Is political moderation tied to higher income/safer environment, etc?

[All Along The Watchtower]

It seems to me that you find more examples of "moderate heroes" in the population when most of the population is middle-to-high income, where public schools are performing well, where there's a steady job, and where the community is safe.

Also, if said community is relatively isolated from poorer areas with lower education rates, higher crime, more racial tension, etc., then it its probably more likely to be moderate, no?

I live in the South Bay Area, which is one of these areas. We are pretty Democratic, but not overwhelmingly so. The Democrats here are liberal-to-moderate, and the Republicans here tend to be moderate to center-right.

In other words, there are a lot more people in the middle than people at either extreme.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Define 'moderation'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Define 'moderation'.

     I'm guessing he means it as an antonym to "radicalization".

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think that when we say "moderation", it can mean two very different things.

The moderation which is usually refered to could be called ideological moderation. Basically, it can be measured as the deviation between a considered community's median political position, or more generally what is considered the "mainstream" opinion. Ideological moderates are, to put it simply, people who have more or less as much people to their right than to their left. And ideological radicals are those whose positions contrast sharply with the average. As a result, it seems evident that what we define "moderate" depends on the group you are refering to. That's actually a main source of misunderstandings here between american and european posters : people like me I usually considered as the forum's "radical left" despite the fact we are almost centrists by european standards, while Franzl, who's often portrayed as the forum's official moderate hero, is a staunch right-winger for Europe. However, it's important to note that the reference unit is not necessarly a country. For example, people who are raised in a very conservative community can be surprised when he enters in contact with other sorts of people and discusses with them : he can consider that every people he meets is a radical leftie because the moderation standards of the people he uses to live with are far to the right of those of the whole country.

IMO this kind of moderation, by its nature itself, can't really be attributed to a particular demographic group. Of course, at a country level, you can identify "swing demographics", people who align more often to the mainstream. I don't think it is really connected to wealth, quality of life or high education. If you have to seach the most moderate demographic groups, you might (that's just a guess) find that they correspond more or less to the median demographics (people close to the median income, etc...). But is it really something important ? For a politician, yes, but not really for someone who wants to understand the influence of environment on behaviour. I know that's pretty lame to say, but everything is relative when it comes to ideological moderation.

Now, there's the other kind of moderation. For lack of a better term, I'd call it rhetorical moderation. It is basically the way one expresses his political opinions, how much violence he puts in his words - and sometimes in his acts - when it comes to politics. Rhetorically moderate people are those who discuss politics quietly, who don't consider people of different opinions as "enemies", who is able to make friends on the opposite political side. They are, basically, the "good people" in politics, those who don't need to insult their adversaries to win a debate. Rhetorically radical persons, instead, are those who demonize other ideologies, who spread bad feelings, etc... It may sound a simplistic categorization, but it works and is useful.

So, when it comes to this form of moderation, I think it is somewhat linked to social, economical and cultural environment. Rhetorical extremism is often a sign of rhetorical weakness : you start insulting people when you have nothing more intelligent to say. And it is undeniable that a stable situation, an equilibrate life and a strong access to culture allow you to develop a coherent political thought, which is the strongest barrier against hatred. Thus, I agree there.

The reason why the concept of "moderation" is so problematic in political discourses is precisely the confusion between these two forms of moderation. Which have, in fact, nothing in common. Since ideological moderation is always relative, there would be nothing surprising to see people who are ideologically very radical, yet perfectly moderate in their rhetoric. Yet, most people still believe moderation is always the same thing. That's a source of a lot of misunderstandings in the debate. Ideological moderates tend to justify their political positions by the fact radicalism means lacking respect, objectivity, being a hack... On the other hand, we have all the rhetorical extremists justifying their hateful rhetoric with Goldwater's quote (which makes sense when it comes to ideological moderation). Both arguments are logical fallacies due to the fact a same word is used to describe two very different things. Also, ideological moderation is indeed, as Barry said, not a virtue, and the most radical opinion can very well be the right one (look at the slavery debate). On the other hand, it is my opinion that rhetorical extremism, when it reaches some point, is inherently bad and condemnable whatever are the political positions. Eventually, it is a sign of weakness, lack of self-assurance, and inability to develop a coherent thought.

