John Hawkins of Right Wing News gives 7 reasons why this is so:
1) What constitutes a "moderate" changes from person to person. That's how people like Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel, neither of whom would agree on just about anything, can both be considered "moderates" in their parties.
Put another way: a socially conservative, anti-abortion voter who believes in big government policies could be fairly called a moderate. On the other hand, a socially liberal, pro-abortion voter who doesn't want any new government programs could also be fairly called a moderate.
So, since what constitutes being a "moderate" changes from person to person, it's not possible to build a party around appealing to "moderates."
2) Because moderates tend to be much less ideological, less knowledgeable about politics, and less informed than liberals and conservatives, it's entirely possible that even if our candidate's views are closer to their views, they won't be capable of figuring it out (That's exactly how it worked with McCain and Obama, for example).
Go to the link for the rest. Does anyone disagree with this? Nearly all of our lost seats in Congress were moderates. Our candidate for president was a moderate. I'm convinced that voters need to be given a real choice, and that the past few decades show that most will choose a real conservative when given the option.
Recent Comments