats or those who talk about businesses needing $ more than individuals.

    Also, most people forget that the most basic sorts of commerce could not go on w/o gov't taxes. Where would all the goods end up w/o railroads and roads to deliver them?

    Those who whine of our tax rate live in a fantasy world. Euros pay far higher taxes and get much more, and that's the key- not the rate of taxation, but the rate compared to the return.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree on taxation and the size of government, that its not a matter of the size of government but whether its larger than necessary. Good policy often requires a combination of tax cuts and tax increases.

    But, a lot in our government needs to be streamlined, there's a lot of ineffective bureaucracy and waste, and conservatives are right when they talk about involving the private sector. Health care plans in certain countries ban private care, and those systems have just as many problems as a fully private system.

    However, even if we agree on that abstract level, I've found, for as much as I've read this site, that it leans left more than right.

    I've found, outside of the war on Iraq, Bush was no less centrist than Clinton, even though both tried to re-frame the center in terms of their respective ideologies and both were divisive in doing so. Immigration proposals, no child left behind, and faith based initiatives, were all centrist solutions, even if not all of these were implemented right or agreeably.

    The real center is about a lot more than pointing out extremes and avoiding them---its about understanding the arguments put out by extreme partisans, understanding why they're not realistic, and finding some principled common ground that Americans can agree on and find realistic. Politics is the art of compromise, and the center is about the moderation of different sides in the political discourse.
    • ^
    • v
    cosmoetica ,

    You're right, its true that the tax issue is a canard, in that wealthier people can afford to pay a higher rate.

    Its also a canard when Democrats complain Republicans 'cut taxes on the rich' when they do general tax cuts that affect everybody
    • ^
    • v
    At this site, the "moderate" position on immigration is generally presented as some form of amnesty, while enforcing our laws is considered "extremist".
    • ^
    • v
    cosmoetica, and Europe has economic problems of its own, its historically had high unemployment due to the size of government and taxation. i'm not condemning government prrograms or anything european. But europe isn't a model for centrism. Europeans themselves are starting to become more conservative, as they're realizing certain gov't policies don't work.
    • ^
    • v
    I simply laughed when I read the start of this thread. Brookings is probably not only "conservative" but "extremist" ...

    As to reality -- the burden of proof falls upon advocates of more taxes and regulation and intervention by government, as well as preservation of the status quo.
    • ^
    • v
    "The real center is"

    ... defined largely by pragmatism and resignation about "water under the bridge" (though we who are better insist on the morality behind "Go and sin no more"). The most practical example of a moderate[ or ]centrist (thread title corrected) is a swing voter. Not only can "pure" ideology be willingly compromised, but obviously partisanship, particularly among those of us who merely view one or the other party as the lesser of two evils at best.
    • ^
    • v
    DLS,

    yea its largely defined by pragmatism, but policy is by definition about pragmatism. You can be in the center and be principled about it.

    A lot of others who talk about being in the center , l ike mny politicians, are just there for expediency and come up with solutions that just sound moderate but really don't understand the issues
    • ^
    • v
    If this site seems like it leans to the left thats because we have a truly incompetent conservative in office, and much of the political discusion is going to revolve around him, his policies and his actions. He's screwing things up pretty bad, so we bitch about him. Once we get an incompetent liberal in office this site will start to seem consevative as we rip the new president a new one. In short, a properly moderate site with this administration SHOULD seem to be skewed left.
    • ^
    • v
    They routinely say "centrist" or "moderate" because of liberalism's past failures and they can't admit they are liberals. Not only the politicians but the posters on this site. Neither Clinton nor Obama will admit they're liberals, much less that they are well left of the center of the US public.

    Sometimes I wish things could be made easier for libs by ending any remnants of constitutional federalism (which they've treated with contempt since the 1930s) and replace it with a general, nearly-unlimited grant of power to Washington, that would make it truly a national government. (I'd leave it to the liberals to propose the abolition of state governments and any remnant state sovereignty, converting them largely to administrative units or districts instead.) That way we who know better would no longer be concerned with arguing about what Washington legally and legitimately may or can do, and we can join the libs in spending 100% of the time arguing over what we believe Washington should do, or what we want it to do (or still, wisely, often not to do).

