I think the article is an appeal to Obama telling him to display his moderation because voters are that way, yes.
Certainly not. Moderation can absolutely be a political position. It is one of ambivalence. That is why I think the author appeals to the principle as a means to appeal to those who don’t vote based on ideology. Your criticism is shallow as most of your comments are.
Now, tell me your thesis topic and what classes your department has you teaching.
You were coming up with this thought as you typed it out.
This is what I disliked the most. You talk yourself in a circle. The criteria, that you say is absent and unformable, is American politics. Your whole point was irrelevant as you discredit your own thesis in one sentence. And unlike you, Brooks is being published in the NYT and does have some type of education. Not to mention that much of continental philosophy is aligned around the concept of moderation. Moderation in its primitive form simply means to balance behavior, i.e. be reasonable or rational, it has been around since Greece and India began their philosophies. As I mentioned before, several Pagan cults built their philosophy around this principle.
However, when you say,
and, when asked for your evidence of your empirical verification, you follow it up with,
You must realize your error, no? My math “problem” was meant as jest to your idiocy and charlatan-esque behavior.
What you call ‘first hand experience’ is merely your ‘perception’, my friend. It is not in any means ‘empirical’.
I thought you said you were a grad student? Oh, but you won’t provide any empirical verification of that either, will you?
When I think of political moderation, I think of Madisonian republicanism. They try to combine “pure democracy” and monarchy… they wind up failing. “Pure democracy” is the natural order of things, so there is no point in trying to make is a republic. A monarchy also gets compromised so there is no long term order in that either.
Indeed, and I think you presented a strong argument in your OP. I would also like to highlight the fact that the idea that politicians and policy in general should have a high degree of flexibility, that it should adjust in step with changing conditions, is probably one of the biggest problems associated with democracy today (the fact that politicians have such authority and that voters demand it).
It is perfectly summed up in the passage the OP provided:
This assumes a level of political competency that is nonexistent and wholly ignores public choice frictions inherent in the political sphere. Politicians don’t know shit about economics (this statement should be entirely noncontroversial by now). Additionally, what does he mean by ‘permanently right?’ Right for whom? For the politician, it’s always ‘right’ to increase taxes on the rich and to reduce or to eliminate taxes on the poor/middle class solely for the purposes of winning the next election (getting the highest number of votes). Mitt Romney, the ‘conservative republican’ candidate is, as we speak, running around the country promising to keep taxes high on the wealthy even though they pay an extremely disproportionate amount, even in relative terms.
Policy should be fixed and stable. It should be transparent and it should create certainty in the private spheres. Politicians should have next to zero flexibility. This is my view.
I mean you start off saying that you can’t put all political views on a spectrum, then in the nest sentence, you say you can. You defeat your own criticism by stating the necessary condition is unreachable, but then you say it is. You’d get laughed out of your defense proposal if you write like that…
fucking high schoolers…
But, you see, empirical evidence is replicable. You cannot replicate your experience for anyone else (I asked you for stats…). What you give is a priori…
No, it doesn’t. It is predicated on the friction of the factions. And political competency is never mentioned nor did I infer that it is required for voters. The author uses the word pandering. Pandering is usually done for the ignorant not the astute..
Did you read the entire article? In no way does Brooks allude to the necessity of that scenario. He actually seems to indicate that it is not the proper course to increase taxes.
Yeah, it is called pandering. The article is saying Romney is doing it wrong.
For example, I can put all political views on a spectrum where the criterion is the issue of total tax revenue for the government. That is, on one end of the spectrum there are views that call for miniscule tax revenue for the government, and on the other extreme views that call for gargantuan tax revenue for the government, and I can then identify the “moderate” position. I could create another spectrum for which the criterion is total spending by the government, and again I could identify the moderate position. And so forth for every issue.
That is, there may be views which are moderate on one spectrum and extreme on another spectrum, and therefore one cannot simply aggregate all these spectra and come up with positions which are moderate in general. For example, suppose we have a spectrum for civil liberties and a spectrum for fighting the war on terror. You can see how a given policy proposal might be moderate with respect to the one and extreme with respect to the other. Hence, it cannot be said to be moderate or extreme in general.
