Using red and blue colors on a big television map has been around for a while but it was during the Presidential election of 2000 that the terminology became part of the established American lexicon. Red was Bush and blue was Gore. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-one-state-two-state-red-state-blue-state.html) Over time, the Red State / Blue State jargon was accepted to mean red for conservative states and blue for more liberal states.
I suppose these colors are as appropriate as any to describe the extreme ends of our political spectrum, even though the traditional color for socialist parties and countries has always been red. Remember Red China or Pinko Commies? "I'd rather be dead than red?" Maybe it was a mix-up or maybe it was political correctness not to label the left-leaning, liberal Democrats red and assigning that color instead to the conservative Republicans.
I've believed for as long as I can remember that the biggest thing wrong with government is politics. That is nowhere more evident than in a national presidential election. You see, winning the right to run in the general election representing a specific national political party is all about politics in the extreme, as the extremes of both major political parties dominate the process.
To be a Blue Candidate, the person will have to appeal to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. To be a Red Candidate, the person will need to appeal to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. Anyone with moderate views on any issue need not apply. The Republicans are probably the worst offenders, as they even have a derisive name they give to pretenders who aren't worthy of being called True Republicans: RINOs.
We see this syndrome now, as all of the Republican contenders are scrambling to move their statements and claimed beliefs as far to the right as possible. John McCain did it during the last presidential primary season, even though he had always been a moderate. Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner, and Tim Pawlenty are doing it now. They are both changing positions on key issues in order to prove they "are Real Conservatives." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCwy8zBneOYklYsCPP1GbpA2vaDg?docId=6936af934fbc4f3d86b4ece0a98732be
This is really faulty logic on the part of the Reds and Blues because the candidate with the best chance of success in the general election is almost always the more moderate of the two. You doubt it?
About one-third of the electorate is hard-core Democrat Blue and another third is hard-core Republican Red. So long as each candidate passes their party's various litmus tests, these voters are in the bag. No doubt, no risk. The only question is about the remaining one-third of the voters?
According to a recent AP article, "The latest Pew Research study suggests that independents, who 'played a determinative role in the last three national elections,' will have even more clout in 2012. They comprised 30 percent of the national electorate in 2005, Pew found. They now make up 37 percent." Any way you stack it, that's a big number. Whoever wins this group will win the general election.
So, what's it all about for me? Will it be Red or Blue? If I had my choice, it would be neither. What we need in this country and in our political lexicon is a strong dose of Purple. You read it correctly: PURPLE!
Many of the positions taken by the Republican Reds on fiscal and governance issues are absolutely correct. We desperately need less government and, more importantly, a less costly government. As Ronald Reagan said, once upon a time, "Government isn't the solution. It's the problem."
We need to reduce spending dramatically and we need to reduce the intrusion by government into the daily lives of Americans. We need to live within our means and balance the budget without raising taxes on ordinary citizens or businesses.
During the 1992 election campaign, Bill Clinton got it right. His campaign mantra was, "It's the economy, stupid." This slogan kept the campaign focused on the one key issue that would eventually put Clinton in the White House for eight years. Whatever you think of the man or his politics, during the campaign his job was to get elected and he did--twice.
If the Republicans could stay focused on the economy, jobs, spending and taxes, the Reds would actually have a chance to win. The reality is they'll drift away from these critical issues, just as the leading candidates are doing now, to embrace and push the far right's social agenda. In the process, they'll alienate much of the middle third of the national electorate they need in order to win the general election.
On the other side of the great divide, the Democrat Blues are not any better. The big difference in this presidential election cycle is that the Blue candidate is a known quantity. The chance of someone other than President Obama running for the Blues is something less than zero.
In the previous election, President Obama was able to capture the one-third of voters in the middle of the political spectrum--The Purple Gang. In this election, he can afford to move his positions to the center, because he doesn't have to convince his Blue Crew that he's liberal enough to be called a True Democrat.
Red candidate, blue candidate? What America really needs is more purple.