    Then pragmatism would be reduced to a great extent to negotiating mutual combinations of favors to each side. Or if we had 4-6+ parties someday with proportional representation and coalitions, spend most time in "trading."

    * * *

    "a lot in our government needs to be streamlined, there's a lot of ineffective bureaucracy and waste, and conservatives are right when they talk about involving the private sector"

    Aside from programs often achieving the opposite of their desired result, there are all kinds of unforeseen (as well as foreseen) consequences with various government interventionism, and the medical analogy continues to hold. It's like being given a drug (a new government program). Unfortunately, there are side effects. Rather than question the drug, instead what is often sought is another, additional, new drug in addition to the first drug. That one produces side effects...but rather than reconsider all that medication, instead more drugs are prescribed for the additional side effects. The cascade is silly.

    Many who are well to the left have failed to learn from earlier failures of US liberalism (and failures seen elsewhere in Europe). They believe what was wrong was that we never went "far enough." Not enough "progress," that is. If nothing else, reality will strike hard in 10-20 years when Social Security as well as Medicare bills come due. That and any possible future federal debt trap. All the envy and class warfare and "fairness" [sic] in wrongful tax policy won't evade this.
    • ^
    • v
    "because we have a truly incompetent conservative in office,"

    I'd hate to see things on here if we had a truly competent conservative officially in office, rather than have Cheney manage things largely by default.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, Slamster, we see preferences already being expressed. Both Clinton and Obama are well left and have nearly-identical programs, but because Clinton has posed as a "centrist" [sic] and was not rabidly anti-war, the harder-core lefties on here, including members of the staff, so to speak, have bashed here more than us non-libs have, at times. (It's so bad they've been meaner toward not merely Clinton voters, but fellow posters on here and even fellow staff members, than I and other mild-mannered Clark Kent non-libs would ever d r e a m of being.)

    heh
    • ^
    • v
    DLS- Who is representative of your concept of a "truly competent conservative"? Because I've yet to see conservatism work in the real world, which is why all of the Pres candidates on the Republican side had to reach all the way back to Ronald Reagan for a role model. I think even Reagan would not be considered a conservative by his party on certain issues these days. Also those who reach back to Reagan fail to acknowledge that we're facing a totally different set of problems than he did in the '80's, and that he likely would not have invaded Iraq.
    • ^
    • v
    DLS,

    I agree completely except don't think it means there can be no government involvement at all. I think some government involvement can be justified even on libertarian standards, if libertarians weren't obstinate. For example, I think environmental regulation is well justified because of the legal concept of public space. I think the FDA was created as a way around litigation that existed in its absence. A lot of other laws deal with situations in which the free market is not a free market, like anti-trust legislation, and corporations are government created entities. The government does end up having a role in the market.

    What is bad, is when legislation is doesn't arise from legal justification, but is just an experiment. That leads to situations like you describe, where bad programs are endlesly patched up, and never rethought.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you Paul. Well framed.

    I'm in the middle-left, I guess. I don't want "socialized (ie nationalized) medicine" but I believe the 35% profit and overhead of insurance companies prevents us from achieving affordable health care for all, and the <5% overhead of Medicare is a very attractive model. Plus our national goal is to provide effective, and cost-effective health care. Their goal is to maximize profit. Conflicting goals.

    On the war/terror and privacy/security front, I side with the "noses out of our business" libertarian end of the spectrum. I try to be pragmatic, and think my views express that. The Pres is our CEO, not just Commander in Chief. When a program is proposed to the board and stockholders--Congress and us--we should expect the cost, the plan and measurable results, plus oversight.

    For example, on the hot-button issue of wiretapping, I see no evidence that the program has paid off. I'm skeptical because of the extreme difficulty of sifting through the sheer volume of calls and emails, and computers can only do so much. I'm no criminal mastermind or spy, but I really doubt that terrorists are talking openly about dirty bombs or assassination on the phone, or in emails. More likely it's like "Pizza night is Tuesday. You in?" "Yeah, we're bringing lots of beer, Abdul is bringing sauce and you've got the dough, right?"

