Middle Ground Challenge
Middle Ground Challenge
The tussle between the “conservatives” and the “progressives” is so
boisterous these days it is difficult not to smile at them – or laugh out loud?
Or it would be were it not for the potential consequences. Thus the lure of
the Middle Ground – but middle ground between what and what? The
ideologues get so ridiculous about it, it is difficult to determine what they
are really championing - or attacking, since what they say and what they do
are so couched in ambiguity. And let’s face it, what their leaders are clearly
defending today are the power bases they have staked out. To preserve
them they must lure voters by hard spinning of propaganda rhetoric and
high blown charismatic obfuscation, designed to rally them to target
positions, no matter how unrealistic, . Too harsh? Perhaps, but without
rather extreme positions all would look somewhat alike, would they not?
But the ideological extremes are not what they used to be, and that
poses a problem in defining just what they are. So, the middle ground
between what and what? The Middle Ground I attempt to defend is
between hard line individualist capitalism and dewy eyed idealistic
egalitarian social theorists. Outdated, yes, but more easily
understandable. Or another take on it might be the degree to which we
want government to run our lives; that might be closer to today’s challenge.
Unfortunately our middle ground is, and has been, moving toward more
and more government control and less and less individual responsibility,
thus the middle ground is already moving “left,” and this process is tending
to skew traditional meaning of middle ground. I would prefer the more
traditional definition; my caveat is that we must choose the right middle
ground to defend, for the right reasons.
The complexity of modernity clearly makes middle ground more
challenging to define – and probably even to find. Professional politicians
are one of those complexities: politics has become a career that must be
defended – by those who have chosen it as their profession, and politicians
must differentiate themselves – to attract votes. But there is more, and
most of the more lies with economics: simply stated, our investment based
and capital driven global economy and the incredible amounts of money it
creates (more often in the nature of credit), is so complex – and
independent – and moves so rapidly that its scope is breathtaking. What’s
more, it is invasive, in that what one greedy fool (or bunches of) does at one
end of the chain of events can have a powerful effect on an innocent
someone at the other end, without his having done anything to warrant it,
and against which he often has no defense.
Hard line individualist capitalism is basically winner take all; dewy eyed
idealistic egalitarian social theorists would have us all share and share
alike, with healthy doses of governmental control. The former is brutal: let
the devil take the hindmost; the latter is unrealistic. Jonah Goldberg quotes
FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address to explain the objective: "the state
must provide...a useful and remunerative job; a decent home; adequate
medical care and the opportunity to and enjoy good health; adequate
protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and
unemployment; and a good education." Not provide the opportunity for, but
to provide; this remains the center of progressive aspirations today.
Interestingly, both have the potential of destroying initiative, either of
individuals at the hindmost, or of everyone; and the potential rewards for
initiative is what makes our system work.
There is probably no need to discuss the problems of unregulated
individualistic hard-line capitalism; ample propaganda has been generated
to make them quite clear – and we have fought that war. He who can have
it all takes it all, leaving the rest behind, and exploited. But providing for all
equally, without the benefit of providing initiatives is also destructive. It has
been shown repeatedly within our complex modern economy that damping
individual initiative, and the skills it generates, is also destructive; and
doing the same to capital initiatives associated with investing does the
same. Here is my middle ground: that where both initiatives are supported
and neither stifled. Surprisingly, perhaps, it is not all that difficult to define –
theoretically – if approached realistically, and therein lies the problem:
some (voters) will always suffer, at least in the short run. One recalls
Lincoln’s comment about pleasing all of the people some of the time,
some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time.
Historical individualist capitalists were the all some of the time; the
dreamers are the all some of the time – or more appropriately, all
marginally. The theoretical middle ground is to accept compromise that
allows the fires of initiative to remain kindled to the extent possible at all
levels. The key is rewarding initiative at both ends of the social spectrum,
and that is an incredibly difficult balancing act.
Why? Because everyone is out to get everything he can (with high
expectations of what that is) and all tend to see things very narrowly from
their own perspective, including the politicians. This is particularly the case
the closer we get to a zero sum game: it’s one thing when everyone feels
they are doing well – when things are getting better; it is quite another when
things are getting worse and all are fighting for their piece of a shrinking
pie. Two things will destroy initiative: no hope and no need. The middle
ground that must be defended has to provide the hope that effort can bear
results, while results accrue due to making the effort. And instead of
preaching the old politics of envy – rich versus poor – we need to be
explaining that success only comes with intelligent cooperation of labor
and capital - and that is not a zero sum game. The overriding challenge
comes when things are not working right and people either across the
spectrum or in isolated sectors of the spectrum are losing ground, often as
a result of actions outside of their control. Such actions must first be
understood by those who lead, then they must be explained to the rest of us
- and not for their own political benefit.
Easy to say. But we all know that when pain is being inflicted rational
thought comes hard. He got a bonus and I got laid off. He made a killing
and my house was repossessed. The complexities of our modern
economy are both stultifying and frustrating. So what if for every job
shipped overseas is matched with more than one shipped from there to
here, if the job that went overseas is mine? The attention span of one in
pain is short, and to urge patience falls on deaf ears. Yet there will be
pain. In fact there is strong indication that well intentioned actions taken in
time of pain often, instead of making it go away, make it worse. Actions
during and after the depression of 1929 appear to be in that exact category.
