by urs on 12/27/19, 9:25 AM with 365 comments
by urs on 12/27/19, 10:02 AM
I think another way to slice this is, if you think of the Overton window shifting along the axis of time, the “accidental moderate” does not shift their opinion by the same factor as the ends of the window shift. The “accidental moderate”, in fact, shifts their opinion independent of the shifts of the window.
I just don’t know 100% if I’d use the term moderate as the it’s not necessarily true that all views will equally weight a view left of center with a view right of center (or vice-versa), and moderate could be perceived as synonymous with “average.”
Additionally, by even defining two types of moderate, there is a sense that the word “moderate” means something already. I don’t know, I feel like there could be a better word, maybe if you think of it as a graph there’s a graph-related term, but it’s not coming to mind!
by CameronNemo on 12/27/19, 6:36 PM
>The effect of a system based on plurality voting is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support are left with a disproportionately small share.
by sornaensis on 12/27/19, 11:22 AM
Most people are pretty rational about most issues when you discuss them individually, but you end up with a few ''foundational''-- and unquestionable --ideas that people have to fall exactly on one side or the other. I won't name any specifically but I think everyone knows some of these immediately. So you have individually rational persons who have to congregate on either one side or the other, and these issues end up being the deciding factor of which group you must join, dividing many people who otherwise agree on a lot of stuff, perhaps without even realizing it..
It's pretty similar to religious fracturing to me now that I think about it. Groups who agree on everything except one or two ideas and that makes all the difference.
Very rare are the persons who fall heavily to one side of everything.
by whyoh on 12/27/19, 11:15 AM
I don't think you can reduce political arguments to who is "right" and who is "wrong". Politics and moral questions are not mathematical problems. We fundamentally don't all agree on what the final outcome (of a society, of life) should be. Maybe 99% of us can agree with something like "happiness" or "peace", but those are way too vague and the devil's in the details.
by somberi on 12/27/19, 10:48 AM
"Anyone that makes up they mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool, OK? Everybody… No, everybody’s so busy wanting to be down with a gang – “I’m a conservative, I’m a liberal.” It’s bullshit. Be a fucking person. Listen. Let it swirl around yo head. Then form yo opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, OK? I got some shit I’m conservative about, I got some shit I’m liberal about. Crime, I’m conservative. Prostitution, I’m liberal. "
by CM30 on 12/27/19, 10:56 AM
I think this describes my own political opinion to a tee. I agree with some stuff on the left, some stuff on the right and the moderate/centrist opinion on some others, and it probably equals out as centrist.
Still, I'm not sure I'd say this is a rare thing by any means. Indeed, I suspect a large percentage (maybe even majority) of the population has beliefs from all sides/corners of the political spectrum.
It's just that the current voting system in places like the US and UK encourages everyone to band with 'one side or the other', and groups a bunch of people/groups that likely disagree in many cases together as one party.
Plus given most people's mixtures of said beliefs are different to others, your average politician/party ends up having to appeal to a certain 'tribe' in order to get elected, since the percentage of people who 100% agree with a certain mix of beliefs is too small to get anyone a majority.
by justin66 on 12/27/19, 7:39 PM
by elyobo on 12/27/19, 7:45 PM
This is only the case if left and right are equally right and wrong, which is unlikely to be the case. The average place of an accidental moderate could be anywhere, even to the left of the left or the right of right right.
by CPLX on 12/27/19, 10:29 AM
We’ve been short of billionaires willing to share their opinions about why we should consider the incredible increase in concentrated wealth and the resurgence of monopoly business practices as “moderate” while the idea that maybe we should, you know, consider doing something to stop that, as “extreme” and “far left”.
There’s a couple tells in the article. But here’s a pretty clear one:
> Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates
You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.
by ineedasername on 12/27/19, 8:33 PM
by hnhg on 12/27/19, 10:22 AM
Thinking out loud, I think this piece misses that aspect of team-seeking behavior. I know people who will recognise a good point against their side but will strive to ignore it because it works against their sense of loyalty to the team. I increasingly believe there are relatively few people who don't want/need that sense of identity.
