Moderates: What Is Our Brand?

Good idea, this post. I think the important thing is to promote candidates who aren't wishy-washy. We can "brand" ourselves however we want but if someone who is seen as wishy-washy (ala John Kerry, 2004) tries to carry the banner it'll all fall apart. That's why I think the best thing for the moderates to do is to build from the ground up. Win local elections, show people moderates are a viable option. The beauty is that the threat moderates pose to Democrats and Republicans won't even be noticed until there is a strong enough, organized movement to challenge them on larger stages.

"you've tried the right, you've tried the left; now come back to the middle"!

I'm a centrist, moderate, Independent-on-the-ballot, Modern Whig running for Congress against an incumbent Republican (with no Dem on the ballot).

Left-wing Democrats understand what we mean by "moderate," I think -- they don't see us so much as wishy-washy, as they see us as too close to business, etc.

But many on the right and even in the center see "moderate" as wishy-washy. "Moderate" itself implies moderation in all things -- and frankly, I don't think that's true about moderates. We are passionate about some things, most of us about balancing the Federal budget for example.

As a result, I think the term "moderate" is a non-starter which must be set aside, or at least not part of our main branding.

Even calling myself a centrist, though, I get asked all the time, "Can't you make up your mind?" If they'll listen to me for two minutes, that's easy to deal with. I just describe my position on a given issue, and juxtapose my position with the far right and the far left positions, and usually, my interlocutor acknowledges that I'm making sense, and that yes, this particular issue (I usually use immigration) has a spectrum, not just a false binary choice.

At this race, I will write a short quick book on political centrism, including a chapter on my centrist campaign.

www.JeffVanke.com

Correct me if I am wrong but, I would think that Moderates should take a Pro-Education stand on abortion. Education versus condemnation will be a great focal point, in my opinion. The reason I mention this is because I see people out there that are voting strictly on the Pro-Life aspect. I think abortion is wrong but, I also do not believe I have the right to tell someone that they cannot have one. It's their decision. In the end that person will be having the sit down with God.

This is exactly the message the Modern Whig Party has been talking about on our website ( we are in the process of expanding upon it) and in interviews and articles ranging from the local papers to the Wall Street Journal and CNN.com. I applaud this effort and am glad that the Pragmatic Center is around. We do need a think tank effort, as mentioned in other articles on this site. I think Pragmatic Center and No Lables has a good chance of doing this.

It will take time but we must keep on the message that we are different because we are about finding what is effective regardless of ideology. Empowering citizens to participate with candidates is key.

I also think we need moderate groups to try to cooperate as much as possible because the cards are stacked against us but we can be successful to bring Americans more options for effective public service, as long as we work hard and stay committed.

All the best,
Andrew Evans
National Chairman
Modern Whig Party

This article frames the mindset that we as moderates need to embrace and promote. I will not go and repeat what my fellow Whigs have written above, just want to thank you for writing this article and thank my collegues for their comments (whether they found this article on their own, or through the post of it that I placed on Facebook) as I did not have the opportunity to comment earlier. We need to work together to promote a common sense, solution based approach, that produces realistic results over ideological extremes.

Thanks again,
Alan Reynolds
Deputy State Chair,
California Whig Party

Nick,
I would love to do an interview. Email me at andrewevans@modernwhig.org and we can set it up. Thanks and keep up the good work.

All the best,
Andrew Evans
National Chairman
Modern Whig Party

I think "moderate" is a bad brand for all the reasons you cite. It connotes wishy washy and without passion or devotion to principle.

Independent has WAY more potential for being an attractive brand in 2012.

Moderate is also a limited potential idea because there really aren;t that many folks who really ARE moderate across the entire range of issues. Instead, they all have passionate views on some subset of the issues, and they aren't very moderate on those.

Independents, on the other hand, comprise a much broader set. There are liberal, moderate, and conservative independents. Of course, that does mean there might be problems with unifying principles. But here's a good start: put regular folks first, diminish the power of special interests and both parties, and think for yourself. Independence is a naturally more passionate and provocative position than moderation, which is a glass of warm milk and the murmur of the weather channel.

