• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defining The Middle

D

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
 
Drake McHugh said:
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
Click to expand...

I'm defined as a Moderate. I define myself in that way because I don't buy "the party line." I'm a conservative. I don't believe all things conservative. I embrace no small amount of liberal thinking. To me, that's the definition of a Moderate.
 
Drake McHugh said:
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
Click to expand...
Moderate doesn't describe a particular position in as much as the process in which it is reached.

A moderate is someone who can recognise and accept information from multiple directions and balance them against each other. Someone who treats similar situations in similar manners, regardless of the who, what or where involved. It's also about not approaching any given issue from an extreme starting point, full of assumptions and preconceptions. It's about being able to honestly use the phrases "I don't know" and "Maybe", recognising that you're opinion could not just possibly be wrong but is almost guaranteed to be incomplete or imperfect in some manner.

Mostly though, it just means being attacked by both sides in a debate rather than just one.
 
When you view political positions as a one dimensional right to left sort of model, then most of us are somewhere in the middle.

When you see the model as two dimensional, limited government to big government in one direction and authoritarian to libertarian in the other, then it's much easier to define just where we stand. Are you in the top right, top left, bottom right, or bottom left quadrant?

and if you really want to define it, draw a Z axis as well, and make politics three dimensional. Define your position on the isolationist to neo conservative continuum as well.
 
HonestJoe said:
Moderate doesn't describe a particular position in as much as the process in which it is reached.

A moderate is someone who can recognise and accept information from multiple directions and balance them against each other. Someone who treats similar situations in similar manners, regardless of the who, what or where involved. It's also about not approaching any given issue from an extreme starting point, full of assumptions and preconceptions. It's about being able to honestly use the phrases "I don't know" and "Maybe", recognising that you're opinion could not just possibly be wrong but is almost guaranteed to be incomplete or imperfect in some manner.

Mostly though, it just means being attacked by both sides in a debate rather than just one.
Click to expand...

I think your definition is the most accurate, but lets face it. There are not very many of them left and if truth be told, I am not one of them either.
 
Drake McHugh said:
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
Click to expand...

It could mean many different things. I think of myself as a moderate libertarian, for example. Meaning that as we move (hopefully) along the libertarian vector, I would rather go slowly, stick to a pragmatic approach, and double-, triple-check on actual consequences of every particular change.

Some people end up in the "moderate" category simply because they consider one issue at a time, without any overarching political philosophy to guide them, and end up with an assorted collection of positions that makes them look "neither here, nor there". Or maybe they do have a political philosophy, we just don't quite understand it.

Then again, there are those who have this superstitious notion that "The truth must be somewhere in the middle". As in:

Extreme position # 1: We must kill all bicyclists.
Extreme position # 2: What?! We must not kill any bicyclists.
Moderate position: Guys, guys. Can we agree on killing 50% of them, and end this petty partisan squabbling?
 
Carleen said:
I think your definition is the most accurate, but lets face it. There are not very many of them left and if truth be told, I am not one of them either.
Click to expand...
I'd say most people are relatively moderate, it's just that not many choose to frequent boards like this one. I'm just weird like that.
 
Drake McHugh said:
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
Click to expand...

essentially it is a person with no actual philosophical belief. they tend to favor things that help them. sometimes those things are left leaning. sometimes they are right leaning.
 
ARealConservative said:
essentially it is a person with no actual philosophical belief. they tend to favor things that help them. sometimes those things are left leaning. sometimes they are right leaning.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the left, which has a common position on a whole lot of unrelated issues, and the right, which has a common position on a whole lot of unrelated issues.
 
"Middle of the road" does not mean "moderate".

"Moderate" means a moderation of a wing polemic. There is moderate left and moderate right.

"Middle of the road" really doesn't have a real or relevant meaning and doesn't really relate to a position on the American traditional political spectrum. It's merely an arbitrary designation utilized by the wing parties for their purposes to describe those who appear to be unalligned with either polemic.

