Consensus, Not Ideology, Drives Electorate

I have a problem with the way that our American system of political representation works.  A big problem.  I'll examine the recent presidential elections, but the problem permeates all the way down the line to the state and local levels.  It is about how candidates run in elections, why voters vote for (or against them), and then how the newly elected interpret the results.

You can go back for many, many elections and still come away with the same conclusion.  The winner of each presidential election has successfully presented himself as the more reasonable of the two main candidates and who is more dedicated to using common sense to govern and handle the nation's issues than is the opponent.  The appeal is clear: whether one is talking about ideologically "pure" conservatism or liberalism, the electorate as a whole will vote against the candidate who presents him/herself this way in favor of a candidate who, while probably ideologically bent on the "other side", seems to project an image of pragmatism and compromise.  Yet that very candidate, upon election, often abandons that cloak of consensus building and claims a "mandate" to ram the ideology of his or her party down the population's throat.  This happened after the 2004 reelection campaign of George W. Bush, who immediately following his razor-thin victory over languid, uninspiring John Kerry, proclaimed a "mandate" for himself and his party.

When it became clear that Barack Obama was going to win his reelection campaign against Mitt Romney on election night last year, many media talking head pundits expressed that this indicated that in his second term, Obama should claim this "mandate" and strenuously pursue more progressive policies.  But in truth, the election taught a different lesson, as far as I read it: the voters didn't trust Romney's catering to the right-wing ideological wing of his party, and his selection of Paul Ryan went a long way to confirm that fear in the eyes of many, who instead went over to Obama...the status quo president who seemed to have done a reasonable job so far.  Following the maxim of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't exactly a mandate for an ideological assault.  By the way, President Obama, to his credit, has resisted people in the far left wing of his own party who want him to  aggressively push their agenda on the country.  It's a shame that the opposition party is completely clueless about this principle of governance and instead allows its own tea party/kool-aid wingnuts to dictate its own policies...

I have one word of beginner's advice to the extremists in either party who think they are as pure as the driven snow with their "principles": stop depicting the democratically elected representatives from the opposition party (and even the moderates from your own) as the "enemy"!