Moderates

Just a interesting question for really everyone around the world.

Do moderates even have a say anymore in world affairs? Does non-socially based policy even matter anymore at this point?

I believe they do in elections but as I look at the economic movements within society(where power is actually located) I see less and less of any form of commercial/advertisement/entertainment that is not directed towards the far sides of political spectrum. I want to hear other's opinions on this, I know I am a crazy person but I can't be the only person that sees this. And if I am then I would like to know that so I can consider my perspective deeper.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Moderates are conservatives too afraid to take the label.

steamboat28 wrote: Moderates are conservatives too afraid to take the label.

I'm inclined to agree- among the politicians, I've noticed, a moderate/"centrist" wants the votes of the left, but don't seem all that invested in what the left, you know, actually wants.

I can only speak to American politics, though, I'm uncertain of the intended scope of this discussion, so my apparently radical-ass might be completely off topic.

Nope you guys are on target. I find that to be an issue with in the political upper-class in the US also. But, I admit about being curious to know more about the general population.

Steam, if you wouldn't mind on expanding on that point a bit particularly as it relates to the general population. Would this mean there is a significant swing of the general populace to the conservative right? I believe there is some truth to what you are saying but I can't quite put my finger on it being that simple.

Much Love,Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I'm in full agreement that what was once moderate is now considered extreme, and what was extreme is now branded moderate. America's political center has gradually but steadily moved rightward over several decades.

It's a subjective judgement of course, but to my eyes the epitome of a moderate U.S. President during the 20th century was Dwight Eisenhower. Continuing and even expanding upon the traditions of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he was an advocate for the middle class and the elderly. He created the interstate highway system, today a key component of America's infrastructure. Eisenhower brought an end to at least the active conduct of the Korean War, and steered America through the combined impact of the Cold War and the extremist anti-Communist response led by Joseph McCarthy. He did all that while coming close to maintaining a balanced budget; over his eight years of Presidential service, Eisenhower added just $19 billion to the national debt (even running a small surplus in two years and breaking even in one), compared to the trillion dollars or so we're accumulating each year now. His two terms in office spanned some of the most rapid increases in prosperity American ever experienced, and he left office hugely popular.

A product of his times, Eisenhower regrettably expressed some racist sentiments. But, if you review the public statements of policy Eisenhower made on other issues such as education, Social Security, taxation, the minimum wage, and income inequality, they are closely aligned to what Bernie Sanders advocates today. Eisenhower's concerns about militarism expressed only very late in his Presidency echo those now being voiced by Tulsi Gabbard. Today, those are considered among the most far-left candidates now running for President, but in Eisenhower's day their views were considered mainstream.

You can see evidence for a rightward shift condensed even in the short history of this century. The specific aims of Democrat Hillary Clinton's political platform in 2016 matched very closely with those of Republican George W. Bush's in 2000. The 2016 Republicans, taken as a whole, responded by moving even farther to the right. (It should be mentioned that there are individual exceptions to that last comment.)

It's my personal hope that this trend reverses. Only time will tell.

Kobos wrote: Steam, if you wouldn't mind on expanding on that point a bit particularly as it relates to the general population. Would this mean there is a significant swing of the general populace to the conservative right? I believe there is some truth to what you are saying but I can't quite put my finger on it being that simple.

I would say that in the US, the conservatives have gotten their hands into more money and airtime, and the moderates have similar goals ultimately (make a ****-load of money, screw the working class, get rich, etc.) to conservatives, so they have to side with them or they lose their cash, because actual leftists ("liberals" aren't actual liberal, they're just slightly left-of-center) want things like redistribution of wealth through proper taxation and larger social programs.

I might be a moderate, which I see as a structural conservative, yet progressive in all other areas. With that frame of reference (structural), it makes progress more complex (slower) but more likely to succeed by virtue of its integration. This is opposed to using progressiveness for fashionable change (changing fast so tending to being superficial therefore faster), which tends to be short sighted and on dodgy foundation. I define populism as the later with all it's emotionally argumentive supports to make up for it, and something existing throughout all sides of politics unfortunately. I wish it were more clear cut..... or perhaps not, as deep progressiveness would be radical, interesting... but risky. Change appetite v change aversion?

Moderates are less interesting than extremists. No one cares about news if it talks about normalcy. Also the idea of a moderate is kinda tricky and lacks nuance

Adder wrote: I might be a moderate, which I see as a structural conservative, yet progressive in all other areas. With that frame of reference (structural), it makes progress more complex (slower) but more likely to succeed by virtue of its integration. This is opposed to using progressiveness for fashionable change (changing fast so tending to being superficial therefore faster), which tends to be short sighted and on dodgy foundation. I define populism as the later with all it's emotionally argumentive supports to make up for it, and something existing throughout all sides of politics unfortunately. I wish it were more clear cut..... or perhaps not, as deep progressiveness would be radical, interesting... but risky. Change appetite v change aversion?

Adder, this is a really good way of putting how I feel. It is actually why I asked the question because I didn't really know how to articulate it. I just want to say thank you.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: Just a interesting question for really everyone around the world.

Do moderates even have a say anymore in world affairs? Does non-socially based policy even matter anymore at this point?

I believe they do in elections but as I look at the economic movements within society(where power is actually located) I see less and less of any form of commercial/advertisement/entertainment that is not directed towards the far sides of political spectrum. I want to hear other's opinions on this, I know I am a crazy person but I can't be the only person that sees this. And if I am then I would like to know that so I can consider my perspective deeper.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I agree with you. People fall for sensationalism, I find women in particular. Eventually our asses will be handed to us on a plate and we'll start again, as moderates who learned their lesson, and then move on to ever greater sensationalism.
People also do not Want to be left out. It is easier to live in a pack than as a lone wolf.