It fits perfectly with the growing sentiment of the zeitgeist again various unimaginative, corrupt, entrenched powers. Did I mention more room for passion? There will be no lasting diminishment of the dominant parties without passion. Moderates are reasonable, and so too willing to work with the world as it is. To break the lock of the major parties on power, we need to be unreasonable, irrational even, in rejecting them both. we have to be willing to keep shuffling the deck until the system gets the message.

You watch. Independent is going to be the new black.

The most difficult part about selling this "brand" is that people automatically have pre-conceived notions regarding the monikers "moderate", "independent", and "centrist". They hear these terms and think, as you have touched on previously, wishy-washy and luke-warm.

I do not think there is an easy fix here. People seem to be hungry for another choice, but they tend to believe a vote for a third party is a waisted vote. This is why I do not believe a third party strategy is a viable option at this juncture. I believe a different approach is necessary, such as the one the neo-cons used in turning the Republican Party their way, or maybe even a less subtle approach, as used by the Tea Party. These groups never claimed to be separate parties, but have done much to influence the Republicans. This is something we must consider.

That is why I am more in favor of reaching into the current culture of dissatisfaction that is present in both Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to creating a new order. By touching on those who seek common sense solutions on both sides rather than inventing a new party, we are not setting up a creation that is vulnerable to attack. Instead, we are simply reaching out to those who want sensible government, which no one will attack. In fact, I would tend to think that, with the exception of those who wish to assail idealists for being naive, both sides will atleast entertain our ambitions. It is hard to put down the idea of "Smart Government", many will simply say it is not possible, but nearly zero will set themselves up against such a political desire.

We must sell centrism as a philosophy that can be assumed by Republicans and Democrats without selling out their base positions. Part of this begins with the name; as I said before, being "moderate" or "centrist" is a hard sell. We must consider a new term that communicates our pursuits. Common sense, pragmatic, Washingtonian - these are the terms that represent us...we must create a term that brings these ideas to the forefront.

More thought must be had here; this is a noble goal that will take time, but I believe it can be attained, to a point. As I said in my latest essay, it must start with identifying these types of candidates early and giving them support, showing as many people as we can seeking viable moderate candidates that they do in fact exist. Seeing people like Jon Stewart celebrating common sense and educated political positions gives me hope. I would love to have one champion candidate out there on the main stage personifying these ideals, but we will have to build a base the hard way for now.

What a great day it will be to have a two candidates vying for office that are both attempting to raise the level of public debate, argueing the issues and not boilerplate partisan disputes.
-Steve

One important question to ask here is where this branding came from. The "branding" of the moderate as "wishy-washy" is, obviously, not a result of efforts by moderates themselves. Rather, this branding is the result of effective ideological/propaganda campaigns led by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, who brand the alleged moderates in their own parties with that label in the course of their various ideological-political struggles. The moderate Republican is now a RINO, Republican in name only, similarly with the centrist Dem.

The Dems and Republicans argue, in other words, that you effectively can't be a moderate and a Democrat or Republican. Perhaps they are right. I would argue that if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are nothing but a reactionary prop for the ruling corporate-political class, no matter what you think you are.

Once moderates start standing up for themselves, and declare their independence from the major parties, and organize to oppose them with Independent, moderate candidates, everything will chance.

When you are in the corner and have no cash to move out from that point, you will have to receive the mortgage loans. Just because that would aid you for sure. I take financial loan every single year and feel OK because of this.

