What does it mean to be moderate? I liked the title of this area because it mentions the term "fence sitting" as a descriptor for people who don't follow any particular party line. But we know that come election day, the votes have to fall some way. Decisions are made and stances are taken.

When you look at the big two's party platforms for any given election, you see the parties heading toward the middle because that's where the most votes are. Most voters are liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and undecided on a few. Criticisms have been made, especially from Libertarians, that we really have a one-party system due to this swing to the middle from both of the big two. Democrats become business-friendly and Republicans become social-friendly.

I think this is an illusion and transient. Once one of the two biggies get power, the true agendas come out. I'm suspecting that this is one of the reasons why a good portion of the voting public register as unaffiliated, commonly known as independent. I personally do this because I don't want any political wonk assuming I support everything in a particular party's platform for a particular election. This keeps 'em guessing on election day where the independent vote will fall.

Any thoughts on this?

I think this is true (at least in the last 30 years or so) of Republican presidents, but sadly not the Democratic ones. Reagan and the Bushes indeed touted right-wing agendas. However, Bill Clinton is an example, at least to me, of a Democrat who remained strongly centrist, and never really embraced or championed a liberal agenda. Even Jimmy Carter greatly increased the defense spending.

There are probably a lot of reasons for this, but one is, at least in my opinion, that our entire range of debate has shifted quite far to the right. For example, the debate on Welfare - it has moved from a more traditional welfare v. no welfare, to arguing over the details of welfare reform - in other words, who can pass what kind of legislation to get people off of welfare faster. I'm not implying that welfare reform is per se bad, just that the scope of debate has narrowed and moved to the right...

happy new year!

People have moved to the right on welfare because they have seen the horrors caused by welfare. The soaring illegitimate birth rates, the fact that welfare actually increases poverty. The Democratic winners are centrist because that is the only way they can win. Of course neither of the Bushes are true conservatives, they gotta appeal to them, however.

hugo,

We may see a swing to the left on the issue of welfare as the unemployment roles swell.

It is easy to be critical of others when you are doing well. A danger in this is your self-flagilation if you find yourself without and in line for the dole.

I am curious as to how Bush's "jump start" program will play out. I think direct aid to the unemployed is really what is needed right now along with job-creation stimulus (i.e., encourage corporate hiring). The trouble is, as quarkhead pointed out, that the ideas around economic stimulus have swung so far right that more liberal ideas, such as massive R&D influxes of bucks, don't even get considered.

This is almost guaranteeing a shift left.

I'm a big fence-sitter. Since a majority of the public seems to be more moderate, why don't we have a moderate party? Why is it just Democratic or Republican that get all the promotion?

It's true, they do lighten their slant during election time. I don't choose my vote based on how slight they lean but but on if they are leaning the direction I prefer on the specific topic.

When you list all the issues at a particular time, I lean slightly to the right or the left on all issues equally. I have to decide which issues are the most important to me to cast my vote.

I know I personally don't want to waste my vote on an independent that could actually push my second choice out. I voted for Perot......been there, done that.

Yeah, yeah, I know, he wasn't moderate; however, it still represents why I don't want to waste my vote on independents. What can we do as a society to get a strong moderate party, instead of independents working alone?

This is a very interesting topic. It has the capability to branch off in several directions.
I've always considered myself a moderate, but even that is a lable that categorizes me as something I am not.
I am definately NOT a fence-sitter. I kinda leap from one side back to the other. Democrat or Republican? Neither party agrees with me 100%. Liberal or Conservative? Same here.

How do you categorize an "ISSUES" voter? I wish someone could tell me what I am, because I seriously DON'T KNOW!

1) I am pro-choice (I believe abortion is wrong, but what a woman does with her child while it's in her body is between her and her god. )

2) I am for gay rights (Here again, I don't really like it, but everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

3) I am a big time pro-firearm voter. (Probably my most fastidious issue. I will support any pro-firearm politician, and denounce any anti-gunner no matter what stance they hold on any other topic.)

4) Hey, TAX the rich people! Make em pay for our schools and highways.

5) Get rid of all the "help the poor" welfare crap. All welfare does is PAY YOU TO SIT ON YOUR *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

6) Bomb the crap out of Iraq. (I realize that it's just Dubya spoilin' fer a fight with Saddam. So? He needs to be booted.)

I'll remain looking out for WE THE PEOPLE. Meanwhile I'm getting tired of hopping over this fence all the time. I just wish there was a LEFT HAND THREADS party.

LFTHNDTHRDS --

You're right -- I'm not a fence-sitter either! Thanks for helping me figure that out!

Our stand on issues are actually very similar!

But what is a "Left Hand Thread?"

Normally, when you screw something in, it has right hand threads, so you turn it clockwise to screw it in. So, left hand thread would be turning it counterclockwise, but it makes no real difference.
When the politicians are the ones doing the screwing, do we really care which way they twist it in?
Sorry, couldn't resist....

You're reviving a thread that is nearly 6 months old to make an unconstructive remark?

If you are really interested in getting this debate rolling again, start debating the topic:

oops, didn't notice the date, don't even know how I got into it. Oh, yeah, it was on your home page.

AM..........

Is it not an historical fact that whichever major party, in your case Democrat and Republican....Ooops, Greens ( see, I know two of yours. Do you know two of mine?)...obtain power, the resultant term is either moderately corporate or megally corporate.

So here is the big difficult question...........................
Please can one of my American mates explain to me which corporations belong to who and what I should expect from those corporations from the incumbant president.

My thanks..............Alan

I like the term moderately corporate or megally corporate- I think you have hit it right on the target for me.

I am actually somewhat more extreme, but with extremes that lay on the both left and right-

1) Believe in socialized medicine- I think the profit motive is 180 degrees out from the mission.

2) Believe in a somewhat isolationist foriegn policiy, only attacking when attacked.

3) Want a major legal reform, expanding the death penalty to the rich poeple crimes that hurt so many poeple- Michael Milken types should be executed IMO

4) Want socialized law, make all lawyers goverment employees.

5) Massive public owned company reform- possibly even outlawing management as we know it.

6) Want to see the church out of all relationship choices ie- gay rights, polygamy, line marriage , whatever, as long as it is between consenting adults, the goverment has no business deciding who mates with whom, only facilitate the contract process.

7) Regulate and tax all "victimless" crimes, regulate and tax all drugs/

that is a short list, not exactly fence sitting, but no party will go there!

CR, all those sound simplistic, even workable, but sadly, not achievable. Once these kinds of genies are out of their bottles, they won't go back in. So it leaves us attempting to control or mitigate the consequences. Even that will be hard.
So those things are what they are, and we can't change them.
Like you said, no party will go there.