[edit: the article doesn't really talk about sense of belonging, which I think is inherent in a lot of this discussion]
by tunesmith on 12/27/19, 10:43 PM
by taneq on 12/27/19, 6:58 PM
by namirez on 12/27/19, 7:13 PM
This is a typical complaint by the so called moderates who feel unappreciated by the left (whatever that is). But I yet to see an example of the far left who has any meaningful policy impact. All I see is a lot of whining about college campuses. Perhaps the far left in the US political landscape is Bernie who by most measures would be a moderate in other industrial nations. I don't know, but I have a hard time following what PG is trying to say here.
by CriticalCathed on 12/28/19, 1:04 AM
I don't think I can take seriously an essay that so flatly and flippantly claims this as fact.
by r00fus on 12/27/19, 10:10 PM
A multi-dimensional (at least 2 axis) model [1] would probably be more enlightening in terms of why high profile personalities view things that seem "accidentally moderate".
Example: Sanders disagreed with Beto's gun buyback citing both the constitutionality and the fact that the only way to round up the guns would be invasive police searches which could lead to a despotic act, despite the potential for reduced gun violence. This viewpoint is both shared by hard left and hard right.
by Apocryphon on 12/27/19, 7:09 PM
by apu on 12/27/19, 6:44 PM
Graham's sleights of hand used to be better hidden.
The "far left" and "far right" are not fixed points in ideological space (even within a single country).
by c2the3rd on 12/28/19, 6:49 AM
Anyone who thinks about politics seriously and argues politics with people needs to base their opinions on something besides personal preference. This means trying to develop moral and logical principles and goals on which to base positions. When people do this, opinions on many topics will be highly correlated.
by youdontknowtho on 1/8/20, 7:00 PM
This is not the case. The far-right police doctrinal purity very well, actually. They have built multiple pipelines for taking ideas that were once extreme and moving them to the moderates, who they then push to adopt these ideas lest the be called out as "Republican in name only (RINO)" or whatever the du jour insults are.
I don't know about the current state of things, but the far right used bank robberies to finance operations across multiple fronts back in the 90's. They used the proceeds to fund groups in different regions.
The far right is dangerous in a way that "the left" hasn't been since the 1960's.
I think its telling that PG's really concerned with ideologies that are a threat to his financial/class interests, thereby validating a point maid be leftist critiques of wealthy people like PG. So, way to prove their point, PG-man.
The history of the far right is really interesting and I would recommend it as a field of reading for anyone interested in American history.
by pterrys on 12/27/19, 10:28 AM
http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/ https://www.quotes.net/mquote/770097
by mncolinlee on 12/27/19, 9:46 PM
Moderation is rarely a choice. There's an old expression, "The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill." It's not saying that moderates are extinct or undesirable. Rather, left and right political views mostly come from a history of life experiences that drives people either towards empathy for strangers or towards fear of strangers. The combination of these worldviews and the human desire for having a community or clan drives people into parties in opposition to each other.
For most moderates, their experiences instead drive them to prefer either worldview depending upon which issue is being considered. Their experiences are not totally based on seeking safety or showing empathy. They are not middle of the road on most issues, but have a diverse set of opinions. Their opinions are diverse enough to not feel fully accepted into either party and to adjust their own views into alignment, unless their country has a middle party. This seems to be what Graham calls deliberate moderates.
There are also moderates who become moderate because nuance is important to smart policy. Fully left or right ideas both tend to overshoot evidence-based decision-making. I believe this is what Graham refers to as accidental moderates. However, the roadkill metaphor still applies because even accidental moderates still have life experiences that lead them to a worldview as well as the human desire to belong to a group. Even those who apply past policy-based evidence to develop a nuanced view will have a human desire to try to fit themselves somewhere into the partisan political landscape of their environment. It's not easy being the odd one who doesn't fit.
by AlexeyMK on 12/27/19, 10:50 AM
by noir-york on 12/27/19, 10:53 AM
Ideologues assume that there is a single version / source of the truth whether it is a religious text, or a secular one (Marx, Hayek, etc). 'Intentional moderates' are not monist (as are idealogues), but to the contrary triangulate. If anything, intentional moderates reject the notion that there is an objective position.
Accidental moderates - idealised - are actually just being reasonable and weighing different considerations, thus arriving at a considered position.
Intentional moderates may not necessarily be cowards. To take an exampe: most people are ignorant of economics and so their position on, say, the interest rate is not an informed one.
Intentional moderates use a centrist heuristic in the belief that the reasonable answer is somewhere between the two extremes. There is nothing wrong with this; one cannot expect voters to be experts or even well informed on all the posible issues of government.
by tptacek on 12/27/19, 8:38 PM
by zzo38computer on 1/3/20, 6:41 PM
But I suppose they may be correct that such independent ideas may be considered as moderates by these measurements, and may also be correct that a lot of people hate them for it.
