1) Since the end of 1987 FCC Fairness Ruling, much of the dialog has settled into the extremes, with little opportunity for audience to hear counterpoints. The 1970 Paul Newman film W.U.S.A. foretold the right wing middle American scare market, which has always been there but gotten much bigger since 1987 & Limbaugh.

2) Far Left actually agrees w Far Right on many fronts, Anti-Vax, Home schooling, conspiracies, distrust of government (yet often advocating gov overreach), via political "horseshoe theory". Is Russia a "far-left" country that went "far right"? Hard to tell sometimes, both insistent and rigid systems.

3) Our country has a strong libertarian free-will premise, both in state and church. Moderates need to take back the dialog. This is harder as moderates have to be smarter (to understand all points of view), and don't always have time to combat the short attention spans of audience.

4) For example, you'd swear by extreme dialog that Blacks/Hispanics are either blameless victims or over-pandered crime vectors. Truth is, needy half of White, Black, Hispanics (often males) are undereducated and need more training and job opportunities or we become overly dependent on foreign labor, riots ensue? (a mouthful, too much for most to hear).

5) Ergo the "Moderate Two-Step", a quick rhetorical move to head off extremism. Something like "We need a basic medical safety net, but need to raise taxes and trim SS entitlement in order to do so". The abortion statement "Safe, legal, and rare" was another great example (probably cooked up by James Carville, who understands where the votes come from). Macron (a true moderate) has the balls to neither scare nor pander, state hard truths.