(Advertisement)

COMMENTARY: Middle Ground Hard To Spot

CONSERVATIVE-TO-LIBERAL SPECTRUM NOT FULL DESCRIPTION

By Greg Harton

Posted: August 8, 2011 at 5:41 a.m.

It had long perplexed me that the conventional wisdom developed in the political world over the years didn’t quite add up to my own experiences. The notion, advanced by those who had their own political goals, was that people on the conservative end of the political spectrum were closed-minded ideologues. The folks on the opposite end, the idea went, were refreshing in their open-minded acceptance of varied viewpoints.

This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

COMMENTARY: Centerton Quietly Making Progres...

It has been awhile since Centerton showed up in the news. If you think most Centertonians are just fine with that, well, you’re probably right. Read »

Next Story »

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Celebrating 19th Amendment

Before 1920, women were considered second class citizens that were politically oppressed and held in bondage by their male counterparts. Read »

Comments

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.

The conservative to liberal spectrum was never an adequate measure.
Tea Party Republicans are reactionaries or radical right, not conservatives.
There are Independents or Moderates in between conservatives and liberals.
Also there are progressives and socialists to the left of liberals.
Libertarians often combine economic right radicalism with social liberalism.

Posted by: Coralie

August 8, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I can comment but I can't read the whole story? In that case I can only presume that the people writing for this paper are no more intelligent than those that created the online business model. Therefore I will assume you are surprised at the close mindedness of the left as if this is a new discovery and have bought into the notion that the middle ground should be somewhere in between the two parties. This is a common misperception. I prefer to think of the true middle ground as a point at which we all can agree. Perhaps more aptly named a common ground. While this is indeed a very small area, it should not be so difficult to see. Politicians try and clutter the view by redefining words and phrases but if we express the issues simply and apply common sense it is really not as hard as they want you to believe. For example can’t we all agree that as a rule we should not spend more than we have? Who in their right mind would think that not increasing as much is equal to spending cuts?
Truth is the Tea Party is standing solidly on the true middle ground and that does not change no matter how far out in space the politicians want to take the debate.

Posted by: alexanderofyork

August 10, 2011 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

alexanderofyork--

It's a shame that you aren't able to read the entire article, because you have made an assumption about it that isn't true. Of course, ignorance didn't keep you from commenting, which is one of the major problems with Teabaggers.

RE "I prefer to think of the true middle ground as a point at which we all can agree. Perhaps more aptly named a common ground."
Unfortunately, that point is infinitesimally small, as there is no point at which we can all agree. That is either wishful thinking, or another demonstration of Teabagger compromise: "We pitch a hissy fit, and you agree with us or else."

RE "Truth is the Tea Party is standing solidly on the true middle ground..."
Your concept of politics, not surprisingly, is one-dimensional. See http://preview.tinyurl.com/lzlf9w for a discussion of two-dimensional representations of politics. In any such representation of the political/economic/social spectrum, Teabaggers are either off-center or way off-center.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 10, 2011 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - Let's see...'Teabaggers' to use your terminology, said there would be no increased taxes and real decreases in government spending to control our debt increase....Hummm... What a radical stance!!! Furthermore, do you remember the debates between liberals and conservatives on the Stimulus, TARP, and Obama Care?? Of course you don't!! The republicans were locked out of the negotiations on Health Care because they were the minority and the liberals controlled both houses and the White House.......We had many bills rammed down our necks with a 'my way or the highway' mentality. Oh, how quickly we conveniently forget the partisan passing of so many deficit-increasing laws.....

So... Now we have "TEABAGGERS" who want to control our spending and not increase taxes, and all of the sudden they are 'non-compromising"? What a stupid comment! Don't PREACH to me about "two-dimensional representations of politics" with this as your background!! How two-faced can the left really get.....nevermind, i just found out...............

Posted by: commonsense96

August 10, 2011 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--
My comments about one-dimensional and two-dimensional concepts of politics were addressed to alexanderofyork; I wasn't "PREACHing" to you (or anybody else) about anything. The mention of dimensionality had to do with alexanderofyork's claim that Teabaggers are at the center of politics. They are not, nor would they want to be.

RE "Furthermore, do you remember the debates between liberals and conservatives on the Stimulus, TARP, and Obama Care?? Of course you don't!!"
Most of that debate occurred in committees, which are bipartisan. Since committees don't seem to get much coverage, your failure to remember the debate isn't surprising. By the way-- who came up with the stimulus and TARP? (Hint: they started before Obama was elected.)

RE "The republicans were locked out of the negotiations on Health Care..."
That never happened, and it would have been impossible. The health care reform bill was negotiated by three House committees-- Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor-- and two Senate Committees-- Finance, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. All of these committees were and are bipartisan. Note that Orrin Hatch walked out of negotiation in the two Senate committees (see http://tinyurl.com/449f3nj and wonder how he could have done that if there were no Republicans in the negotiations to begin with). Republican "contributions" to health care reform were so extensive and damaging that the bill as passed has alienated much of Obama's base. (See http://tinyurl.com/y93863b and http://www.cnsnews.com/node/52896 among others.)

You see why I keep apologizing to Thomas Paine?

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 10, 2011 at 11:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.