They say that on a scale from 0 to 100 your opinion might be any number, on average 50 but may be anything. I think that is not good enough because your ideas might not match the range like that so well, I think.
by bsder on 12/27/19, 9:47 PM
This is a flat assertion with no evidential backing whatsoever solely meant to make the sayer feel better about not challenging incorrect beliefs.
If history is a guide, the middle are very rarely on the correct side of a divisive issue when all the dust settles.
by SamReidHughes on 12/27/19, 11:07 AM
Well, no, not at all. People on the left and on the right tend to have a worldview and attitude that is the foundation of their stances on issues. It is not a coincidence that support for welfare spending, tolerance of theft, illegal immigration, fat acceptance, and decrying of objective standards in education all come from the same side.
by theraido on 12/27/19, 10:27 AM
Somewhere in there maybe is a different idea about 'tolerance'. The first might have a 'Live and let live'-position. The other actually believes plurality of lifestyles is a good thing. Somewhere along those lines ;)
by asdfman123 on 12/27/19, 7:03 PM
> openly being an accidental moderate requires the most courage of all
If he thinks that having middle-of-the-road opinions requires the most courage of them all, he has had an extraordinarily easily life in which he is used to be hailed as brilliant. It seems as though due to his comfortable position in life he has never faced any significant opposition to anything he's said, anything he's done, or anything he is.
I might be wrong, and I respect the opinions of "accidental moderates" who are acting in good faith, but I cannot imagine how you'd come to the conclusion that holding moderate viewpoints requires any real courage at all.
> Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates
"I am only impressed with people exactly like me."
Someone needs to write a similar pithy thinkpiece about how people who experience a lot of success should stick to what they know and not assume it gives them valid insight into other parts of life.
by fizzyfizz on 12/27/19, 7:40 PM
As is increasingly the case, the core of pg's argument is a variant of the Appeal to Authority: the "impressive people" that pg personally knows. And there is also an Ad Hominem; one doesn't want to be anything like the nasty people who are continually mean to him online.
It is certain that pg does know some very impressive people, and that he attracts a lot of attention from Twitter leftists looking to score cheap points.
However, this argument is vague and dependent on faulty assumptions. Not only can it be easily dismissed, it probably proves the opposite of what he intends.
I think we can assume those impressive people are likely all drawn from the small coterie of technology startup founders and investors. From this and other essays, it's become clear that pg believes that success at becoming a startup founder (just like pg) is almost identical with being an impressive person.
But it's well-known that this group already comes from a relatively narrow slice of humanity. Upper-middle-class or upper-class, likely white, likely gone to a university in America. It would not be surprising if their opinions were roughly in alignment.
Even so, the "impressive people" have not taken public stands that we can verify. We only have pg's assessment of their stances as being roughly centered around a mean, and we only have pg's assessment of where the mean is. (It's rare indeed for someone to self-identify as an extremist!)
This is an informal essay, so perhaps asking for even one example is too much rigor. And, as pg often reminds us, his friends have all kinds of interesting opinions they can't reveal in public any more, due to political correctness. Luckily we have pg who valiantly is willing to stand up in public and allude to a large number of people who agree with him, but are just off-camera.
Anyway, since we are left to merely imagine, let's also imagine that we asked pg's interlocutors about other topics. What would their opinions be on, say, technology startups and business? They'd probably say they were good for the world, and good as a career path. There might be a relatively univocal assessment of taxes as being too high, the barriers to founding businesses as too onerous, and that some ideas popular outside the tech industry (like mandated key escrow, or fact-checking social media posts) are all ludicrous and counterproductive. All defensible opinions, but my point is, we can imagine them all being in close agreement on issues relating to their industry.
So let's take pg at his word that if we have a cohort of people who have self-selected an industry and risen to success, their opinions about that industry are both informed and in close agreement, and their other opinions might be defensible, but randomly scattered around a mean. Is this really that surprising?
pg wants us to believe that the relative moderation of his impressive friends proves something. That not only is moderation a virtue, but the virtuous are moderate.
But accidentally, he may be revealing that technology startup success is more random than he thinks. That it selects for people with some narrow range of skills, but success is awarded with a high degree of randomness.
