I don’t think it’s useful to try to define political moderation by looking at how so-called moderates view individual issues. The defining thing about a political moderate is not that they hold no radical positions on any particular political issue but that their views may straddle both sides of the political aisle and that they are willing to accept compromise solutions that don’t line up exactly with their political preferences. For example, a moderate may prefer a single-payer health plan for the country but settle for ObamaCare because it is the best that our political system can produce. Or, they may be in favor of deporting every undocumented worker in the country, but realize that this isn’t practical or politically feasible. What should define a moderate is a willingness to tolerate half-measures and imperfect compromises, not that they are necessarily swing-voters or that all their political preferences split the difference between the two parties. Moderates may have far right beliefs on some issues and far left beliefs on others, which is why both parties have an opportunity to win their support in any given election. But they should not be understood to hold middle of the road positions.
Sometimes you hear people say that they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which usually means that they don’t like to pay taxes but they also don’t like god-botherers who try to dictate sexual morality. These people can easily hold positions that are nowhere near any kind of consensus on both abortion and marginal tax rates. But, as long as they are not so doctrinaire about any particular position as to preclude them from supporting a compromise, they should be considered politically moderate.
That’s an interesting theoretical definition of moderates, and I would imagine pretty solidly accurate in the context you present it. In the world where words still have precise meaning, there’s always value in clarifying our terms of discourse.
However terms like this increasingly are being redefined in their usage by the people who decide to claim them as their own, correctly or otherwise.
Just as a large number if not most of the growing number of self-identified Libertarians in the US are arguably more appropriately labeled anarcho-capitalists, it seems to me that most of the people I run across who call themselves “moderates” essentially don’t know enough about current events to understand where the real ideological distinctions are to be found and conclude for various reasons that “the answer lies somewhere in the middle.”
Whether it’s overwork, other priorities, incuriosity, or abject laziness, these are people who don’t do much if any work to inform themselves, but instead drift along with what their social cohort has to say on such things, or just as often adopt a contrary view just for its own sake. Quite often these are also people whose opinions tend to skew heavily toward strong emotional arguments, or whatever it was they heard expressed most recently.
Anyway, just an observation. It reminds me of the enormous gray area that falls around “progressive.” For years, “progressive” to me meant a liberal who was tired of getting painted with all the associations that Reagan and others were so successful in hanging on that word. But it could and often does represent something resembling its original meaning as coined a century or so ago. Or it could mean any number of other things that break either toward social or policy distinctions. In other words, it basically has no meaning other than “against most of what the average self-identified conservative promotes.”
“Moderate” to me essentially means “uninformed” or “undecided,” in a way much more pronounced than even say a decade ago. It also means “conservatives and liberals (progressives) are always shouting at each other and that’s icky so I don’t want to associate with either of those groups.”
Disengaged is not the same as moderate.
To me, a moderate is someone who is highly engaged but understands the political system well enough to support policies that don’t align with their preferences.
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree at all, just saying that the line is subject to heavy blurring and distortion by people who self-identify as moderates when they ought to call themselves one of any other number of things.
Isn’t that more “pragmatist”? You use the example of ACA. You might prefer a single-payer but can accommodate Obamacare, because you understand the constraints on policy created by Congress. You aren’t being a “moderate” because you have a preferred policy (single payer).
What you’re talking about it pragmatism and accommodation rather than moderation. If anything moderation is a lack of preference, but rather a willingness to hear both sides.
I said it before (can’t find it) but I’ll say it again – to me, moderates are much akin to agnostics. For every principled “I don’t know and you can’t know either” agnostic I’ll find you at least 10 “Whatever” agnostics. Same with political moderates – for every “highly engaged but understands the political system well enough to support policies” moderate I’ll find you 10 of the “who do we usually vote for?” moderates. You can spend time, money and energy trying to woo the former, but it’s more effective to go after the latter since there are way more of them and they are easily swayed.
meh just let there be 2 dimensions of “moderate” – process moderate and content moderate.
If I want to inter all Muslim-Americans in camps, but I’m aware that this isn’t feasible, so I merely support the compromise position of NSA wiretapping of prominent Muslims, that doesn’t make me a moderate. It makes me a pragmatic extremist.
Actually, the defining thing about a political moderate is precisely that they hold no radical positions on any particular political issue.
The question is, who decides what counts as a radical position?
Imagine a multi-party system where a socially liberal and fiscally conservative faction holds the balance of power, voting with a more progressive group of parties on social issues and with a more conservative group of parties on economic issues.
Wait, isn’t that the Democratic party?
Thanks. I was wondering.