I just had not thought about controlling congress as I've been following the presidential primaries. I think most people who are not political operatives probably have the same focus. If people continue to focus only on beating Obama they may miss the chance to gain the Senate. They will hold the House so gaining the senate and thus controlling the committees would put them in a much stronger position to shape policy. Obama is not going to be beat if the economy improves so they need to make sure they don't lose other opportunities to be relevant.

 

Gotcha. Thank you, sir.

If you believe the other side is wrong, they should be stopped. Still waiting for the that book to be written about the "Great Moderates of American History".

 

 

Silly rabbit, why wait? Amazon.com: Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents (9780465002931): Gil Troy: Books

I just had not thought about controlling congress as I've been following the presidential primaries. I think most people who are not political operatives probably have the same focus. If people continue to focus only on beating Obama they may miss the chance to gain the Senate. They will hold the House so gaining the senate and thus controlling the committees would put them in a much stronger position to shape policy. Obama is not going to be beat if the economy improves so they need to make sure they don't lose other opportunities to be relevant.

 

Exactly what he said. Not sure why my posts have come across as partisan. This is why I sometimes don't like blogs. I think if Clyde & I were in the same room we'd understand each other no problem.

 

But I would like to touch on the "new" & "creative" thing. I think somewhat by definition, conservatives generally are skeptical of ideas new and creative. We believe there are fundamental truths that don't change with the times, and that messing with those truths is a big part of what has gotten ours & other western societies in the current trouble they're in. So it's not surprising to me that Will's solution goes back to things Buckley said 40+ years ago, and revisiting those things can help us keep perspective on the current.

Silly rabbit, why wait? Amazon.com: Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents (9780465002931): Gil Troy: Books

FDR a moderate? Like I said, still waiting.

If you believe the other side is wrong, they should be stopped. Still waiting for the that book to be written about the "Great Moderates of American History".

 

Henry Clay anyone?

I had not really thought about the power held by committee chairs. Very powerfull position that can really shape the discussion. Just think what could be accomplished if they actually tried to steer their committees towards doing something for us rather than winning for their party or preventing the other side from doing the same.

FDR a moderate? Like I said, still waiting.

 

That is kind of funny.

FDR a moderate? Like I said, still waiting.

 

Lincoln was most certainly a moderate. JFK would be another one without debate. FDR, I don't see as a moderate but Truman and Eisenhower make good discussion for the premise as does the First President. (Remember Washington had everything from Federaltists to Jefferson to work with and he managed a good start for the nation) Look at the inside offerings of the book and bring about reasons you are "still waiting."

BTW, here's a look at the book Acemona mentioned. Leading from the Center: Book — Leading From The Center

 

Here are some bullet views on some of the presidents:

 

* George Washington’s enlightened moderation as he mediates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton;

 

* Abraham Lincoln’s golden path during the Civil War, via principled pragmatism;

 

* Both Roosevelts’ powerful, affirmative, nationalist vision positioning the president as the touchstone for citizens and politicians;

 

* John F. Kennedy’s bold but politically moderate leadership with Civil Rights;

 

* Ronald Reagan’s public swagger concealing a moderate presidency, where bi-partisan relationships are evident in his handling of Gorbachev and ending the Cold War.

BTW, here's a look at the book Acemona mentioned. Leading from the Center: Book — Leading From The Center

 

Here are some bullet views on some of the presidents:

 

* George Washington’s enlightened moderation as he mediates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton;

 

* Abraham Lincoln’s golden path during the Civil War, via principled pragmatism;

 

* Both Roosevelts’ powerful, affirmative, nationalist vision positioning the president as the touchstone for citizens and politicians;

 

* John F. Kennedy’s bold but politically moderate leadership with Civil Rights;

 

* Ronald Reagan’s public swagger concealing a moderate presidency, where bi-partisan relationships are evident in his handling of Gorbachev and ending the Cold War.

Everyone you mention made bold decisions. Bold does not mean moderate in my opinion. I assume that most folks on this board would define moderate much different than I do. I view a moderate as a "fence sitter", I probably should have been more clear on that in the beginning, apologies.

