Monday, October 20, 2008

Issue This

I'd like to take a few minutes, if I might, to defend political moderation. I'd especially like to dispel the notion that this philosophy is somehow a mamby-pambish/cut-the-difference mindset of people lacking principles, etc............................................First of all, a political moderate doesn't necessarily take a moderate position on every single issue. Take this particular moderate (a.k.a., me), for example. I'm a 100% supporter of gay-rights, including gay-marriage (not civil-unions, Mr. Obama, gay-marriage!) AND military service. Contrast this with an equally firm belief that we should absolutely be drilling for oil in ANWR. Nothing mamby-pambish there, is there? Add to that the fact that I 1) support government funding for stem-cell research and 2) oppose Federal minimum-wage laws and, well, you kind of get the picture (issues looked at individually/absent partisan preconception, etc.).................................................Of course, the fact that we do from time to time try and reach a consensus through compromise, is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, isn't that the essence of how a lot of important things (environmental legislation, civil-rights legislation) usually get done? And, besides, can you really imagine a country where the extremes in either party controlled the agenda totally? I certainly can't.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps one could point to the Carter years, the Bush 2 years, the early Clinton years when one party had control of both branches.