Talk Elections

Any moderate Republicans on here? I'd just like to hear your thoughts on the present state of the Republican Party.

There are very few moderate Republicans (those that are are vilified as RINOs), which is the problem with the present state of the party.

By moderate Republican, I also mean those who can compromise, even if they are strongly right wing (thinking of Ike Eisenhower types here, also Ronald Reagan to a lesser extent). That's the major problem in my opinion.

Torie.

I don't think of myself as too moderate, but if I were a US politician, the Tea Party would probably label me moderate. I have a couple moderate positions, and also am pro-compromise, which is becoming a big "no-no".

Kind of like me. There has to be compromise, especially with thing like tax and spending. I hold fairly conventional social conservative views, but I don't obsess about "gays", "immigrants" and abortions, which seems to have pretty much taken over Republican Party thinking.

Today, if you compromise, you lose to a guy named Mourdock and end up like this:

()

Poor Dick Lugar :(

I think we've stretched the definition of "moderate" a bit too far in some cases, like Dick Lugar. Sure he's not that conservative, but he's also not a moderate.

Heck, I've had people call me a moderate before. ;)

We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that? - Goldwater to Bob Dole, 1996.

He cooperated on a bill with Democrats in one instance. That makes him a RINO.

Andrew, Torie and Bullmoose.

Quite pathetic they would chuck him out for that. I would agree that the Republican far-right e.g. Bachmann, Cain and Palin, have taken over the party and castigated anyone who is not 100% with them as a RINO. Although the Democrats did the same to Lieberman, despite him agreeing with the Party 70% of the time or so.

In defense of what happened with Lieberman, part of the 30% there was the overwhelmingly dominant political issue in America at the time (the Iraq War), and the Senate Democratic Caucus let him keep his committee assignments afterwards.

Lieberman is an ass.

what is a 'moderate republican'? i have no idea what the 'center' even is in this country anymore as far as public opinion goes. obviously the washington insider definition of 'centrist' is bipartisan support for bombing sandboxes and giving more money to bankers. but that doesn't really count.

Over-simplification of the definition and, more importantly, an ideology-bound comment. Conservatism by definition is defending things such as tradition and existing institutions. Goldwater merely arrived at a time when the more liberal aspects of his personal views weren't considered even an issue. The parts that did matter at the time, meaning his stances on economics and foreign policy, qualified him as a Conservative.

Why would Conservatism, the defense of tradition, be in its truest form favoring a move away from certain long-standing morals? This isn't an ideologically driven question, but one about how you actually define ideologies.

Continuing on that point, defining Goldwater as "true conservatism" would be like defining Bryan as "true liberalism". Is someone who today would be considered on the religious right in terms of social issues really a good representative of "true" liberalism? There were significant aspects to his viewpoint that had a specifically conservative attitude. The same way there were significant aspects of Goldwater that has a specifically liberal attitude.

Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater vs. the Religious Right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3WZlWhQbns

This again? Seen it. I get that he had the name "Mr. Conservative". Is that your argument?

()

Yeah I;m actually a moderate republican. I actually was thinking about putting a thread together like this yesterday. I just don't like the state of the party right now. The only things they win is a majority of whites and the Dems win all the minority voters by ample margins.That can;t go on like this forever. I'm just wondering how long they are gonna go on this anti-abortion and anti-tax crusade. I think the anti-abortion stance is popular in the 3 deep south states(AL, LA, and MS) but thats probably it. They refuse to moderate on Reaganomics. Yeah sure big tax cuts worked in the 80's but China and Brazil were not big economic powerhouses then and the party fails to understand this. Do tax cuts that are actually stimulative. Congressional Republicans either beat themselves or let the Dems beat them. 2 example's of this have occured in the last 2 weeks: Lettting Obama give temporary amnesty to kids that were brought here illegally by their parents. The Republicans had chances for immigration reform in 2006 and blew it. They just gave Obama 3-6 more points on election day for the 2006 blunder. Healthcare Reform is another example: they have no alternative to ObamaCare. They let the Dems beat them there. The Republicans always talking about lowering the cost of Healthcare and so do the Dems but the R's have nothing to insure 31 million additional people like ObamaCare does.

Moderate Republicans are just called Democrats these days.

Yeah but Leiberman is no where as polarizing as Bachmann, Palin, or Cain. Cain was actually likeable before he ran for President. All he had was 9-9-9 and then the scandals came out. His reputation was definately damaged after the scandals. I'm sure Bachmann and Palin are nice people but they can't be the face of the party. I am glad they have moved on to Rubio and are basically phasing out Palin and Bachmann though. Smart Move.

