Any room for a liberal conservative?

It's an election year which means lines in the sand are drawn between colleagues, peers, relatives, friends and foes.  The questions invariably come up -- "Are you a Democrat or Republican?  Are you a liberal or conservative?  You gotta pick one, so which is it?"  Once you answer, you're immediately lumped in with ALL of the stereotypical ideologies of each party.  And that's the problem.  If I look at a list of 10 popular subjects with the liberal stance on one side and the conservative on the other - I may circle 5 of each, or 3 and 7 or 6 and 4.  To me, all are critical concerns (economic policy, health care, social security, etc.).  So who's MY party if my opinions are split?  Are you allowed to be pro-choice and want to "drill, baby drill?"  Can you be pro-life and a staunch environmentalist?  Will your political party accept you if you don't agree with 10 of 10?  Is there no room for independent thought on topics of such great diversity?

George Washington was able to run unopposed twice without a firm two-party system in place. As his second term was ending, lines were being drawn as a two-party system was beginning to evolve.  Washington, an educated and insightful man, gave his concerns on this subject in his farewell speech in Sept of 1796:

"....It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.  It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection....."

I'm not sure if I've ever heard a more prophetic statement in my life (btw, I had to look up the word "foment" too). His opinion was based on two-party systems in Europe and the dynamics that evolved.  I hear people say, "I've never seen an election get this bad."  My response has been, "That's funny, I hear people say that every presidential election year."  Does it mean its getting worse or do we just have short memories?  Well folks, we have short memories.  It's been this bad ever since the election of 1796 - the first time we had two candidates run against each other. In fact, it's probably more civilized, but no less combative.

The question becomes, "Is a two-party (or multi-party) system a good thing?  Is it necessary?"  I believe it is a necessary evil for the betterment of our country.  We have 300 million people in this country with just as many thoughts and opinions.  With that, there's a constant tug-of-war from our elected officials on what are the right decisions. Let me give you an example of how multiple opinions can create the right result. Sir Francis Galton was the first to develop statistical theories on "standard deviation" and "regression to the mean." In 1906, Galton visited a livestock fair and stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 gave it a go and, not surprisingly, not one hit the exact mark of 1,198 pounds. Astonishingly, however, the average of those 800 guesses (which were all over the place) came very close at 1,197 pounds.

There were a lot of different opinions that varied greatly, but averaged out to be right where it needed to be.  And that's the beauty of the two-party system.  Within this, there can be a focus of the top issues with varied opinions combined with the balance of power through the 3 branches of government that result in the average of all the opinions.  Where things can go terribly wrong is when we don't have an opinion on something - like complicated highly leveraged mortgage-back securities.  Well guess what..............we have an opinion on that now, don't we?  And the average of those opinions has been enacted.

So does it really matter that there's no party for a liberal conservative like myself? I guess not.  I'll vote for my guy and trust that, over time, the average of the opinions will continue to move us forward - or as the old saying goes - "It all comes out in the wash."