#Moderates

[progressivemillennial]

I was touring apartments in the Chicago area earlier this year, and a lot of them were the same places I looked into back in 2010. In every case, the rents had at least doubled.

As an example, I lived in a one bedroom apartment with a $795 monthly rent in a nice suburb in 2010. Now, just 15 years later, the rent for the exact same apartment is almost $1,700.

Back in 2010, I was able to afford that price in spite of having car and school loans to pay and an entry-level salary in higher education. Could someone with an entry-level salary--which has not doubled--afford that rent now? Only if they didn't want to eat.

The path we are on as a nation is not sustainable. Cutting programs for the poor and giving tax cuts to the wealthy while boosting military spending will not make it easier to live in America. Conversely, tinkering with Obamacare and promoting the status quo will only allow pressing problems to fester.

Bold reform is needed to address the urgent problems our society faces if we want to stem the suffering and precarity people are facing daily.

[warrioroflight5000]

[vintageseawitch]

this cannot be said enough: even if you voted for trump in both 2016 & 2020, but you're voting for Harris/Walz this year, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE. we need all the help we can get. if you've voted Republican for MULTIPLE decades but you plan on voting for Harris/Walz this year, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE.

centrists, moderates, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, even if you consider yourself far left, no matter how you politically identify but plan to make sure trump doesn't win: YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE.

PLEASE DON'T BE AN ERNST THÄLMANN. DON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT PROJECT 2025/AGENDA 47. you're ALL welcome here if you want to fight for our democracy. check your voter registration status often (as many times as possible) & vote early if you can. talk to friends, make a day of it. LET'S DO THIS!!

[bravecrab]

I find it really interesting how we've been getting more and more films that are critiques not just of the powerful, but of the moderates. Sinners, Us, Saltburn, to name a few. Films that while the "bad guys" are representative of bigger systemic evils such as white supremacy, Classism, Patriarchy; the antagonists are not those on the top of the system, but usually someone from the middle who has bought into the rules of the game of hierarchy.

In Sinners, the vampires offer success for the trade off of letting them claim your cultural knowledge for their own exploitation. The depiction of the KKK as the more overtly racist evil, puts the vampires in the middle, offering more of a quid pro quo, rather than the straight elimination that the KKK promises. In Us, Adelaide, when given opportunity to escape the under class, she imprisons her double in her place, that if there's only space for one to thrive, it'll be her, solidarity being damned. And in Saltburn, while Oliver manipulates his way into and eliminates an upper class family, he does so from a place of Middle Class aspiration, and not one from a mindset that the ruling class is something abhorrent, that the wealth should be redistributed and the hierarchy destroyed. The fact that the film ends with Oliver's victory strut through his ill-gotten manor, shows him physically vulnerable and alone, shows his own inability to form true community, perpetuating the system.

These films highlight that it's not just the Evil Masters in the ruling class that are the problem, it's the mythologies of success and wealth that are promised for our participation in these systems, and how our participation can turn us into monsters in service of the ruling class.

[thekimspoblog]

There are few people I despise more than the "Never-Trump"-er.

You prioritized a stupid-ass religion. That's right; I said it; Christianity is stupid, and you're stupid for believing in it.

You spent years trying to strip women of their reproductive rights.

Donald Trump sicking his mob on you for being too moderate is precisely what you deserved. He is the only logical conclusion of the policies you support, and I'd honestly respect you more if you could just slap on a viking helmet with the rest of your ilk, you two-faced weasel.

And now you have the balls to get up here and whine about how your party needs to return to the center and to decency?

Every remotely reasonable policy has come from the progressive side. "Tradition" has never been the moral choice.

The Republicans have functionally been a terrorist sect for decades. Last time I checked, I wasn't supposed to negotiate with you.

You don't deserve a platform; you deserve to be kissing my shoes, begging for forgiveness that you didn't jump ship back in the 80's.

Honestly? If there's even a CHANCE of the Dems moving an inch to the right to court your vote, I'd rather you not vote at all.

You are incapable of learning from your failures, and once the orange man is gone, it's going to be right back to business as usual building your theocratic capitalistic patriarchy... just quietly and politely this time.

Go die in a ditch.

