The Two Kinds of Moderate • Hacker News Board

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#91

Post by NeedMoreTea » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #83

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a British former moderate conservative who's abandoned the party, though in truth I feel the party has abandoned me, I see a UK conservative party that has followed a very, very similar transition. Moderate conservatism has just been kicked out of the party. It's now a radical ideology captured by libertarian think tanks in American image -- and several of them funded by the US. The conservative party is now the E…

I think we’re heading in that direction, but it’s such a recent shift in direction that hopefully it’s just a contingent reaction to the outcome of the referendum. I’m a remainer, but I think once we’re out if the E.U. the party will re-centre itself on its basic priorities. Mistakes always happen in politics, if you’re not making mistakes you can’t be doing anything worthwhile. Austerity went too far, but fundamenta…

Not so recent, it's been a steady transition since the silliness under Major with the rebels over Maastricht. Labour were almost as split at the time.

My problem is they've become a party of international finance, hedge funds and so on. No longer is a conservative MP or Lord the former exec of a successful FTSE company, or something in the city, which of course is now mainly US. The policies benefit international finance not Britain and the British, candidates are selected accordingly. Rees Mogg being perfect example.

I can imagine a Churchill, Macmillan, Heath or even Heseltine or Thatcher putting through the environmental parts of Labour's manifesto -- that's good One Nation Conservatism without the parts remaking capitalism. No one since though. Thatcher fully believed the science, and made a UN speech in 89, and many others, calling for world climate action way beyond anything that's actually happened. Churchill did so much to create the European Court of Human rights and Convention.

The referendum campaign basically promised no deal was not possible, so yes they should deliver what was promised. Though allowing a referendum without supermajority so we're forever stuck at 50:50 was madness. Austerity was dogma from day one -- no one overspent, it was a global banking bubble, but gave an excuse to push libertarian shrinking of government. Yet QE was full on Keynes, just this time for the benefit of international finance, not the country. Every event kicks the fringe to the centre, and remakes the party a little further off centre.

That's my take. Internet politics is of course mostly futile, have a peaceful and prosperous New Year. :)

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#92

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #67

war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can see this with the Republicans who turned into Democrats once the Republicans shifted far enough right that there were no more Rockefeller Republicans and Bill Clinton ran as a Democrat. If you're an accidental moderate, you run the risk of involuntarily changing party affiliation. I think this is interesting because it's been exactly the opposite for me and many of the people I know. At some point over the…

> At some point over the past ten or fifteen years, the Democrats switched their focus Clinton was elected on explicit Third Way positions nearly 30 years ago. If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda. What you're noticing is the democrats finding a new base a decade after losing their working class supporters, through a combination of Third Way politics, the Republican Sout…

> If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda.

You think that Democrats have not moved in the past 10-15 years? You think that the idea that they have is merely Republican propaganda? I think you haven't been paying attention.

Or maybe you were paying too much attention. 15 years ago, AOC wasn't even old enough to vote. Were there Democrats in the House who held the same positions 15 years ago? Perhaps so. They didn't have the press attention that AOC gets, though. So they may have been there, but in the eyes of the public they weren't "the position" of the Democrats. Instead, they were fringe.

Now AOC gets as much press coverage as Nancy Pelosi (maybe more, before impeachment). To the average person, AOC and people like her now represent the Democratic Party. That's a massive shift, at least in perceptions, if not in actual position.

And I think the actual position has shifted, too. There are considerably more of the farther-left people like AOC, both in congress and running for president. The median Democratic officeholder position has shifted left. (Or so I strongly suspect. I assert it without statistical evidence.)

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#93

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #69

jaspax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests (which has been going on for decades), spilling over into outright contempt of lower- and middle- class whites (which has mostly become prominent in the past 10-15 years).

> Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests Are these actually in conflict? Are they also not part of the working class? What sort of policies do you think should have been enacted against this?

There's only so much time, attention, and energy. If your focus is on, say, trans rights, you're not spending that time focusing on working-class economics.

And even if you can do it all, there's only so much attention the voters have. If all they hear about you is on trans rights, they don't perceive you doing anything about their economic problems.

The Democrats' central message used to be "we care about the working people". Now their central message is "we care about illegal immigrants, minorities, and trans people". If your biggest problem is that you have no money because you have no job, that doesn't resonate.