And since there is no reason for this cohort to be in alignment on any other matter, they are more or less randomly scattered around the median opinion of an upper-class American university technology student.
...
PS: pg started his career as an essayist with "Beating the Averages", and now he asserts that being average is actually good!?
Okay, maybe that's a cheap shot, but we're all looking to justify ourselves and be loved, I guess, and as we pass through different stages of life that doesn't change. pg used to write about the hidden virtues of high school nerds, minority programming languages, and young founders who weren't from California. I found it easier to be a fan. Today he mostly writes about the hidden virtues of the Silicon Valley elite. While that might actually have some merit, it's a bit of a harder sell.
by PaulAJ on 12/27/19, 7:35 PM
IME the far right despises them as dupes of their favoured conspiracy theory.
by smolder on 12/27/19, 8:20 PM
Having polar opposites that are both "in the middle" seems to be a clear illustration of why the left vs right analogy is lacking.
by michaelmrose on 12/27/19, 10:59 PM
I think most people in America aren't accidental moderates or "intentional moderates" or hardcore liberals/conservatives. I think most of them have limited opinions or investment in politics. Their experience is more akin to their patronage for a sports team than a system. They repeat things important figures for their side say and some of them can be bothered to vote depending on how much their side has stirred them up recently but they don't actually care much.
For those that do care. The people that Graham is liable to label intentional moderates are most apt to have as rich an opinion as accidental ones. Not expressing strong positions in public in America is how you avoid having to hear other people's strong opinions that you don't much care to hear.
In America it's not courageous to hold strong opinions from both sides of the aisle especially as a rich person. Most people will experience zero downsides. For those public figures that do they start off so much better off than most of us that their maximum downside is still much better off than most of us.
by pjc50 on 12/27/19, 11:30 AM
> First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This is the problem with the "intentional" moderates: their position isn't a coherent one, it's instead pure unwillingness to engage. I understand people being conflict-averse, but it can lead to being backed into a corner by the people who are not afraid of conflict.
by simonh on 12/27/19, 10:45 AM
We do have a middle of the road Liberal Democrat party, but to my mind they maintain their position in the middle ground by dodging the hard issues. They are intentional moderates in that respect and I just don’t trust them to tackle really tough issues effectively. So I’m a moderate conservative because the Conservative party is generally an effective party of government that often leans moderate for practical political reasons. Often enough that I’m ok with it, cripplingly badly thought out referendums aside.
Looking at the US political landscape there’s no question in the 80s I would have been a Reagan Republican, but gradually over the last few decades my respect for Republicanism has collapsed. It’s turned itself into a radical ideology that doesn’t even seem conservative, or concerned at all with things conservatives everywhere usually obsess over. The democrats have recently lurched left in response though, so while I found myself, to my own bemusement, generally cheering on Democratic candidates and presidents in the last few decades, now I’m worried they’re ‘doing a Corbyn’ and indulging in outlandish and fantastical economic policy positions that are always a temptation for the left. That leaves me in the wilderness in US political terms.
So I can’t support the Republicans because they are immoral jerks who are selling out democracy, undermining the rule of law and sold out on their international security position for partisan posturing long before Trump showed up. And I can’t support the Democrats any more because they are indulging in crazy leftist economic fantasies.
by rdtsc on 12/27/19, 8:13 PM
Chomsky put it well when describing this phenomenon:
--- The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. ---
> I'm not sure why. Perhaps it means that the far right is less ideological than the far left
I think it is because left opinions, even in mainstream media and social discourse do not get the immediate push-back and derision, but are treated more of like confusion or maybe immaturity. Say, if we see someone waving the Soviet flag in the streets at a protest we just sort of shrug at it instead of have a visceral reaction to it.
by arh68 on 12/27/19, 10:58 AM
I think there's definitely something to the idea, but I wouldn't carve up the world into These People and Those People. If anything, we're more like calico cats and we all exhibit both behaviors simultaneously. Yes, I think the Overton windows "centers" some of our views, but I can't consciously tell you which ones without thinking about it first.
by mythrwy on 12/28/19, 2:59 AM
Star Trek economy is all well and good and I think it is the eventual outcome, but in a specific time and place, with specific people and their baggage, the immediate best way forward may be something other than what I would prefer.
Didn't Marx say politics went through stages? Feudalism to capitalism to socialism or something? He might have had a really valid point on this. We can't jump from primitive barter economies to interstellar travel.
