House of Eratosthenes

Dr. Melissa has yet another delicious rant up about the moderates and all the damage they dealt to this fine nation four months ago. Not that we needed it, she already had us thinking long and hard about what it means to be, what in this day and age, we call a “moderate.”

I had already put together a little list. It’s in David-Letterman format — the reason why I did this, probably won’t become clear until you get all the way through it.

TOP TEN THINGS YOU NEED TO DO TO BE, WHAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WE CALL A “MODERATE”:

10. Consistently reject anything extreme, for that is the essence of moderation. It is, isn’t it?
9. Keep current with what other people think is extreme, for if you are adhering only to your own notions of what’s moderate, you aren’t a true moderate.
8. Only extremists will dismiss an idea because of a bleak outcome. So be an idea packrat. Use the failed ideas, as if they worked. Use them over and over again. In fact, the only idea you should ever reject, is the idea that sometimes an idea has earned rejection.
7. Hear from all sides before deciding anything. That includes gathering opinions from the ignorant.
6. That also includes gathering opinions from the insane. Treat these opinions as if they came from sane people.
5. That even includes gathering opinions from sworn enemies, or anyone with interests contrary to yours. Treat these opinions as if they came from friends. Also, gather opinions from agenda-driven zealots who don’t agree with you about the virtues of moderation.
4. Give equal weight and merit, deserved or not, to everything you hear. Moderation-versus-extremism must be your *only* litmus test for ideas, and those who profer them.
3. Don’t concern yourself with facts. Moderation demands only a working knowledge of what others are thinking. Facts occasionally persuade people to reject some things, and there’s nothing moderate about that.
2. There is a “blue line” among moderates. An attack upon a moderate — or someone simply calling himself one — is an attack on YOU. Fight!

AND THE NUMBER ONE THING YOU NEED TO DO TO BE WHAT, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WE CALL A “MODERATE”…

1. Be an extremist. As ardent, as dedicated, as pugnacious, as hot-blooded, impetuous, slobbering and foolish as there has ever been. In all of human history.

Now, think on this long and hard — vis a vis some of the “moderates” you know. It’s true, isn’t it? Moderates do not reject…anything. Ever. Even when they voted against McCain/Palin, they didn’t even reject that. It was more of a…mmm, well, there’s a certain amount of coolness involved in the Hockey Mom and the old guy…there’s a certain surplus amount of coolness involved in those two lawyers over there, so I’ll vote for the lawyers.

Moderates cannot, will not, won’t ever, never did, reject something. They are incapable of forming the words, on the tongue or in the noggin — “That there is a dumbass idea that’s been given a lot of chances, we’re all done gambling things on it fer good.” They can’t do this. They’re like really old men living in houses with all manner of worthless crap in the attic and basement. Can’t pitch anything out.

That would be far too extreme.

And so they end up being extremists without knowing it. They end up re-defining their goal in life to be nothing but a big fat zero; then, tragedy of tragedies, they fail at even that.

I’ll be glad when this obsession works its way out of your system, Morgan. But, that said, it doesn’t appear that I’m a moderate by your definition, at least as I read it. I still think of myself that way, tho.

And while we’re on the subject… there’s not a goddanged thing wrong with hearing all sides. It’s why I watch that idjit Moyers every Friday night, without fail. “Know your enemy,” and all that.
- bpenni | 03/06/2009 @ 14:49
But, that said, it doesn’t appear that I’m a moderate by your definition, at least as I read it.

You can say that again, m’friend. I have never understood why you feel any sort of kinship with these fools. You tried being a full-blown tie-dyed guy back in the day, as I understand it, and you figured out some stuff doesn’t work, and abandoned it.

The “moderate” Obama supporters are clamoring for higher taxes (or, at least, failing to oppose them). Living in California, I can personally vouch for the fact that this isn’t the right way to go. But anyway: You’ve got the brain lobes needed to abandon dumbass ideas. These other folks do not. They are not your peers.

