Continuing the unscientific survey I conducted here, I spent a few minutes looking at the last 50 posts on the group weblog The Moderate Voice, trying to figure out what makes up moderate thought and opinion. I altered the categories a bit so that those who consider themselves “moderates” might have a bit less to complain about than they did last time. The inflammatory, credibility-destroying language will remain the same, however.
The three categories I organized them into are as follows: Pro-Bush/Republican Party/Anti-Democratic Party in General, Anti-Bush/Republican Party/Pro-Democratic Party in General, and Other. These days, you just can’t be pro-Republican without being anti-Democrat, hence the first two categories. In Other, I once again included posts like news roundups, general site update information, “dogs with cellphones” stories, more begging for traffic from people like Michael Stickings, and posts that really didn’t express a political opinion.
In the Pro-Bush/Republican Party/Anti-Democratic Party in General category, I found no posts.
In the Anti-Bush/Republican Party/Pro-Democratic Party in General category, I found ten (10) posts. Three (3) were written by Joe Gandelman, five (5) were written by David Schraub, one (1) by Justin Gardner, and one (1) by Stickings.
In the Other category, I found forty (40) posts. Eighteen (18) were written by Joe, seven (7) by Schraub, one (1) by Grant, eight (8) by Holly in Cincinnati, two (2) by Gardner, one (1) by Greg Piper, and three (3) by Stickings.
When they express an original opinion about something, it seems as though the moderates at The Moderate Voice don’t seem to think that Bush or the Republican Party in general are doing a good job at anything. The Democrats, however, are doing just fine, especially Barack Obama.
Joe Gandelman likes to state that he gets called a partisan by both sides, which is a cheap way to proclaim one’s moderate bona fides. If he’s a moderate, I wonder who a partisan is.
I believe guilt has a lot of influence over the opinions of some of the younger bloggers. When they express an opinion, it typically comes with some sort of reparation to the other side for that opinion. I think that is really what the “moderate” portion of the opinions on that blog.
For instance, take the latest topic on the Moderate Voice: Supporting Isreal. He has the following line:
I’m sorry, I simply can’t believe that the radical terrorists, handed political capital, will mellow out their ideology into something acceptable to the global community.
Why be sorry for having this opinion? Is it that he feels he is being racist for choosing one side over another?
To be an apologetic opinion writer is what a moderate is all about on the Moderate Voice. I think I will make something of a stir on their boards with this opinion.
Just another fun quote that I added to my own comment on the Moderate Voice quote board.
?I don’t trust the term ?moderate.? We are already moderate. But if people believe we will be moderate in the Western style, or a pro-Israeli style?that’s not moderate. That’s corruption.? (Mahmud al-Zahar, 5 September 2005)
It’s important to realize that my point about these posts isn’t to just stir shit and tick people off. Not that that’s what you were doing, but it might be construed that way.
What I want is to find out what a moderate is, and why it differs from an independent. Failing that, I’d like for the partisans out there to at least admit their partisanship instead of cloaking it in a faux intellectualism that proclaims complexity of thought; that is, “you can’t categorize ME! I’m smarter than all those partisans out there! I look at all the angles!” You know, like nobody else considers the other sides of an issue and still decides to go with one side or the other.
Stir up was a little strong of a word. I mean more to have them think about their own identity and that they shouldn’t apologize if they feel they are right about a subject. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and I get irritated when I see people feel guilty for having that opinion.