May 13, 2008 11:09 pm
—
Many years ago when I was a member of a different denomination, I asked the minister why many of the views expressed by the national denomination seemed so different from the views of the people who worshipped with me on Sunday morning.
The pastor — agreeing with me that the views of the denomination’s national body were more liberal than those of most of the members of his congregation — was quick with an explanation.
“Do you know what happens when I ask my members to serve on a national or regional committee that sets church policy?” he asked. “With few exceptions, they turn me down, saying they either don’t have the time or don’t have a particular interest in the committee’s work.”
On the other hand, those members of his congregation who were liberal and most anxious to change church policy were eager to serve on those committees, he said. In short, only those with an “agenda” are willing to serve. As a result, the often liberal views expressed by the denomination often do not reflect the views of the majority of people in the pews on any given Sunday.
So, if you believe my former pastor, it is the apathy of the rank-and-file members that caused his denomination to become more liberal. Well, I think the same thing is happening with both national political parties, except they are moving in opposite directions. That’s why a middle-of-the-roader like myself is not comfortable in either party. The Democratic Party is too far to the left, for my tastes, while the Republican Party is too far to the right.
One reason for this is that so few people vote in the presidential primaries. While the close race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has brought more voters to the Democratic primaries this year, in a typical presidential year only about 15 percent of the registered voters go the polls in a primary.
And who are these people? They tend to be the most conservative members of the Republican Party and the most liberal members of the Democratic Party. Thus, middle-of-the-road candidates have little or no chance of winning their party’s nomination for president. In fact, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and liberals criticize those in the middle as being wishy-washy.
Yet, I think there are a whole lot of Americans who are like me. For example, I wish the United States had never invaded Iraq. Except for the elimination of Saddam Hussein, I see little that has been accomplished. Nevertheless, I think we have an obligation to clean up the mess we created. That means remaining in Iraq until a stable government is formed.
I believe in the Second Amendment and the right to own guns. However, I don’t think the Second Amendment means we can own a bazooka or a machine gun. I think the first phrase of the amendment — “a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State” — means the right to bear arms is not unconditional. But that’s a middle of the road view not shared by the National Rifle Association.
I think we need to do something about the soaring costs of health care in this country, but I am uncomfortable with national health care. That’s because I think government involvement often makes a problem worse instead of better.
I could go on, but you get my point. On issue after issue, I disagree with the “official” positions of both parties. I guess that’s why I’m a registered Democrat who has voted for more than my share of Republicans — although often not enthusiastically — over the years.
So who am I voting for Tuesday? Believe it or not, I have yet to decide. There are things I like and dislike about both Obama and Clinton. And I may vote for John McCain in November.
In an era when the extremes of both parties often seem to be in control, it’s no fun being stuck in the middle.
JOHN CANNON can be reached at jcannon@dailyindependent.com or (606) 326-2649.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.