Other than the tax/Laffer-curve stuff mentioned above, there is another area: Gun control. If something is conceptually mistaken, and logic says so, and history says so — adopting 50% of it is not sensible. Our mistake in this day and age is to define as “extremist” that which is the central pillar of benign conservatism: Rather than giving a bad idea another go, let’s not & say we did. That’s gone. Now we have to keep consuming what we know is poison.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2009 @ 16:14
I’m of the opinion there’s NO such thing as a “moderate” Obama supporter. That said, two of my regular readers, both of whom I respect quite a lot, voted for The One after years upon years of voting for the GOP. Or so they say. I’m holding fire for the moment, which is to say not doing the gloating, “I told you so” thing in comments on their blogs, as yet. But that day is rapidly approaching. I’m thinking the day the Dow closes below 5,000 might be appropriate… 😉

You’re right: I was about as Liberal as they come… short of being an outright Marxist… back in the day. The straw that broke MY camel’s back with the Left was the Perpetual Victimhood and the intolerance for diverging views, however mild they might have been. I’m seeing more intolerance on the Right these days and it’s making me kinda ill. But I keep thinking “Where else is there to go?” Maybe it’s time for a viable third party…
- bpenni | 03/06/2009 @ 17:36
I’m seeing more intolerance on the Right these days and it’s making me kinda ill.

And that’s what this whole post is all about. When one is dealing with a flawed policy, or a flawed concept that inspires a whole family of flawed policies, or a flawed philosophy that gives rise to a skewed perspective on the human condition and how it works…one enters an environment in which a middle ground is impossible. I would argue one has then stepped into the eternal battleground between Satan and the forces of good. In which case some litmus tests for purity are not only justified, but a prerequisite for that noble endeavor of doing more good than harm. In the universe of real things, this is not always as easy to pull off as it might look.

I come at it like this: A lot of evil can be perpetuated with the consent of some normally benevolent, and normally intelligent, folks — if only it can be given a friendly camouflage, sort of an appearance of having been watered down. My other examples don’t do it for you? How about minimum wage. I propose we make it fifty bucks an hour, and suddenly we’re ALL conservatives. Oh no, you can’t do that. Oh my, unemployment would skyrocket. Oh for heavens’ sake, be realistic. Inflation would go sky-high. Who you kiddin’, Freeberg? Nobody’s suggesting such a thing.

Put something on the table to hike it by fifty cents, or seventy-five, and suddenly a bad idea becomes “moderate.” Why?? It’s the same idea. The same economic principles apply. All we’ve changed is the magnitude. Suddenly it’s not a dumbass idea anymore. Ah…but the dumbass-ness has only been diluted. All the harmful aspects are still there, the propensity toward unemployment, the propensity for inflation, the obscene under-the-table payoff to the labor unions. My absurd exaggeration has done nothing to alter the formula save for peeling back the covering on that which, through phony “moderation,” had been concealed from us.

Now this other kind of extremism, the kind we think we’re talking about, the kind that has to do with truly disliking certain types of folks — I would argue The Left has a near monopoly on that. Yes I know a bunch of All In The Family reruns leave the impression that the opposite is the case. Yes, I know there are exceptions to everything…but I said near monopoly. Most of the nasty people I’ve met are hardcore leftists. And the tighty-righties I’ve met, have overall been pretty nice.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2009 @ 18:41
I think what I’m the most tired of is the “moderate” people who vote Republican, usually for the blue-blooded Rockefeller types from New England.

Honestly, I think it would be better to purge these people and lose yet another election, than to retain them and wind up with some compromise candidate like McCain.

And as has been pointed out again and again, moderate thinking not only isn’t sound for the reasons Morgan outlined above, but it doesn’t even win elections. It is not even worth its weight for pragmatic or practical reasons. What good is all this “reaching out” when the opposition isn’t willing to budge an inch?

I would rather tell the Left to f— off, whether it be at the ballot box, in the halls of Congress, or on Internet blogs…and have nothing “get done.”

And to tell you the truth, the hard Left at least is unwaveringly motivated by principles it believes in. You have to hand it to these Sierra Club people, the Greenpeace loonies, the Code Pink morons. They certainly put their money where their mouth is. They aren’t at all interested in compromise or “moderation” of their views in any way. They demand results, they take action, and they hold their representatives’ feet to the fire in addition to their protesting.

I don’t ever hear of anyone calling for them to do anything to water down their views. Why should we who believe in free expression, gun rights, American exceptionalism, free-market capitalism, fiscal responsibility and smaller government?
- cylarz | 03/06/2009 @ 23:05

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Not Moderates…Idea Pack-RatsFriday, March 6th, 2009

Not Moderates…Idea Pack-Rats
Friday, March 6th, 2009