Is Moderation the Answer?

[Nick_A]

Hi Juice

[Dewey]

Re: Post #27 by whitetrshsholdier:

Hi whitetrshsoldier,

Conflict management (the process Nick_A said was “silly” but is a standard course of study in colleges) doesn’t conflict with your phrasing, but it is more specific.

I opened this thread hoping to have a discussion about moderating in general. We are stuck on the subject of just one aspect of moderating – compromising. I should have known.

Compromising on political matters is a lost skill. Divisiveness and polarization are the fashion – and my responders are very fashionable. They proclaim: “Compromise destroys purity and conviction and the reality that there are right and wrong and those in the right should not compromise.” Yes, I most certainly should have known.

Before leaving I offer this comment for whatever its worth. Over and again I heard someone assert that compromise has little or no place in important issues. Well, of course, it has a place.. And, of course it should be selective and not constitute wrongful capitulation. I can not think of a single big issue in this country that could not be ameliorated by compromises on both sides.

With respect to the issues that have been brought up in this forum, I must say that a lot of compromising would automatically occur if people would just define those issues more factually and objectively.

Re Post @28 from Belinda:

Belinda, you brought up the Taliban as an example of people that are completely uncompromising. You may be losing them as your example. I just read about some concessions the Taliban is offering in their negotiations with Saudi Arabia and NATO.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant

[Belinda]

[Juice]

I believe that Dewey is expressly speaking about political and legislative moderates. That those who take a middle of the road approach to legislative measures tend to have a better view and purpose than those who are staunchly in the one ideology vs another ideology camps. That compromise lends itself to principled conformity. A measured half way approach to governing and a half way approach to acceptance of compromise. That the purpose of government is that it should mediate and compromise on behalf of differing ideologies for the good of its citizens.

The problem here is that our Constitution limits government. Government, of itself, should limit itself. That people who are elected should be elected on the idea that as representatives they will do nothing which promotes or advocates the growth of government. There is no compromise here. How did we start electing officials who run on an anti-constitution platform by advocating and promising to do things which promote the growth of government and thereby advocating for the power to go to themselves? "Go government grow".

So what have we to compromise? There are those who want to grow government to what end? Under the guise that it expects to do what is best for the people? Government doing what is best for the people by moderation and compromise from a corrupt legislature divided along ideological faults. I am not speaking of corruption from a criminal perspective but a corruption of the Constitution by both major political parties.

Those who stand on principles and believe that what is best for me can only be decided by me. And that no government authority should invade and control any aspect of my life unless I violate the principles of value of the individual and the social contract cannot be moderated or compromised.

We should stand together, as one nation and demand that government work to limit itself and stop corrupting the ideas, principles and vision of our founding documents.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Dewey]

Juice said: “I believe that Dewey is expressly speaking about political and legislative moderates.”

No, Juice I’m not talking just about moderates like me: I’m talking about ideologues, extremists, conservatives, radicals, liberalists, libertarians, communists, socialists and any other political classification you care to select. I’m talking about the need for every one of us to employ moderating methods when we debate political issues. It’s a way of getting down to brass tacks, of eliminating defects in our thinking, of correcting our misconceptions, of finding areas of agreement on which to build more consensus, of pinpointing and confirming the real issues at hand, It’s the way out of empty grumbling and dreaming of knights on white horses and slaying ogres. It’s THE way to get results that we want and deserve.


Juice said: “The problem here is that our Constitution limits government. Government, of itself, should limit itself.”

No, Juice. whether as individuals or as governments, the people need laws and constitutions to limit their powers. The problem here is that the Constitutional limitations on the Government’s powers are not clear and sufficient.

I suggest you give moderating a try. Reevaluate the Constitution. Is it really so perfect as to deserve your high opinion of its complete applicability in all respects now, after 200 plus years of immense change? The founding fathers deserve every bit of credit for their wonderful document. But they weren’t clairvoyants.

