Once again, thanks to everyone for the great comments. One thing that strikes me is that I don't think we're after anything all that different. We all want the responsible implementation of tools and the judicious application of rules. We all want to responsibly help those who really need it and stop the bullshit with a minimum of intrusion. So, I guess I wonder where the lines are drawn that makes us side ourselves with the donkey or the elephant.
For me, the truth of the matter is that the extremists on the right scare me more than the extremists on the left. For others, I'm sure the idea of enforced altruism is equally freaky. I remember a story from Sunday school when I was a kid that said Heaven was a place where you didn't have your own utensils. You had really long utensils that you used to feed the person across the table from you and they were, in turn, responsible for feeding you. That didn't really seem like a place I wanted to be, least of all for all eternity.
So, if the truth is that most of us converge in the middle, why is it that an independent party is doomed to fail in this country? Even in this moment of clarity when I realize that we're all after the same thing, would I start shouting "Less filling!" if someone shouts "Tastes great?" Why can't someone come along and say "Reasonable people: Be ye left or right, we can meet in the middle and leave the religious nut-job zealots and the Diana Moon Glampers of the world behind! Let us cast aside the petty political poop-flinging as the sins of our youth and strive to be the genesis of an age of reason!" Well, maybe not said exactly like that because half the world wouldn't get it and the other half would think it's too pointlessly hyperbolic... Nevertheless, I don't understand why an independent party isn't the most successful party given that most of us fall into its sweet spot. Do you?