What is a moderate Republican?

[muon2]

In general
-Supportive of none single-payer UHC system such as Obamacare at the right-wing end and perhaps a more robust one such as the German system
-Pro Free Trade
-In favour of actual fiscal responsibility in times of prosperity
-Interventionist but from a multilateral perspective

The last moderate Republicans left were Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee.

This highlights the difference in the meaning of moderate. Media sources of their day would describe Jeffords and Chafee as liberal Republicans, not moderates. Here's a 2001 clipping from the NY Times (emphasis added),

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And a headline from NBC News in 2006 suggests Chaffee is "The Last of the Liberal Republicans?"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

[Franzl]

non-existent

[muon2]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members.

[DC Al Fine]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members.

Tony seems to be defining moderate as "someone who would be moderate in Western European politics", which is fine if he wants to declare everyone to the right of CDU/CSU insane, but of little use if we're actually trying to decide what represents the centrist wing of the party.

[Donerail]

Moderate Republicans abound: Jim Webb, Gabby Giffords, Mark Parkinson, Pete McCloskey, Arlen Specter, John Bohlinger, Patrick Murphy, Lincoln Chafee, Charlie Crist, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

By the media's definition someone who supports the far right agenda on almost every issue except for being pro-choice and not rabidly anti-gay (see Mark Kirk)

By a real definition Mung Beans' works pretty well. So no one in Congress today.

[Mordecai]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members.

"Common usage in the media" is bullsh*t though. According to the mainstream media, Chris Christie is a "moderate" because he hugged Obama, doesn't demonize gays (but is still against same-sex marriage), and because members of his own party don't think he's extreme enough in rhetoric. It's all about image and how harsh or soft they are in rhetoric, it doesn't reflect policy. It's like what someone said in another thread, if all the Democrats swore an oath to Karl Marx, would Bernie Sanders suddenly be considered a moderate?

It gets pretty egregious when you consider things like the Affordable Care Act, which is to the right of Clinton's healthcare plan from the '90s, is rebuked by most Republicans (and some Blue Dog Democrats) in Congress and is built upon the concept of private health insurance and its linchpin is an idea from a conservative think-tank. How do you reconcile something like that, where the political playing field has clearly shifted, with terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate"?

[Redalgo]

So I was wondering, what is it that makes a Republican a moderate in your eyes? I'm particularly interested in what Democratic leaning posters on here would use.

A moderate Republican is, to me at least, a Republican who understands and to some extent also respects the ideas and values of their opponents - even going so far as to incorporate some of them into their own set of policymaking goals when certain points seem more rational and better poised to advance the public interest than what is on their party's platform. This could take many forms but to offer a hypothetical example, it might be someone who thinks:

• Some regulation and a meager welfare regime ought to mitigate shortcomings of capitalism.
• Social Security is here to stay but needs to undergo reforms meant to improve sustainability.
• Foreign policies should advance U.S. interests but imperialism would hurt us in the long run.
• A strong military makes a good deterrent; defense budget waste and excesses are an issue.
• Low taxes are good but there is such a thing as going too far; tax hikes can be appropriate.
• The U.S. is a Christian nation, but leave judgement of vicious and non-Christian folk to God.
• Conservation ensures future generations will still be able to reap the bounties of the land.
• It is wise to scare would-be criminals, punish all offenders, and execute the worst of them.
• The course of healthcare debate should focus on what works - not what is ideologically pure.
• We can best promote cohesion by celebrating traditions, not condemning non-conformance.

[greenforest32]

Moderate relative to the rest of the party is not the same as moderate on the issues.

[traininthedistance]

The perception of a moderate is so skewed because of how far right the GOP has moved in the past 5 years. 5 years ago, Christie would be (and was) considered a hardcore conservative. "Hugging Obama" is not a policy that places you further to left on an ideological spectrum.

The GOP has been as nuts as it is today at least since the Gilded Age.

