The militant middle

When I wrote about how the Bell Curve could apply to the political spectrum, some of you poo-poohed the application of it. Interesting, then, this article on the militant middle. This quote from John Stewart, who is organizing the Rally to Restore Sanity on October 30, uses some similar numbers:

We live in troubled times with real people facing very real problems; problems that have real if imperfect solutions that I believe 70 to 80 percent of our population could agree to try and could ultimately live with. Unfortunately the conversation and process is controlled by the other 15 to 20 percent.

The article goes on to talk about those people in the middle are tired of politics as usual. This fits quite nicely with the statistic that more people want a third party and provides anecdotal evidence: state Rep. Kathleen Curry of Colorado.

Curry was a lifelong Democrat when she was elected to the legislature six years ago, and a rising star in the state party as she was re-elected three times. Then last December she shoved the party aside. She was tired, she says, of party leaders who thought she should listen to them more than the folks at home.

“I have a diverse constituency,” she says. Some voters on the right, some on the left, a lot in the middle. She was committed to serving them all, and convinced the two party system was designed to keep her from it. “It’s hardwired to promote the interests of the two parties. And they’re good people, but they’re not motivated to change a system that keeps them in power.”

The article, though, makes the same mistake as others when assuming that the middle only consists of independents. I think that is far from the truth. Yes, independents are in the mix, but so are moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats. Combined, that group can be a force to be reckoned with. The only question is whether, absent a “party” structure,  they can be roused to do so.