I’m sure both ignorance and apathy may explain a lot of the centrist tendency in both parties, but it’s also true that fewer people tend to extreme viewpoints, either because they require a more (or less) coherent belief system or perhaps just because they inspire attacks, and just require defending.
I’m not sure (either) that it’s a good thing that most voters don’t track the issues all that closely.On the otter heiny, I can’t help but wonder how realistic it is, in today’s climate, to expect a presidential candidate (or a president) to be an ideological purist for the following reasons:
1. I don’t see any evidence such a creature is electable,
2. Even were such a man or woman to be elected, once in office he or she must represent *all* Americans, and finally
3. There are always tradeoffs. You may find you can’t have a, b, and c so you meet the opposition halfway on a to get all of b (which is more important) and you find c, which you once thought was vital, is far less important than d (which wasn’t even on your radar screen during the campaign – 9/11 anyone?). Now… did you betray your base or did you make intelligent compromises given the changing realities of political life?
I think necessarily once one is elected the view of the expands to fit the circumstances. What one promises on the campaign trail isn’t necessarily what one will or even *ought to do* in office: it’s more like a statement of intent. That sounds unbearably wishy-washy, I know. But a person who won’t adapt when reality puts a more complex face on the issues than the one he thought they wore when he made promises seems unnecessarily rigid.
To me, this is why character is so important – more important than specific issues, though there are always one or two I won’t bend on, like national security.
Re: Goldwater, he proved to be unelectable, didn’t he? :p Always liked him though. LBJ would never had rammed his Great Society down America’s throat had he not had dossiers on so many Congresscritters. Hard to do that sort of thing, nowadays :p