[2mo3cm-man]

General Reminder:

Do mot engage with MAGAs, Trumpers, Republicans, and “moderate” conservatives. They no longer argue in good faith, if indeed they ever did. Do not debate. Do not engage. Do not interact in any way, even to dunk on them. That’s what screenshots are for. There is nothing to be gained. They need us to react to them for engagement; we need nothing from them. Block and move on.

[themoderatespeaks]

Call to action in America tomorrow

My fellow moderates.

Independent voters.

People who rarely vote, who aren't into politics, live and let live, mind thine own business.

Libertarians, vaguely liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans who prefer to stay on the sidelines, whoever you are.

We are famous for being a little more distant, a little more reserved, and a lot slower to put ourselves out there. We live for nuance. For slow, careful study of a few select issues within the broader context of history. We are the objective observers (or we try to be). Our role is to be the voice of reason between warring echo chambers, when we're not plugging our ears and just trying to live our lives.

For some of us, our distance is about personality and sensitivity. Some of us keep our heads down because of fear or trauma. Many of us can do this because of our privileged lives. And sometimes we're just plain lazy, bored, or too busy to be even remotely involved.

But we are still a vital part of the political ecosystem here in America. The luxury to not be involved in politics is part of the American dream for so many people. They wish they had the option of not really paying attention or taking a stand or being blissfully ignorant of the headlines. We do not apologize for our privilege; it's just simply part of who we are. A tool to be used for good.

And now it is time for us to act.

It is time for us to come out of the woodworks, into the light, to make our voice heard. Our message is a simple one, spoken yesterday by U.S. Senator Adam Schiff after U.S. Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a federal press briefing. Despite his nonresistance, he was driven onto his knees, handcuffed, and shoved down onto his face. The message:

This is not who we are.

So please, if at all possible, find a way to show up to a No Kings protest tomorrow. And find other ways to get involved too. This is all hands on deck. This is not a drill.

Our president is driving this country off a cliff into authoritarianism. And believe me: as a moderate, I do not use that word lightly. It is time for the quieter Americans to make our voices heard. Tomorrow. June 14, 2025.

Zoom in on the map here to find a protest. Be safe and good luck. I know this is a scary step. But we have to take it. Inaction is no longer an option.

[susanoos-wife]

If centrists and politically moderate people were nazis or fascists, nazis and fascists would accept them as one of their own, which if you know anything at all about nazis and fascists, you'll realize that they absolutely do not accept anyone they view as being any more politically left than Donald Trump or Elon Musk as being one of their own.

[a-typical]

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom. — Martin Luther King, Jr. , Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963)

[s-lamia]

Why does everything trace back to Ronald Reagan

[odinsblog]

For a very long time mainstream media has been conflating the word “moderate” with the word “conservative,” and moving the Overton Window further to the right.

And at the same time, the words “leftist” and “radical” and “extremists” are also being conflated, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Liz Cheney is not a moderate. Chris Christie is not a moderate. Nikki Haley definitely is not a moderate. I guess it’s nice that they are finally calling out Trump, but they all voted for Trump (twice!) and none of them are good people. (How do I know they aren’t good people? Because they spent most of their adult lives and careers supporting harmful conservative policies that intentionally target women and poor/Black/disabled/LGBTQ people to harm.)

The same goes for pundits like Ana Navarro and the other MSNBC “former” Republicans and Republican strategists who don’t like Trump anymore, but are still “proud conservatives.” They support most of Trump’s policies even if they don’t support Trump anymore. And Nikki Haley has even said that if the choice in November comes down to Biden or Trump, she believes that it’s who is Biden the bigger threat to America. (source)

And Nikki Haley has repeatedly said that she would pardon Trump, so that’s another big NOAP for me.

Look, I understand that neoliberals and conservative leaning Democrats have a tendency to kick left + kiss right, but people have GOT to learn that just because a conservative might occasionally do something right, like oppose Trump, that does not magically transform them into good people™ worth elevating or supporting.

One last thing: I’ve seen a lot of Biden supporters get all caught up in their feelings because Jon Stewart made fun of (gasp) Biden’s age. Listen: WE are not the ones who are in a cult! It is 100% okay for voters to joke about and criticize people in power. It’s MAGA who cannot criticize their dear leader, remember? It's the other guys, THE CULTISTS, who cannot accept even the lightest of criticisms.