Hello Everyone;
I think a great asset to the Modern Whig Party would be a position on Immigration. The Sleeping Giant Hispanic population is angered by both political parties not solving the issues with Immigration. Although all illegals would love a easy "amnesty;" the reality is that would not be possible or sustainable approach to this issue. A road to legalization would be the best approach to this problem and one that favors the moderate ideals that cater to all involved with agreeable compromises. I have never considered myself conservative or liberal and I have always thought its best to understand both sides of the issue before we act upon the issue at hand. With illegal Immigration we all understand there is cost that are incurred by both the state and federal level. We must first have a non-partisan study on these cost to be absolutely certain where the funding is being mismanaged. The issue of immigration reform has a human aspect and we must never forget that because once losing sight of that we fail to truly be moderates. The main issues with immgration reform stem on jobs & fiscal responsiblity. We must make the American public aware the cost of deportation, the cost of doing nothing, the cost of admensty before you make your stance known, and the cost of responsible immigration reform.
The fact of the matter is currently most illegal immigrants either work with illegally obtained social security cards or fake social security numbers. Most states if not all if I am not mistake does not required citizenship to obtain a license. So how do we help private companies ensure that they are hiring legal citizens. E-verfy is a government ran by the Department of Homeland Security. Currently E-verfy is only mandiatory for state or federal jobs and its contractors. We must make this program a mandiatory program for all jobs to insure everyone is legally able to work in the United States. We must also put Contractors accountable for the individuals they hire and the companies that contract them as well. Many companies hire contractors who knowingly violate the law so cost will stay down by not paying taxes or dues to the state and federal government. Companies wipe their hands clean and claim they did not know their contractors work in such conditions but those who prosecute have little grounds to point the finger, where people are reponsible and settle penalties. Such is the case when there was a problem in the gulf, who is to blame BP, Transocean or Halliburton? Everyone is responsible! Lets cut the B.S. and do what is right.
We must also make the American public aware that the jobs avaliable to illegal immigrants are those with low income mostly in either factory work or field work. Few illegal immigrants own their own companies by either running their own service(s) or through contracted work. This keeps most services and products affordable such as produce. The American people must be made aware that a gallon of milk on average will cost you significantly more if we proceed irresponsibly. In order to keep cost down innovation in agriculture must be done. In addition, injustices such as Monsanto raising the cost of production by monopolizing seed cost forcing Farming Corporations to use illegal immigratants to subsidize an already government subsidised industry must be regulated. Barely making profits if not cutting even to feed the American people is not a good economic model so they resort to cheap labor.
Guest Worker programs is not an option, it was tried in the past just refer back to the Bracero Program enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. No variation or adjustments in a guest worker program would succeed because you will have too much regulatory cost to insure such matters are adhered to.
I suggest a variety of options that lead to citizenship that benifits the American people. An obvious viable option would be military service. Extended Military service option that allows the immediate family member(s) of that individual in the arm services to be granted citizenship upon completion of his duty or death of that individual. All members of his family must be accounted for before initiating the military option. Of course if the need of military personnel is not need that option would not be viable or can be subject to a freeze or waiting list. i have more input on this subject but i will come back to this what do you all think leave your comments

From Wikipedia: "The term evidence-based practice (EBP) refers to preferential use of mental and behavioral health interventions for which systematic empirical research has provided evidence of statistically significant effectiveness as treatments for specific problems."

In my opinion, in the realm of politics, pragmatism runs parallel to this 'evidence-based' idea - there needs to be some critical analysis, discussion, and rationale applied to any and all policy decisions...and each solution should be judged on its own merit. I understand that there will be many situations where no actual 'evidence' or 'data' will be suitable, but the articulate discussion and explanation (especially when looked at with regard to contextual issues or systems-thinking) of any ideas or solutions...as opposed to propaganda, sound-bites, or mis-information...should count for something. So I'm going with "Evidence-Based Politics."

A very good article that I think describes the philosophies of many of us. But I have one concern with it: I agree that part of the problem may be what you say: "Moderates never seem to have principles." But if you are looking for a better way to brand me, your statement that "we never have lasting principles which define us." is very wrong. I am a very strongly principled person. As strong as my principles are, I consider them "guiding principles"; I don't carry them to the absolute like has been so prevalent lately. Where some principles may not seem compatible with others, we should be looking for the solutions that meet all of them, or at least strike an appropriate balance between them. For example, should our principles for government be to be business friendly, or to look out for the welfare of the people? The answer is that government should do both, not one at the expense of the other. So back to branding. A good brand would not be that we have no lasting principles. A good brand would be that we have high principles, and the intelligence to find solutions that meet all of them.

