I don't want to label anyone under one "party" platform. I'd personally consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I'm constantly told by hard-liner friends on either side that I cannot be both. I currently vote Democrat most often, not because I agree with the entirety of the platform, but as much as anything, because the candidates they put forth, especially on a national level are more moderate in their views from a strict liberal vs. conservative side. Right now, the crux of the problem that Republicans have at a national level is that they have backed their party to the extremist ends of their party's base, which doesn't appeal to those in the middle at all. The US is still looked upon for political leadership around the globe, but in a more flat world, ideas come from anywhere, but our political system is still based on a pre-Internet funding and candidate selection process. Special interests grabbed foot hold with Reagan and have only increased their hold on the political system since. Those interests are often at the extremes of political ideologies, and when someone who isn't on the extremes is shouted down so frequently by those extreme ends, the center of those ideologies becomes silent, a silent majority, in reality. Now our political system is so bogged down with satisfying political interests that rarely is something truly beneficial to the entire country actually accomplished in Washington. For someone who loves my country as much as I do, it is difficult for me to be as pessimistic as I am at the political direction of the country, from DC to my small home state, due to the lack of impact of the voice of the people. We should be living in an era where the voice of the people is as accessible and easily heard as possible, yet it seems the "information age" has only given even MORE voice to the extremes in our political process.