If there were correct or incorrect policies, there wouldn't be any need to vote. If politics was a science or a math, we wouldn't need to vote. We be able to test or prove the correct answer. The reason we vote is precisely because there is no correct answer in politics.
There is a why science and math doesn't work by consensus or a vote.
There are all kinds of questions with best practices, right and wrong answers. There are better and worse ways to aggregate agricultural statistics, for instance. And we don't think of that in terms of a left and right, it's just something that's administered by a department. And no one thinks that that's because of single-minded ideological extremism that only permits one view, or that the approach needs to be replaced with a polarized one stretched between two competing ideologies in order to represent healthy discourse.
There are a range of views where there are right answers, things are polarized that shouldn't be-- climate change for instance, where the debate has been hurt by moderates insisting on a need to treat all sides as equally legitimate. And moderates have absolutely no underlying theory about what makes those examples different. Those examples entirely defeat the concept of moderation as an overarching political principle.
That's the real problem with moderation- it's expressed as an aspirational principle that's independent of any on the ground engagement with arguments or facts. It's not something that is arrived at on a case by case basis from examination of facts, which to my mind would be the valid reason for arriving at moderation, or any political belief. If someone said we should replace all agricultural data with randomly generated numbers, that could polarize agricultural statistics, and then moderates would enter that debate chiding both sides as extremes that need to listen to each other.
Best practices doesn't mean right or wrong answers. Also, most of the questions in politics is about values and perspective and biases and self interest. These don't have any right or wrong answers.
> There are better and worse ways to aggregate agricultural statistics, for instance. And we don't think of that in terms of a left and right
What does agricultural statistics have anything to do with voting? Besides agricultural statistics, like all statistics, can be skewed, manipulated and cherrypicked when it comes to politics. And the same statistic can be viewed differently by different people.
> There are a range of views where there are right answers, things are polarized that shouldn't be-- climate change for instance
This has to be the most naive point any could make. And the only people who believe like you do in black or white are the "single-minded ideological" extremists that you probably rail on about. Ignoring the fact that climate science is in its infant stage and we have yet to find a single acceptable model of climate modeling and we are constantly being told that previous climate predictions were too optimistic or pessimistic every other day. Ignoing all that, lets assume climate science is a mature and trustable science. So what is the solution for climate change? Should we just kill off 7 billion people? Should we shut down the internet? So we end global trade?
> where the debate has been hurt by moderates insisting on a need to treat all sides as equally legitimate.
No. The debate has been hurt by ideological extremists like yourself who have a messianic belief that they will save humanity. Unfortunately for people like you, there are actual grown ups who don't listen to 16 year teen girls for scientific and geopolitical information.
> That's the real problem with moderation
The real problem of moderation and looking at all sides and facts is that it prevents extremist ideologues from taking control.
It's strange how climate change extremists ( on both sides ) always bring something that has nothing to do with climate science into the discussion. "There is a why science and math doesn't work by consensus or a vote.". What does that have to do with your comment?
