Centrist Vs Moderate: Is there a significant distinction?

Having in the last few months relabeled myself a centrist....right of center, as opposed to conservative, this thought has occurred. I've had a somewhat automatic diminutive view of 'moderates'. Almost a wishy-washy mentality to virtually every political issue. If one was emphatic on a point or issue, a 'moderate' would almost reflexively argue the reasons why not. Or the opposite...

I see a centrist as capable of emphatic acts, perhaps even extreme, in some views, if the situation demands it. The difference being the centrist isn't locked into a specific dogma or political mantra. Perhaps more accurately, a pragmatist.

Yet that whole area is so subjective, it's almost impossible for these labels to be fully accurate.

I see the past high-water mark of the U.S. as centrist. Certainly nothing about the U.S. was, politically speaking, moderate. Quite deliberate, defined and the U.S.'s interests held above all else. We may have acted moderately in some responses, but always within the framework of a generally definite position.

There are exceptions to this many will point out and I cede them in advance. Yet for the purposes of future direction, I ask the framework of the thread be kept, as much as possible, within a delineation or clarification between Centrist and Moderate.

I also see an overlap, potentially between, the two labels for political purposes. Is this accurate? Is there a theoretic coalition between the two?

Or are they two different mentalities altogether?

Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

What I've seen is that "moderate" and "centrist" are used to dismiss anyone who doesn't toe the party line -- doesn't matter which party. With everything sociopolitical framed in the left/right paradigm (i.e., Democrat and Republican), anyone and everyone who doesn't conform is marginalized as the outlier... the one with no principles or values... the flaky one... the one who doesn't belong.

And since they "don't belong," they are easily marginalized, thus reinforcing that left/right paradigm.

I may be the outlier... oh well... but I have very definite principles, values, and opinions. I don't believe for a minute I'm the only one.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Centrist Vs Moderate: Is there a significant distinction?

No difference and I'll go with your "wishy washy" description. Can't trust em!!!

Therefore I consider myself and extreme moderate fence sitting centrist, middle of the roader.

A centrist wants you to be taxed from both sides...

A moderate wants to tax you 0.001% less.

Easy!

a reply to: Boadicea


A definite commonality between the two. Agreed.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: nwtrucker

Centrist Vs Moderate: Is there a significant distinction?

No difference and I'll go with your "wishy washy" description. Can't trust em!!!

Therefore I consider myself and extreme moderate fence sitting centrist, middle of the roader.

LMAO....you old goat.....

originally posted by: gspat
A centrist wants you to be taxed from both sides...

A moderate wants to tax you 0.001% less.

Easy!

???? Please clarify that 'easy' description...

Trump is a moderate.

he doesn't want to greatly reduce the government(political right) yet he doesn't want to add endless programs(political left)

originally posted by: thinline
Trump is a moderate.

he doesn't want to greatly reduce the government(political right) yet he doesn't want to add endless programs(political left)

Hmm, I see those examples, yet....Withdrawing from NATO is hardly 'moderate'. Neither is threatened tariffs on China or the 'wall'....even though many know those are negotiating positions rather than definite.

Restricting Muslim refugees until properly vetted is being positioned as immoderate and actually racial in nature.

There 'may' be an overlap between a moderate label and a centrist one, yet I see him as centrist more than 'moderate'.

Could be mere semantics though....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I do not believe that they are the same thing at all, although that is not to say that I believe either of them are entirely accurate markers for a persons position on the issues either.

A centrist is a person whose views tend to fall to BOTH sides of the middle of a disputed position, depending on the position adopted and the context.

A moderate is someone who is always just to the one, same side of middle, willing to work with others of differing views, to make a given enterprise or consensus work for the whole, generally speaking.

Now me, I am a genuine, dyed in the wool, calloused handed lefty. I believe in the rights of the working people to have greater control over the affairs of state, than any representative or special interest group might have, purely by weight of the fact that we outnumber the rest, and I love the concept of democracy a great deal.

I also believe that the working person should always be employed at a rate of pay which:

A)Renders them immune to fear of inflation

B)Means they can always pay the rent, bills, and have enough left over to save without living like a bloody sewer dwelling peasant from a Dickens novel.


I also love the freedoms afforded me by the efforts of those who have since died, both because of the sacrifices made to ensure them, and because those freedoms speak to my soul.

Many of them are non existent in this day and age, as the absence of a sword at my hip will attest.

I also believe that those who hate based on race, creed, colour, religious affiliation, sexuality, gender, and for any other fear based, phobia fluffing reason, should be taken firmly to task, simply because their presence on this nations soil is an offence to those who died to protect our freedoms.

I love real ale, and I used to love a bar in town. They allowed the EDL to meet there once, and I have never been back. They can suck railroad spikes and wash it down with a helping of Fukushima run off water for all I care.

That means that I also believe that both those who directly oppose my freedoms, those who oppose a living wage, those who oppose the idea that the floor worker is in fact worth a damn sight more than any thousand executive morons, those who oppose the idea that the people must become, and always remain the power in this nation, no matter what side they might claim to bat for, are essentially part of the problem. It means that those who oppose freedom of religion, sexuality, gender, those who hate based on creed and colour, are also part of the problem, not its solution.

I am not centrist, or moderate, because both centrists on the left, and moderates on the left, are prepared to compromise with those who oppose the liberation of the working majority from the ties that bind them. I am not moderate or centrist because I believe in dealing harshly with those who refuse to accept and love their fellow human beings, just because they cannot control their fear. I am not moderate or centrist because I believe that there is no better way for this country to be run, than by its people as directly as possible, and I am not centrist or moderate because neither centrists nor moderates would fight as resolutely for those things as I would, given a shot to do so. They would appease the enemies of freedom, the mouthpieces of the banks, the global agenda pushers, and other denizens of hidden places besides, where as me?

