Parker: Between Sanders and Trump lies a middle in despair

His answer was shocking, nevertheless, because surely no one hoping to become president would dare admit wanting to fundamentally change the nation’s economic system. A few regulations here and there, sure. But wholesale socialism, albeit alongside a political democracy, however that works. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of a 1960s-style commune where everybody was One and nobody was rich or poor and it was, like, far out. If somewhat odoriferous.

But Sanders’ remark was refreshing, if also self-defeating. Most politicos would have said something like, “Of course I’m a capitalist, but I want to make sure everyone has a shot at reaping the rewards of a capitalist society. This requires some changes at the regulatory level.”

On the flip side, we find Trump — everywhere. The anti-Sanders, he’s Magna Capitalist. A boastful, bombastic billionaire, even his coif screams “money!”

Access or outcomes?

Contrary to early characterizations, neither Trump nor Sanders is a sideshow to this presidential election. For now, or until Jeb and Hillary share a joint, they’re the Main Event. What wouldn’t one give to witness a debate between Trump and Sanders? Their entertainment value aside, both have provided a valuable service by putting a fine point on the essential question: What kind of country should we be — capitalist, socialist or somewhere in between?

The Republican answer is clear. Conservatives think families, towns, cities and nations function best when government stays out of the way, allowing the marketplace to organically thrive, create, innovate, reward and expand.

Most Democrats also believe in capitalism, just so long as nobody gets too rich or too poor (unless the former are Democrats). Finding ways to more equitably distribute wealth is the proper role of government, in their view, though the question, as always, is how.

How do we protect capitalist principles while also nurturing an environment that maximizes opportunity for all? Do we seek equal access or equal outcomes? Most savvy politicians decry the latter, but not Sanders. On this, he is also perfectly clear.

Logic, of course, leads not to subsidizing but to capitalizing. Then, too, one must concede, logic doesn’t stop for turtles. Pure capitalism is heartless and leaves too many behind, while overregulated markets and industries stifle productivity and growth. What we seek is balance. Yet what we have are Sanders and Trump.

The gut understands their appeal. Sanders is everyone’s favorite college professor, an old hippie who never gave it up. If you’re a student carrying debt and looking at a dismal job market, who could be cooler than a grandfather who promises to bring down the establishment? To Trump’s fans, he’s the dream-weaver — the guy who made it BIG!!! and can make America GREAT!!! again, too.

Somewhere in between these flatterers of outrage is an idea in search of a voice. The smart candidate will articulate the center point of these two and seize that vast middle ground where independents, centrists and moderates — the majority of voters — languish in despair.