Mission
Welcome to the Radical Middle!
We moderates are no longer a featureless midpoint between the extremes of right and left. We’re a movement about to be born. If we succeed, we can stop the domination of America by extremist ideologues of both camps — without silencing their voices.
Both the right and the left tend to dismiss moderates as namby-pamby weaklings who can’t summon the courage to take a stand. We moderates must discard this tired stereotype once and for all: we know it takes reason, intellect and more than a little courage to formulate nonpartisan ideas that invariably draw fire from two camps.
We also know that most Americans consider themselves moderates. Our challenge is to generate a passion for moderate ideas — and to prove to the ideologues that moderate ideas aren’t simply a matter of taking the average between ”progressive” and conservative opinions.
The right and left thrive on their knack for distorting the truth to serve their partisan agendas. Unfortunately, this manipulative strategy works for them: they draw countless disciples to their ranks. But we moderates can do better… let me rephrase that: we need to do better. Desperately. Now.
We need to band together, exchange opinions, publicize our ideas and recruit talent — including some of the more moderate voices from the right and left. (If we build a movement, they will come.)
Eventually our moderate movement will gather the momentum we need to turn it into a political force. We could even be breaking ground for the creation of a sane, much-needed, long-overdue third party in American politics!
The excesses of the right and left have shown us that special-interest agendas no longer serve the wider interests of the people. The time is right for moderates to make their mark. Not the timid old moderate of popular stereotype, but the fiery NEW MODERATE who can no longer stand to see the truth distorted by self-serving extremist visions.
We’re opinionated, we’re impassioned, we’re ready and willing to break taboos in our drive to make truth and sanity prevail. So take heart, all you embattled moderates: the middle is about to strike back. Let the rebellion start here.
Rick Bayan, Founder & Editor.
The vast majority of hoboes are moderates. We don’t want to offend anyone, so we won’t start a fight. We don’t want to struggle against any problem, so we move to another town. Hoboes like moderate people because they give us leftovers, some yard work for a few bucks, and won’t preach about how we should improve ourselves.
My favorite moderate role model is Millard Filmore, he introduced plumbing to the white house.
hoboduke: Interesting perspective; sometimes I think I was meant to be a hobo all along. Do-nothing presidents aren’t necessarily the best ones for the hobo community, though. Hoboes probably don’t hold Hoover in high regard, though he unwittingly increased their numbers several times over.
What happens when a moderate has to take an extremist view of issue because it’s the correct solution to the problem. Example, there is no middle ground between absolutely no government health-care and a government run, single payer, universal healcare system. One of these is the actual, very best solution to a problem and the other is not, depending on which end of the political spectrum you reside. Nothing in the middle will suffice. What say ye moderate?
Since I came across your website a while ago, I have spent the time reading the moderate stands you have taken on your list of issues, and I don’t think you’re a moderate, I think you’re a center-left liberal, which is de4finitely not the same as a moderate, is it?
Sure there’s a middle ground between no government healthcare and a single-payer public system; in fact, I could have sworn Obama himself endorsed it: you have the government offering low-cost public health insurance in competition with private insurers. The system covers everyone, yet you have the freedom to stay with your old insurer. Perfect moderate solution.
But you’re right that sometimes we can’t simply take the midpoint, because there IS no midpoint. Example: Do we permit women to have abortions? Granted, there are more moderate positions than the abortion-on-demand stance of the pro-choicers and the no-abortion stance of the pro-lifers. (I suggested outlawing abortions after the first trimester, except in the case of rape, incest or impaired maternal health. But I’m still favoring legalized abortion.)
Sometimes (be prepared to be shocked) a moderate position can actually be more RADICAL than the liberal or conservative positions. One example I like to use: Both liberals and conservatives favor using lobbyists to push their agendas in Congress. As a moderate, I’d like to eject lobbyists from the halls of power; in fact, I’d criminalize any flow of money from lobbyists to elected representatives. Pretty radical for a moderate, you have to admit… yet I’m simply upholding my moderate’s belief that society shouldn’t favor special interests over the general welfare of the people.
So you can see that there’s more to being a moderate than standing in the middle. I hope I’ve convinced you, anyway. Thanks for the thought-provoking question.
Overlapping posts! To answer your second question: I’m not a strict centrist on all issues. I lean a little toward the left on economic issues, primarily because the right-wing plutocratic interests have piled up far too much power (and riches) at our expense. Even conservative columnist Peggy Noonan would agree with me on that point. On social and cultural issues, though, I probably skew a little to the right. For example, I think the lefties have controlled academia far too long now, and I still have a lot of affection for traditional small-town Jimmy Stewart virtues. Maybe I’m a moderate populist.
There is no middle ground on healthcare. One side is right (correct) and anything else is wrong because it does not solve the problem. If you favor anything in between, like you do, you are just evading the issue. What I can’t figure out is why you are afraid to stand up for what is right. Moderation, which I agree with on many issues, but I like to refer to it as compromise, just doesn’t always work on all issues.
By the way, the lefties don’t CONTROL academia. The lefties are pervasive in academia, because intelligent prople know leftist views on most, not all, issues are better for government where the people are sovereign.
