Ideologies and extremes are in contrast to Moderation. Simply speaking, an extremist clings to a belief or point no matter what is going on around them, no matter how the situation has changed, no matter how much the factors have multiplied or diminished. The rational Moderate even realizes that in some cases ideology is heroic and called for because the situation has become extreme. The rational Moderate also knows, however, that just about always, in life and in politics, too much and too little is dangerous and harmful, while a moderate amount is healthy and wise.

http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com

“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?”

I simply must ask: What exactly are you looking for?

“Leaning” toward one side or the other of the political spectrum does not preclude moderation, which isn’t so much consciously sought for its own sake as it is typically the inexorable result of carefully examining the issues with more than a casual eye and applying one’s own personal judgment. Of course there’s no such thing as perfect moderation. But the conscientious individual is far more likely to be a MODERATE liberal Democrat or conservative Republican (actually even more likely a conservative Democrat or liberal Republican–yes, they do exist). No matter how an individuals is registered to vote, if they are reasonable and independent enough to vote on the issues, then they meet the standards of a true moderate.

The main problem here is political and religious ideology operating in politics. Hard core ideologues treat their political ideology pretty much like religion. Political and religious ideology tends to blind ideologues to reality because reality often (usually?) undermines both liberal and conservative ideology just as much as (or more than) it supports either side. And, when you try to propose policy or solutions to political problems based on rigid belief in ideology , you tend to miss the mark and waste time, lives and money.

An analogy: It is like a car mechanic hearing a car’s symptoms, concluding (absolutely knowing without first checking reality) that the problem is X and fixing X. That works just fine when X really was the problem, but it wastes time and resource when the real problem was Y and you missed it because you could not let yourself see it. In my opinion, that is the critical weakness of political and religious ideology when it affects how people view the world and then try to solve political problems based on their flawed, but fervently held, world view.

The reason I now gravitate toward moderate political sites like this is that moderates seems to at least be able to acknowledge reality better than hard core liberals and conservatives. For moderates, there seems to be less ideological baggage that distorts their world view. After almost three years of posting, it is clear to me that my blog arguing for non-ideological political pragmatic realism has failed to get any traction. My kind of anti-partisan thinking seems to be too discomforting for people to become comfortable with.

Could it be that it takes more strength of character and courage to be a pragmatic non-ideologue than a true hard core ideologue? I think so, but convincing most hard core ideologues of that is difficult or impossible. It is like trying to argue about religion or between religions – the true believers know they are right and that is that. Arguments about contravening facts and reality or differing Gods carry little or no weight. For most true believers, my God is the right and only God and my God is always right – end of discussion. Rigid ideology in politics is no different.

If one can accept my version of reality, it is defensible to say that being a moderate probably takes more strength of character and courage than being a pure political or religious ideologue who demands political policy based on what is compatible with their ideology. For hard core ideologues the world is mostly black and white. For moderates, there seems to be more room for more shades of gray. For myself, the world is mostly gray, which makes it complicated and often disquieting.

I argue that reliance on the comfort of black and white ideology at the expense of reality tends in the long run to make ideologues less effective and efficient than moderates. After all, when you are a hard core ideologue and you know your proposed policy or action is right, it is easy to take comfort on KNOWING that you are right and everyone with differing opinions is wrong. That is a much easier world to live in than one where you need to account for shades of gray (inconvenient truths).

Theoretically pragmatic non-ideologues would be the most efficient at problem solving, but that appears to be a non-existent species in American politics. Retreat to the hard core ideology of the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists or Nazis makes things worse, not better. So, that leaves the moderates, which is just fine with me.

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.