Lugar-his voting was in the middle of both Moderate and Conservative wings of the party.

On Lugar getting voted out his voting record was one of the reasons but not the only reason for getting voted out.

So... because his name is "Mr. Conservative", that grants, by divine right, that everything he believed was automatically classified as "Conservative"? Is that the point you're trying to make?

No basically what I do when thinking a political problem is not to go to a direct government solution like the Dems do but to think out a logical solution to a problem.

I think what happened was the Republicans were a Northeast based political party before the Republican Revolution of 1994. Their Southern base is way more conservative than their former Northeast Base especially Socially therefore the Northeast Republicans currently are like Democrats to them. There is a friction there between the party's old base and their current base.

Goldwater was a libertarian republican. He never wanted the government to run a deficit(boy what he be scared now!) Goldwater didn't mind gays openly in the military I think. He said once "as long as they shoot straight".

Case in point with your post,

Extremists exist in both parties

I seem to read two quite different views of "moderate" on this thread. In one case it is a set of values that is somewhere between right and left so the positions can seem mushy to those inclined to a strict ideology. In another case it is a set of values that might be firmly to the right, but a recognition that policy is not the same as principles, and policy compromises can exist that maintain one's principles. I personally don't consider this second case "moderate" but rather an example of practical politics.

I'm upset my name hasn't been mentioned yet. But I worry for the party, I die a little bit every time it moves away from a perfectly reasonable prior position and it contorts itself yet again, charging towards oblivion.

YOU are trying to make a point. You are failing.

Well that's the point. People don't look or sound extreme if they can compromise. Ronald Reagan was never really viewed as an extremist by a majority of people because he did compromise, unlike Gingrich who did not in the 1990's. In the 90's, I doubt that Bob Dole was that much further to the "centre" than Gingrich, but he knew when to be pragmatic, which made him seem less extreme.

Extremists, by definition, use extraordinary methods to achieve their aims. This is what happened with the budget shutdown of 1995. Moderates on the other hand, like to try and compromise to achieve their aims. Examples at this present point are people like Harry Reid, and (on a good day) Mitch McConnell. I would class Romney as one of these as well.

Mynheer Peeperkorn, you have yet to explain how social libertarianism is "true conservatism". I'm trying to find out the reasoning behind that. Merely using the fact that he was named "Mr. Conservative" in no way proves that he is the standard bearer for all conservatives of all time, yet that seems your only reasoning.

Then I can can tell you that the great majority of Republican office holders are from the pragmatic side. One problem is that even pragmatists will know when to draw the line to illustrate the distinctions between the parties so that voters know what choices there are. These of course are exactly the issues that the media concentrates on since they make the best stories. The other issues that are handled pragmatically are often lost except to insiders and aficionados of the process who follow politics like insiders (cf Atlas posters :) ).

I'm not your teacher. Go to wikipedia.

I think the party is no longer a party of substance, rather it is just a party of simplistic talking points that have stayed rather static over the years. Cut taxes, strong national defense, small government, family values. These things sound good, but it doesn't promote much substance in terms of policy when to win a primary/election, all you need to do is recite those over and over.

I'm also bothered by the strain of anti-intellectualism in the party. It seems that being "folksy" and having "common-sense conservatism" is more valued than having the smartest people possible. Science is looked at with suspicion (global warming and evolution, for example), which I think is a shame. I want the smartest, most capable people running our country, not people like Perry or Palin.

I also think the party needs to be more tolerant on social issues. It needs to be realistic when it comes to immigration policy. I think it should take a more realist stance on foreign policy, and move away from neoconservatism. And it needs to acknowledge that if we are going to rid the country of this deficit, cutting taxes will not be the solution.

This is my opinion, at least.

Hi.

Angus also seems to be a moderate. LWRP!

"Moderate" Republicans are really just (soft?) lefties.

That really depends on where you put the center. 

And mine, as well.

I think it depends on the issue.  For example, I'm slightly to the left of Obama on affirmative action and I just called the PA voter ID law "draconian."

Well said. ;)

"Moderate" Republicans were very well described by a former senator (as quoted in a book on the matter): "If the Democrats were to propose burning down every building on Capitol Hill, the Republican 'moderates' would say, 'That's too radical. Let's do it one at a time and spread it out over three years.'"

(I'm strictly referring to the "first type" of moderates as described here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155427.msg3341670#msg3341670); in other words, those Republicans the media loves to describe as 'moderates', many of whom are indeed on the left. I am not referring to the "second type" of moderates; in other words, Lugaresque Republicans.)