I think one of the problems a pragmatic stance faces is that it is not really a position, it is more a methodology. It tends to be more closely related to problem solving than to politics. A pragmatist can take any set of positions and use them as part of a solution. It is more difficult to make a clear and easily identifiable stance that the public can point to and say, "well of course he/she thins that way."

This is a morally bankrupt Rx for self-delusion. The idea of analyzing social problems and deciding on policy strictly by a cost/benefit standard is ridiculous. That is what “moderates” did before the Civil War. Oh well, the cost of buying slaves to free them is too high, so we will just have to be moderate and let slavery slide a little longer. That was the prevailing attitude (see Founding Brothers, page 107)

Obvious to every normal person, slavery violates human dignity and should not be tolerated by compassionate people. Lesson: you cannot do a cost/benefit analysis and ignore the value of human beings. Political policy absolutely must honor human dignity, or it will cause resentment, and could, like the Civil War, result in political problems.

The problem of extremism in American politics can’t be resolved by trying to promote “moderate” policies. It can only be resolved by cutting out its root cause – the two-party system and the system of elections it thrives on.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1

i think the problem is that both liberals and conservatives have defined what America think moderates and independents stand for. I've been on liberal websites and they define us a "Republican lite". The DLC is hammered for selling out to corporate interests., while conservatives brand us as "socialist wannabees".

It only seems moderates and independents are only courted at election times. Peoples want us on their side so their candidate can win, then we're tossed aside like and old shoe.

Another reason we as moderates or independents is that we are ignored is in the media. Name me one show on either radio of TV that has a true moderate hosting?? FoxNews is all conservative, MSNBC is basically liberal, and the one show CNN has, has Eliot Spitzer as the liberal and ED Hill as the conservative. The radio has Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck on the conservative side, and Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz on the liberal side. Moderates and independents don't have a voice to listen to on either TV or radio.

Mr. Goebel makes some great points in his article. Moderates and independents decide elections. I'm sick and tied of being a second class citizen, and having others define me as not having any positions that I am passionate about just because I don't follow the party lines.

I would like to see a new political party created in this country that is dedicated to promoting the interests of the middle of the body politic, rather than catering and kowtowing to extremist groups on the right or left. I believe that it should be called the "American Mainstream Party" or "AMP" for short to signify that it is devoted to the interests of the middle class. The recently formed "No Labels" organization could serve as the grass-roots “feeder” organization that brings moderate voters into contact with the party and its principles.

The Greeks of the classical era had a saying, “Meden agan.” It means “Nothing in excess” or “Everything in moderation” and was inscribed on the famous temple of the Oracle of Delphi. The Hellenes (ancient Greeks) were wise. If only we would keep this watchword in mind in the political discourse of the nation, the political parties would be forced to rein in their most partisan positions, and our elected officials would have no choice but to govern by this principle.

In our current two-party system, each party is susceptible to being taken over and controlled by radical fringe elements on the right and left. Most middle-class Americans feel abandoned by the Republican and Democratic Parties, which seem much more interested in representing the interests of the ultra-rich and illegal aliens, respectively. It is particularly true of the Republican Party that there is little room left for moderates. For example, Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party during the last election cycle is symptomatic of what has been happening to the moderate wing of the GOP. It is no exaggeration to say that the Tea Party and others on the far right have hijacked the Republican Party.

As for the Democrats, as long as they permit the Senate filibuster rule to remain in effect, they will continue to find it virtually impossible to push through significant elements of their legislative agenda. The problem is that to achieve the 60 votes required for cloture, legislative proposals become so watered down by compromises that they bear little resemblance to their original forms, do not achieve their original purposes and are too lengthy and complicated for even most members of Congress to comprehend.

