A Call to Moderates

With limited exceptions , I choose not to tell people how I voted even though I do trend toward moderates in the Republican Party.

IMO, this election was Mr. Kerry's to lose -- and he did. From my viewpoint, Mr. Kerry should have provided the nation with a vision for governing. Similarly, he should have ignored responding to negative criticism while, at the same time, eschewed tossing mud himself. The American people really wanted to take the higher road, and neither candidate gave them that choice.

Selecting new Supreme Court justices may have played a bigger role in people falling on Mr. Bush's side of the fence than anyone suspects. With the assault on marriage and religion (credit the ACLU) pushing moderates into the conservative camp, thousands of "average" citizens over-reacted to the perceived trend regarding the judiciary's creation, rather than interpretation, of law.

Now I do not care to debate the rightness or wrongness of that "average" citizen's opinion, but I am saying that IMO it was a driving force.

Personally, I am considering "retiring" to work exclusively on a friend's Congressional campaign for 2006. His will be a moderate voice that I hope will replace a radical rant.

In Election 2004 I was both pleased and dismayed by Senate results. Tom Daschle can retire to South Dakota, but the GOP added a nut from Oklahoma and re-elected Jim Bunning, a great pitcher who needed to be tossed out.

On the other hand, Illinois is sending new hope (Obama) to the Senate. I must investigate him further, but judging from initial observations, I think he can and will go on to our highest office, perhaps even in 2008.

My greatest dread is that 2008 will pit a highly divisive candidate like Mrs. Clinton against a similarly divisive candidate like Mr. Frist or some other proponent of the Far Right. The nation will fracture.

I hope at least one of the major parties selects a candidate who is smart enough to share a vision for the future -- not just pie in the sky. Not since John F. Kennedy has a president given us a vision of what America could be and what Americans could accomplish. Mr. Reagan came close, but even he did not set a tone as lofty as Mr. Kennedy's dreams.

I pity the sub-40 age group who have never listened to live JFK speeches that moved people to tears of resolve, hope and pride. True, they can listen to them now, but their reference points are vastly different. They cannot grasp the fears and problems of that age.

In short (I know, too late), let's start working now to move toward the center where left of center Americans and right of center Americans need not fear or hate one another.

 

Is that glass half full or half empty?

The liberal segment (almost half) was against Mr. Bush, and the moderate conservative segment (10 to 25%) was disenchanted to say the least. Therefore, that is why I conclude it was Mr. Kerry's race to lose.

 

I wish I were bright enough to provide clear, concise answers to each of those questions. Nevertheless, I shall try.

First, we need to identify and oust the extreme idealogues, although I have no idea where the "line" is drawn between the "idea" and the "logue." But generally speaking, these are the lawmakers who see that they are absolutely right and everybody else is absolutely wrong (see Tom DeLay, Nancy Pelosi). We need to elect representatives who understand the principles of compromise, but not compromised principles.

The changes will come when the electorate itself changes. For example, we want and need affordable, accessible health care, but we want someone else to pay for it. We the electorate want to be left alone by government, but we scream when we don't get services.

So, to achieve representative government that can reflect the positions and attitudes of the American public, the American public itself must learn and practice toleration and moderation in their own neighborhoods. Bring on the community-encompassing block party and break out the barbecue.

 

Damn! I just listened to Mr. Kerry's concession speech. It was strong and moving and sincere and hopeful. Had he given speeches like that throughout his campaign, rather than being bogged down in the mud-slinging, he would have won.

 

I agree somewhat with your observation. Defining left, right and center actually lies at the root of the problem. Looking at this another way, one side represents the "haves" and the other represents the "have nots." The center is always somewhere halfway between, regardless of which way one side drags it.

 

I agree with you on the weighting of the security issues. As I have said in other threads, Mr. Kerry terrified me on foreign affairs issues, and Mr. Bush terrified me on domestic issues. Therefore, as a moderate, I had to choose between the lesser of two evils.

However, the bulk of moderates this year were driven into the Republican camp because the Democratic Party left them no wiggle room on same sex marriage, religious symbolism in government and other social issues. The Independence Party was not a viable alternative anywhere except perhaps Minnesota.

Historically, third party options have never been self-sustaining for significant time periods. Indeed, Mr. Perot taught us the dangers of fragmenting into multiple parties. That is why I am so devoted to restoring moderate wings to each of the major election machines.

 

In a discussion tonight with a friend from the ranks of the Democratic Party, we agreed on one of the central reasons why the Republican and Democratic Parties have become more and more radicalized/polarized.

Quite simply, it's the primary system.

No one except the intensely partisan members of each party really gets involved in the early phases of primaries. This means that potential candidates must appeal to the absolute foaming at the mouth core of their party. The grassroots of the Republican Party is governed by the Religious Right while the grassroots of the Democratic Party is ruled by social activists (once known as Socialists, but that term is no longer PC).

Only candidates who can pass the litmus test of these extremists get through the gate. Therefore, the more moderate general populace of each party is exposed only to hardcore candidates who must work hard to out-hardcore his or her rivals. Moderate candidates simply are aborted before they can reach the birth canal.

By the time candidates are "test marketed" in the general primaries, we are offered only models that are hard-core party approved. That's why we get -- and will continue to get -- candidates with a lot of political baggage and built-in polarized accessories.

Perhaps, if moderates enter the system at the very beginning -- like now! -- we can change the system to bring viable candidates to the showroom floor.

 

AndyMoon: First, more than several third parties have had decisive impacts on American politics but never lasted once their single issue was resolved. I would rather see a moderate influence in both parties at the same time so that our government is not overly fragmented like most European governments.

Pirc1: You almost sound like a "compassionate conservative."

Fiscal responsibility...check.
Pork reduction...check.
Reduction of taxation and spending levels...check.
Avoiding foreign entanglements....check.
Pacificism....not within the realm of reality.
Helping the truly needy....check.
A health system for all Americans....check.
Reforming education to make us competitive again...double check
Separation of religion and state...check.
Ending war on religion by state...check.
Maintaining a strong defense....check.

 

Americans really are not so isolated from one another. We share common goals. The difference stems from how we want to accomplish those goals.