Where did you see a similarity? I once thought that the figure closest to Michi was Moses Mendelssohn, for several reasons.

Moses Mendelssohn mainly spoke in two languages: one to the enlightened public and one to the religious Jewish public of his time.
His whole aim, or more precisely one of his main aims, was to show that Judaism is a natural and enlightened religion.
Michi is not trying to do apologetics of that kind.
Nor is he making ridiculous claims in which observance of the commandments becomes a tool and goal for membership in the Jewish community (and therefore even Spinoza the atheist could, from his perspective, have been considered a proper Jew if he only observed the commandments).
The fact that there is some point of similarity at the end of the matter, namely that there is no authority to force a person’s opinions or beliefs, doesn’t say much.

You’re talking about the man, and I’m talking about the philosophy he wrote. Pay close attention to that distinction.

Hello A, it’s worth looking at Rabbi Zecharias Frankel’s book, Darkei HaMishnah (I don’t have it in front of me at the moment). The similarity in the approaches and halakhic commitment of Rabbi Michael and Rabbi Zecharias (with all due distinction???) cannot be denied, as can their relating to the sources as positiv-historical Judaism, truly “copy-paste” as stated above.
If you don’t have access to the books, the Wikipedia entry is exceptional and very highly recommended.

Benjamin, a comparison between thinkers will never be precise,
both because of the different emphases they place on a given issue and because of their views on all sorts of different theological fine points.
Rabbi Michi is right that the concepts “Conservative” and “Orthodox” are not sharp. Frankel, in matters of Jewish law, could today be considered more stringent than open/modern Orthodox Jews. And according to an article I once read, at the beginning of the Conservative movement in the United States, in matters of Jewish law they really were very similar to what is today called modern/open Orthodoxy, and there was even consideration of unifying their educational institutions (just as the line separating the Haredim of the 19th century, if one may call them that, and the Enlightenment intellectuals was not so sharp, and you can find figures like Shadal and Hartwig Wessely who were recognized by the great rabbis of that time as respectable figures).

If you look at today’s Conservative movement, you really can’t associate Michi with it, because most of it tends in a very liberal direction of very rapid changes in Jewish law in order to make it similar and adapted to modern Western man (removal of the partition altogether, permission for physical contact between a man and a woman, permission for homosexual relations, and the like).

A,

Mendelssohn’s liberalism and humanism are an inseparable part of his philosophy (for example, the reasons for the commandments in his thought are a moral and upright society). He also dealt a lot with issues of identity and the integration of Jews into the modern sphere (a person’s patriotic duty toward his state, and so on), things that I think are not part of Michi’s philosophy.

That again*.

Happy holiday, Rational (Relatively). Certainly there was some exaggeration in what I said; you will always find differences between different thinkers. And indeed Rabbi Michi is very different from most Conservatives in the U.S. nowadays, which is why I compared him specifically to Rabbi Zecharias Frankel. At the same time, you have to agree that all that remains is to find the differences between them (between Rabbi Michi and Rabbi Zecharias Frankel).
Regards, Benjamin