On September 23, 2014, University of California political scientists published a 54-page study of “moderate” voters. Extensive survey research, covering 134 issues, reveals that “moderate” voters are typically people who have a mixture of “extreme left” and “extreme right” views. They end up looking like moderates because of the eclectic mixture of views from both sides of the spectrum.
Here is an article about the study. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
This is the problem with the left-right political spectrum. I don’t identify as moderate. I identify as libertarian. Unfortunately, that’s not an option in most polls. I am further to the left than liberals on some issues and further to the right than conservatives on others. I am not really “moderate” on any issues. But faced with the choice of liberal, moderate, and conservative, I’ll usually volunteer “something else” if they let me, but if they don’t, I’ll say moderate, since on average, my views are moderate. And on average, if I stick my lower body in the oven and my upper body in the freezer, I will be at a moderate temperature. It’s still meaningless.
The “Study” is probably speaking of people like myself, although I don’t necessary see myself as a “Moderate,” although, there is nothing wrong with the term.
I think of myself as a “populist” philosophically, and prefer the Independent label, as I don’t like (or necessarily agree with) the labels of Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, or even Libertarian. Although, if someone ask my opinion on a particular issue, they might assign one of the these labels to me on a particular issue.
I have even been called a “Communist,” but everyone can be assured, I am NOT a Communist!
Admittedly, I need to read the 54 page Study, before I digest any further.
How many moderates in 1776 or 1861 ???
——
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — even for moderates.
What is a “moderate?”
Who is qualified to label a person as a “moderate?”
What is a “moderate” position on a given issue?
Is any individual qualified to characterize their own positions on any specific issue as “moderate” or “extreme” and if they are, will those characterizations always be consistent with the characterizations which would be made by others?
Does the piece referenced in this post address these questions?
TruFoe:
Moderate is also a term the Media likes to use when they are supporting a liberal for public office, and occasionally, when they are supporting a conservative.
They apparently think the word, “moderate,” takes the edge off the offensiveness of the term liberal or conservative.
The Media constantly referred to Bill Clinton as a Moderate, and they will also with Hillary in 2016. And gullible Americans will fall for it.
If you are asked a series of yes/no questions, your answer to each one will — taken by itself — be “extreme” by definition. You were not presented with any “moderate” or in-between option on that question. So if lots of people give mixtures of answers that don’t fall on the standard left-right continuum, that just means that you need more than one dimension to account for the main ideological groupings in society (and more than two political parties to represent these groupings). This is no surprise to anyone who reads this blog.
The authors of this paper implicitly reject the reasoning in my first paragraph. Instead, they construct a false opposition between general ideological orientations (arranged along one dimension) and specific issue positions. A much better use of the same data would be factor analysis/cluster analysis and related methods to identify underlying ideological orientations. They would probably find six or seven main ones and be able to fit 95% of their sample into one of these. That would reveal the real reason why legislatures don’t represent their constituencies.