    How in the world is Bush's program going to catch that? I want to see what they've got, after all these years. And if not me, for "national security reasons," then a security-cleared judge or senator. As the "board", Congress (some on each side at least) has to see the beef. It's not responsible for them not to see it and not acceptable for the CEO to withhold it.
    • ^
    • v
    "Who is representative of your concept of a 'truly competent conservative'? "

    Cheney was an example I gave. No question he's competent as well as conservative.

    "I've yet to see conservatism work in the real world"

    Deregulation has enabled us all rather than the wealthy to travel by air routinely. There is an example of success ("working"). The same is true for what tax reform Reagan could get through. Revenues increased and people had less incentive to shelter income as well as disincentive to work. Even the Clintons gave in to reality after 1994 and started falling back on friendly fascism ("government-business partnerships") rather than outright government interventionism as well as things like welfare reform. (Bill Clinton and Gore sickened me the time they said they had learned their lesson, though. They said they no longer believed Washington should be like your parents. Instead, it should be like your grandparents, "nurturing you" ... it made me sick to hear them say that. There remain things that need to be learned!)

    "Also those who reach back to Reagan fail to acknowledge that we're facing a totally different set of problems than he did in the '80's, and that he likely would not have invaded Iraq."

    Last issue, I agree -- he pulled us out of Lebanon. He did intervene elsewhere, though. Libya and Grenada, cheers. Take that, terrorists and Soviet adventurers...

    Also with health care, as naive as I feel so many supporters are of extending Medicare to everyone*, this is no longer a fringe idea and it may be inevitable. Such a thing was simply unknown in the early 1980s in polite, sane society.

    * We'll exchange one set of problems for another, including problems hidden because of the way things are now. Medicare underpays providers, who make up for this by charging more to private patients and the privately insured. Once this is no longer an option -- private duplication of medical services provided someday to all by Medicare won't be allowed, to keep people from leaving Medicare and then wanting not to pay as much for it) -- there will be a need to pay providers more, not less, than Medicare is paying now. It could be much more than anyone realizes.
    • ^
    • v
    "don't think it means there can be no government involvement at all"

    I'm not a libertarian purist. We need someone else to set the rules by which everyone plays. That may include the stuff that Nader used to harp about, the safety features of automobiles. Unless people are willingly going to pay more for these, it's stupid for any manufacturer to spend more and offer them in a vehicle that costs more. There's no reason any company should go first unless they are confident they'll outsell the competition. That's where government can step in and set the rules with minimum requirements that all must meet. In reality this often goes wrong. Big business is okay with regulations so long as they enable the big players to wipe out the smaller competition. (Then they want the regulation to end.) And what we should be seeing are minimalist goals, not what we see, for example, in health care already with what has long been far more than true medical "insurance" but is comprehensive pre-paid care -- now loaded with extras:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120388378628988...
    • ^
    • v
    "For example, I think environmental regulation is well justified because of the legal concept of public space."

    Also re. Washington, externalities such as air pollution not respecting state boundaries, etc..
    • ^
    • v
    "The government does end up having a role in the market."

    Having to police it, of course, but also consider something that's not my problem but is many others': Is the demand for insulin by diabetics elastic? Can we just be arrogant in a conservative sense the way liberals are often arrogant, and just mutter the standard economics line: "Then the goods [like insulin?] will reach the price to which the consumers value them accordingly..." etc. Insulin isn't the same as, say, deciding to eat out at a restaurant or go to the movies.
    • ^
    • v
    Paul - Your former colleague(Herr JS) weighs in on your post. He doesn't think TMV lives up to it's name. Maybe thats why he and the Dutch lad formed the own blog, with links to HotAir, the Ctritter in Boston and NRO.
    • ^
    • v
    DLS, no i think some government involvement in health care is justifiable. and, even in the conservative sense, is economically sound, being a safety net. so the debate ends up being, what type of health care involvement makes sense.

    hillary herself has had to move on this a little, her earlier health care plan being a failure. people should learn how she tried to destroy people who offered more moderate bi-partisan proposals.
    • ^