You claim to know history. I know politics. I have a degree in it.  Moderation is not the average of all ideas. That's centrism. And the postive spin on centrisma at that. moderation is not the  same as centrism. The central flaw in centrism is that it assumes there can be a center. There is not. Once you realize that then you realie the center is defined by whoever has the balls to do so. Obama and the Democrats d o not have the balls. So they whine like victims claiming to have no choice int he matter. Indeed, as I said of Clinton to Bush- Bush was the answer to Clinton centrism. Without CLinton there could be no Bush. The reason being that while the Democrats refused to redefine the middle, the right realized if the left leaves a definitional vaccum, this is vacuum that can be filled by the right. This is what is happening right now to Pres Ob ama regarding his pre-capitulation. By capitulating, he allows the other side to redefine the center as further to the right than where the moderate progressive position might actually be, and we will never know because he pre capitulates rather than defines.

This is why I argue he fails with regard to understanding negotiation. That by starging with 5 rather than 10, he's redefining the middle toward the right. I have ahard timme at this point beliedving he does not know this since he's now had 9 months to figure it out in several bills in which each time the bill has lurched much furtehr right than even his compromise position.

Moderatin is not abou tcentrism. You are using the words like many do as if they are interchangeable. they are not. You are also speaking in DC bubble speak.

Moderation is about having a point of view but realizing that it may not be the right answer so you rely on concept slike empiricism, incrementalism, history, context, ect to provide some basis for an answer. What you don't do is to lack any definition at all. Which is what Pres Obama is doing right now. He lacks any definition upon which we can describe as a real moderate view. He's taking whatever view that he believes the otehr side believfes but does not realize that the other side is dynamic. Whatever he beleives their views are will shift because they are then allowed to redefine that point further.

Thus the regressive discussions because the dynamic he creates allows such regressive policies to arise. How could they not when the one side is trying to prove that it is "real conservatism" while the other keeps moving the center. The irony here is that Obama moves the center to the right by his wishwashiness.

If you want a non political example. What if one ask you the definition of word. Say you ask me to define the number 5. I precompromise with you to say "whatever you want it to be so long as it is a number, any number." YOu say 2. That's the absurdity of what Pres Obama is doing. He's defining things according to what he thinks the other side will do rather than according to his own interests or those of his consitutency.