More: As the Democrats become dominated by the coastal elites, the party has too many people leading it who don't even know about the working-class problems in the middle of the country.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#94

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

bovermyer wrote: post #76

coldtea wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While "I met a guy, didn't like him, I think this is why" is a bit too dismissive, your dismissal of a desire for factual data is disturbing. I find the over-reliance on second hand ("factual") data, charts and figures, disturbing. People have to learn to observe, think, and understand themselves. Not just passively consume pre-made charts and statistics (which are the easiest thing to manipulate). And learning how…

You keep saying charts and figures. Repeatedly, ad nauseum. As if that's what I was getting at. Quit talking about them, that's not relevant to this discussion. Comparing two data points will always yield better results than having just one. Data points don't have to be literal points on a graph. They can be discussions with people. Study historiography or journalism.

You know, it's possible that Paul Graham might have had discussions with people, rather than just his own one-life anecdotal data...

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#95

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #90

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're conflating your fears about a specific, and in my opinion unlikely, doomsday scenario into a general slippery slope argument against the dangers of disruptive justice. Yes, I kept repeating the one example I used, but I worry about all issues that could plausibly lead to a civilization-ending war. Of which there are many, including all kinds of problems created by worsening state of the planet's clim…

There is already bloodshed, but right now it just happens to not be yours. The point of MLK’s quote, in my opinion, is that moderates can always find reasons to maintain status quo especially when the issues at hand are not deemed personally impactful. People are being harmed, but because they are not me or look like me it’s not worth risking potential upset.

> There is already bloodshed, but right now it just happens to not be yours.

No, there isn't. At least not in the examples mentioned.

What you mention is one point of MLK's quote, but my point is different: not everyone who doesn't want to join the fight against status quo is such moderate without a personal stake in the outcome. Some are people who very much care, and have a stake, but decline involvement because they see the proposed means to involve too much collateral damage; the cure to be worse than the poison.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#96

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

ajb wrote: post #11

hnhg wrote: post #5

I'm intrigued by how this analysis fits in with increasingly 'tribal/team politics' - do intentional moderates try to appease every team? Thinking out loud, I think this piece misses that aspect of team-seeking behavior. I know people who will recognise a good point against their side but will strive to ignore it because it works against their sense of loyalty to the team. I increasingly believe there are relatively…

Indeed. I think a more useful definition is someone who does not exclude either side, from the set of people whose needs politics should address. Let's call that an 'ethical moderate'. Left and right could be thought of as differing in whose behavior they think needs to change, to improve the world: the wealthy and connected, or the poor and disconnected. The more hardline you are, the more you think that that behavi…

Well, not holding position X merely because X is the [conservative | liberal | Democratic | Republican | left | right] position might be considered "moderate", in one sense of the word. Holding position X purely because tribe Y holds it makes you a committed (ie, not moderate) member of tribe Y.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#97

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #52

tomlockwood wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.

I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity…

And interestingly, CPLX seems to be doing exactly what the article talked about. PG said something, and CPLX wouldn't listen to what it actually said, because it came from one of those rich people, and they couldn't possibly have anything honest and true to say. This is CPLX not actually considering PG's opinion for what it is, but for how it fits in CPLX's already-existing framework.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#98

Post by philwelch » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #31

> Intentional moderates are similar to those on the far left and the far right in that their opinions are, in a sense, not their own. The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. Well, no, not at all. People on the left and on the right tend to have a worldview and attitude that is the foundation of their stances on issues. It is not a coincidence that…

Ideologies are more multipolar than that.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#99

Post by CameronNemo » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

Right and left are arbitrary constructs necessitated by a first past the post voting system. Change the electoral system and you will see much more diverse and meaningful party affiliation.

>The effect of a system based on plurality voting is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support are left with a disproportionately small share.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#100

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #16

As a British moderate conservative, the differences between US and UK (arguably European) politics are fascinating. What moderate means is so different. For reference I’m a lifelong conservative voter that grew up under Maggie Thatcher. We do have a middle of the road Liberal Democrat party, but to my mind they maintain their position in the middle ground by dodging the hard issues. They are intentional moderates in…

Off topic: Can you explain to me (a US person who doesn't understand UK politics) why the Liberal Democrats did so poorly in the last election? In my limited understanding, it seems to have been tailor-made for them to do well, with both the Conservatives and Labour looking extreme.