By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
JackHandy said:

Look at it this way.

Suppose you have three people in a room. One is hard right, one is hard left, and the other is an a-political moderate. The hard right is going to stick to their party's talking points, and believe everything they say is utterly infallible. The hard left is going to do the same. But the moderate, on the other hand, he or she will be able to see the validity (and fallacy) of both their positions, equally. So instead of getting nothing done, they can take what works on the right, what works on the left, and disregard what doesn't work and make real, positive, pragmatic decisions based on facts and not dogmatic propaganda.

That is why I believe the in the moderate position.

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.