John Rauch has a great piece up at the National Journal about political moderates, called "Where the Missing Middle Went." As a non-partisan, I find it a fascinating read. Most people are not die-hard conservatives or liberals, so why does everything seem so polarized? You would think that moderate candidates would triumph, so why don't the two parties field more moderates? Rauch has some theories.

I hope everybody will give the article a read, but here are some highlights:

One problem with my view is this: Party leaders aren't idiots. Why would they neglect this vast independent center if it is up for grabs? Various answers suggest themselves (for example, primary elections are dominated by fierce partisans who prefer extreme candidates), but another answer is possible. Perhaps independents are not really up for grabs.

[snip]

The chart below shows how Americans have categorized their party ties since 1952. The deeper the color, the stronger the partisanship. Pure independents are the white band in the middle.



The first finding that pops out is the basic stability of the country's partisan structure over more than five decades. The data show no major disruptions, though the triumphs of LBJ in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 are evident. The number of true independents has grown, but only to 10 percent of the electorate. They remain the smallest of factions.

Woo-hoo! Independents are at ten percent! And budget hawks are at three percent! We're gonna take over the world!

I'd like to hear what the orgiasts think of the article, so please, give it a read and fire back.