So what can be done?
That is the challenge of government and those we elect to carry it our,
and the extremes will never meet it. Oh, they might seem to be meeting it in
the short run, but most often at the detriment of the long run, by helping one
sector by penalizing another - or, because the penalized is usually that
which drives the economic engine, penalizing all of us in the long run.
Government, with the short view of re-election, or ignorance, or both, is
famous for creating unintended circumstances that only make things
worse, which is why we should seek wisdom in those whom we elect to the
challenge of governing. Such wisdom is rarely found at the extremes, as
the lessons of history make very clear. When we choose our leaders for
their siren songs of extremism we are unlikely to choose wisely, and we
are unlikely to choose wisdom. But such wisdom, either of choosing or of
the chosen is often not in large supply. Those who are choosing don’t
recognize it for being blinded by charismatic rhetoric; those who are chosen
are likely to hide the lack of it by the same means. This might define the
real challenge of middle ground thinking: first recognize and define the
extremes; then understand what it takes to find and achieve middle ground,
and finally to find leaders with the wisdom, character and fortitude capable
of working together to command it, perhaps by selectively getting out of the
way. There are few enough today who are choosing wisely, and fewer still
who qualify to be chosen.
The tussle between the “conservatives” and the “progressives” is so
boisterous these days it is difficult not to smile at them – or laugh out loud?
Or it would be were it not for the potential consequences. Thus the lure of
the Middle Ground – but middle ground between what and what? The
ideologues get so ridiculous about it, it is difficult to determine what they
are really championing - or attacking, since what they say and what they do
are so couched in ambiguity. And let’s face it, what their leaders are clearly
defending today are the power bases they have staked out. To preserve
them they must lure voters by hard spinning of propaganda rhetoric and
high blown charismatic obfuscation, designed to rally them to target
positions, no matter how unrealistic, . Too harsh? Perhaps, but without
rather extreme positions all would look somewhat alike, would they not?
But the ideological extremes are not what they used to be, and that
poses a problem in defining just what they are. So, the middle ground
between what and what? The Middle Ground I attempt to defend is
between hard line individualist capitalism and dewy eyed idealistic
egalitarian social theorists. Outdated, yes, but more easily
understandable. Or another take on it might be the degree to which we
want government to run our lives; that might be closer to today’s challenge.
Unfortunately our middle ground is, and has been, moving toward more
and more government control and less and less individual responsibility,
thus the middle ground is already moving “left,” and this process is tending
to skew traditional meaning of middle ground. I would prefer the more
traditional definition; my caveat is that we must choose the right middle
ground to defend, for the right reasons.
The complexity of modernity clearly makes middle ground more
challenging to define – and probably even to find. Professional politicians
are one of those complexities: politics has become a career that must be
defended – by those who have chosen it as their profession, and politicians
must differentiate themselves – to attract votes. But there is more, and
most of the more lies with economics: simply stated, our investment based
and capital driven global economy and the incredible amounts of money it
creates (more often in the nature of credit), is so complex – and
independent – and moves so rapidly that its scope is breathtaking. What’s
more, it is invasive, in that what one greedy fool (or bunches of) does at one
end of the chain of events can have a powerful effect on an innocent
someone at the other end, without his having done anything to warrant it,
and against which he often has no defense.
Hard line individualist capitalism is basically winner take all; dewy eyed
idealistic egalitarian social theorists would have us all share and share
alike, with healthy doses of governmental control. The former is brutal: let
the devil take the hindmost; the latter is unrealistic. Jonah Goldberg quotes
FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address to explain the objective: "the state
must provide...a useful and remunerative job; a decent home; adequate
medical care and the opportunity to and enjoy good health; adequate
protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and
unemployment; and a good education." Not provide the opportunity for, but
to provide; this remains the center of progressive aspirations today.
Interestingly, both have the potential of destroying initiative, either of
individuals at the hindmost, or of everyone; and the potential rewards for
initiative is what makes our system work.
There is probably no need to discuss the problems of unregulated
individualistic hard-line capitalism; ample propaganda has been generated
to make them quite clear – and we have fought that war. He who can have
it all takes it all, leaving the rest behind, and exploited. But providing for all
equally, without the benefit of providing initiatives is also destructive. It has
been shown repeatedly within our complex modern economy that damping
individual initiative, and the skills it generates, is also destructive; and
doing the same to capital initiatives associated with investing does the
same. Here is my middle ground: that where both initiatives are supported
and neither stifled. Surprisingly, perhaps, it is not all that difficult to define –
theoretically – if approached realistically, and therein lies the problem:
some (voters) will always suffer, at least in the short run. One recalls
Lincoln’s comment about pleasing all of the people some of the time,
some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time.
Historical individualist capitalists were the all some of the time; the
dreamers are the all some of the time – or more appropriately, all
marginally. The theoretical middle ground is to accept compromise that
allows the fires of initiative to remain kindled to the extent possible at all
levels. The key is rewarding initiative at both ends of the social spectrum,
and that is an incredibly difficult balancing act.