“But Republicans will use it against us”

Yes, Republicans will use anything and everything against us, whether we said it or not. That’s what they dO. They lie, make shit up and try to use literally anything—true or false, good or bad—against non-Trump supporters. Being good and honest and not saying anything Republicans disagree with will not gain you any votes with Republicans.

Look, Idgaf about what Republicans and other people on the right think. About anything. Idc. Idgaf. Their opinions don’t matter and they aren’t going to change who I vote for in November 2024. I’m not worried about trying to change their hearts and minds, because they’re heartless and mindless.

At the end of the day, I dO think that msm tends to run with rightwing narratives, but once again, none of that foolishness will change my vote.

Put your grownup pants on and don’t get caught up in the drama.

[uboat53]

Is it just me or is anyone else struggling to figure out what political centrism actually is anymore?

Let's take a look at Susan Collins, famed political moderate/centrist and longtime Republican Senator from Maine, a famously blue state at the presidential level. She's had success holding a seat in a state that is seemingly politically hostile for her, but what, exactly, does she stand for?

I mean, she claims to be a steadfast supporter of abortion rights and talks a lot about how she has made it a key consideration in voting for Supreme Court nominees, but she also voted in favor of four of the six judges who wrote the Dobbs opinion which removed federal protections for abortion. Now that sounds bad, but it sounds even worse when you realize that a big reason she didn't vote for one of them was because he was confirmed before she was elected and that she only voted against the other one when she was in the midst of a pretty tough re-election battle in 2020 when the nomination was rushed through.

And look, if this were just about abortion and Supreme Court nominations, that would be one thing, but that's just an example I chose for illustrative purposes. You can dig through her entire history and find example after example of her espousing a moderate or even centrist viewpoint and then voting for something quite radical, usually with the excuse that she had either received some private reassurance or that there was some reason that she had to defer to the person nominating them (usually the President).

Just last week she voted to approve Russell Vought, one of the lead authors of the extreme right-wing Project 2025 manifesto, as Trump's Office of Management and Budget director. From the Portland Press Herald, "Collins said Vought is qualified, having held the position before during Trump’s first term. And he assured her over the weekend that he had no hand in the ill-fated order to unilaterally freeze federal grants and loans, which caused chaos and confusion before being rescinded by the administration amid fierce public backlash, even though the White House referred questions to Vought when the memo was issued… “I do intend to support his nomination,” Collins said. “If there are impoundments, I believe it will end up in court, and my hope is the court will rule in favor of the 1974 Impoundment and Budget Control Act.”"

In other words, being a moderate or a centrist in no way requires that you support moderate or centrist governance; you can feel free to vote for radical governance without in any way compromising your moderate centrist credentials.

And again, if this were just Susan Collins, that would be one thing, but you can find again and again the same pattern no matter which supposed moderate/centrist you want to look at. Fetterman, Synema, Murkowski, the pattern is the same; none of them seem to use centrism or moderation as anything other than an excuse to avoid opposing radical or extreme nominees and policies, precisely the opposite of moderation or centrism.

I'm a scientist and one of the key tests I use in trying to understand politics is to make assumptions, then see if those assumptions allow me to predict future actions. At this point, assuming that political centrism or moderation is motivated by an actual desire to see politically centrist results or policies doesn't hold up, so what does?

Well, looking at my list of moderates two paragraphs back, I notice one thing about all of them. Each and every one of them represents a politically heterodox state. Collins both represents a state that voted for the opposite party presidential candidate every year she's been in office and which is dominated by the other party in nearly every other office, Fetterman and Synema represent(ed) states which are closely divided and swing rapidly between the two parties at most levels of government, and Murkowski has assembled an unusual coalition in Alaska which insulates her a bit from Republican politics but brings along its own different pressures. What if we assume that "centrism" or "moderation" as it exists isn't so much an actual political ideology but just a term that encapsulates a specific strategy of trying to win and keep office in a state that doesn't map well to our current two-party political alignment.

Honestly, that works better than you'd expect. If you assume that they need to win a partisan primary in which partisan loyalty is highly prized but then win a general in which the electorate is more fickle, then a lack of consistency works fairly well. You just have to be loyal enough on the key votes to keep the primary electorate happy and then you can vote against your party's interest on other votes in order to display your independence to the general electorate.