Besides, even though I like certain ideologies, I can't help but see the practical on the ground results of faulty, corruptible humans trying to implement them and it seldom turns out for the good from what I've observed. I have to imagine we will get there over time, perhaps with non human AI at the helm.
by lisper on 12/27/19, 9:49 PM
by alexandercrohde on 12/27/19, 9:28 PM
by aidenn0 on 12/27/19, 9:40 PM
Republican/Democrat is more of "buying in bulk" these days as partisanship has aligned more with polarization.
On the other hand, consider Libertarian/Communist. Those both make policy arguments from first principles. They aren't so much buying policies in bulk as generating policies from a set of axioms. Many "intentional moderates" take it as axiomatic that the truth always lies in the middle, and thus are also generating policies.
by tchaffee on 12/27/19, 10:25 PM
by hindsightbias on 12/27/19, 8:02 PM
I’m wondering if all the science heroes from that era were pro-Eugenics from a science or political position.
by dr_dshiv on 12/27/19, 9:31 PM
by rossdavidh on 12/27/19, 8:26 PM
As usual, there is a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1170/
Again, I myself am mostly an accidental moderate. But I think he's underselling the case for intentional moderates.
by m_ke on 12/27/19, 8:20 PM
There is no far left in America, the "leftist" candidate is campaigning on radical ideas like universal health care and free public education, things that every other first world country already provides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...
https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/policies/is-beginning-seco...
by p_monk on 12/27/19, 10:40 PM
The notion that neoliberals are above the fray of ideology and independently minded, might be comforting to them, but it's a lie. Across the globe, PG and his ilk fit squarely in the various right and centre-right parties.
by jasaloo on 12/27/19, 9:48 PM
Also:
“The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. You don't get to pick and choose.”
PG has clearly never encountered two leftists in the same room together. We argue on critical issues more than a thanksgiving dinner table.
by anigbrowl on 12/27/19, 10:53 PM
[2] For some reason the far right tend to ignore moderates rather than despise them as backsliders. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it means that the far right is less ideological than the far left. Or perhaps that they are more confident, or more resigned, or simply more disorganized. I just don't know.
As a long-time student of the far right I can answer this easily: they do despise moderates, but being fascist, they plan to rule over them and figure (with some basis in fact) that the moderate middle will just go along with their program because it's expedient to do so.
As this treats of loaded topics I might as well clarify my own understanding by saying that I think the far left is characterized by its antipathy to property rights (and arguably individual rights in general depending on the particular dogma they adhere to) while the far right is characterized by its antipathy to human rights (and arguably the existence of distinct populations in general depending on the particular dogma they adhere to).
by pgsbathhouse on 12/27/19, 9:20 PM
Otherwise you're just saying "I'm right and everyone else is totally clueless. If you don't pick any side you actually have the most ~ ~ enlightened ~ ~ opinion."
I expect nothing less from PG but it's hilarious to see him just blandly admit how intellectually out of depth he is. He's basically ignored the most rudimentary topics in political science and just flat out spread his academic ignorance for the world to see.
by zozbot234 on 12/27/19, 10:07 AM
by aj7 on 12/27/19, 9:15 PM
by toyg on 12/27/19, 10:44 AM
There is a lot of stereotyping, and it doesn’t account for the interest axis, i.e. the fact that a lot of very smart people simply do not care for organised politics in any way, shape, or form.
More importantly, it lacks knowledge of consensus mechanics beyond Overton, which is why it struggles to get to grip with the right side of the spectrum - which is, historically speaking, the most consistently successful side, at least in the short or medium term when any new political issue arises. Dismissing that as “I don’t know” shows embarrassingly poor subject knowledge.
So uhm, this piece could have been written by a 16-year-old trying to move his brain for the first time. That it comes from a much older and experienced person, somebody who holds a number of smart positions on other topics, to me is a signal that such person has done very little effort to actually study this particular field in depth.
Maybe it’s an attempt at showing that one can be not-smart about certain topics? If that were the case, I don’t think we really need it - Twitter and Facebook remind us every hour of every day that it is indeed the case.
by youdontknowtho on 12/27/19, 6:59 PM
I disagree with this in the strongest terms.
I realize that the people on this site lean right, and arguing politics isn't really cricket, so I won't go into to why.
The "center" is a political ideology that pretends that it's something else.
Also, being good at one thing doesn't make someone's opinion about everything else important.
by SethMurphy on 12/27/19, 10:56 AM