This is what moderate in general means; i.e. a position which is moderate with respect to every issue is one which is plotted in the middle of a spectrum that represents all issues. And I have demonstrated why this is impossible, and why therefore “moderation” as a political position is nonsense. It can’t be what it says it is (moderate in general), so what it really ends up being is a grab-bag of random positions.
This is a good analogy, so I repost it for your benefit. In the same way that one and the same policy position might be moderate on civil liberties but extreme on the question of the war on terror, or vice versa, so a given food might be moderate on the saltyness spectrum but extreme on the spicyness spectrum; hence it makes no sense to speak of a food or a policy proposal as being moderate in general.
No, empirical evidence is evidence from experience: nothing more, nothing less.
That’s correct.
No, a priori means prior to experience. Mathematical and formal logical claims, for example, are a priori. What I gave you was a report of my own experience, hence it is a posteriori (from experience).
Anyway, your problem with my claim about “moderates” is that you read it as a stronger claim than it was intended to be. That’s fine, I did originally phrase it in strong language, I didn’t preface the claim with “in my opinion” or “in my experience” or anything like that. So I understand why you would read it the way you did. However, the very first time you asked me about it, I stated very clearly that the comment was based on experience, and then when you asked me again, I clarified further and said it was based on first-person experience. So what remains unclear to you at this point?
Uh well there is a little more to it than that. Empirical evidence is testable. You cannot test your experience. Therefore, you cannot prove your claim.
So, you are conceding that it is not empirical. If you could test it then you would have no trouble proving it with some sort of experiment. It may seem empirical to you, but to an observer, it is your a prioiri perception (you come to the conclusion with no testable hypothesis - a priori). There is no truth value to it at all. You cannot just think that because you perceive things a certain way that it is somehow “empirical.” You’re just a dumbass who wishes to impress his opinion on people as “empirical” even though you admit that you cannot test or replicate your perceptive results. Grad student my ass. You’re a liar, a pussy, and a charlatan.
Why won’t you tell me your thesis? Or even a class that you teach?
2) He does allude to the debt and inequality being “out of whack.” Although, he doesn’t say anything on the ends of political institutions, but I don’t think the integrity of the foundation of the U.S. government is in quesition for him.
By this, I meant that if one were to attempt tp develop a “pure theory” on intelligible grounds of what it means to be “moderate” - the interesting fact would be how it would relate to institutions. And yes I absolutely agree with you on the meaning of “political institutions”.
As to the Hegelian dialectic, I was hoping to appeal to your intuition on showing how it is probably just easier to think of it as a geneology / evolution of development than taking the extra step on engaging with a “pure theory”, idealistic, logical process - I’m just not sure why it would be done. I certainly don’t have it in me to get into much further depth than that on this thread. Perhaps our continental grad student could put it into clearer terms than I could.
Oh, that makes sense. My ‘theory’ would be that of “democratic mercantilism.” Any faction can theoretically grab the reigns of power and if need be create their own institutions that adminster their agenda. This might be a partial explanation of the growth of bureaucracy in the West.
Brooks has got a BA in sociology…heh A.K.A. he is not Carroll Quigley.
haha
“The Contemporary Application of the Hegelian System of Historical Advancement in the West” is probably a paper he wrote years ago in honors undergrad.
It’s hard for me to think of libertarianism, except perhaps in the Cato/Reason sense, as being a form of political moderation.
In the sense that Brooks describes moderation, its defining characteristic seems to be advocacy of a stance believed to lie within a ‘compromise range’ between two ultimately irreconcilable factions.
However it does seem that libertarianism could have a moderating effect on the extreme factions by throwing light on their hypocrisies when in violation of the non-aggression principle. In this way libertarianism has a moral ground to engage both the “left” and the “right”, whose public relationship has reached such an extreme adversarial state that each thinks the other is hopelessly evil and deluded.
The only thing libertarians must watch out for is falling into the role of “common enemy” to both. After all, nothing brings two bitter rivals together like having a common enemy (see for example the type of ‘bipartisan cooperation’ that arose since 2001). Wingnuts from both sides of modern political gangs despise libertarians, and you don’t have to look far to see it show up in their rhetoric on things like guns and drugs.
I seem to have wandered off topic… To answer your question, I think political moderation (assuming I’m understanding the way you mean it) ultimately means the “moderate” lacks any position of his own and merely aligns himself with a calculated compromise between perceived rivals, who may in fact ultimately agree on a point that is totally repugnant.