The Middle of the Road

"Ain't nothing in the middle of the road except a dead armadillo."

This saying means to say that a moderate political view is not tenable because it doesn't get people excited. Not only does it not get people excited, but also, it doesn't accomplish anything.

It doesn't accomplish anything because it has nothing to stand for.

Or does it?

A traditionally moderate view is luke-warm, tepid, uninspiring. It does not say, "This is what we need to accomplish and here is why." That's the problem with Moderate political views. However, there is another type of Moderate thinking which is focused, goal-oriented, and inspiring.

The main difference is issues. Which issues? Instead of taking the middle ground on the existing issues (gun control, civil rights, the environment, the 3 G's: God, Guns, Gays; etc.) -- instead, an inspiring Moderate political view proposes NEW issues.

There an infinite number of ways to think an issue, not just two. More importantly, there an infinite number of issues to discuss, not just seven. It has always been true that in politics you don't win with what you say about the issues, but with what issues you choose to talk about. By steering the conversation toward the issues that are important to your team, and away from the other issues, this is the way to win a debate.

Classic phrases supporting this concept are, "It's the economy, stupid," and "Don't think of an elephant."

For a Moderate political view to gain traction, it must have goals. And the goal of "taking it easy" is not adequate. For a third party to work, it must be able to identify new, different issues, outside of the classic talking points. Instead of being pro Gun Control, or pro Second Amendment, it must find a completely new way of thinking. Instead of dealing with the availability of firearms, for example, it might instead talk about the rampant problem of social isolation.

What might be some other ways of thinking about things? Ways of shining light on new issues? Instead of talking about the problem of Homelessness, and the related problem of drug addiction, we might instead focus on developing work opportunities for people who are on drugs. That would be a new and different issue, worthy of support.

We might talk about dust. Does anyone else feel like there is too much dust? We might talk about mosquitoes. Certainly there must be effective ways to reduce the number mosquitoes in residential areas. We might talk about rats. Has anyone ever noticed a rat colony living in the dumpsters behind a local convenience store? I know I have. These are all issues which American society is more than capable of dealing with, but which essentially nobody is talking about.

Instead of talking about standardized test scores, we might talk about teaching kids to brush their teeth and wash their hands. This seems like an obvious win for everyone.

Especially, I think it would certainly make sense to try to steer our conversation toward the ever-important issue of governmental efficiency. This means not just talking about what problems need to be solved, but additionally talking about the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. Often the most expensive solution is not the best solution, but it is used in order to enrich friends of congress.

I additionally believe that too much time and money is spent on national debates, and not enough time and money is spent on local issues. In order for a third party to be effective, I think that it should focus first on county-level, city-level, and state-level elections, with a secondary focus on Congressional and Senate races, and with a minimal amount of attention to the Presidency.

But what do YOU think?