I think raising taxes maybe and cutting spending at the same time could be a good solution. I know all Republicans want to do is cut spending but that isn't realistic. We know Dems say do both bit when it comes right down to it they will just raise taxes and not cut any spending.

I don't think Perry would be a bad president but he is a sucky debater.

On Immigration Policy the Republicans are going to have to do immigration reform in the next 4 years I think wether Obama or Romney is President. They cannot let Obama pull a fast one on them again on the immigration front.

I'm a former moderate Republican. Supported Bush in '00 and '04; would probably have voted for McCain if not for Palin; cast a useless vote for Jon Huntsman in the TX primary and will be voting for Obama in the fall.

Your claim is that Goldwater was the true conservative, as opposed to modern day ones. The main difference of course is social policy. However, an ideology that promotes things such as gay marriage and abortion is hardly in defense of "traditional values". The definition of conservatism is being in defense of said traditional values. You've failed to say how your assertion gets around this in any way, shape, or form, and you refer to me as the one who needs a teacher.

Allowing people to gay marry or have abortions is not the same as "promoting" those things.

I don't see how defending traditional values is compatible with promoting a free market capitalist system. I'm not a libertarian, but I do give them credit for being the only ideological group that seems to understand that economic freedom is a driver of social progress.

If you think society is becoming too accepting of homosexuality, blame capitalism. It's free markets that allow TV, film and print media to discuss and depict the issues consumers are interested in.

If you think the traditional family is under attack, blame capitalism for driving increased labor mobility, making people move more and undermining communal and regional social structures, and for encouraging women to enter the workforce to make labor inputs more abundant and less expensive.

Conversely, if peace-and-love liberals want to do the most they can to limit military conflict in the world, they should embrace free trade and globalization. Countries that depend on each other for economic inputs and benefit from trade are less likely to be antagonistic and still less likely to go to war.

IndepndentTX, I'm not trying to debate over what's right and wrong, I'm trying to see why liberalization of laws regarding things such as marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage should be classified as "conservative". The only answer I've gotten is "he was called Mr. Conservative". My own views on the issues should probably go under political debate or individual politics. Only reason this specific debate is here is due to Mr. Peeperkorn's assertion. Thank  you for your input, though.

Labels like "Mr. Conservative" are a product of their times. In 1964 the conservative platform was geared to a rollback of the New Deal and firm policy against the USSR. Social issues did not start to emerge until the late 70's and 80's; for example the Moral Majority was not founded until 1979. Goldwater's label accurately reflected his position and the conservative movement then, it would not reflect it today. Goldwater was never a fan of religious organizations driving the conservative movement and that led to his split with conservatives in the 1980's.

The conservative mantra has shifted even over the last 10 years, sadly, to the party's detriment. While fiscal conservatism can play in about 60% of the country, social conservatism only plays in about 40%. And while it plays really well right now in that 40%, it's simply not a long-term winning strategy. You can't keep culture from changing, you really can't.

I don't consider myself a moderate (with the exception of some environmental issues and some social issues where I take a more libertarian approach), but it drives me nuts when the party acts like a bunch of hacks and is unwilling to compromise.

^^^ Basically this.

Oddly even more than being unwilling to compromise, the Republicans' problem is also they we are marketing ourselves as unwilling to compromise. Sort of like how some of the left on here like nothing more to advertise how extreme they are, the GOP seems to be trying to do this in real life. A lot of times that's a bigger electoral problem than whether or not we're willing to compromise in the first place.

You all get it. Many of us here are rather right wing, but it's the attitude I take the most issue with as opposed to any particular stance on policy.

That NC-SC poster, Duke, is a moderate republican. Dereich and ajc, both from Florida, are moderate  GOPers, too. Redcommander used to be moderate, not anymore. Tory, Clarence and Tmth would be considered moderate republicans in today's GOP, but they're not "moderate". They are sane conservatives.

Ajc is ()

I feel ignored.

I'm honored to be categorized with Torie and Clarence.

I'm even more honored you think I'm sane! :P

I'd put you with Torie, Clarence, and Tmth in Julio's classification (I might not in most other contexts, but I would in this one).

There are no moderate Republicans. There all out to repress the people in favour of greedy big business and outdated religious beliefs.

Wut?

As do I. 

And there you have it.  :P  It is impossible to be Godless and a Pub. By the way, are all religious beliefs "outdated," or just some?

TheReporter, is that you?

You are a reactionary by your own admission, aren't you?