Democratic leaders in the Senate simply do not appear to understand that the ability to filibuster is inimical to a party that seeks to change the status quo and achieve progress for the American people. It permits an oligarchical minority of 41 (who are intent, not only on stopping progress but, indeed, on blocking practically any legislation the majority tries to pass) to prevail most of the time.

Many Senate Democrats believe the filibuster rule is a safeguard against radical legislation by a Republican majority. On the contrary, it is a virtual guarantee that the Democratic Party will always be considered by a large portion of the American electorate to be so totally ineffectual in achieving their legislative agenda that there is no point in voting for them.

The country needs a permanent third party that is devoted to representing the middle class, i.e., a new party "of," "by" and "for" the Middle Class. As indicated at the outset of this message, I propose that it be called the “American Mainstream Party” (“AMP” for short, as in “Let’s AMP up the vote”). Check urbandictionary.com under “amp up,” a verb derived from electrical-energy jargon that means, “To turn up the volume or intensity,” as in:

“The basketball team needs to amp up its defense” or

“His Math SAT is just 520. He better amp up 30 decibels to get into M.I.T.” or

“Can't hear you dog. Amp it up, will you?”

Any such party should be devoted to determining what the vast middle-class majority wants and making it happen. To that end, AMP should have a provision in its charter that forbids it to adopt any policy or provision, propose the enactment of any law, or back any candidate that is not supported by at least a plurality (and preferably a large majority) of mainstream voters. Perhaps the party should use social networking programs to sample its members’ opinions on vital issues. The charter should require it to develop fair and unbiased polling questions on vital issues and to present them regularly to members of the party and the public in order to ascertain the collective opinion of the Middle Class on each issue. The charter should also require it to work to realize the will of mainstream Americans. The Republican and Democratic Parties could then continue to represent the fringe interests they so ardently promote, support and defend.

The main peril that I can see if a party of the Middle Class were to materialize is the possibility of manipulation of the will of the people should some false prophet or demagogue arise to a position of prominence in the party. Of course, vigilance would have to be maintained against threats of that sort. A vitally important part of the charter of such a party would be a mandatory provision that it uphold the U.S. Constitution and respect and never seek to overturn the rights of minorities. In this way, members of many minority groups will be attracted to and perhaps decide to meld with the larger group.

Many Americans believe that the present two-party system is hard-wired into the Constitution. Of course, it is not. Nowhere in the Constitution is any reference made to the Republican or Democratic Parties (or to Federalists or Whigs, for that matter). Nevertheless, many frustrated voters believe they would be wasting their votes if they cast them for independents, rather than for Democrats or Republicans. They are, for the most part, correct. Every time we have had "independents" run for the presidency, they have accomplished little except to prevent one party or the other from winning the election. Not once has an independent bid for the presidency come close to winning. This forces Americans to choose between two unpalatable alternatives--wasting their votes by casting them for independent candidates who cannot win or holding their noses and deciding which of the established parties is the lesser of two evils.

It is therefore important that the American Mainstream Party not refer to itself as an “independent” party. By firmly positioning itself as the “mainstream” party between the two “outlier” parties, AMP could draw an absolute majority from both sides of the current political divide. I feel completely certain that viable candidates at all levels of government would flock to such a party once it is announced and gets on the ballot in every state.

A major plank in the platform of such a party should be the elimination of the filibuster rule (or its modification to require a shrinking majority over the course of a relatively short period of days or weekis). Most moderates detest the use of filibusters and would like to see it go away. If a concerted goal of achieving the level of supermajority in the Senate necessary to achieve cloture (say, 65 in order to have 60 even with a few Blue Dog defections), I believe it will galvanize support for a centrist party and push it over the top.

Frankly, I believe this idea of creating a moderate party for the Middle Class like the American Mainstream Party offers the best opportunity to get America permanently back on track toward a bright future. Once the filibuster rule is eliminated and the American people see legislation being enacted that improves their lives, there will be no looking back, and the new party will achieve majorities in Congress that will last for as long as the party continues to do the will of the majority while it protects the rights of all minorities.