Moderates...

...will they ever hold power?

Published on November 14, 2004 By TheFazz In Politics

Out of desperation and disappointment, I wonder if moderates will ever hold a position of power in the Executive Branch again.

The Democrats can offer me a far-left agenda and the Republicans can offer me a far-right agenda. What choices!

I believe it could only do the American people good if each party ran a bit more to the center to match mainstream American views. It is obvious that neither party, at this moment, is bothering to do that. First, we had Bush, who was really far too conservative for many Americans, and Kerry, who was far too liberal for many Americans! Do we have a dilemma here?

Kerry tried to make himself look moderate, but I highly doubt that many Americans actually bought into the act. Bush didn't even bother to appear moderate. Our problem here is that no matter what party gets elected, neither agenda will accurately match that of the American people.

Why can't we have McCain or Schwarzenegger type Republicans and Lieberman and Bayh type Democrats running these parties? Instead we have Gillespies and McAuliffes.

Does anyone else feel the need for the two major parties to push a bit more toward the center in their ideology?

Comments

greywar

on Nov 14, 2004

I agree, but part of the extremism here is from living in a world that is far more extreme now than it was pre 9/11.

Danny Bassette

on Nov 14, 2004

Moderates are a larger group numberwise then either the far-left/right, yes/no? I would expect them to be, but then again, i do tend to get my political terms confusified. And if they have the numbers, well then I'm going to have to disagree with you fazz. The democrats and republicans should go further to the extremes, and a third party should go to the moderate, yep, that's what I think.

Cappy1507

on Nov 14, 2004

I totally agree with you, and I think that we can count the Democrats and Republicans out of moving toward the center, in fact I think the only way this will ever come to fruition is if a third party evolves, ala the Patriot party with a filthy rich leader like Perot that has all the money in the world to run against the two mainstream parties. We had our chance at it with Perot, I'm just praying that someone else comes along, and realizes we need them. Some people thought that a third party president would paralyze the government, because he/she wouldn't have the support he/she needed in Congress. But in actuallity I think if that did happen it would be briefly. Then as good leaders do he/she would break down those walls. And by the time the mid-term elections came up, the members of congress would stop dragging their feet or be replaced with people that wanted to work with the president.

Deference

on Nov 14, 2004

I believe it could only do the American people good if each party ran a bit more to the center to match mainstream American views.

I really don't think either party does itself much good by trying to go moderate. The crux of the problem really is the democratic and republican two party platform. It would be nice to see some viable third parties...

Genghis Hank

on Nov 15, 2004

I thought that Bush (Yes, and Clinton too) were moderates for their parties. Bush signed some bills that were Democratic issues, and Clinton signed welfare reform. They just sound like they are on the edges when they are trying to rally their bases.

Then again, I think that I stayed a moderate, and only look conservitive because the country went more to the left...

NJforever

on Nov 24, 2004

and a third party should go to the moderate

i posted an article that said we should do that, more or less. Anyway, you already know we share the moderation ideal fazz. Power to the moderates!

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2004

Reply #3 By: Cappy1507 - 11/14/2004 10:22:35 PM
I totally agree with you, and I think that we can count the Democrats and Republicans out of moving toward the center, in fact I think the only way this will ever come to fruition is if a third party evolves, ala the Patriot party with a filthy rich leader like Perot that has all the money in the world to run against the two mainstream parties. We had our chance at it with Perot, I'm just praying that someone else comes along, and realizes we need them. Some people thought that a third party president would paralyze the government, because he/she wouldn't have the support he/she needed in Congress. But in actuallity I think if that did happen it would be briefly. Then as good leaders do he/she would break down those walls. And by the time the mid-term elections came up, the members of congress would stop dragging their feet or be replaced with people that wanted to work with the president.

Perot would have been great. If he had stayed the course instead of chickening out in the beginning and then trying to jump back in, we'd be in a whole different ballgame now.

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2004

Reply #4 By: Deference - 11/14/2004 10:28:55 PM
I believe it could only do the American people good if each party ran a bit more to the center to match mainstream American views.

I really don't think either party does itself much good by trying to go moderate. The crux of the problem really is the democratic and republican two party platform. It would be nice to see some viable third parties...

We *have* some viable other parties. It's just that they don't have the money to backup their mouth.

whoman69

on Dec 04, 2004

We *have* some viable other parties. It's just that they don't have the money to backup their mouth.

Or the patience to try to build a network of public servants. How can these parties run for president when they don't have a single member of congress, a single governor or state legislator and in almost every case not even a dogcatcher under their banner. The major third party candidate to be elected in the last half century is Jesse Ventura.

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #9 By: whoman69 - 12/4/2004 12:46:52 AM
We *have* some viable other parties. It's just that they don't have the money to backup their mouth.

Or the patience to try to build a network of public servants. How can these parties run for president when they don't have a single member of congress, a single governor or state legislator and in almost every case not even a dogcatcher under their banner. The major third party candidate to be elected in the last half century is Jesse Ventura.

It all falls back to what I said! They don't have the money to back-up their mouth. And that includes everyone from presidential nominees all the way down to mayor of the city. If Perot had stayed the course instead of running and hiding. Things would be ALOT different now. *He* had the money to back his mouth.

Deference

on Dec 04, 2004

We *have* some viable other parties. It's just that they don't have the money to backup their mouth.

Effectively making them...non-viable.

Thank you, drive-thru.

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Reply #11 By: Deference - 12/4/2004 7:05:59 PM
We *have* some viable other parties. It's just that they don't have the money to backup their mouth.

Effectively making them...non-viable.

Thank you, drive-thru.

Wrong answer. Your logic is flawed. If they did have the money, would they still be non-viable?

drmiler

on Dec 04, 2004

Ross Perot was absolutely a 3rd party candidate. And he had the money to go the distance. Does the fact he didn't see it through make him any less viable? And BTW, *you* can now drive-thru.

Deference

on Dec 11, 2004

Wrong answer. Your logic is flawed. If they did have the money, would they still be non-viable

No, if such parties as the Libertarian party had more money to buy access to the public forum, I would consider them "viable". At the moment, however, it is very hard for them to get out their message and seem strong enough to attract voters to their perspective on the issues. Democrats and Republicans have so much cash to bombard Americans with daily messages via radio, press, and tv. Smaller, less monetarily flush parties' voices are drowned out.

whoman69

on Dec 11, 2004

The reason third parties don't have more money is because they haven't earned it. They have not gotten their message out even on a local level in any area. How can they hope to win the presidency when they haven't even put the time and the effort to even win a position as important as dog catcher in Bugtussle, West Virginia? If they can win mayor of a town that would bring them some visibility to earn a trip to the statehouse, which would earn a position to run for Congress, which would earn a position to run for the Governor or a Senator. A few of these and they become a national power. They have none of those. Why should we even think Michael Bednarik is a serious candidate when he lost an election to become a member of the Texas House of Representatives?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!