If you plan to cast a ballot in this year’s presidential election, your choice will be this: Would you like the leader of these United States to be a radical or an extremist?
On one side, there is President Obama whose usual rhetoric takes mainstream American liberalism to lengths not seen in decades. Obama is no socialist, but it’s not by a total misunderstanding of the term that he is often labeled as such. On the other side, there is a rather motley assortment of well-off white folk, all of whom believe — or have been taught to say, in the case of Mitt Romney — that tax increases (or repealed tax cuts), entitlement programs, same-sex marriage, secular education, reproductive rights and those uppity Palestinians directly undermine the vision of the founding fathers.
The result for many Americans is a choice between two largely undesirable ideologies. If you think, for example, that marriage rights should be extended to gay and lesbian couples (or even just that states should decide this for themselves) but also that the federal government should institute radical spending cuts, there is not a candidate for you. If you happen to believe that schools should teach children about STDs and contraception but are not a fan of using taxpayer money to fund abortions, there is not a candidate for you. In short, if you are a moderate, there is not a candidate for you. You are not even taken into consideration. On the eve of potentially one of the most influential elections in our nation’s history, the levelheaded voter has been taken out of the race.
The phenomenon is not restricted to politics, either. The mainstream media ensures that no measure of moderation ever appears in the headlines. Think about it. Which gets more airtime: Westboro Baptist, or First United Methodist? Which are you more likely to read about: peaceful Sunni imams or fundamentalist suicide bombers? Sports: When is the last time you heard, “Tony Romo is a talented quarterback with a solid statistical résumé, but his occasional fourth-quarter mistakes are somewhat frustrating?” It’s always, “Romo sucks — trade him!” “Awesome” is the new “good.” “Crisis” is the new “problem,” and if it isn’t a crisis, it’s a “triumph.”
For this, we have only ourselves to blame. Ours used to be a nation that welcomed multipolar dissent and open-minded discourse. Now, we are dominated by hyperbole and duality. To be a member of a political party is to say that your opponents are wrong in all cases. Gray areas are drawn black or white. What ever became of empathy? Of compromise?
Extremism receives popular support because it is easy. Far more difficult is accepting that no issue worth a debate is as simple as today’s politicians make it. But if we ever want another decent presidential candidate, we are going to have to take it upon ourselves to elevate our political dialogue. It may be a tired cliché, but we will get the government we deserve.
Recent spikes in Ron Paul’s polling numbers should be seen as evidence that more and more Americans are getting fed up. He’s no moderate, and he may not be a viable candidate, but he reconciles a number of the differences between the Republicans and Democrats. He is the option C that we crave.
But look at how he is treated by the media, by his peers — he deviates from the talking points, so he is swept aside. The problem with having two fundamentally opposed parties is that anyone who dares to think that both sides might be flawed can only be crazy.
As it stands, on Nov. 6 of this year, the voters will elect either Obama or, presumably, Romney. Neither will be the right choice. One can only hope that come 2016 it will be the extremists, not the moderates, who have been marginalized.
Eli is a sophomore majoring in creative writing and human rights.
