The commonplace claim that “Maine voters are moderate” is a sloppy generalization. The Gallup Poll ran an extensive national poll about a year ago to determine “ideological” self-identification and concluded that 40 percent of Maine’s voters identified themselves as “moderate” while 36 percent call themselves conservative and 24 percent liberal.

The surest road to success for a gubernatorial candidate of either party is to represent his or her opponent as an extremist. You rally your “ideological” base if it loathes and fears your rival and fetch the moderates who reject extremism. Political consultants earn large fees by pointing out these obvious facts.

Maine’s journalists, editorialists and pundits seem to have settled on the view that Paul LePage was the most conservative Republican primary choice, while Libby Mitchell was the most liberal Democrat. The leading independent candidates, Moody and Cutler, are seen as contending for the moderate middle.

So we can predict that Mitchell, Moody and Cutler will be spending a lot of time and money representing Paul LePage as too right-wing for Maine’s moderates.

My views are conservative and I delivered the brief introductory speech when Paul declared his candidacy. I suppose that is enough for some liberal readers, but the “extremist” characterization requires a more serious examination.

First, it is an obvious error to describe Paul LePage “the most conservative” Republican in the primary race. There is no basis whatever for calling him more conservative than Jacobson, Otten or Bill Beardsley. It would be easy to make the argument that Bill is just a tad more conservative.

Second, there is no unbridgeable ideological gap between Paul and his other rivals for the GOP nomination. Their analyses of the state’s problems were nearly identical and their solutions did not conflict. All joined a unity rally to endorse his candidacy. Peter Mills supported LD1495, but largely on the grounds that it cut the capital gains tax. Paul agrees that this tax is economically damaging, but reasoned that the sales tax expansion in the bill would remain while the Democrats would soon back-track on the promised cuts. This is a matter of political judgement, not of ideology.

Third, there is nothing in Paul’s record as mayor of Waterville that suggests extremism unless managerial efficiency, tax reduction, and an improved city credit rating are extremist. Pragmatic seems like a more accurate description of his record as mayor.

Fourth, the Tea Party insurgents will be vilified as extremist and the always useful Guilt-by-Association method will be used to brand Paul as extremist by extension since he has strong support among the insurgents. Unlike those employing this tactic, I know most of the organizers of those rallies and have attended a number of them, briefly addressing the two in Augusta. It seems clear to me that Paul’s appeal to the Tea Partyers is his promise of strict fidelity to the limits placed on governmental power by the Constitution.

If that is an extreme anti-government position, then the Founding Fathers were extremist. Still, you might argue that a man who increased Waterville’s cash reserve ten times over harbors some pro-government tendencies. The only extreme I see is competence.

Professor John Frary of Farmington, Maine is a former US Congress candidate, associate editor of the International Military Encyclopedia and history professor; a Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United and chairman of the Franklin County GOP Committee. He can be reached at: jfrary8070.