From both party extremes, the concept they dislike most is that of the moderate. They want to see everyone in one party or the other, donating to one party or the other. To them a moderate is worse than nothing. Moderates are lost warriors for the cause. They see moderates as on a fence and swinging this way or that on a whim.That may be so for some, but being a moderate does not mean you can't have strong opinions that stay the same. What it does mean is your beliefs don't fit into the ideological boxes of either party as they are currently configured. There are many moderates in this country, and David Brooks wrote an excellent piece on it and with which I pretty much agreed.
Although I sometimes tweak right wingers by calling myself a liberal, what I actually am is a left leaning moderate. Ingineer, who comments here frequently, is a right leaning moderate. He and I can generally discuss issues better than we probably can with anybody from either party extreme.
Unlike what Limbaugh has said (and I do know what he has said as for many years I listened to him regularly even if I was never a ditto-head), moderates have strong opinions, do not all get blown by every wind, but what we don't have is party loyalty, nor do we have an agenda that suits the wing-nuts from either side. We are not in their boxes.
I don't have a problem with genuine liberals or conservatives (although I personally think real conservatives are harder to find these days and most who call themselves that need to come up with a new title), but I generally don't agree with either enough to make them happy.
It's not necessary for me to list off all my views because this isn't about that but about how you can have well thought out opinions that come from pieces of both sides. Let's start with guns.
Not only do I own guns, fire them when needed, and keep them loaded, I also have a concealed weapon permit even though I rarely carry a gun along with it (my purse is too small and the roll around my middle is taking up the other possible hiding place).
But I don't believe ordinary citizens should be allowed to own assault rifles. A handgun is for personal protection but an assault rifle is a war weapon. It's not for hunting but for possibly going into a mall when someone is mad. It makes no sense to me why such a weapon should be in civilian hands.
Abortion is another issue where I don't take the extremes of either side. Early abortions should be the decision of the mother, but by the time the baby becomes viable, could survive, which is definitely by 5 months, there should be no abortions unless it's to save the life of the mother. After all, if she died, the baby would anyway.
Going along with split decisions, I believe in stem cell research when it's using embryos that were created for artificial insemination and not going to be implanted, but I do not believe in creating embryos for the purpose of stem-cell research.
I strongly believe in allowing homosexuals to be married, but think all legal sexual unions in the government's eyes should be called civil unions-- keep the religious aspect of it for religions and recognize that the government's end is a business contract.
As a moderate , I like the idea of solving social problems with government help, but I am leery of past failures and don't like our high deficit. I do like how Obama at least is counting everything into it but am expecting he will reduce it as soon as he can-- as he promised. Good programs should be kept. Bad ones eliminated and that means weapons also when they make no sense for today's world. Do things that are interesting when you can afford them. That's not today.
The earmark thing has been used by McCain to get another moment of attention, but he's a hypocrite about it. He doesn't need to get them for his state, Kyl does that. What he didn't discuss was that Obama never promised to get rid of them instantly but rather to get them gone eventually. Obama said this year his goal was to bring them back to the numbers in an earlier year (somewhere in the '90s) and reduce the dollar amounts. That has happened.
Don't forget some earmarks might be for a bridge you wanted in your state, but I don't like earmarks either. Spending proposals should be out in the open and dealt with as line item issues. Some earmarks are for totally ridiculous things. It's no wonder they want to hide them, but these are not hidden thanks to the new rules and all of it is online to reveal the projects.
Some are blaming Obama already for the stock market's continuing collapse. It is possible that the market problems cannot be fixed by government. People sell stocks for reasons that often have no bearing on anything logical. Obama's job is get working people working, companies having products they can sell, citizens with money to buy them, and the stock market might follow suit. Something that is driven on whims, which it has been for all the time I have followed it, is not really something the government can control. Do I wish it could? You bet but let's get realistic.
To me the hallmark of a moderate is realism (both conservatives and liberals would disagree with that statement). We also have dreams of a perfect culture and economy, but we recognize the nature of humans and understand compromise is part of all relationships.
Religions aren't fond of moderates either. They want you to come into their faith and accept it all. They call those, who don't do that, 'cafeteria' members as a way to express their frustration. Well why not if it's truth? (of course, as we moderates see it)
I am proud of being a moderate. We are a force; and it was our vote, whether we came to him early or late, that gave Obama the victory in November. Moderates from the other leaning did the same thing for Bush in 2004 (of course without my vote).
In Oregon, I would be registered as an Independent, but you can't vote in primaries unless you are affiliated with one of the parties. Over the years, I have voted for candidates from either party although the Democratic party tends to be the one that has the most policies in which I believe-- hence left leaning moderate.
8 comments:
Language and semantics are the armatures of ideas. And, as such when created with institutional bias foment and cement discrimination into a virtually unconscious reflex of usage. The term 'homosexual' is one such term. Although still used as a 'scientific' or 'neutral' term it is in fact a toxic nomenclature invented by German penal administrators to censure a distinctive group among the general populace. The term to use is 'Gay.' Although I find it a rather ridiculous word to describe a general direction of species differentiation it is the word used by gays to describe gays. Better yet and more inclusive is GLBT. I agree with you that heterosexuals should have civil legal unions...oh, oops never mind----that's already full civil rights. (see what I mean?) One becomes a moderate after the radical has achieved its goal---the synthesis of every revolution whose goal is liberty and justice for all.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this, mandt. It is interesting how the words are perceived. I would have never ever thought that the word homosexual was negative in anyway to anybody-- unless of course, the meaning of it was, as in you didn't like a particular group or felt they were in some way inferior, and then it would not matter what word one chose (if it wasn't a swear word). To me homo has meant like homogeneous differentiating it from hetero which means not homogeneous.
