If you know real electoral history, you know that the "middle of the road" theory doesn't WORK.

Look at Congress. If "middle of the road" worked in real elections, most people actually elected to Congress would be middle of the roaders. But in the real world, in both houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of people actually elected are solidly liberal or solidly conservative.

In real world presidential elections, as the last article pointed out, when Republicans go middle of the road, they don't just get beat, they get stomped.

But the "middle of the road" theory sounds so logical it seems like common sense. We picture the political spectrum as two-dimensional: liberals are on the left and conservatives are on the right. If you look at the world that way, most voters must be moderates.

In a left-right view of politics, the "middle of the road" strategy seems obvious. It always convinces Republican pinheads.

Ladies and gentlemen, if what seems obvious from your picture of the world doesn't ever WORK, then there is something wrong with your picture of the world.

My first book was dedicated to showing that real American politics is not just between conservatives and liberals. As I explained in some 60,000 words, there are two more political positions: 3) that of the moderates and 4) that of the people. The moderates and the people are as opposite as are liberals and conservatives.

Liberals accuse professional conservatives of representing big business and big military expenditures, the "military-industrial complex." They are perfectly correct about that.

But in my first book, I explained in detail how liberals represent an even bigger establishment, an even bigger power group than the military-industrial complex. This is what I call the education-welfare complex.

The education-welfare establishment is bigger by far than the military-industrial complex. What is more important in political terms is that every dime the education-welfare establishment spends, every iota of power it has, is the direct result of political decisions. Its power and almost all of its money depends directly on political leftism.

For the above reason, the education-welfare establishment is more politically ruthless than is the military-industrial complex. There are some liberal generals and leftist businessmen. But on college campuses, ALL opposition is crushed and silenced. No matter which way politics goes there will be a military and businessmen will make a profit. But the government's education-welfare establishment is completely dependent on government programs that don't WORK.

The education-welfare establishment lives almost entirely on liberal politics.

So liberals say conservatives just represent the military-industrial complex. Conservatives say liberals don't care about the people, they just care about bureaucrats and liberal theories.

My first book stated that THEY ARE BOTH PERFECTLY CORRECT.

The title of that book was A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

This shows that the two-dimensional theory of politics, with only the left and the right, is dead wrong. There are

1) liberals, who represent the education-welfare establishment and,

2) conservatives, who represent the military-industrial complex.


3) moderates, who represent a compromise between those two establishments, and there are

4) the true populists, whose primary concern is "We, the People of the United States of America" They feel that "The People" should dedicate themselves to the interests of"Ourselves and OUR Posterity."

In other words, the true populist position is a direct quote from the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Most of the positions of group 4) have been declared unconstitutional.

If you want a perfect illustration of four poles, look at immigration: 1) liberals want open borders because it brings in blindly obedient leftist voters from the third world. They will vote for things that sound good but don't work. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON THEIR PART OF THE WORLD IS SO POOR ITS PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE.

On the other hand, a massive influx of cheap labor is great for short-term profits, which is what 2) big business, is concerned with.

In the long run, massive third world immigration will make America a third-world country, and 4), the people, don't want that.

But no one is more fanatically pro-immigration than 3), a "middle of the roader."

Moderates and the courts have declared that any discrimination between "We the People" or "Ourselves and Our Posterity" on the one hand, and illegal aliens on the other is directly contrary to the United States Constitution.

Why? Because the moderate represents a THIRD POSITION. The moderate is halfway between the military-industrial complex and the education-welfare establishment. On immigration, both establishments want open borders, so moderates want open borders.

In other words, the moderate is the exact opposite of the interests of the people. That is why both conservatives and liberals love them and court them. That is also why the people don't vote for "middle of the roaders."

The big example of a "shift in the middle of the road" right now is Jeffords leaving the Republicans. But, if Senator Jeffords of Vermont is the middle of the true American road, why doesn't Jeffords represent a big, representative electorate?

Vermont is so tiny that it only has one representative. Vermont's only congressman is also the only outright socialist in the Congress of the United States. Like Jeffords, he calls himself an Independent and votes with the Democrats.

Vermont is supposed to represent the true American "middle of the road," but it is actually a tiny, isolated stronghold of New England Yuppie Yankee leftism. So how in heaven's name does the media get away with calling Vermont the typical American electorate?

Yankee leftism sounds like the middle of the road to conservatives and liberals because they have a two-dimensional view of the electorate. That doesn't just make them wrong. That makes their whole political outlook insane.