I would have those bastards thrown off my island faster than you can say "NOT IN MY NAME!"

Essentially centrists and moderates are different, but both will become increasingly irrelevant, the closer and closer people get to controlling their destiny and the destiny of their nations directly. When the people set the policy, there will be far less grey space, and more certainty and direction. People will know where they stand, and will stand firmer because of it.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Thank you for your honest response.


I, as you know, disagree with your views generally speaking. I trust not a gov't that tells me what to and not 'discriminate'. That ability, to discriminate, is what differentiates humans from the animal kingdom. Prejudice is a different story altogether.

I do not believe we are all equal. In talents, ability, motivation, intellect or sanity. The list is long. I believe all should have opportunity. What they do with it...or not? Their business, not mine...although I wish them well.

I make my own bed, no one else. I, alone, am responsible for my condition. I am not a 'victim'. I am almost 66 years old. The body is crapping out. Not 'fair'? Nope. One deals with it. Is this life fair? Nope. I deal with it. It leaves me the pleasures that I do have to be enjoyed rather than being overly resentful.

My definition, JMO, of centrist, in an American sense, is willing to forego SOME of my conservative opinions for the sake of the nation's survival. That is more important than many of my personal likes and dislikes. BUT NOT ALL. I'm still discovering where those lines lie as I take this view of things. What I'd prefer and what I'd put up with is different than what I wouldn't compromise on.

In all sincerity, I'd go as far as you....once my line is crossed. I will leave it at that.

No compromise, you say? No society... no civilization.

originally posted by: thinline
Trump is a moderate.

he doesn't want to greatly reduce the government(political right) yet he doesn't want to add endless programs(political left)

Lol
What kind of a moderate wants to reduce the government by building a huge wall around the country and make databases of muslims? Doesn't exactly scream of less government to me but rather quite the opposite imho.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The time for compromise has past, and I do not mean compromise between the people on the street level.

I mean the time has past where we, the people of my nation, should put up with anything less than real time control over the political class. Elections once every four years are a meaningless trinket, wafted before us to distract us from the fact our nation has been stolen from under us by corporations, unelected and morally defunct upper level civil service management, and by a political elite that does not represent us worth a damn and has not since before I was born.

We will need to be uncompromising in order to wrest our nation from the withered fingers of the establishment, we will need to be resolute, unyeilding, without relent. I am not in any way suggesting that once the people are in control, there should not be compromises that the people agree on. There should. But there should be no compromise when dealing with our out of control representatives, what so ever. They all need replacing with the sort of person who understands that a parliamentarians job is not to make choices for us, but to enforce our will, to make manifest the will of the people.

What we have now, is an unaccountable mess, which is why we have not seen our leaders, our intelligence agency heads, absolutely creamed for their violations of our privacy, for their infringements upon our rights, and for tarnishing the name of this country in the hearts and minds of entire regions, by continuing a decades old tradition of bombing the crap out of people in the Middle East, over conflicts that we paid for, trained men for, and used assets we controlled to initiate, along with partners elsewhere in the west.

Centrists, by and large, would be impossible to work with, given such a task, as would moderates. I believe that this is because these people are obsessed with the maintenance of the status quo, fearing moving either way and making significant change, either for personal reasons or because they have no backbone.

a reply to: TrueBrit


The I would pose a question to you. (I DO get where your coming from, at least on an intellectual level.)

You say no compromise in achieving your vision of it. OK. What is the realistic likelihood that you will achieve that 'vision' in your nation? I'm not referring to a 'some day' scenario, in your lifetime. Without complete and total upheaval especially when the vast majority are near complete wankers that wouldn't have the first idea on how to run a lawn mower, never mind a company that requires profit in a competitive arena?

a reply to: nwtrucker

First of all, on the subject of achieving something without total upheaval....I do not understand why doing it without upheaval is necessary, or even desirable. The worst of our number are the most powerful amongst us at present. I would say that as grounds to have a bit of upheaval go, that one is a pretty solid one.

As for the chances.... We have a better shot now, of achieving mastery of our own fate, than we ever have had before. Our political elite are in disarray, the current government and its opposition are in chaos, both writhing and twisting as they try and fail to reconfigure themselves into relevance. There has never been a better time than now, for the people to express and wield their power to their advantage, rather than to the advantage of those who try to own us.

I am not saying that things will occur without effort, that what I put forward as a possible outcome is the most likely outcome of all this. What I am saying, is that we never had a shot before the referendum, because our political elite had the tiller firmly in grasp, sailing us to disaster after balls up with total abandon. Well, their grip is weak right now, and while it is weak is the time to replace the hand controlling the rudder, and the body to which it is attached.

a reply to: TrueBrit


I'd agree the potential seems better, as it stands.

Where we diverge is the fact that I trust the 'people' to run things no more than the elite. I cite the Revolutionary war by the colonies-and that level of 'effort' may be required again- in that between one and two per cent of the local population took part in that revolution. The rest were loyalists, indifferent either way or too busy being concerned with the coming winter's food supply.

To wit, we're back to that 1-2% again. I speak for myself on this as it's not necessarily a general view, I don't mind an 'elite class'. Be it based on finances or actual productivity....as long as 'upward mobility' is achievable by the rest. The carrot on the end of the stick. It's fading fast....unless one supports the current crowd, that is.

Certainly the cretins running things now are incompetent.

I just don't see how we get from here to your 'vision' without running into the same cycle that the U.S. has gone through.


Wash, rinse, spin....repeat.