"Centrist" is at the center of the American traditional political spectrum. "Centrist" doesn't refer to some nebulous "middle" or concocted compromise position between the two liberal and conservative wings, but reflects a distinct unique perspective on the issues.

Most people are centrists by nature, and the two wing parties vying for power pander to the centrists hoping to draw centrists into voting/registering for one of the wing candidates/parties.
 
Last edited:
'Moderate' can refer to a position on an issue, but many issues don't have a middle ground. You're either for capitol punishment or you're against it. Some issues, such as taxes, do have a middle ground. Some people want high taxes, some people want low taxes, and some people want moderate taxes. The word 'moderate' isn't often used this way. It's usually used to describe a person who is on the left side of ~half the issues and on the right side of the other half. A person like this could also be called a 'centrist'. Of course the 'middle' will vary from place to place. A person who's a centrist in the US might be considered conservative in other countries.
 
HonestJoe said:
Moderate doesn't describe a particular position in as much as the process in which it is reached.

A moderate is someone who can recognise and accept information from multiple directions and balance them against each other. Someone who treats similar situations in similar manners, regardless of the who, what or where involved. It's also about not approaching any given issue from an extreme starting point, full of assumptions and preconceptions. It's about being able to honestly use the phrases "I don't know" and "Maybe", recognising that you're opinion could not just possibly be wrong but is almost guaranteed to be incomplete or imperfect in some manner.
Click to expand...
A person could use the process that you describe and end up on the far left or the far right, and we wouldn't call them 'moderates'. A person could also be closed minded and be a centrist. It isn't about the process.
 
Extreme position # 1: We must kill all bicyclists.
Extreme position # 2: What?! We must not kill any bicyclists.
Moderate position: Guys, guys. Killing is wrong. Let's see if there is another way that doesn't involve bloodstains.




Cyrylek said:
It could mean many different things. I think of myself as a moderate libertarian, for example. Meaning that as we move (hopefully) along the libertarian vector, I would rather go slowly, stick to a pragmatic approach, and double-, triple-check on actual consequences of every particular change.

Some people end up in the "moderate" category simply because they consider one issue at a time, without any overarching political philosophy to guide them, and end up with an assorted collection of positions that makes them look "neither here, nor there". Or maybe they do have a political philosophy, we just don't quite understand it.

Then again, there are those who have this superstitious notion that "The truth must be somewhere in the middle". As in:

Extreme position # 1: We must kill all bicyclists.
Extreme position # 2: What?! We must not kill any bicyclists.
Moderate position: Guys, guys. Can we agree on killing 50% of them, and end this petty partisan squabbling?
Click to expand...
 
Drake McHugh said:
I have always been fascinated by people who say they are middle of the road or moderate. How do they define what is a "moderate"position on an issue? What does it mean?
Click to expand...

From what I've been able to glean it can mean one of a few different things:

1. They are fairly conservative when it comes to some issues and fairly liberal on others (probably the most common "middle")
2. They have no damned idea what they're talking about but don't want to be on the unpopular side of anything.
3. Their only real goal is to continue to get elected so they intentionally play the entire field but you can no more nail them to a particular position than you can nail jello to a wall.
 
mpg said:
A person could use the process that you describe and end up on the far left or the far right, and we wouldn't call them 'moderates'. A person could also be closed minded and be a centrist. It isn't about the process.
Click to expand...
I disagree. First, I don't think the terms "left" and "right" are at all clearly defined in this context anyway but regardless, I don't believe anyone can legitimately reach consistently "extreme" positions on serious issues if they're honestly following the thought process I described.

They will never reach the position of "Kick out all the foreigners!" or "Open all the borders!", but they could reach positions like "Tighter restrictions on immigration" or "More flexibility for established illegals".

