"Judging by their opinions on a number of issues," the report stated, "many Americans simply do not fit well within either the conservative or the liberal ideological camps."
An article titled, "The Political Power of Words" brings up an idea that I think needs to be sung loud and clear throughout the country.
The question this election year is whether mainstream media will finally get serious about precision and clarity and capture the broad diversity of political opinion in America–or continue to use inaccurate, color-coded imagery to describe our political discourse.
But it prompts many questions that have no easy answers. Is it possible to maintain a political structure with more than two parties? Would it be better if we could? Will picking the lesser of two evils always be our best option?
I find the very idea of picking the better of two evils appalling. it suggests no real convictions in what someone thinks is right. Where do we draw the line? This candidate is against the war, supports limited abortion rights, and wants to outlaw gay marriage. Which one of those issues should i ignore in preference of the other?
Compromise though almost seems unavoidable in a democracy. Ralph Nader is a perfect example of why a two party system will probably always reign supreme. People would rather have the lesser of two evils than risk having the greater. And to obtain the lesser evil, you should pool your support around one candidate in great enough numbers to win. Hence, the two party system.
Therefore i think that the two party system is not really an option. The problem lies in which parties are the two. Currently we have a party that is running the country. The only problem with it is that it is not so much a democratic party as a theocratic party. The opposition party is more democratic, but has yet to mount a solid front that one can get behind.
The parties need to look at the people and re-evaluate themselves. I can not be labeled as red or blue. I can be labeled as angry – and looking for change.