Eh, it's had a few phases of being less nutso (the 50's, for instance).  But I would definitely agree that it is just as nuts now as it was then.

The GOP has, since 1877 at the very least, been the party of the aggressive, insane variety of capitalism.

True, but there were at least a few phases wherein one could win a Republican primary as an open "moderate" who supported at least some progressive elements. 

When?

The 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, for instance.  True, they also had nutjobs like Taft and Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan, but they also had Nelson Rockefeller, Hugh Scott, and even Gerald Ford, all of whom I can't see winning a Republican primary today.

Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, Lowell Weicker...

The moderate-to-liberal faction of the Republicans was always in the minority, and is certainly one hundred percent dead and gone now, but it takes willful blindness to claim that it never existed.

[IceSpear]

I'd say Murkowski, Collins, Snowe, Sandoval, Huntsman would qualify as moderates. Most others run the gamut from conservative (ex: Christie, Martinez) to very conservative (ex: Boehner, McConnell) to far-right (Cruz, Lee) to clinically insane (ex: Bachmann, Gohmert)

[Redalgo]

Moderate relative to the rest of the party is not the same as moderate on the issues.

If we are talking about people who are moderate on the issues it still depends on where we place the goal posts. If by moderate you mean centrism by Western standards then folk who generally agree with the GOP's platform are on the right, all who generally agree with that of the Democrats are on the centre-right, and the Greens are about as close as the U.S. will get to offering us a point of reference for what is moderate.

Or if you mean moderate on the issues by what Americans tend to consider reasonable, pretty much everyone who is either liberal or conservative is moderate whereas radicals and reactionaries are the only truly extreme folks - making a very large portion (if not a decisive majority) of Republicans moderate, ya?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Someone who's fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
 
-wants to lower taxes
-pro marriage equality
-against abortion personally, won't restrict it
-free trade

and etc.

Why would being "moderate" have to be relegated only to the sphere of social issues? Would it be possible to, say, be socially conservative and "fiscally moderate"? And if the person you painted above is both pro-choice and in favor of allowing gay marriage, in what way might they be "socially moderate"? Or would it be possible to be only half as "moderate" on both fronts?

[greenforest32]

Moderate relative to the rest of the party is not the same as moderate on the issues.

If we are talking about people who are moderate on the issues it still depends on where we place the goal posts. If by moderate you mean centrism by Western standards then folk who generally agree with the GOP's platform are on the right, all who generally agree with that of the Democrats are on the centre-right, and the Greens are about as close as the U.S. will get to offering us a point of reference for what is moderate.

Or if you mean moderate on the issues by what Americans tend to consider reasonable, pretty much everyone who is either liberal or conservative is moderate whereas radicals and reactionaries are the only truly extreme folks - making a very large portion (if not a decisive majority) of Republicans moderate, ya?

I get what you're saying with definitions. I was referring to the common U.S. context, specifically to Congress and the conflation between a 'Moderate Republican' and an ideological moderate. The 'moderate Republicans' in Congress are conservatives. Their filibustering speaks for itself.

[Goldwater]

Moderate relative to the rest of the party is not the same as moderate on the issues.

If we are talking about people who are moderate on the issues it still depends on where we place the goal posts. If by moderate you mean centrism by Western standards then folk who generally agree with the GOP's platform are on the right, all who generally agree with that of the Democrats are on the centre-right, and the Greens are about as close as the U.S. will get to offering us a point of reference for what is moderate.

Or if you mean moderate on the issues by what Americans tend to consider reasonable, pretty much everyone who is either liberal or conservative is moderate whereas radicals and reactionaries are the only truly extreme folks - making a very large portion (if not a decisive majority) of Republicans moderate, ya?

... Really? I know that the U.S. is to the right of most western countries, but I'm pretty sure the Green Party would still be considered center-left in most countries....