"Centrist" (another questionable label) doesn't automatically imply moderate anyway. You can indeed come to a middle-ground conclusion from a closed minded position but that doesn't invalidate my point. A stopped clock is correct twice a day and all that.

Not only do I see the definition as referring to a process rather than a label, I think it's vital that we recognise it as such. It is the blinkered labelling of people and ideas which leads to so many problems and the kind of rational process I'm defining that is needed to combat that. How we reach our conclusions is much more important than the conclusions we reach because those conclusions can and should change with new information or circumstances.
 
specklebang said:
Extreme position # 1: We must kill all bicyclists.
Extreme position # 2: What?! We must not kill any bicyclists.
Moderate position: Guys, guys. Killing is wrong. Let's see if there is another way that doesn't involve bloodstains.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your moderate position = my extreme position # 2. Seeking a "golden middle" without any firm axioms regarding "good" and "evil" will lead to evil, much more often than not.
 
I have always refused to call myself moderate. I have issues I am far right on, and far left on, but not that I am moderate on. I am very pro gun and very anti abortion. How can I call myself a moderate?
 
Moderates are the ideological sediment that sinks to the bottom after the pot is stirred by extremists.
 
HonestJoe said:
I disagree. First, I don't think the terms "left" and "right" are at all clearly defined in this context anyway but regardless, I don't believe anyone can legitimately reach consistently "extreme" positions on serious issues if they're honestly following the thought process I described.
Click to expand...

You can use rational thinking and still end up on either end of the spectrum. Politics isn't math or science. In most cases one has to make a value judgement. And two intelligent, rational individuals can have completely different values.
 
Sarcogito said:
You can use rational thinking and still end up on either end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
The extreme ends of any given political spectrum are not rational by definition. Nothing in politics (nothing in life!) can be legitimately addressed with such simplistic and unconditional answers. That doesn't mean that the wide range of opinions in-between can't be reached rationally or that people doing so can't have significant disagreements. A major aspect of moderation is being able to listen, discuss and debate topics with others and potentially alter your position as a consequence of that.
 
HonestJoe said:
I disagree. First, I don't think the terms "left" and "right" are at all clearly defined in this context anyway but regardless, I don't believe anyone can legitimately reach consistently "extreme" positions on serious issues if they're honestly following the thought process I described.
Click to expand...

You can use rational thinking and still end up on either end of the spectrum. Politics isn't math or science. In most cases one has to make a value judgement. And two intelligent, rational individuals can have completely different values.
 
If you disagree with me, you are an extremist.
If you agree with me on some things, but disagree on other things, you are a Moderate.
If you agree with me on everything, you are probably annoying and I'd rather not be around you.
 
HonestJoe said:
A major aspect of moderation is being able to listen, discuss and debate topics with others and potentially alter your position as a consequence of that.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but being on the extreme end of a spectrum just means that a lot more people are to one side of you then the other. The vast majority of people in teh world are not Christians. So are Christians extreme? I am an atheist. The overwhelming majority of the world is not. Does that mean my atheism is not rational? At given points in time in history what is now consider a normal stance to have was once considered extreme. It isn't so much that the facts changed as values did.
 
Sarcogito said:
I agree with that, but being on the extreme end of a spectrum just means that a lot more people are to one side of you then the other.
Click to expand...
No, being on the extreme end of a spectrum means nobody is on one side of you. It also, more significantly, means there is no room of concession or compromise.

Sarcogito said:
The vast majority of people in teh world are not Christians. So are Christians extreme? I am an atheist. The overwhelming majority of the world is not. Does that mean my atheism is not rational?
Click to expand...
Being Christian or atheist aren't singular positions on a specific issue. You can't describe such a position with one word.

I think we have a terminology mismatch. "Extreme" in the context I'm using it is not in relation to the number of people who think differently, it is the fundamental nature of the position and the manner in which it is held. Even if 90% of the population thought all homosexuals should be executed on sight, it would still be an extreme position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom