It has only 1 plank.
1. Pay lip service to the GOP platform, then cave to everything the Dems want in order to be “bi-partisan”.

Or maybe everyone has their thinking caps on.
While we wait – great diary, great promotion.

….

“Don’t tell me you are a moderate. Moderate is an adjective. It is a qualifier. You may be a moderate conservative, a moderate democrat, or a moderate drinker but it doesn’t tell me what you believe in. It’s not a philosophy. Unless all you believe in is moderation for the sake of moderation.” – Mike Rosen

Great diary, you ask a lot of really pointed questions. I’m at work, so I can’t really get into it fully, but here’s some quick thoughts.

I think the challenge to the GOP has little to do with the platform itself, and more to do with enrollment. What the dems have succeeded in doing for the moment is inspire the base AND win the majority of the moderates.

35/35 leaves 20, and that’s the challenge. You need to win half of them without losing the 35 you already have. (local politics are, of course, different.)

I would disagree with the central point of your piece and submit that you don’t have to change the platform to accomplish that. Reagan didn’t.

The notion of “moderates” being responsible is laughable. Mainly what they want to do is to throw a wrench into anything that Conservatives want. Take the moral reprobate over at LGF, no please take him. His main objection to the Social Conservatives is intelligent design, he’s got nothing else in his bag. It’s pretty clear that he despises Social Conservatism, i.e., he’s pro-abortion (I don’t have to call you what you want to be called.) and pro-gay marriage (which puts him to the left of The One’s position). In defense of most 9/12′ers at least they see the threat posed by Islamofascism. Again, that’s all they’ve got. You’re asking for a whole agenda?

Cue the crickets.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

David Jacobson
Cleveland, OH

Why should you not be in jail for allowing our borders to remain porous and forever changing our country’s culture? Why should you not be in jail for allowing and promoting man made global warming, tax breaks for the harmful ethanol industry, tax breaks for the scam-filled wind industry, and any conversation whatsoever about capping CO2, trading in carbon offsets, emissions, and the like?

Just look at this lineup of moderates:

1. John Sununu, NH

2. Elizabeth Dole, NC

3. George Allen, VA

need I go further? When you attempt to placate an electorate by saying one thing but voting and acting another then you become extinct.

1. What is the moderate position on taxation & how does it differ from the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ line?

As low as possible without colliding with No. 2.

2. What is the moderate position on deficits? What makes it unique from what others put forward?

Should be small to nonexistent and should be a matter of dogma that they stay that way. A better means to limited government than taxes, which will always have political pressure pushing them lower over the mid to long term.

3. What is/was the moderate position on Obama’s budget plans? What makes it unique?

They are untenable and to be resisted.

4. What is the moderate role for the United States Military? Its budget? How is it unique?

The same as GW Bush’s, but with less bluster, dissembling, and torture.

5. What is the moderate position on regulation?

Case by case, but generally against regulation of the economy, unless it collides with No. 6.

6. What is the moderate position on AGW? How is it different from “Democrat-lite” or “Conservative-lite”?

Likely true and needs to be addressed through policy.

7. What is the moderate position on health care reform? There’s a lot of sentiment on the Democrat side for a single-payer system, not so much on the Republican side – where do you come down? If you don’t favor single-payer, how will you insure your ‘reforms’, if adopted, won’t take us further down the road toward a single-payer system?

Against single payer system, but recognition that current system is an efficient mess and 40 million uninsured is no joke.

8. What is the moderate position on abortion? How is it different from the Democrat position? At what point do you say “this far and no farther”?

Take your pick.

9. What is the moderate position on same-sex marriage? How is it functionally different from the Democrat position? Where is your “this far and no farther” point?

Take your pick.

10. What role – if any – should social conservatives have in the Republican Party? Make the case that you’re not asking them “Give me your vote and then shut up until the next election.”

A huge role, but a willingness, along with moderates, to join in a message that has broad appeal. A lot of this is about tone and attitude, not policy or core belief.

11. How do the ‘refinements’ you’ve made to the Republican platform add votes to Republican totals?

Arguably, they’d appeal to independents who swing elections. I believe that’s true.

And I’ll add one:

12. How does your stance differ on illegal immigration?

Close the border and grant amnesty to those willing to take steps to assimilate (language, taxes, no criminal record, etc.).

Great post, btw.

Remember this when constructing the “moderate” platform: “Everything has consequences.”

Case in point.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty, and subsequently, the Founding principles of the US Constitution cease to exist.

And, these timeless words of wisdom regarding the future of our constitutional Republic.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams, October 11, 1798

So, I’m not really sure how one could reject conservatism and still improve the GOP platform, because Conservative principles and the constitutional principles of our Founding are one and the same.

I’m a registered independent, but I think that ‘moderate’ republicans represent many of my views. This isn’t meant to be an agenda paper, but hopefully it will lead to some more discussion.

1) I would love to see a flat tax with a no tax exception for the first 10 or 15k of everyone’s income. I don’t think that the political will is there to get a flat tax done. Realistically, I would love to see our tax code pared down to about 5 or 6 double spaced pages. The tax code shouldn’t be 1000 times longer than The Bill of Rights.

2) I also want to see balanced budgets. Tax cuts are easy to sell, but spending cuts rarely survive. We shouldn’t be running deficits when the economy is growing. Running a deficit during a recession is probably the lesser of 2 evils.

3) See 1 and 2 above. I think that Obama is grossly overreaching.
I agree with his attempts to go after off shore tax shelters, but that’s about it.

4) We need a strong military. Given the nature of today’s threats, we need to be investing more in our special forces, UAVs, and intelligence resources. I’m fine with not building any more F22s; it’s an amazing piece of machinery and a technological marvel, but I don’t think that it’s the right weapon for a post cold war world.

This won’t be a popular sentiment to express here, but I think that the Iraq war was a mistake.

5) That’s a huge topic. Less is better, but we need enough to make sure that folks have a level playing field. I support anti-trust laws. I generally support the government’s ability to legislate laws on public property (seat belt and helmet laws, for example).

6) There is a scientific consensus forming that people contribute to GW. I think that it’s a very open question of how much we actually contribute, but the earth is getting warmer and we contribute something to that effect.

So what should be done about it? I don’t think that we can do much about it, and I think that it would be foolish to spend trillions of dollars and cripple our businesses by trying.
If the worst case predictions come true, and sea levels rise significantly, then some cities will have to move inland; some may need to be abandoned. Let’s deal with that when it actually happens.

7) Something needs to change. We’re spending too much money for what we’re getting. I’m 35, in great health, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs, no history of cancer in my family. I’m fortunate enough to have an employer provided health insurance. The insane part is that my coverage (just for me, haven’t started a family yet) costs my employer almost $1k / month. In the 3 years that I’ve worked here, they’re paid 35k in health care premiums. I used about $300 worth of coverage in that time for 3 routine visits, and yet I need the coverage because a week or 2 in a hospital would wipe out my life’s savings.

I’m wary of a single payer system. It can easily lead to abuse and runaway government bureaucracy. I’m open to some suggestions. There is no easy answers on this one and compromises will need to be made. I’m a huge 1st amendment advocate, but I’d almost welcome a ban on direct to consumer proscription drug advertising. There’s something wrong with the picture when Pfizer spends more on marketing than on R&D.

Personally, I am pro choice up to the point of a functioning brain. I think that RvW was a poor decision. State medical boards determine what medical procedures can be performed; this should clearly be a state issue.

9) I think that the government should allow ‘civil unions’ for any 2 consenting adults that are not already in a civil union. I think that government should stay out of marriage.

10) It’s better than the alternatives (perpetual minority status or end of the party). Hang together or hang separately. I think that ‘state rights’ can be a uniting factor for moderates and conservatives. Give more power back to the states so that the folks in NY can do what they want, the folks in SC can do what they want, and the federal government can keep our shores safe and stay out of local affairs.

11) It’s about the independents. Neither the GOP nor the Dems can win without the independents. The ‘moderate’ position is likely to attract more independent voters.

Voters not registered with any major party; voters likely to vote based on a candidate’s agenda and appeal rather than a party’s agenda and appeal.

Not sure, the media seems to use it as an umbrella term for everything besides social conservatives. Would a fiscally conservative yet socially liberal libertarian count as a “moderate”? Lets see:

1) What is the moderate position on taxation & how does it differ from the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ line?

>> On taxation there can be no moderation. Either you are for more or for less. Obviously I’d be for less. A lot less. In conjunction with a cut in spending.

2) What is the moderate position on deficits? What makes it unique from what others put forward?

>> Again, the same. Deficits are bad. We should reduce the deficit, and do so through program cuts, not increases in taxes. No difference here.

3) What is/was the moderate position on Obama’s budget plans? What makes it unique?

>> Against. There need be no difference. We are the opposition. Voting against the budget is enough. In abstract, less taxes, even less spending. Return of personal responsibility.

4) What is the moderate role for the United States Military? Its budget? How is it unique?

>> Here it is different. Make spending smarter. Move away from Cold War era projects. Saves money in long run as with more effective weapon systems and tactics comes less expensive wars. There is no need to cut *production spending*, that is a cut in the overall amount of dollars spent on orders and projects. These create jobs. Just make sure the spending is for systems and products that perform better in the contemporary context. For instance, instead of paying x amount of dollars on a missile defense system, spend x amount of dollars on special forces systems and logistics. Same need for production, but with more effective prosecution of WoT operations, saving money upfront on the logistics end, and overall in the long run.

As for black sites and the PATRIOT act, here there is great difference. Protect the constitution and the rights of individuals. I am against warrantless searches and extraordinary rendition.

5) What is the moderate position on regulation?

>> Regulation is bad, in BOTH fiscal and social areas. Social conservatives seem to say they are anti regulation, yet when it comes to social issues they want to regulate everything. We need a return towards personal responsibility. Let freedom come first. We should be able to do what we want, as long as it doesn’t keep others from doing the same.

For instance, less taxes and business regulation, but also less regulation in my personal life. Just as the government should stay out of my gun case it should stay out of my bedroom, my body and my wallet. End the war on drugs. Return the drinking age to 18. Legalize prostitution and gambling. And end the regulation of “marriage”. Let religious institutions give “marriage” license, and have the state offer only legal partnerships for financial purposes.

You can’t legislate morality, and its hypocritical to espouse freedom, but demand we act like born again Christians. Freedom is freedom of action. How does my drug use affect your life? The only way it can is because I could become a ward of the state. Eliminate such programs and you have to eliminate morality legislation as well.

6) What is the moderate position on AGW? How is it different from “Democrat-lite” or “Conservative-lite”?

>>If the science is there, then we do have a responsibility to protect our earth for future generations, within reason. This means good science on BOTH sides. No alarmist generalizations by liberals, and no ignorance on the part of conservatives.

I’ve seen Republican members of congress argue that global warming is a natural occurrence because oil needs bio-mass to form and that means that Alaska must have once been warm. Yes, but that is because of continental drift. Not because the current geographic location was warm.

Both sides need to accept true expert opinion for what it is, and stop this armchair quarterbacking.

As for what to do, it must be within reason. By within reason, I mean without an excessive impact on personal freedom.

7) What is the moderate position on health care reform? There’s a lot of sentiment on the Democrat side for a single-payer system, not so much on the Republican side – where do you come down? If you don’t favor single-payer, how will you insure your ‘reforms’, if adopted, won’t take us further down the road toward a single-payer system?

>>No difference here. Health-care reform should mean a reduction in Medicare and Medicaid, and incentives for all employers to offer medical coverage. Incentives like tax breaks. The goal being that federally funded health care should exist only like unemployment benefits- you can use them for a certain amount of time between jobs, but that is it.

What is the moderate position on abortion? How is it different from the Democrat position? At what point do you say “this far and no farther”?

>>Abortion is to republicans as gun control is to democrats. And republicans should mirror the dems approach. Abortion is a niche issue. It motivates a strong minority, but very few are for total elimination. Just as with gun control. A liberal minority is vocal in support, but dems realized the large majority of Americans were in opposition of gun control, and dropped the issue. A key to their 2006 and 2008 success. Its a wedge issue, and here is my approach.

Keep it the way it is. Abortions should be legal, and late term should be illegal. As for the slippery slope, abortion does not have one. There is a convenient line, one called viability. Abortions are ok before, not ok afterwards.

I am in favor of methods to reduce abortion. Like it or not, this means real sex education, not this abstinence only fairy tell nonsense. I had to sit through it in my high school. No one learned anything. Plenty of kids got knocked up by senior year. Instead, I attended a private sex ed class that would have made my parents blush. Nonetheless, I know what STDs are. I know how to be safe. I know how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. It scares me how much I know that my peers don’t. A friend didn’t even know how herpes spread. He just knew “sex was bad”.

9) What is the moderate position on same-sex marriage? How is it functionally different from the Democrat position? Where is your “this far and no farther” point?

>>Easy. Get the government out of it entirely. What business is it of the state? Let churches issue marriage licenses, and have a separate function of the state that issues domestic partnership certificates purely for the purposes of estate planning, child care, and other finance reasons. Churches can keep their own principles, and gay couples can have equal rights. Problem solved.

10) What role – if any – should social conservatives have in the Republican Party? Make the case that you’re not asking them “Give me your vote and then shut up until the next election.”

>>Argue their principles, just like anyone else. However, they need to accept that freedom is something more than a slogan. It means that you can’t tell me to live by your values, because that isn’t freedom. If you use the law to try and make me a good Christian, you are no different than a liberal who uses the law to try and make you secular. Social conservatives need to stop advocating freedom on one hand, and social restriction on the other.

11) How do the ‘refinements’ you’ve made to the Republican platform add votes to Republican totals?

>>Look at what I’ve said. The only differences we have are in the social realm. The nation and the economy are strong. With a candidate who shares my values, you can capture independents and democrats who do want a smaller government, but are turned off by the bible thumping.

So here is how things would be different. We agree on enough to support each other, as long as we don’t advocate AGAINST each other. I am not in support of things that are AGAINST anything. Social conservatives should stop being in support of laws that are AGAINST victimless crimes. That is all I ask. Do not abandon your cause, but do so in the way people advocate against smoking cigarettes. Leave the personal responsibility up to me.

(Just to note: I was in the boat with Martin in asking for this to get promoted, so I’m not here to flame unnecessarily…)

BD, you seem to assume that a “moderate” has “moderate” (ie. somewhere between conservative and liberal) positions in many, if not all major policy areas. Rather, I believe that a moderate tends to hold fairly conservative positions in some areas and perhaps downright liberal positions in others. For example, there are some around here who shall remain nameless who hold (what I consider) a liberal position on gay marriage, but adamantly conservative stances on virtually everything else. Is he a “moderate?” What about someone who is a fiscal conservative, opposing virtually all taxes, but feels that the US had no business ever entering Iraq? How many conservative litmus tests must one pass before crossing over from “moderate” to “conservative” or vice-versa?

I will attempt to respond to your questions, with the caveat that a moderate may only hold a few of these, and the judgement as to whether that person is actually a “moderate” or not cannot help but be a wildly subjective opinion.

1) What is the moderate position on taxation & how does it differ from the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ line?

A moderate position on taxes is one that accepts that taxation is a legitimate way to raise government revenue and can also be used to influence behavior. So a moderate might support a progressive taxation system (vs. a flat tax or “fair” tax). A moderate might support “sin taxes” as a way to raise revenues AND to influence behavior. Personally, I have no issue with sky-high cigarette taxes to prevent smoking.

2) What is the moderate position on deficits? What makes it unique from what others put forward?

A moderate position is probably one that accepts some deficit spending as legitimate, depending on the situation. But this is a tough call, as at various points in time deficit spending has been supported by both “liberals” and “conservatives.” It probably need not be noted that the last budget surplus was under a Democrat (Clinton), who could perhaps be considered “moderate” in a few areas.

3) What is/was the moderate position on Obama’s budget plans? What makes it unique?

The moderate can accept spending as a legitimate way to stimulate economic growth (e.g. Keynesian economics). The conservative would likely reject this type of stimulus in favor of “supply-side” stimulus of reduced taxes or tax rebates to inject money into the economy and stimulate growth. However, the moderate need not support the social program subsidies that are inherent in the Obama budget.

4) What is the moderate role for the United States Military? Its budget? How is it unique?

A moderate does not reject military action out of hand but may object to some American military activity. A moderate may believe that GWB’s policy of “pre-emptive” military action to promote democracy and avoid future military issues (e.g. Iraq) is not a good idea. A moderate might agree with Obama’s desire to move troops out of Irag sooner rather than later. However, the moderate probably does not have an anti-military bent and is not a pacifist peacenik.

5) What is the moderate position on regulation?

A moderate position is one that does not reject governmental regulations out-of-hand. For example, food, clean air, gas mileage regulations may be OK with a moderate, but regulations of other things like assault weapons may be objectionable. It means there is not a dogmatic objection to regulation over all. I personally have no issue with the CAFE regulations, as I believe they help drive lower consumption of oil and gasoline, and this can be considered to be a national security issue.