From what I have heard, to those who are being derogatory to someone else, the word gay has taken on an offensive definition also which is a shame as it's a perfectly good word but it does mean mood or did at one time.
Being politically correct has been a problem in our country with racial words where the terms and offense changes and even the proper words change so often that it's hard to keep track or know what might be offensive to one group at any one time. Then the temptation is not refer to that group at all. *s* [I am not remotely going to get into what the different ones would be or I will likely end up with someone showing up here off a google search and mad at me for it.]
I agree though that semantics can make a difference how people see groups. In the case of the gay word, I haven't liked it and it's why I have deliberately chosen to not use it (it might be my age). It has seemed to me to make an implication, but I respect that those who are in the group might feel differently.
Anyway sorry I offended you. I hate to have to tell you but I am not very PC in a lot of things. That might go with the moderate territory. I don't like to hurt people's feelings though.
Out of curiosity, since this was all news to me, I did a little search on this subject, saw quite a few opinion pieces, of which this is one: derivation of the terms.
Language does evolve. I tend to agree with the writer of that article that what matters the most is the attitude of the person toward subject in question, and in my case, I see nothing wrong with being born however one is born. I understand however that a minority who has been oppressed feels differently. Too bad someone cannot come up with a word that hasn't already had a meaning in our country (actually kind of swishy meaning which is totally inaccurate for all the 'gays' I have known) and that doesn't end up offending anybody. I thought they had with the terms I used because to me they were scientific, not indicating approval or disapproval but neutral. Obviously not so to the ones in the group.
Interestingly enough there is a problem referring to people like me too-- who are old. There is no agreement on what the right word should be as some don't like old. Elder is the preferred for that group except I don't like it (although I use it but to me and elder signifies being wise and not all old are wise). Senior is not okay with some but I don't particularly like it either. I am comfortable using old but am not fond of elderly which seems to me to mean way old and feeble but newspapers use it on women not much older than me. It gets complicated especially if you don't want to upset anybody-- but then this blog has not worried too much about upsetting people but what it doesn't want to do is hurt their feelings.
As to the subject, the government gives those rights as part of the union of two people sexually who desire to formalize their connection. Marriage has had a sacramental meaning and it gets complicated to some religions (not to me) as soon as you use the word. If the government stays out of the religious end of this and sticks to the business end, then it has no right to define who can have this legal contract -- other than consenting adults -- and for now anyway two at a time.
It does also well describe why I am not a liberal or a conservative (and hence often offend both one way or the other) because how I see it is moderating between two views that really cannot ever be put together and don't have to be in the government.
Anyway long answer and again sorry to give offense, but glad you took the time to explain why.
LOvely pic of a beautiful woman...Moderate ? Interesting concept...:-)
There are some who are politically towards the right or left and others who are in the middle. There are still others who are just plain outside of the box, for example Pete Murphy who commented on an earlier post and mentioned his ambitious book, FIVE SHORT BLASTS, 2007, Open Window Publishing. Murphy relates his own experience of historic significance between 1943 and 2006. he describes his own cosmic view of history and where we are heading unless we realize the root of our economic down fall - over population and sending manufacturing overseas. He has an original theory on how to change the world. Like Darwin he does not have an academic background in his passionate field. Darwin was going to be a clergyman. Murphy is a retired engineer in a chemical firm. Murphy's book's solution is to campaign for public opinion to curb population growth and return manufacturing to the United States. Though I see Murphy's book as good reading with some truth, turning our backs on the world completely is dangerous. We were unresponsive isolationists while Japan suffered one climatic disater after another a year before Pearl Harbor.
Very well stated!!!! As you well know, my dear friend, I am with you on this 100%. I believe that blindly following without question any party/religion/whatever is downright foolish. But then, you knew that.
Rain, you express your ideas and thoughts and feelings so very beautifully and with the conviction of someone who really knows of what the speak and iun a depth of certainty that has come from much soul searching. I commend you and admire you, more than I can say!
Dear Rain----a well thought out and articulate response. I'm not in the least offended, but radical in the defense of civil rights in a diverse democracy and find that along with sticks and stones, some words cause the deeper wounds and impact a lifetime's worth of damage. Homosexual and Homo are toxic words, akin to Colored and Coon. It's not a matter of PC, that approach is superficial. The semantics of identity is much deeper than jingoistic distinction. Ps I am old, definitely old, but enjoy the dynamics of Beginner's Mind.peace MandT
It's too bad we can't come up with new words that don't offend anyone. I suspect that when people finally get the idea that we are all born different and viva la difference, then the words won't be so important. We are not there yet. Glad I didn't upset you. The whole discussion was news to me.
After reading the link I had put above, I thought about it and realized I didn't like the term for straight for those who are not gay. It implies two things. One of which is narrow minded and not able to deviate from a norm and secondly that there is a norm. In reality straight might be 'gay' for some; so it's not a great way to look at it either. So I vote for a new vocabulary on the whole thing. I saw one article about the debate in California right now and it talked about same-sex marriages and cross-sex lol We really do round in circles as humans trying to get language right.
Post a Comment