Most of you, and a majority of all people, either favor liberal or conservative ways, and tend to think that the way they favor is the best.
However, looking back on history, neither an extreme liberal or extreme conservative government will function properly, while governments closer to the center generally do very well.
The same applies for individual issues (I'll be comparing liberal vs. conservative, NOT Democrat vs. Republican, and NOT Kerry vs. Bush). For example, I'll say health care: Conservatives are right in saying that universal health care must come with increased taxing, and Liberals are right in saying that if health care is completely privatized, many will be left out. Both ways can benefit and harm a country, but one in the center would mostly get the benefits. Or how about the war, an extreme liberal view would be to pull out immediately; an extreme conservative view would be to drastically increase war funding. Obviously, both views are ridiculous; the best solution is in the middle. Neither a liberal or conservative government are ideal, although the less extreme, the better.
Do you understand what I'm getting at? I'm not accusing anyone or any group in particular; I do believe that both Bush and Kerry think that their respective plans are in the best interests of America, I just believe they both are wrong, in their own ways.
However, I do see why a Centrist party would not work in a two party system. One, as a third party, like any other, it would not get support to compete, and worse, they'd steal more votes from the candidate closer to the center (The exact opposite of what they want!). Two, I'll use an example of the Democratic party, if they were exactly in the center, against Republicans as Conservatives, the country would get pulled to the right anyway. The Democrats would get more support (being closer to the center and all), but Republicans would still pull the average their way. This would work either way, I'm not showing bias here.
The best way to go here would be a bi-partisan executive branch, a 50-50 senate, but I'm not sure about the Supreme court, maybe add or subtract a seat in the SC and then make it even, or get a genuine centrist in there, whatever it takes to make it balanced.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem likely, but those closer to this ideal tend to do better. I'm not going to go though every example, but presidents who are the opposite party of the control of the senate actually do a better job. If one party controls everything, they can get away with going farther from the center, which never works regardless of if you go left or right.
I'm sure many of you would like to tell me why I'm wrong and why your way is better, I'm not expecting to change many of you, but hopefully some of you will see the sense in what I'm saying here. It's only really the extremists in either direction that I don't like (I hate Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and any others like them), but most of you really do seem to genuinely think your ideas and/or candidate is best, just like I do, and I don't mind that too much.
I don't hate Bush or Kerry either, but I can't support either (Especially seeing the childish insults they throw at each other). Although, since republicans do control everything right now, I kinda do want Kerry to win, OR have the senate go back to democrats who can control Bush from anything too extreme.
This is why neither the Democrat nor Republican Party can ever really lose permanently. This is why control switches every few years. If we go too far to right, we need the left. Then we start tilting too far left, and we need the right back again.
I could instead go issue by issue and say why every liberal and conservative view will not work, but that will only result in arguments. Instead, I just want you all to consider that maybe the best choices for America are in the center, not to the left or right.
