Why can't someone put forth a candidate that is politicaly moderate?

Question

sure they could be a democrat or republican but they have views that support ideas from both parties. It seems everyone nowadays is extreme for their party. Isn't the congress supposed to work together and compromise not work against each other. There is like a political war going on between parties

Answer 1

All politicians support other views from differing political affiliations. Some support them more than other.

You also have to remember that many try and cater to the centrists for votes, too, implying that certain republicans would support democratic agendas and vice versa.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

We don't need Socialists or Fascists (such as the ones in the Democrat and Republican parties), but we definitely don't need a moderate either. America was founded by radical libertarians. These radical libertarians were the Jeffersonians. They ceased being radical once they got into power and eventually implemented the entire reactionary agenda of the Federalist Party (which desired the Mercantilist system of privilege that Britain had, but without Britain, and many of whom were outright Monarchists, such as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams). Andrew Jackson was elected by the vast majority of the American people to implement the radical libertarian program (he was supported by Martin van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton and the plan was for 8 years of Jackson, then 8 of van Buren, and 8 of Benton, by which time the libertarians would have implemented their full program). Jackson got rid of the national debt and national bank (a predecessor of the modern Counterfeiter of Last Resort, the Federal Reserve). Van Buren eliminated federal influence in banking. However, the Whig Party (which wasn't actually Whig at all and was just a revival of the Federalist big government reactionaries) ran a demagogic campaign in 1840 (the first modern campaign, with slogans, buttons, and the like) to elect Harrison to the White House. In 1844, van Buren was considered a lock to be renominated anyways, but Texas wanted to be admitted to the Union and slavery suddenly became an issue, splitting the Democratic Party (the one unlibertarian element many of them supported was slavery, though the party was split 50-50 over that issue and the Abolitionists were also among the Democrats). Van Buren was opposed to admitting Texas, but Polk supported admitting Texas and ended up with the nomination. Soon thereafter, the Whig Party fell apart and reinvented itself as the Republicans (but not before they decided to add the abolitionists into their coalition and to corrupt their beliefs, though Lysander Spooner, a supporter of Garrison's, refused to join them and remained among the Democrat ranks). During the post-Civil War period, the libertarians abandoned pure principle and adopted Utilitarianism (and therefore supported gradualism and slight changes instead of radical change, though Spooner remained true to principle). After Grover Cleveland's 2nd term, the socialist (Socialism is a confused middle of the road ideology with libertarian goals and fascist means, which is why it inevitably fails to meet those goals) William Jennings Bryan took over the Democrats and permanently corrupted them. Before too long, Woodrow Wilson would even turn them into warmongers. The libertarians did gain some influence in the Republican Party when the fascist FDR got elected as a Democrat in the 30s (and during the time when his successor Truman was in power), and nearly got Robert Taft nominated twice, but they eventually failed to get nominated.

If we desire to restore America to what it was intended to be, we need to elect a libertarian into the White House. Fortunately, the most likely libertarian presidential candidate to win is also the most radical libertarian candidate this time around (though I often doubt whether or not he's too willing to compromise). That would be Ron Paul, who is against the IRS, Federal Reserve, Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, Iraq War, Patriot Act, and everything the government does beyond what it is expressly permitted to do by the Constitution. He's running for the Republican nomination and has been winning online polls and dominating straw polls (he draws 300 people or so to straw polls at which maybe 10 go for other candidates, though he hasn't done as well at the larger straw polls because he doesn't buy a bunch of votes like the other candidates do at the big straw polls) all year long. He draws the largest crowds to his rallies of any candidate by far (he averages well over 1000, and either Obama or Hillary is second with an average of about 300 or so). The only measure of support he doesn't dominate is in the telephone polls which the media loves to claim are "scientific."

Answer 3

Actually, Bill Clinton was a moderate politician. He wasn't a flaming liberal like the left leaders today.

Typically, in the primaries, politicians very left or right to appeal to their base. Then after they gain the nomination, they turn more moderate to gain the favor of the undecided voters too.

The problem with moderates is that they don't do much. Can you name any great moderates in history? It's only those with strong passions and views that are responsible for great changes.

Answer 4

I think the issues we are confronted with now are hard to be moderate about. National security, globalization, immigration, the war on terror, the Constitution. What would be the moderate approach to these issues? It's probably even very difficult to come up with a rational platform, let alone seem like a moderate. These are all extremely difficult issues and won't be easy to fix.

Answer 5

I think some of the candidates are too moderate. most won't put their foots down about anything. I'm all for compromise but you need to say
1- I'm for/against _______
2- we need to be fair to everyone, so here is my compromise plan _______

we seem to get one of two kinds of candidates- those who are positive about what they believe and will not compromise (even if they are in the minority!)
and those who can't definitively say what they think and try so hard not to offend anyone that they really get nothing accomplished.

Answer 6

Well Rudy Guiliani is pretty liberal for a Repulican, and he's a moderate I guess. What do you expect of a Republican from New York? Real Republicans don't survive here.
I guess they're a real divide based on religion, that's where most of fueds begin, like teaching creationism or evolution in schools, pro or anti gay marriage, a woman's right to choose or no abortion, stuff like that all have religious roots.

Answer 7

There are lots of moderates. The problem with that is that people like you who claim to be committed moderates, aren't really committed to anything. And the candidates you would have liked have already dropped out before you even start paying attention.

You should be studying the candidates now, because if you don't stand up for your candidate early, they'll be gone before then. Winning elections takes work, not just emotion.

Answer 8

Both parties have put forth more moderate candidates than the eventual nominees.

Problem is, moderates never make it past the primaries.

Answer 9

There is one and he is called Lieberman. He seems to have good common sense but he is a democrat and not far enough left to get his party's support. I am a republican but I would vote for him.

Answer 10

First let me see a book listing all the worlds great moderates and their acomplishments