FDR a moderate? Like I said, still waiting.

 

I am not a fan of FDR; not even close. I used to think FDR was almost as close to Satan as a human being could be (well not really, but I really didn't like his policies). But as I've read more about FDR and the circumstances he was dealing with at the time, my feelings toward him have tempered (somewhat). Some of the legislation pushed by FDR was not near as far to the left as a lot of people at the time advocated for. Take Social Security for example. There was large support for other retirement type plans that were much farther to the left, such as the Townsend Plan. The Townsend plan would have been one hundred percent funded by the govt (in other words, tax revenues). The Townsend plan would not have required beneficiaries to have even worked and would have required immediate benefits. FDR resisted the push in his party for the Townsend Plan and advocated a retirement plan (Social Security) funded in part by employers and in part by employees. In other words, a beneficiary actually had to work to eventually receive benefits. FDR's willingness to go with an employer/employee funded retirement system was a pretty big swing from retirement being funded solely by the govt which was being pushed strongly by a very strong and liberal Congress. As such, his position supporting Social Security could definitely be considered a moderate/centrist one. Heck, those supporting the Townsend Plan probably thought FDR's was a very conservative position.

 

Read the attached about FDR: The New Deal or Radical Change

I am not a fan of FDR; not even close. I used to think FDR was almost as close to Satan as a human being could be (well not really, but I really didn't like his policies). But as I've read more about FDR and the circumstances he was dealing with at the time, my feelings toward him have tempered (somewhat). Some of the legislation pushed by FDR was not near as far to the left as a lot of people at the time advocated for. Take Social Security for example. There was large support for other retirement type plans that were much farther to the left, such as the Townsend Plan. The Townsend plan would have been one hundred percent funded by the govt (in other words, tax revenues). The Townsend plan would not have required beneficiaries to have even worked and would have required immediate benefits. FDR resisted the push in his party for the Townsend Plan and advocated a retirement plan (Social Security) funded in part by employers and in part by employees. In other words, a beneficiary actually had to work to eventually receive benefits. FDR's willingness to go with an employer/employee funded retirement system was a pretty big swing from retirement being funded solely by the govt which was being pushed strongly by a very strong and liberal Congress. As such, his position supporting Social Security could definitely be considered a moderate/centrist one. Heck, those supporting the Townsend Plan probably thought FDR's was a very conservative position.

 

Read the attached about FDR: The New Deal or Radical Change

 

I agree with a lot of what you say and find myself with similar feelings about FDR over the past few years. I didn't read all of the link you posted, but one quote jumped out at me. "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, demands bold persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it freely and try another. But above all else, try something !" I can get behind the idea of this quote, however, it seems that most government programs that are started and end up "failing" to some degree are rarely scrapped and started over. They just become bigger and bigger. That is my biggest concern when government says we have to "try something".

I agree with a lot of what you say and find myself with similar feelings about FDR over the past few years. I didn't read all of the link you posted, but one quote jumped out at me. "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, demands bold persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it freely and try another. But above all else, try something !" I can get behind the idea of this quote, however, it seems that most government programs that are started and end up "failing" to some degree are rarely scrapped and started over. They just become bigger and bigger. That is my biggest concern when government says we have to "try something".

 

Small companies can operate in this fashion because they can change direction rapidly. If it doesn't work, tack back or in another direction. Big companies don't have this flexibility. It takes so much effort to get them moving in one direction that if that direction is the wrong one, all can be lost before correction can be made.

 

America is a very big company.

Everyone you mention made bold decisions. Bold does not mean moderate in my opinion. I assume that most folks on this board would define moderate much different than I do. I view a moderate as a "fence sitter", I probably should have been more clear on that in the beginning, apologies.

 

If you aren't going to engage the material (i.e. read it) then what good is dialogue or debate. If you had looked it over, the hypothesis was that these presidents moderated their views in order to achieve the best ends for the country. I think that's how many of us see the term moderate leadership.