Does The Middle Still Matter?

I actually wrote this blog post below when I was home in the US over the summer and fully exposed to American politics. Keep in mind that prior to that, it had been a good 2 years since I was fully immersed in the wonderfully chaotic intenseness that is the American political system. Now after being back in Europe for a couple of months (while continuing to follow the next round of elections...we always seem to be voting in America), I'm wondering if what I wrote a few months ago still holds true: does the middle still matter? For the sake of America, I certainly hope so. Original post below:

My political beliefs are a bit of a hodgepodge. In general, I’m a middle-of-the-road person, not terribly prone to extremes on either side of the political spectrum. Since I find that most political issues are too nuanced to simply come down hard as a righty or a lefty, I generally tend to reside somewhere in the middle and normally refer to myself as a moderate (not a “fence straddle” as one of my friends put it). There are of course several exceptions to my moderate views (I have both liberal and conservative tendencies…just ask me my views on abortion or fiscal responsibility if you want to see how I make the conservative and the liberal peacefully co-exist in my mind), but for the most part I’m firmly in the middle. Which, for me is an awesome and interesting place to be.

As Congressional races heat up and the claws come out, I’m starting to wonder if my old political mantra still rings true. What is my political mantra you ask? The middle matters. In my rather limited time as a voting adult (10 years and counting baby!), I can’t think of too many political campaigns (with the notable exception of some local GA races) where appealing exclusively to one’s hard right or hard left (or hard Libertarian/Green/Independent) base actually resulted in a victory. Sure politicians need to secure their party base. And if you happen to live in a congressional district that has a sh*t ton of folks from you’re party’s base, then you’re golden.

But let’s consider for a second something a bit large, such as a national political contest. Let's say Sarah Palin, for example, decides to run for president (*shudder*). Sure she’s very popular with her hard right conservative base. But that doesn’t mean jack sh*t. Those numbers aren’t enough to get a majority of the votes (I hope). And the hard lefties wouldn’t vote for her regardless of what she says or does. She would need to be able to convince those moderates like myself that she wouldn’t bring about one of the following: World War III and/or Armageddon/the Apocalypse. Frankly I’m not convinced she wouldn’t. Joking, joking (not really).

The same rings true for President Obama when he runs for re-election. His hardcore supporters will vote for him regardless (I mean unless he does something like turn into the second coming of Ronald Reagan and even then I'm pretty sure I can find some liberals who would vote for him). Those vehemently opposed to him (I’m looking at you Tea Party and Take Back America crowds) wouldn’t vote for him anyway (even if he out-Reaganed Reagan). So where would he pick up the needed votes? In the middle with us moderates (and I’ll go ahead and throw the undecided in there as well).

The same basic principle applies to the upcoming Congressional elections as well. Sure Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell managed to win their respective primaries with their base of Libertarian and/or Tea Party supporters. But that alone won't necessarily be enough to carry them through the doors of Congress. They need to convince us pesky fence-straddlers moderates that they're up to the job.

But now I fear that with a crappy economy, a crappy housing market and pissed off people looking for an easy target to scapegoat blame that the middle, as so often happens during political campaigns, will be ignored…at least by the mainstream media. Too often the focus is on the more diehard left/right voters. Rarely will you hear a sound bite from moderate, middle-of-the-road voters. Instead he who can shout the loudest with the most extreme viewpoint is more likely to get airtime (and in the case of political pundits, get paid handsomely for it). Perhaps it’s more entertaining to watch polar opposites argue on political points that they’ll never agree on. But for me, I’d prefer to see some moderates have an honest discussion on the nuances of government policy and do something radical...like come to a compromise and resolve it. But I suspect Glenn Beck will retire his blackboard and stop crying on cue air while renouncing his fanboy devotion to Sarah Palin while voting for Obama before that happens.

Thoughts?

P.S. For my fellow Americans abroad: don't forget to request your absentee ballot for the upcoming elections. Don't know how? Well click this link...unless you plan on voting for a Tea Party candidate...I kid, I kid. No but seriously, don't click that link if you're going to squander your vote on the Tea Party.

P.P.S. Before I get any comments accusing me of "not getting" the Tea Party/Take Back America crowds or being a mindless liberal/progressive/communist/socialist/nazi/facist (actually, if you accuse me of the latter, you clearly weren't paying attention to the blog post...but I digress), trust me when I say I've done my homework on both. Don't believe me? Check out the following posts:
An Open Letter to Tea Parties/Anti-Big Government Crowd
Random Musing on Tea Parties
Taking Back America
Tea Party! An(other) Open Letter


Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.