Jackson Free Press

We are a nation of extremes. And as we've been inundated with debate after debate in this Republican primary season, it has been even more prevalent. I watched as Republicans jockey to position themselves as the "most conservative" while trying to discredit the front runner, whom they deem "moderate." I watched that same said frontrunner—Mitt Romney at the moment—try to lean farther right even as we all know come general election politicking, he's going to creep back to the middle. Then I think about our president, elected to serve all of us, and how he has made tremendous efforts to reach out to opponents across the partisan aisle. All the while, members of his party have chided him for not being "liberal" enough.

Then it dawned on me. Politics isn't about compromise; it's about conflict. That political conflict must be maintained so that the status quo can continue being the status quo. It's not about meeting in the middle, where most common-sense thinkers lay. Politics has become a comedy of extremes, all about who can spout the most conservatism or liberalism.

Republican primary voters have shown they don't want dialogue. Most of them want a candidate that can spit the most vitriol, someone who can pepper his or her speeches with political zingers. All the while, the far-left zealots can be equally as stubborn. In the end, we the people suffer in this real-life battle for "playground" supremacy.

Yes, I'm independent, for now—if for no other reason other than the fact that I am thoroughly disgusted with both parties. It's not that I don't want to choose. It's that I shouldn't have to. And I shouldn't be shouted down if I don't.

If conservatives can be condescending jerks ,can't liberals be whiny idealists? If I'm a member of one party, must I believe that everything about the other party is bad? Is our two-party system even the best to create long-term solutions?

Ultimately, time will prove me right (or wrong). But I do know that we'll never progress by pointing fingers. Success comes in dialogue, not toeing an ideological party line. Maybe that means supporting candidates who can approach issues based on what's best for their constituents and not what his or her party says "should" be done.

But then again, that wouldn't be politics, would it?

And that's the truth ... shonuff.