What that actually means, though… it's actually quite sad if you think about it.

One touchpoint I have for politics is the Luke-Rey question. You know, that line in The Last Jedi where Luke Skywalker asks Rey "why are YOU here?" instead of "why are you here?" I feel like every politician should have an answer for this. What are you doing that makes it important for YOU to hold this office as opposed to random Republican/Democrat #7.

There are lots of politicians who pass this test, by the way. AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Duckworth, Brian Schatz, Tom Cotton, Chuck Grassley, and, heck, the entire Freedom and Progressive Caucuses are there for a reason. Random Republican/Democrat #4 isn't going to do what these people do; love them or hate them, they genuinely want to see the country go in a direction and they're willing to take action to make it go that way.

That's what's missing for me from this moderate/centrist crowd. To bring it back to Susan Collins, I don't see anything that reconciles her public statements and her voting record other than a strong desire to continue to be a Republican Senator from Maine, a fairly blue state. There's no ideological component to that, no idea of a world that they want to create, it's purely personal as evidenced by the fact that they don’t even agree on enough to actually organized around a coherent “moderate centrist” position. One might think that the centrist/moderate crowd might be committed to moderate ideas and want to see them put into effect, but the combination of public statements and official actions says otherwise. At this point they're literally just a warm body in a seat with either a "D" or an "R" by their name.

And here's the thing, even if moderate centrism just represented the idea that partisan change needed to stop, that at least would be something. It would be old-fashioned little-"c" conservatism, but it doesn't even represent that! Fundamentally, that's the problem I have with the idea that moderate centrism represents some sort of genuine alternative to modern partisan politics. It doesn't even represent an opposition to partisan politics, let alone an alternative.

Ultimately, the country is going to change, there are simply too many issues in our current system to avoid it. When it does change, it will change in a direction that someone is driving it, even if the direction they're driving is "stand still". Liberals, progressives, MAGA, and fiscal conservatives have made it clear what changes they hope to drive, but at this point I don't see these moderate centrists as playing any role in the future of our country; their presence may make the difference in which party controls the government, but they contribute absolutely no ideas or direction and seem to hold office for no other purpose than to say that they hold it.

From what I can tell, moderate centrism an intellectually bankrupt position that is only held by a few politicians who continue to use it not because they believe in it and hope to bring it about, but because they are feeding off of a nostalgia for a period that never really was. At this point their presence doesn't ease the partisan divide as they so often claim, but only changes the distribution of power between those two sides. The only reason I can see for these kinds of politicians to continue to hold office is to further enrich themselves or enjoy the prestige of that position, and that is a sad state of affairs.

[vintageseawitch]

moderator: will you veto an abortion ban if it comes across your desk, yes or no?

trump: blah blah blah, i'm the greatest, i got the most votes in history, everyone wanted Roe v Wade overturned, i worked the hardest, the Supreme Court worked really hard, blah blah blah (no yes or no, btw)

moderator: as president, would you continue to aide Ukraine, yes or no

trump: blah blah blah, we need to stop the senseless killing, it's horrible, blah blah blah (still no yes or no ofc)

moderator: do you regret anything about Jan 6?

trump: blah blah blah, they let all their illegals in, crime is the worst it's ever been, the crime here is worse than the rest of the world, blah blah blah (no response once again)

we all know if he gave his true answers to both of these it wouldn't be good for him. either he's been coached or is still in enough of a "sound" mind to know this & we ALL know what his answers are: he's in bed with putin & wants Russia to win which could lead the way to chaos in the rest of Europe. as for abortion, have you heard jd vance speak at all? he hates women & abortions should be banned no exceptions. someone getting raped & pregnant as a result of it is "AN INCONVENIENCE." he plans to support a national ban.

he doesn't care what happened on January 6th. HE STILL BELIEVES IN THE LIE THAT HE WON. he seems confused. should we be concerned?

[warrioroflight5000]

If your information is coming from Fox News You Are Severely Misinformed!

Look at the HUGE lies they've told in just the last couple of years!

THEY'RE CALLED FACTS! I know you're not used to them, unlike Fox News, these FACTS AREN'T LYING!!!