When I pop in something here, something else pops out there. To head off one likely popout, I should mention that I, too, think the size and power of our Federal Government has grown far more than necessary.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant

[Juice]

Dewey-In a certain respect I think you are right but not for the same reasons. I believe that we must look at the Constitution with respect to the history of government abuses and how the language of law is being radicalized to negate the intent of the Constitution which is a document meant to protect citizens from government abuses and its expansion. The founders warned of this and any well meaning politician seeking elected office should see themself as the Steward of those founding principles and ideas and not any radicalized agenda driven ideology. The founders were well aware of the evils of government and the Constitution is a document which severely restricts the power of government.

To avoid these evils, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created by the founders with the clear intent of severely limiting the power of government officials. The founders trusted no one, not even themselves, with such power. They knew all too well that if those restrictions were not honored by elected and appointed government officials, as is currently taking place, the road to tyranny will be a cake walk. Tyranny is the progeny of the moderate and compromiser.

It is not about being clairvoyant but understanding and protecting the fundamental principles of inalienable rights, freedom and the "pursuit" of happiness. Basic and fundamental principles which do not require a crystal ball to advise on for the future.

Government is not responsible to give people what they want, but to ensure a clear and unobstructed path for people to get what they need by thier own labor, ability and motivation to what ever degree and level they can secure for themselves without restriction. No bar is too high nor should we accept that the bar has been set too low. And, conviction and self determination are the things that support motivation, not moderation or appeasement, which are the cousins of stagnation and blind acceptance.

There are people out there who are gearing up and are more than willing to fight so that they can dictate to us what to believe in, what we need and don't need, what we want and don't want and no amount of poop, pooping while straddling a fence will stop them from singling moderates out first. Just look at history!

I know some may roll their eyes and have a moderate hissy fit for me advising people to choose a side, don't care which, just so long as I know who to stand with and who to stand against. This country does need to be saved, and no amount of moderation will do it. This is proven by demarcates already conspiring to reintroduce the abortion language taking out by the Stupak Bill and agreed to by democrats just to get votes for the health care bill so it could pass. So much for moderation and compromise. I just see too many people making themselves miserable by thinking the wrong thing or not knowing what to think all together!
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Nick_A]

[Belinda]

#37 thanks so much for the link, Nick! The Yoruba one brought tears to my eyes it is so immediate, and the Islam one is so stern and clear that it makes me see more clearly. But they are all good. The general name for what we call the Golden Rule, then , is the Ethic of Reciprocity. I understand that social anthropologists have discovered this ethic within every society studied.

But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you."

I agree with you that politicians need more than more and more refined legislating. They need heart ,if you don't mind the Yelllow Brick Road reference.Heart is more and better than a weak subservience to rule by the majority. I am not sure how that 'more than' should manifest itself. I have to take from Jesus 'by its fruits you shall know it'.This would mean when applied to political decision making that any law is a good law, a good refinement of the Golden Rule only if the law results in significantly inreased welfare.The 'significant' has to look to the majority consensus, but also to the best that science and the human sciences can offer.
_________________
Socialist

[Nick_A]

[Juice]

Dewey-A thought occurred to me which I thought I'd share. I came across this site while doing some research and subsequently found it worth the effort to engage in the dialog. I like this site and I figured out why.

There are lots of sites which I can go to and contribute. Most of these sites have a general theme and for the most part I would have to engage with people who generally agree with me leaving me with not only little to contribute but, also very little intellectual stimulus.

I guess what I am trying to say is this site is not boring. For the most part posters are generally respectful of opposing opinions and views. The language used is of a high quality. People go out of their way to find and present support for their posts from all manner of media. The personalities of many of the regulars are so distinct that I believe if the avatars were removed I could make a pretty good guess who said what.

This site is very much a superior example of what the public forum should be like. Some may not like the military and what it stands for but as a private observation this site is very much like the military. People of different backgrounds and ideas coming together and expressing what they think to people who are more than willing to give them a chance to say it while patiently listening.

I think you are wrong Dewey. I think we have to take this forum as a lesson on how a democracy is supposed to work. People respectfully engaging in a public forum with no fear that their ideas or differences will be suppressed, silenced or really terribly ridiculed. Now thats solidarity. Thats the main idea and purpose this country is founded on.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote