Moderate Republicans

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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?

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?

[hopper]

Moderate Republicans are just called Democrats these days.

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.

[hopper]

Any moderate Republicans on here?

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

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.

[hopper]

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.

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".

[Kevin]

Lieberman is an ass.

Case in point with your post,

Extremists exist in both parties

[muon2]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Peeperkorn]

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?

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?

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

[BritishDixie]

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.

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

[muon2]

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.

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.

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 ).

[Peeperkorn]

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.

I'm not your teacher. Go to wikipedia.

[Cobbler]

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.

[bullmoose88]

Hi.

Angus also seems to be a moderate. LWRP!

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

[Cobbler]

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

That really depends on where you put the center. 

[Simfan34]

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 to accomplish these goals 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 for its own sake and the fact it hurts our economic competitiveness by inhibiting innovation and stymying education. I want the smartest, most capable people running our country, like Jon Huntsman, not people like Perry or Palin.

Perhaps one of the worst things is the knee-jerk opposition to Obama's policies, even if it means reversing long held positions, like the individual mandate. Such mindless contortions back the party into a corner, a consequence of the short term thinking endemic in the party today. Yet another example of this are the ongoing attempts to disenfranchise, as opposed to trying to build support amongst, minority groups. This can only spell disaster in the long term.

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

This is my opinion, at least.

And mine, as well.

[J. J.]

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

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."

[Cobbler]

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 to accomplish these goals 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 for its own sake and the fact it hurts our economic competitiveness by inhibiting innovation and stymying education. I want the smartest, most capable people running our country, like Jon Huntsman, not people like Perry or Palin.

Perhaps one of the worst things is the knee-jerk opposition to Obama's policies, even if it means reversing long held positions, like the individual mandate. Such mindless contortions back the party into a corner, a consequence of the short term thinking endemic in the party today. Yet another example of this are the ongoing attempts to disenfranchise, as opposed to trying to build support amongst, minority groups. This can only spell disaster in the long term.

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

This is my opinion, at least.

And mine, as well.

Well said.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

That really depends on where you put the center. 

"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; 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.)

[hopper]

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.

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.

[hopper]

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.

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.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.

I'm not your teacher. Go to wikipedia.

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.

[Indy Texas]

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.

I'm not your teacher. Go to wikipedia.

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.