6) What is the moderate position on AGW? How is it different from “Democrat-lite” or “Conservative-lite”?

Your latter sentence is a bit on the inflammatory side, so I’ll simply ignore it. The moderate on AGW most likely does believe that human activity is responsible for greenhouse gases that damage the environment by raising (or even lowering) temperatures. However, the moderate may not believe in drastic measures to “solve” the problem (e.g. cap-and-trade). Or, the moderate may believe there is some climate change occurring but it is not caused by humans…but we should still take actions to dramatically lower our output of greenhouse gases.

7) What is the moderate position on health care reform? There’s a lot of sentiment on the Democrat side for a single-payer system, not so much on the Republican side – where do you come down? If you don’t favor single-payer, how will you insure your ‘reforms’, if adopted, won’t take us further down the road toward a single-payer system?

You’re leading. If you were a lawyer cross-examining a witness, you would have received a sustained objection right away. The moderate position on healthcare reform would probably be “healthcare should be universally available, but a single-payer system is inappropriate” or something to that effect. The moderate probably would not support a full-blown British NHS/Canadian healthcare solution, but might settle for something like the French implementation. But the moderate position probably would NOT be limited to private insurance and tax credits/HSAs.

What is the moderate position on abortion? How is it different from the Democrat position? At what point do you say “this far and no farther”?

The moderate would probably accept abortion in the first trimester, or at least that seems to have been the past positioning. A far-right social conservative might consider someone who says “abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or incest” as a “moderate”… ie. a true conservative rejects abortion in all cases. This whole thing is subjective anyway.

9) What is the moderate position on same-sex marriage? How is it functionally different from the Democrat position? Where is your “this far and no farther” point?

The moderate might accept civil unions and not “full-blown” marriage. Semantics. Personally (and understand – I am a hard-core Calvinist Presbyterian from the PCA, so they don’t get much more socially conservative than me…) I believe there’s an argument for calling ALL marriages “civil unions” and those who wish to be married in a religious ceremony would do that as marriage before God. A civil union is the part of the process that you do to get the benefits of joint tax filing, etc….which personally I believe most homosexual marriages are after anyway…

10) What role – if any – should social conservatives have in the Republican Party? Make the case that you’re not asking them “Give me your vote and then shut up until the next election.”

This really isn’t a policy position, and as such has no bearing on whether one is a moderate or not.

11) How do the ‘refinements’ you’ve made to the Republican platform add votes to Republican totals?

Again, this is not policy.

This is so, so subjective that it is impossible to define. How many “moderate” policy positions must one hold before being considered a “moderate”? 10%? 25%? 50%?

Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time on this response. It should have been its own diary…

who says the internecine fighting is between “moderates” and social cons?

I believe the real issue is an argument between statists and libertarians. On one side we have the statists, this group includes so called moderates AND social conservatives who focus almost exclusively on the social issues. On the other side we have generic conservatives, or pure conservatives and libertarian conservatives. The latter group has views that can be best described as the libertarian contrast to the statists in our party.

Ironically, the moderate Rockefeller types and the hard core social cons are more alike than the libertarian-cons because they both believe government should make the big decisions.

If this party is going to build a majority, it must focus on what unites us, not on the pet issues that we differ on. We can get a majority that believes in maximum liberty and minimal government. We can not build a majority by allowing fundamentalist social cons to frame all others as “moderates”. When the debate is framed that way, it is false and of no use. Again, the real argument in this party is between big government conservatives such as Bush, Frist, and Crist on one side, and your died in the wool Goldwater, Reagan, Hayworth and Armey types.

We will get nowhere if we do not even admit who is fighting whom.

“We can not build a majority by allowing fundamentalist social cons to frame all others as “moderates”. ”

Maybe some do that, I try to avoid it, but I just can’t see how you can expect all the blessings of this country without placing a very, very high value on life (taking one socon position, for example). Abortion just doesn’t square with the way I look at the world, and I believe it stands up to even secular scrutiny. For me to be OK with abortion would simply be incongruent with all my other conservative beliefs.

I do agree that we need to work on what unites us first, though.

If they really are our ally and the only area of disagreement is on the social conservatism, then they are Libertarian.

Why are they afraid of the name?

Why do they cling to “moderate” instead?

RR quote