But most of my positions on major issues would put me in the "moderate" camp of the GOP.

That says considerably more about the GOP than about you, to be quite honest.

They had to to win the Tea Party vote (and to avoid getting primaried)... now they're stuck.

The issues I am truly reactionary on are usually not major issues. Often I can also term myself a "big government conservative", supportive of a strong central government and state in general.

being for abortion has nothing to do with the right wing. abortion was quite common place in the ancient world, and legal for much of us history up until around the 19th century when it began to be more regulated. and there are quite a few on the right that favor abortion because it 'reduces crime or the welfare rolls'.  likewise marijuana was legal most of us history and really has virtually nothing to do with ideology whatsoever, although obviously there was and still is a distinct racial component to that.

I think it's funny that the "neo-cons," "Culture warriors," and "moderates" all think they are different from one another. Their policies are almost identical.

The only group in the GOP that really distinguishes itself is the liberty/ paleo-con wing.

Which you happen to be part of. How convenient. And what a large and significant wing it is, having so much voice in what goes on within the party.

Also, lieberman made a name for himself after his disasterous 04 pres bid for endlessly bitching about the sorry state of the Democratic Party. He became utterly embittered about primary voters not recognizing his greatness and turned against some fundamental views out of spite (including universal healthcare--he single-handedly scuttled the public option).

After going on every Sunday morning show or telling every reporter in sight about how much the Democratic Party had lost it's way, it was natural he wasted a lot of good will. Add to that his opposition on the most dvisive issue of the time at odds with the VAST majority of his party in a decidedly blue state and, well, the results can hardly have been unexpected.

This site is packed with posters who are at once moderate and not culture warriors. As to the neo con thing, whatever that means, but assuming it is a big fist US foreign policy these days, they do tend to be light on the ground around here, since that does not fit as part of your assumed package either.

Well no he is from NJ. You have to be a moderate republican in most places in NJ to get elected to office therefore most NJ  Republicans are moderate. Maybe up in Sussex County you can be conservative because it is out there in the boonies. There is nothing going on in Northwest Jersey.

Well no I don't like the religious right myself. Whenever I think of the religious right they think religion should be a player in politics and they are anti-abortion. I don't like those 2 things.

As for big business you have to break down your opinions of big business being greedy to make me understand your point. I personally don't think that a poor person has ever hired anybody though.

Ehhh... Scott Garrett is held to be a solid conservative, if that's any benchmark.

I add SinFan and Bulmoose to my list :)

I also don't seem to recall that you're running for public office.

Stylistically and in general approach you are on second thought actually considerably more moderate than some New Jersey Republican elected officials, though.

Tell me, what are the biggest differences between these groups in actual policy. I would also like you to distinguish them from the 'moderate' Democrat.

Simple there are no moderate Republicans only right-wing and extreme right-wing ones! The "moderates" are just good at hiding their true selves tbh.

What's the difference between right-wing and extreme right-wing?

The extreme right-wing can be seen in the Tea Party like politicians that want to take America back to the 1500's with their extreme religious bigotry and laiz-faire like economic policies.

While the right-wing of the GOP wants to maintain the unchecked capitalism we have right now and that led t the 2008 meltdown.

The GOP as well as the Democrats o a lesser extent are the enemies of the worker due to their neo-liberal stances. More so then right-wing opposition's in other countries

You will find much more peace in life when you realize there is not much different between either political party when it comes to actual governing. While I find the rhetoric that comes from the right wing horrifying at times, the Democrats have the same loons in their party, they just are more accepted amongst the public due to the media's influence.

The Republican Party of today is at a dangerous place with the purging of sane minds and moderates who used to run things, and they will either be out of power for a long time and realize the error of their ways or they will ceased to exist at a party. The Tea Party themselves is one of the worst things ever to rear its ugly head in American politics. They are divisive and reactionary and are only a bad influence for the GOP. They seem to prey on the less educated by using slogans and framing issues into simple catch phrases that really do nothing to address real problems, and they seem to think their twisted way of viewing the world is mainstream when in reality it's eroding the only buffer between the Democrats and unchecked power.

In my view, there were only two sane people running for president in the GOP field, yet it was stretched out for far too long because of people like the Tea Party who are more interested in tag lines than actual solutions. And it's a shame that Mitt Romney is having to adopt some things like that to get the support of his party.

That's just my view of things today in the GOP. The only thing keeping me in the party is what it is supposed to stand for, because deep down I believe in personal responsibility, civil liberties, human rights, and the power of American capitalism. But those things are hard to find in either party these days.