Even beginners in the game of chess learn early on that a first elementary strategy is to control the center. In elective process that center would coincide with the positions the majority of the electorate holds on what it perceives to be the most important issues. At least one would think so. Somehow that just doesn't happen to be the case in this country.

Though it is true that if a political party is to represent or stand for something with any consistency, it cannot or should not mirror the fluctuating and sometimes volatile center as reflected in public opinion polls at any given moment, even if they were 99% accurate. The public tends to be moody and one of the main virtues associated with effective political, as well as other leadership since ancient times, is the ability to be persuasive. This means being able to affect or alter the perception and maybe even the priorities of the masses. One of the problems with the American system is that its main political parties have a tendency to be in a constant process of creating Presidential champions, and if they lose, grinding them up and then spitting them out. Even the winners are usually relegated to irrelevancy soon after they have served. This may be to the credit of the republican principle but it is also to the detriment of any kind of continuity in declaring an established national purpose.

Participation in either the Legislative and Judicial branches of government offers a potential lifetime usually far exceeding that of any President or Presidential standard-bearer. Almost invariably, the candidate for the highest office in the land has to cajole, negotiate and compromise with the more permanent elements that constitute his party. Bluntly, he often has to convince them not so much that he can win, but rather that he will remain more or less harmless to their interests, win or lose. Unfortunately, those interests only too often do not represent the center. Viable and variable though it may be, the center is something our political parties have become accustomed to "lean toward" if, as, and when it is convenient, and often only for the duration of the Presidential campaigns. The rest of the time they are busy selling the public on their differences, sometimes in priority areas that are relatively marginal.

The resulting phenomenon is that the main parties often end up being defined by their extremes, which in turn are of secondary importance to the national interest. They constanty fuel the fires of polarization and perpetuate litmus tests to accentuate the distinction, to make people feel they have a real choice. But do they? The people that is. Maybe not in what really matters to them.

For decades the Republican party has been equated with the party of big business, small government, and the rich and famous. The Democrats on the other hand have hung on to their assumed role as champions of the unions, of big, generous (sometimes intrusive) government, and of the poor working and non-working classes in general. In the 30's FDR managed to ride the support of an ethnic coalition (Jews, Italians, other non-Wasps, Blacks) that his party hoped would last forever. It thereby also became the champion party of the minorities. Unfortunately, it has been writing checks on that account without making sufficient deposits for too many years and may soon have this account closed.

Back to the Republicans. Their financial elitist position is rather faded and worn. There are probably more rich and richer Democrats in Congress then there are Republicans. The rich and famous tend to be fashionable liberals and more often than not, far-left Democrats. The most effective Republican presidential leadership in recent times has come from populists (Nixon and Reagan), who if they did not outright distrust and despise the privileged Republican Old Guard, at the very least managed to do without them. Most Republican voters will not make the $39 an hour wage my step-son started on as a unionized iron worker at the age of 22, in their lifetime. They will also be less likely to land middle class jobs based solely on patronage and identification with minority status. The account they still attempt to write checks on as been more or less closed for some time now.

The political parties have both fallen into the tragic trap of defining themselves by litmus tests, and insisting further that the electorate accept these tests in making their own choices as well. They seem to ignore the fact that this division and polarization may result in mandate only when this mandate is either one resulting in the oppression of one group by another, or a mandate of rejection leading to possibly unforeseen results. The Abortion, Guns, Prayers in School, Gay Marriages, Black, and other so called "litmus tests" cannot be the primary basis determining one's vote for the Executive leader of the most powerful country in the world, even though his relevancy may be relatively short.

1. Abortion. Is there agreement as to what constitutes life, viable life, constitutionally protected life? Is this not at present a matter left to the discretion of the individual states? Is this not also primarily a religious issue? Why should the Federal Government have a policy on this when many of the citizens having the strongest feelings on the subject are often also the strongest advocates of separation of Church and State and States' Rights?

2. Guns. Accidental death caused by guns is a reality. So are accidental deaths caused by falling off ladders. This is a primarily a matter of being careful. What percentage of crimes are committed by perps wielding registered guns? Then of course why would a regular citizen need to own a machine gun? Unless it is a war trophy and has been rendered inoperative, and for sentimental reasons only. The most effective weapon in home (your home that is) security is still a shotgun. Ask people who rob houses for a living. Just allow sawed-off shotguns for home protection. Chances are firing a machine gun in your home will probably just tear up the furniture, the plumbing and the electrical. Gangs using these automatic weapons on each other seem to be primarily hitting bystanders.

3. Prayers, silence, what's the difference? Allow for one minute of "reflection." One can reflect on God, the girl or boy sitting next to you, or what one is going to have for lunch. This is why this is supposed to be a free country. Stop disrupting our classes and jockeying around our teachers on this issue. It has nothing to do with education.

4. Gay Marriages. OK all you wise, credentialed, sociologists, activists, ministers, and politicians in general, I've got some real crushing news for all of you! Marriage in not merely a "concept," it is also a "THING!" In possibly every country in the world, or at least in every country in the world that has a dictionary, "marriage" is defined as the intimate union of members of opposite sexes. Even in a culture that may encourage polygamy or harems, the husband may be married to many wives, BUT THE WIVES ARE NOT MARRIED TO EACH OTHER! Let me explain it another way for some of you that just can't grasp this:

If a sandwich is described as something other than bread contained between slices of bread, one slice of salami between six slices of bread, or six slices of salami between two slices of bread are sandwiches. Three slices of bread are not. If you really want to get technical, one slice of salami on one slice of bread would be an "open sandwich." Or, ethnically speaking, two tortillas do not make a taco.

You want to grant same sex couples the same rights as mixed sex couples? It's called a "domestic contract" and doesn't need either a mainstream maverick minister nor a correspondence fringe-person to make it work. It is usually up to the individual states to make sure these contracts get the same civil, financial and other considerations as marriage certificates. There is also nothing to stop friends from throwing rice at a same sex couple outside city hall or their lawyer's office. This is not a Federal issue. Get on to something else.

5. Blacks? They seem to be a political football continuously kicked in the same direction. I think enough genuinely concerned Blacks are finally starting to speak out. That is good and I have nothing to add.

Let's get to this center.

1. War, death and sacrifice, where and with what results? What plan?

2. Security, safety. Crime. Now add terrorism.

3. Energy. The economy. Why isn't goverment actually involved? Why is it starting to look like the UN observers that have been in Lebanon? Have we no "terms of engagement" to supplant International Oil interests? If global warming is a reality, then this is tied into Energy issue more than anything else. Kill one bird with one stone. Quit talking about it and propose to actually do something.

4. Illegal immigration. It isn't so much the principle, it's the sheer volume. If we are not Mexicans, do we want our children to be confined to "gringo ghettos" in a future Los Angeles? Where else? Can we eventually be denied everyday jobs because we don't speak Spanish?

The first item relies very much on intelligence and the ability to acquire accurate same. It may not be within the reach of any political party or individual to convincingly reassure us on that point. Unfortunately it has become more of a "we capitalist whites are decimating non-capitalist non-whites" thing. Someone please ask the Iraqi and Iranians to take a poll as to whether they are white or not. Maybe we can cut down a bit on the noise while we try to figure things out. The Palestinians and the Arabs are not Anti-Semitic by the way. They are Semites and merely anti-Israel. The Nazis were anti-Jewish and actually kissed up to the Arabs. It was a Mogen David on those holocaust uniforms.

The last three items, constitute the mandatory center to be addressed in order for our next President to have a real mandate. If we allow the candidates to be nominated on any other bases, whoever we may elect may not really make much difference. It will be business as usual, with recriminations to follow.