|
I think it always makes more sense to have someone in the highest office be moderate, genuinely, not just politically. When you have two parties that each have plausible solutions to the nation's problems, even though each also have members and constituencies on the fringes that have extreme views and approaches, someone who share in the beliefs and approaches of each party would serve the nation well because ideally speaking they would be more willing to compromise and make rational, reasonable decisions that would promote a less polorized nation, if that is even possible.
It is socially unhealthy, and in my opinion, contradictory to a democratically-based society to have such a large mass of citizens who feel completely ignored and/or disenfranchised in terms of their views or approaches to solving the problems of the country which is what you get when you have someone in office who only relates to or represents citizens whose political views lie more on the fringe of the spectrum than toward the more logical, rational, or reasonable middle.
Last edited by Phasad1913; 11-18-2005 at 12:00 PM.
|
Threaded Mode