[Redalgo]

... Really? I know that the U.S. is to the right of most western countries, but I'm pretty sure the Green Party would still be considered center-left in most countries....

They probably would be, yes, though the Justice Party seems devotedly capitalist from my point of view. I am not aware of a party where socialist and capitalist influences seem well-balanced. If one factors in positions on other types of issues though perhaps it all comes down to which areas of policies one most heavily emphasizes in drawing attention to inter-party contrasts?

On economics in particular I consider myself centre-left, which is probably a biasing influence on me here. Most posters would probably reject the notion of me being moderate. lol

[Phony Moderate]

Nowadays, rhetoric seems to play a greater role in determining how moderate or conservative a Republican politician is; look at Christie and Huntsman for instance. Both have/had a solidly right-wing (without being extreme) approach in governing their respective states, but their pragmatic demeanours have placed them into the moderate camp.

Going back to 1968, Nixon was viewed as a fairly moderate Republican despite using language that was in some ways more extreme than the Tea Party.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members.

This renders the terms "moderate" and "liberal" useless terms that provide little meaningful information. While liberalism has never been a very coherent ideology in the US, it still designates the support of economic interventionism through counter-cyclical spending and social programs in the vein of the New Deal along with a general awareness of social problems and a willingness to tackle them without restraint. This is a term that is flexible but still maintains some rigidity. According to your definition, the defeat of liberalism as a popular ideology after the 70s or 80s is not allowed for.

In the 60s or 70s, Nixon was center-right or conservative according to this metric but he was certainly moderate in the American sense: he was never apart of movement conservatism. This distinction matters.

[muon2]

Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.

You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members.

This renders the terms "moderate" and "liberal" useless terms that provide little meaningful information. While liberalism has never been a very coherent ideology in the US, it still designates the support of economic interventionism through counter-cyclical spending and social programs in the vein of the New Deal along with a general awareness of social problems and a willingness to tackle them without restraint. This is a term that is flexible but still maintains some rigidity. According to your definition, the defeat of liberalism as a popular ideology after the 70s or 80s is not allowed for.

In the 60s or 70s, Nixon was center-right or conservative according to this metric but he was certainly moderate in the American sense: he was never apart of movement conservatism. This distinction matters.

Are you saying that liberalism and conservatism must be somewhat rigidly defined? I see them as parts of a spectrum that itself shifts with events. Nixon was viewed as quite conservative as he rose to national prominence as an anticommunist crusader. It's only the events of the 1960's that cast his policies in a way we view as liberal today and some of his programs as President were due to the political reality of the day. I would view him as a center-right conservative given the spectrum of views present at that time.

[Del Tachi]

Why most moderate Republicans be "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social ones"? 

What about those who are conservative on social issues yet liberal on fiscal ones? 

[PJ]

Why most moderate Republicans be "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social ones"? 

What about those who are conservative on social issues yet liberal on fiscal ones? 

Traditionally, libertarians have always leaned towards Republicans and Communitarians have always leaned towards Democrats because America places more emphasis on economics.

[TNF]

Why most moderate Republicans be "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social ones"? 

What about those who are conservative on social issues yet liberal on fiscal ones? 

Traditionally, libertarians have always leaned towards Republicans and Communitarians have always leaned towards Democrats because America places more emphasis on economics.

Those aren't real political ideologies.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why most moderate Republicans be "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social ones"? 

What about those who are conservative on social issues yet liberal on fiscal ones? 

Traditionally, libertarians have always leaned towards Republicans and Communitarians have always leaned towards Democrats because America places more emphasis on economics.

How far back do "always" & "traditionally" stretch?

[DC Al Fine]

Why most moderate Republicans be "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social ones"? 

What about those who are conservative on social issues yet liberal on fiscal ones? 

Traditionally, libertarians have always leaned towards Republicans and Communitarians have always leaned towards Democrats because America places more emphasis on economics.

Those aren't real political ideologies.

So sage brah