In what has been perhaps the craziest presidential primary season in American history, the improbable and the unlikely have led the polls. Whether one examines either the Democrat or the Republican side, nowhere can one find a candidate who embraces a centrist political standpoint.

Strangely, far right or far left candidates have galvanized strident political extremists whose narrow beliefs fuel their radical concepts of America. Although some of these candidates have only spoken in visceral, vague proclamations of the impractical, they have been successful in finding followers who are excited by impractical absolutes.

Most citizens are dispensing their support toward the inordinate out of frustration about a government that has been bastardized by the influence of special interests, weighted down by the ever-growing scope of entitlements, and hamstrung by the astronomical national debt and our officials’ inability to address it. Supposed “leaders” have committed a succession of costly mistakes and have simply succeeded in eradicating America’s faith.

Unfortunately, what potential voters have lost in their cleaving to extremes so far in this political season is the knowledge that America historically only moves forward as a nation through the pathway of the moderate middle ground. One could argue that candidates tend to voice the melodies of the fringe to curry favor in the primaries and then change their song in the general election. However, the current presidency in practice has occupied the extreme edges regarding policy and the circumvention of laws throughout the seven years thus far, much to the chagrin of the reasonable and to the detriment of reason, itself.

Thus, should we elect someone who asserts concrete dedication to a hard right or hard left political philosophy? The author of perhaps the most famous revolutionary political pamphlet (“Common Sense”), Thomas Paine stated: “Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.” Former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater paraphrased from Paine the following: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Voters will have to contemplate whether or not extreme policies will serve the country best long term or continue our nation’s stagnation.

So where would the current candidates lead us? Would they lead us to the productive, moderate middle, or the unproductive edges of the continuum of intractable positions? Who among them in either party would be willing to embrace the moderate middle road to success?

On the Republican side, the current highest-polling candidates are real estate guru Donald Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Dr. Ben Carson. All three of these leading candidates have expressed policies that are in varying degrees extreme.

Trump has gained favor with many by harping on the 11 to 13 million undocumented aliens that reside in the United States. He has said that many of these people are rapists and murderers, which has generated appreciative catcalls from the Trump faithful at rallies. He has called for all of them to be deported immediately. Also, he has called for a wall to be built between the United States and Mexico and for Mexico to be “forced” to pay for it. These intense positions are not implementable.

His competitor, Carson, has adopted a less severe standpoint regarding immigration, as he illustrated by his statements on the CBS News program “Face the Nation”: “Then those who are here, we have to recognize that we can’t just round them up … I would give them the opportunity to become guest workers – not citizens, not voting people, not people who get goodies. I think that would be a fair way of doing it.”

Somewhat to the contrary, Cruz is perhaps the most moderate among the three GOP frontrunners on this issue. Cruz wants to secure the border first, strengthen enforcement of our current laws, and pursue reforms that would present a legal, less cumbersome road for the undocumented to aspire to naturalization.

During President Obama’s term in office, he has circumvented existing laws through executive orders. He has proclaimed 20 unilateral directives that have insured 340 “sanctuary” jurisdictions from interference from federal law enforcement. These fiats have given license to those who wish to break our immigration laws by the president himself.

This is a prime example of how Obama’s far-left policies have disregarded what most Americans want, an immigration system that works.

Another example of the extremes being popular in this political cycle is the stunning rise of Democrat presidential contender and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The self-proclaimed “independent democratic socialist” is even to the extreme left of the current president. He wants the government to provide free socialized medicine, free college tuition, a guaranteed 35-hour workweek, free day care, and increases in all entitlements. One may ask, how are we going to pay for this grab bag? Well, Sanders wants to restore the Eisenhower-era top marginal tax rate of 90 percent on all high-income earners. According to the Tax Foundation, Sanders’ plan would double the national debt in 10 years even if we raised the top end marginal rate. Yet Santa Claus Sanders has corralled a solid 20 percent of the Democrat electorate.

Also, leaning more left recently is the mercurial princess of prevarication, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. As her opponent Sanders caught more steam, Clinton moved her positions from middle-left to far-left, especially on family issues and education. She now wants to further enhance the Family Leave Act with an attempt to allow two parents to take half a year off after the birth of a baby, but still forcing employers to hold their jobs. She has increased her position on college education with an offer to at least provide for free community college nationally.

Furthermore, Clinton was quick to point out in her book, “It Takes a Village,” that she was instrumental in making sure the goal of providing three meals a day for school children should be a national policy. Also, her National Teacher Corps bill, which she co-sponsored as a senator and which became law, assures a teaching job for minority candidates in urban areas despite alternative certification practices. This affirmative action-type program seems counterintuitive if one wanted the best teachers for inner-city students. Her stated quest to further expand her already left policies brings her even farther away from the moderate middle.

Throughout American history, the most successful of presidents have sought compromise through finding middle ground. Abraham Lincoln, as was reflected in the Doris Goodwin masterwork “Team of Rivals,” had to forge alliances with stalwarts from both sides to keep the country together during the Civil War. He chose for his cabinet three of his competitors for the 1860 presidential election, but despite the potential adversarial atmosphere knew he could find common ground to prosecute the war and save the country. He needed Attorney General Edward Bates to enforce the laws of the land and help Lincoln bend statutes by wartime necessity. He needed Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase and his banking connections to fund the enterprise. He needed Secretary of State William Seward to secure foreign support against the insurrectionist South. Although all had been political enemies, but through reason and compromise he made the relationships work.

Similarly, GOP President Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Thomas O’ Neill struck a compromise on the Social Security program and in doing so secured its solvency for the next two decades. By Reagan and O’Neill’s willingness to dislodge from extreme positions, they were able to find consensus in the moderate middle.

Also, in the height of the depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to move policy-stringent Republicans to veer from their anti-government expansion mentality to a more moderate stance. This compromise allowed the passing of the alphabet soup of government programs which restored the confidence in America by its citizens in one of the most difficult of periods in our history. Further on, FDR also had to compromise by backing off some of his union-favorable policies to enlist corporate America in his lend-lease war-manufacturing scheme. Once again, the United States went forward through efforts of compromise and finding the moderate middle ground.

The father of philosophy, Aristotle, famously said: “The Virtue of justice consists in moderation as regulated by wisdom.” Extremist standpoints may appeal to some voters now in a time of pervasive lack of confidence in government. However, ascertaining which candidate might lead us to the moderate middle is perhaps the best way to choose the next leader of the free world. Old Aristotle was right!