How is it wrong to offer both public and private insurance options as a moderate solution to the healthcare issue? Please clue me in. I don’t see the problem in giving people a choice; it’s definitely more just than the right-wing solution of “every man for himself” as well as the left-wing solution of “single payer, whether you like it or not.” (I find that leftists tend not to be too keen on freedom of choice; their motto seems to be “get with the program or else.”)
As for leftists in academia, don’t get me started. That’s a whole ‘nother topic. But let me summarize my attitude by saying that I can’t abide the concept of colleges as propaganda mills (especially those fill-in-the-blank studies programs). Just present the facts and let the students make up their own minds.
Have you noticed that it is the goal of all private companies to always maximize the return on private investment? How can any private healthcare company ever be part of the healthcare solution when their number one priority is not the patient, it’s the profit. Private healthcare is not a viable option to solving the problem of all those people dying and getting sick each year because they can’t afford proper healthcare. The only solution is a single payer, universal, one-hundred percent covered, public system. There is no middle ground because no other option can maximize the accent on patient care. Healthcare in America is rated 19th of the top 37 industrial countries and profit is the reason why. I am not opposed to choice when choices are available which can all solve the problem.
As far as academia is concerned, i’ll let your statements stand because they’re opinions. My opinion is that teaching what is correct is always the right thing to do, but some (the unenlightened) would call that indoctrination.
Our governments don’t do a very good job of defining the problems that their legislation is supposed to solve. If they did that, there would be much less room for moderation, eh? Of course if they did that there would be much less room for partisanship, which seems to be what they’re really looking for. It’s the old devide and conquer thing, so the people can stay confused and probably drunk and the politicians can keep their cushy jobs with shallow promises and no action.
HEY, are you ignoring me? Come out from wherever you’re hiding or else I’ll…………I guess I’ll take my opinions elsewhere. I thought we were having a good discussion, but maybe you don’t want to have to really discuss and justify your viewpoints to one as confused as I.
Well, we definitely reached an impasse on healthcare; I think we’ll have to “agree to disagree” on that one. (I still don’t see the problem with offering both public and private options — everyone is covered.)
As for lefties in academe, ho-ho-ho — they use not only Marxist theory but a billowing smokescreen of impenetrable Deconstructionist gibberish (a semantic nightmare that gains power because it’s so vague that it can mean anything the reader wants it to mean) as a means of toppling European/male/bourgeois “hegemony.” The result: we’re all obligated to agree that a New Guinea tribal mask is as big an accomplishment as the Parthenon or Newton’s laws of physics.
Everything in academia has become saturated with politics, and of course only leftists need apply. I want to tell these folks, “Excuse me, but there was nothing political about the works of Shakespeare or Rembrandt.” But they’d come up with something in rebuttal, I’m sure. Can’t win.
In short, I think Wall Street needs to be wrenched toward the left, and academia needs to be yanked to the right; that way everything winds up in the middle where it belongs!
Yes everyone is covered, but as long as private healthcare depends on profit, everyone will not be covered fully or equally. Private health insurers are forced to cut coverage in favor of profits, whenever possible. The end result will be the same as what we’re seeing today, people will not get the coverage they need and people will die.
I have never felt obligated to agree that a New Guinea tribal mask is as great an accomplishment as the Parthenon, or Newton’s laws of physics, but then I’m not a New Guinea tribal member.
Instead of wrenching Wall Street to the left and yanking academia to the right, we can’t we just inject a little personal responsibility and a lot of social accountability into those in their respective drivers’ seats.
The bottom line for all of our problems is that WE are the problem. Until we start workin together as collective problem solvers, whether left, right, or somewhere in the middle, there will continue to be a left, right, and middle to divide us.
Confused: I used to think the same way about private health insurance (actually, I still do), but it never occurred to me that a public plan could just as easily deny coverage for certain ailments or procedures. Those reports of “death panels” were wildly exaggerated by the right, but a public healthcare system could still refuse to cover you if the government doesn’t think it’s worth the cost. Look at the new federal recommendation that women shouldn’t start having regular mammograms until they’re 50; that means a public program wouldn’t cover the cost of mammograms for younger women. Public health insurance isn’t necessarily more generous than private insurance. I think having two systems in competition will keep both systems honest.
When and if our government representatives do get around to working together for the benefit of all, we will all realize that a left-of-center attitude will usually best serve our needs.
Well, I think a center-center attitude will usually best serve our needs, but maybe that’s just me.
Do you know of any medically prescribed procedure that Medicare won’t cover? Or any procedure not available at a veteran’s hospital if the patient is a qualified vet? This mammogram thing is a big mistake and the government experts who came up with it will be forced to admit their error. Mammograms will always be covered for women over 40 if a physician prescribes it.
I think a consistent moderate viewpoint gives one a good excuse for not studying the issues and to suppress the little guilt guy who, if ignored, will reside deeply hidden in one’s conscience. No offense….I’m probably way off base, but I just can’t imagine promoting compromise in something as important as healthcare when a clear cut solution, favored by a majority of Americans and proven to work well in many other countries, is available.