On Moderates & Moderation

Click the image for an excellent, big-picture explanation from Sibyl West

Sibyl West’s article On Moderates & Moderation was posted at Texas Insider.

As we talk with our family and friends about the situation our nation currently faces it is imperative that we appreciate that so-called “moderates” are simply held captive by false information and destructive ideas conveniently pre-packaged and sold by our media. The constant polling is just one example of how our news media sells ready-made opinions for those individuals uninterested in separating themselves from the safety of current group-think.

As Sybil notes:

It is an observable fact that most human beings on this planet cannot think, but can only feel.  They need and even prefer someone else to make decisions for them — an attitude which has a bonus advantage in that if anything goes wrong, they can easily put the blame on someone else. The impersonal moderates have obliterated that one problem if nothing else.  The inherent virtue of a committee is that no one identifiable person is responsible for anything. [read more]

It is our job to look for ways to open the hearts and minds of moderate members of our community to see the better virtue of American Exceptionalism – which does not mean or even imply that Americans are by birth better than any other people group – but rather that the American experience of individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness actually is the cure for the ills our nation is facing.

The principles of American Exceptionalism actually work with our natural human nature rather than against it. Therefore, those principles work with all people of all cultures. Unless a person is socially dysfunctional, all individuals yearn to live in freedom that allows them to use their time and talents in exchange for wealth, in order to better provide for themselves and their families.

That we have strayed from those original principles is the reason we are in our present predicament. If we are to persuade Moderates to be on the winning idea team, each of us must be able to explain how the joy of living in the spirit of American Exceptionalism is best for all of us.

Sibyl West is the editor of Ramparts 360º, which was the winner of last year’s Americans for Prosperity – Texas blogger of the year award.


  1. That graphic seems to be comparing the left to different forms of tyranny including the Nazis, Hitler & Stalin. Is that the point of that graphic?

    • Nancy Coppock says:


      That the intellectuals/progressive leadership of the self-identified Left regularly align with/support the individuals/principles/actions/ideas of history’s list of totalitarian despots and genocidal mass murderers is a problem those on the Left must address.

      If you don’t share the same principles/actions/ideas as the leaders of the self-identified Left, then
      a) maybe you aren’t really a Leftist or
      b) you are aware that your group has been taken over by a radical clique and understand the work you and others like yourself must do to correct the problem (e.g. those Che’ shirts have got to go).

      Implying that I should not make that logical conclusion given the abundance of evidence doesn’t create the kind of civil society I believe you personally really want to establish. Nothing is gained by making it illegal to refer to a ruthless authoritarian as a ruthless authoritarian.

      In truth, the only mistake the graphic made was in implying that the Right was always a defender of Liberty. My bad…

      • Associating “individuals/principles/actions/ideas of history’s list of totalitarian despots and genocidal mass murderers” with liberals and liberalism is intellectual dishonesty and a complete rewriting of history. Those that commit those types of atrocities have nothing in common with the principles that govern conservatives or liberals, it is the same as blaming religion itself for the atrocities committed in its name.

        • A good answer, but your theory doesn’t address certain facts about the world view of the leaders of the “normal” Left.

          That the Congressional Black Caucus has a love relationship with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro suggests that these people share a certain world view. That White House Communications Director Anita Dunn shares a world view with Mao explains how she sees her political allies and opponents. What about the dark soul of the Left’s money man, George Soros? One could see a war criminal, but yet his world view is acceptable if you accept his rationalization that if he didn’t turn the Jews in for benefit, someone else would have benefited. The same can be said of Obama and Gaddafi and the world view they share in regards to how they see themselves in relation to those they mean to rule. That shared world view among these leaders of the Left is reflected in every statement, every policy, and every piece of legislation and regulation they produce.

          What world view do you share with the leaders you have chosen to follow? Or are you rationalizing that because you are a nice person and self-identify with the Left, then your world view must trump that of your leaders, thereby changing their actions? How do you know that you aren’t being deceived when you rationalize that they surely must be more like you than they are like “history’s list of despots and genocidal mass murderers” that they of their free will admire? Isn’t that merely projection on your part?

  2. Reminds me of one of the first videos posted on this site: The American Form of Government.

    As explained there, the more government a society allows, the further left on the political spectrum it goes. The video contends that each society must choose between becoming either an oligarchy (left) or a republic (right). Of course, once it gets too far left (too much government) it’s too late to turn back.

    The problem is when people, whether they consider themselves left, center or right, begin voting on and supporting ideas that increase the size of government. When they do, the de facto direction of movement is left, toward oligarchy. Therefore, in a practical sense, there is no “moderate.”


  1. […] the comments for the last post – On Moderates & Moderation – a discussion concerning the graphic accompanying the article that linked the Left with […]

Leave a Reply to Mark Cancel reply


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.