Ok, so this red state/blue state thing has gone too far. NPR used the term "red state" to describe Utah! Yes, I know it was 74% Republican in the 2004 election, but when did the GOP adopt red as it's "colors?" I don't recall the Democrats ever waving blue flags at a rally. Aren't most Americans supposed to be "purple?" Look, anyone who pulls a politcal party's line (ANY political part) just because it's the party they belong to is doing the whole country a disservice. It's the duty of every citizen to access each issue individually and choose accordingly. It's ok to want our troops to come back home AND make sure we leave a better situation then what we came into. I'm sure there are people out there who are for prayer in school, but also want to see stem cell research expanded.
So here's my question: Why has the middle ground dissapeared? Can't somebody be a fiscal conservative AND a social liberal? Where have the Moderates gone?
2006-09-01
13:16:47
·
9 answers
·
asked by
mindar76
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Civic Participation
Good question, good question. But nope, I have no smart-aleck, flippant answer to give ya. Congrats, you shut me down!
2006-09-01 14:16:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sick Puppy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
To your comment, "Where has the middle ground disappeared? Can't somebody be a fiscal conservative AND a social liberal?"...being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is to be a libertarian. I don't think I would use the term "moderate" to describe this view, for "moderate" is kind of just a mushy term. Anyhow, where are they? As a libertarian myself and after years of subscribing to libertarian magazines (e.g., Reason Mag or Liberty Mag), I'd guess that 2/3 of libertarians would tend to vote Republican but would hate the fact that there are so many cultural/Christian conservatives in there, and about 1/3 of libertarians would tend to vote Democrat but would hate the fact that there are so many socialists in there.
Perhaps a more direct answer to your main question concerns "why two?". There is a famous economic/math theorem called Arrow's Theorem which kind of says that if you have more than two parties, it is always possible that the one everyone hates most ends up winning. So, two parties is safer, in the sense of not having this mathematical instability.
2006-09-02 18:36:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by A professor (thus usually wrong) 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why has the middle ground disappered? Chosing one way is leaving out the others. Like the whole evolution thing in school. I think the school system should teach both evolution and creationism. Why cant both views be taught. Im a Christian and would rather have both. People should believe in something because they believe it, not because they are taught it. Also the prayer is school thing is stupid as well. They should allow any religion. Right now they allow all but Christianity. Let the people be people and not hide what they believe. I know my cousin has a buddhist teacher who prays and talks about it, but heaven forbid Christianity should be spoken of.
The fact is that there is right and wrong things to every side. No side is perfect. That is why you should take the good from both and teach both.
2006-09-01 13:27:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by A* 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you as far as our troops should be home as they never should of been sent but just like you that's my feeling and sure where has the moderates gone you know where because of all the people that wanted to take a harder stance on this or that from being drunk to smoking in public places and in some states in the who city that's why too many people accessed each issue as you say... but then as what has happened if you don't want prisoners to have TV, 3 meals etc etc keep going we will be like what we use to complain about back in the 50s yeah "Russia"
2006-09-01 13:27:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by kustomflames@verizon.net 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The "silent majority" is alive and well. The problem is you are listening to the news media. They are guilty of selectivity and omission, which means you can't believe a thing they say. They are trying to define your perception of reality.
If us stupid Americans would just stop electing democrats and republicans, we'd be better off.
As for the red/blue thing, there is actual historical president, way back when. But in modern times, it seems backward, for the liberal main stream press/TV to call the liberal States blue and the conservative States red. Just another commie newsspeak plot to mess up your head.
2006-09-01 14:28:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by who WAS #1? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
this is sturdy! the biggest distinction is: Conservatives believe in God, smaller government, and private accountability. Liberals go through a psychological sickness and believe (study as dream) that the State (i.e. government) could play the area of God with a view to create a Heaven in the worldwide (the place there's no desire for inner maximum accountability b/c the government will make all options for all persons). i'm fairly specific that's what the story above gets at.
2016-10-01 04:48:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by stepp 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think America should try to phase out the 2-party system. More parties would make elections more interesting, and more people would vote. It would also make the balance of power in the senate less unilateral. Maybe if you had your own Monster Raving Loony Party, you'd stop taking politics so damned seriously.
2006-09-02 07:32:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sing to the tune of Bob Seeger's Where have all the flowers gone________
Where have all the moderates gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the moderates gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the moderates gone?
Both extremes have squashed them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
2006-09-01 13:45:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by abc 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
you know what other parties loved red? the nazis and the communists. starting to make sense?
2006-09-01 13:27:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Vodka 3
·
0⤊
0⤋