CJD

To piggy-back on Bill's last post, I wanted to link one of the more overlooked classic liberals of the early modern period (he has been overlooked, I say, because of his work in another field often overshadows his political pamphleteering). Understanding the era will require you to recognize his theistic presuppositions.

From Areopagitica:

And this . . .

It is lamentable in this day and age that Xians have so associated themselves with conservative politics that the two are now inextricably tied together (in America). Admittably few Xians have championed full liberty throughout history, but there are still enough examples to avoid stereotyping.

Regards,

CJD

theyeti

I strongly disagree. The Libertarian Party strives for ideological purity, and though they're not demagogues (usually), they refuse to compromise when it comes to their one key issue: Kill government. Their beliefs stem from an absolutist stance on their conception of property rights, which necessitates that government involvement in anything is morally wrong. Take a look at their platform for example. While filled mostly with nice sounding platitudes, among other things they advocate:

• No restrictions or regulations on gun ownership of any kind.
• No limitations or regulations on immigration.
• The abolition of taxation (!).
• Elimination of the Federal Reserve; return to the gold standard.
• Privatization of all public utilities and transporation (including roads).
• No regulation or subsidization of industry or agriculture, no regulation of trade of any kind.
• Elimination of the public school system.
• Legalization of all drugs, without regulation.
• Elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc.
• No foreign aid of any kind.

Et cetera, et cetera. Now while you may think that one or more of these is a good idea, none of them can be construed as being moderate in any reasonable sense of the word. In every case, they're either much futher right than the conservative wing of the Republican Party, or further left than the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

As for their two-dimentional short poll, it's nothing more than a propaganda tool to sucker people who would otherwise want nothing to do with the Libertarian Party into thinking that they're libertarians. I know because it worked on me, and I made the mistake of assuming that I was a "libertarian" until I found out just how ideologically extreme these people are.

theyeti

Shadow Wraith

Yeah. I got suckered in the same way, but that lasted for only a couple of weeks before I caught wind about the extreme crankiness of libertarianism. I'm glad I always take the time to research these things. Libertarianism sounded good a first, but upon closer inspection it isn't good at all for me. Here's a nice set of articles critiquing "The Quiz."

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/wspq.html

(EDIT: The first and last articles from that link don't appear to be working. The middle two are fine, though.)

ohwilleke

First of all, liberalism is not necessarily held by a large group of people. It ideas of often minority ideas. Liberal view of flag burning, for example, are definitely minority view, not moderate views.

Second, liberalism is, in my experience, far more of a matter of looking at first principals, than looking at things on a case by case basis. Like most ideologies, liberalism has an agenda that it carries out in a broad variety of circumstances, rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of particular circumstances.

For example, a liberal view is that gays are entitled to equal rights. A moderate would tend to say: what do I think about sodomy laws for only gays, what about all sodomy laws, what about domestic partner health benefits, what about don't ask don't tell, what about gay groups in high school, what about gay groups in college, what about gay adoption, what about gay bars . . . .

This case by case analysis flows from the fact that moderates aren't committed to principals of either the left (gays should have equal rights) or the right (homosexuality is immoral) and hence look for additional facts to tip the balance.

Hence, the way justices who are viewed as liberal on the Supreme Court will rule is easy to predict in most cases, as is the way that the justices who are viewed as conservative on the Supreme Court are easy to predict in most cases, but you can never tell what facts might be important to a moderate like O'Connor.

Now, you may say that O'Connor is a conservative, but she is certainly more liberal than most Republicans, and certainly more conservative than most Democrats, so I think that the moderate label sticks, and certainly in the context of the court she is the swing vote and the one whose role is to balance competing ideologies by examining things on a case by case basis.

And given that I have identified moderate Senators and a moderate judge, let's look for moderate Presidents.

Clinton was probably one of the most moderate Democrats in recent times (recall he brought us Welfare Reform, e.g.). Nixon would be one of my picks for the most moderate Republican Presidents in recent times, because he was not afraid to be "soft on communism" by making peace with China, promote social programs (like Medicaid, a big step towards universal health care).

Tristan Scott

Bill Clinton was a centrist almost to a fault. Could have gone down in history the greatest compromiser since Henry Clay had it not been for the VRWC.

Bill

I disagree with your characterization of the people's views on flag burning. While the right wing has been gaining in the past few years, I still would assert that the majority of the American public is willing to tolerate occasional flag burnings when they realize that the alternative is the removal of a substantial componant of their own liberty. The key is to not ambush them into an unthoughtful response to a survey, which is what right-wing polling folks are prone to do.

And today's minority view can be, and frequently ought to be, the majority view of tomorrow. In the early 1960s, the idea of racial equality and racial integration was a liberal view. I would sure as heck hope that its not a minority view today! I don't see this situation at all. Everybody has their own set of "first principles." This is true without regard to where one fits on any spectrum of political opinion.

My view is that liberal "first principles" tend to be altruistic while conservative "first principles" tend to be selfish. (After all, atheist writer Ayn Rand is one of the frequently-cited people on the Rush Limbaugh show due to her book The Virtue of Selfishness.)

It seems to me that what you are really claiming here is that moderates don't have any real guiding set of first principles and thus get to pick and choose which wing gets their vote in any given dispute. I'm sure that a lot of moderates would take quite a bit of offense at that sort of a characterization (which seems to be rather a characture.... ). O'Connor is generally the middle (or "swing") vote on the Court. The surprise on the sodomy case was that Justice Kennedy crossed over and voted with the liberals to issue the broad ruling that the government had no business at all regulating non-commercial consensual sexual activity between adults. In my view, this was a sweeping decision, which most likely eliminates a broad range of laws, including stuff like Alabama's ban on the sale, possession, and use of vibrators.

But frankly, even Justice Rhenquist conducts a "case-by-case" analysis, and it isn't all that unheard of to see even a 7-2 ruling. And on the other side, I'd say that there aren't any dogmatists on the liberal side of the Supreme Court that could compare with the dogmatism of Justice Thomas! Every single Justice on the Court will vote together on some cases, if the facts and the laws clearly call for that kind of an outcome. But you can pretty-much bet that Justice Thomas will be taking the most conservative view no matter what the outcome of the case might be; even 8-1. O'Connor is a "moderate" only because the nation has drifted so far to the right over the past two decades. I think that the people of the United States of America are beginning to realize that we've drifted too far in that direction, and that it is time for a course correction back the other way. At least, I hope that is the case.

And when you get a couple of truly flaming liberals on the Supreme Court, the ideological opposites of Justice Thomas, you will come to appreciate that the current four "liberals" are really the true moderates on the US Supreme Court.

== Bill