It is undeniable however, that there seems to be some correlation between ideological moderation and rhetorical moderation. While there are many examples of the contrary, it's undeniable that a majority of rhetorically radical people are also ideologically radical. Communists in postwar Europe or today's teabaggers show it quite well. While it's hard to identify precise causalities, my opinion is that the addition some factors (lack of knowledge, culture, etc...) and of life in a particular community whose mainstream view is different from that of the mainstream, can lead be a factor causing both forms of radicalism. Finally, the frustration caused by living in a country which holds mainstream views somewhat different to one's own can also lead to develop a more hateful rhetoric. Being in a minority is always difficult and this can lead you to think you are better than everyone else. That's why people can start developping a hateful rhetoric or even conspiracy theories and all...

Wow, this is probably one of my longest posts ever.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Define 'moderation'.

     I'm guessing he means it as an antonym to "radicalization".

That, or an antonym to "extremism."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Define 'moderation'.

     I'm guessing he means it as an antonym to "radicalization".

That, or an antonym to "extremism."

But who defines what is 'radical' or 'extreme'?

I'm not just being a contrary prick; this question is important.

[Beet]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological, basically conservative, and very useful to the establishment.

[Badlands17]

This seems to make sense just intuitively. If you don't find any major problems with your community, you'll be less likely to believe drastic action needs to be taken. There are a fair share of moderates in poorer places as well, but they're more likely to believe both parties are a load of crap as opposed to believing both parties have their own merits and etc. While this is a bit old (2004), I think it's kind of the distinction of Upbeats v. Disaffecteds.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological

Not possible.

[Beet]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological

Not possible.

So when company X makes a contribution to Congressperson Y's campaign because Congressperson Y lobbied for company X to win a government contract, what is the ideology?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological

Not possible.

So when company X makes a contribution to Congressperson Y's campaign because Congressperson Y lobbied for company X to win a government contract, what is the ideology?

Mostly that would count as corruption, wouldn't it? But generally anyone who describes themself as 'non-ideological' (or whatever) is actually a conservative of some form or other, functioning largely to keep the existing structure of society (from which they benefit) in place.

[Torie]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological

Not possible.

So when company X makes a contribution to Congressperson Y's campaign because Congressperson Y lobbied for company X to win a government contract, what is the ideology?

Mostly that would count as corruption, wouldn't it? But generally anyone who describes themself as 'non-ideological' (or whatever) is actually a conservative of some form or other, functioning largely to keep the existing structure of society (from which they benefit) in place.

There is some truth to that. An alternative is the concern that even though the status quo sucks, precipitous change seems more often than not to lead to the detritus of the French Revolution rather than the American one. The devil you know, is better than the devil you don't. In my case, however, I quite loathe the devil I know, so I am more prepared than some of the bourgeoisie to break a lot of eggs, and move on to the next devil.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The devil you know, is better than the devil you don't. In my case, however, I quite loathe the devil I know, so I am more prepared than some of the bourgeoisie to break a lot of eggs, and move on to the next devil.

But only so long as Hell remains the same?

[Beet]

Moderates are a faction of politics which are anti-ideological

Not possible.

So when company X makes a contribution to Congressperson Y's campaign because Congressperson Y lobbied for company X to win a government contract, what is the ideology?

Mostly that would count as corruption, wouldn't it?

Quite. But it is still political. And really, there is a continuum between corruption and legitimate lobbying for one's own interest. The main difference between dictatorship and democracy in that regard is that in a dictatorship, the circle of lobbyists is very narrowly constricted, whereas in a democracy anyone who has money can lobby.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, moderates are often functionally conservative, although less so in a capitalistic economy that is inherently dynamic to begin with. Torie's point is a good one as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, moderates are often functionally conservative

No, 'moderates' of the type that you describe are always conservatives, at least of a certain kind, no matter what they call themselves. Which is quite different from saying that 'all moderates are conservatives', which would be absurd; 'moderate' is a highly relative term and doesn't translate well from situation to situation. Which is the problem with the question that this thread is built around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The experience of most Western countries since the 1870s would suggest otherwise, although 'inherently dynamic' is a decent get-out phrase.

[Beet]

Yes, moderates are often functionally conservative

No, 'moderates' of the type that you describe are always conservatives, at least of a certain kind, no matter what they call themselves.

Which is why they are only functionally conservative. They do not always think of themselves as being conservative, or even make a conscious effort to preserve the status quo as such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not all moderates 'are conservatives', and of course it varies with the context. Still, it is possible to describe in some generalities characteristics that are common of political moderation across a wide variety of political contexts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The experience of most Western countries since the 1870s would suggest otherwise, although 'inherently dynamic' is a decent get-out phrase.
[/quote]

Western countries since the 1870s have been highly dynamic.