Why? Because everyone is out to get everything he can (with high
expectations of what that is) and all tend to see things very narrowly from
their own perspective, including the politicians. This is particularly the case
the closer we get to a zero sum game: it’s one thing when everyone feels
they are doing well – when things are getting better; it is quite another when
things are getting worse and all are fighting for their piece of a shrinking
pie. Two things will destroy initiative: no hope and no need. The middle
ground that must be defended has to provide the hope that effort can bear
results, while results accrue due to making the effort. And instead of
preaching the old politics of envy – rich versus poor – we need to be
explaining that success only comes with intelligent cooperation of labor
and capital - and that is not a zero sum game. The overriding challenge
comes when things are not working right and people either across the
spectrum or in isolated sectors of the spectrum are losing ground, often as
a result of actions outside of their control. Such actions must first be
understood by those who lead, then they must be explained to the rest of us
- and not for their own political benefit.
Easy to say. But we all know that when pain is being inflicted rational
thought comes hard. He got a bonus and I got laid off. He made a killing
and my house was repossessed. The complexities of our modern
economy are both stultifying and frustrating. So what if for every job
shipped overseas is matched with more than one shipped from there to
here, if the job that went overseas is mine? The attention span of one in
pain is short, and to urge patience falls on deaf ears. Yet there will be
pain. In fact there is strong indication that well intentioned actions taken in
time of pain often, instead of making it go away, make it worse. Actions
during and after the depression of 1929 appear to be in that exact category.
So what can be done?
That is the challenge of government and those we elect to carry it our,
and the extremes will never meet it. Oh, they might seem to be meeting it in
the short run, but most often at the detriment of the long run, by helping one
sector by penalizing another - or, because the penalized is usually that
which drives the economic engine, penalizing all of us in the long run.
Government, with the short view of re-election, or ignorance, or both, is
famous for creating unintended circumstances that only make things
worse, which is why we should seek wisdom in those whom we elect to the
challenge of governing. Such wisdom is rarely found at the extremes, as
the lessons of history make very clear. When we choose our leaders for
their siren songs of extremism we are unlikely to choose wisely, and we
are unlikely to choose wisdom. But such wisdom, either of choosing or of
the chosen is often not in large supply. Those who are choosing don’t
recognize it for being blinded by charismatic rhetoric; those who are chosen
are likely to hide the lack of it by the same means. This might define the
real challenge of middle ground thinking: first recognize and define the
extremes; then understand what it takes to find and achieve middle ground,
and finally to find leaders with the wisdom, character and fortitude capable
of working together to command it, perhaps by selectively getting out of the
way. There are few enough today who are choosing wisely, and fewer still
who qualify to be chosen.
Elitists Versus “The People” – A Dichotomy
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the people” on the other, or one
might even say the masses. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest considerations shared by the founders of our republic, and it
was ultimately determined through difficult compromise that included: Federalism, population representation in the House of
Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and balances, and a strong constitution and Bill of Rights that
permitted the Constitution to be changed by state ratification. Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged
and deprecated by socialists at one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance, excessive self interest and
susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too susceptible to the lure of power and the existence of hubris.
The founders understood the former but feared the latter more, due to their experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the
rule “of the people” had really never been tried in the modern era, so that might have led to favoring the lure of the unknown to the
surety of the known. Of course it is evident that this struggle was a subset of the more general poles of order versus rights, order
ostensibly lying with elite leadership and rights with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist leaders are selected, and the power they are given, as well as
the power they are denied. And who are the elitists? We apparently have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both
Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic votes from the people as a mere screen for assuming
power, then either revert to form once they have secured it or are lulled by the temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and
discounts the possibility that such leaders actually believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or
expedient to do so. As personal motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the mind of a seeker of
power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the people everything they want,
find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without expending any effort – or responsibility – in the process.
So their challenge becomes how to share resources without destroying the engine that creates them, whether they want it or not.
There are many models. The European current model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation. The Asian model is more
paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US model is more geared to individual effort, a model
that is moving inexorably toward the European model. Unfortunately there is too much pressure from “the people” to do what they
think needs to be done – whatever that is – either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing for self
serving policies from their representatives. But has that not always been the case? And often there is a great deal of sincere
disagreement as to what really needs to be done, or where the line needs to be drawn between social services and strong
generation of incentives and responsibility.
And so we are back to motives again. What do the politicians really believe, and how far can they go in doing what really needs
to be done before they get voted out of office? And of course politicians are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest
of those that make up our complex elite structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed and self
interest, and how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why the either/or model is unrealistic, and balance
between what could be and what is, is far more realistic. This, of course, is the middle ground to which we must aspire. The people
don’t understand it; the politicians feel they have to champion whatever to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to
exploit. While in the meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position they support. Welcome to
the real world, and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be tempted to exploit it to the detriment of the rest of us, or
at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address the issue of elitism or intellectualism versus the common man. One, and I know this is
generalization, has been trained and educated to understand the issues and the history and economics that are behind them. The
other has at best a peripheral understanding and often less interest in the history and economics that are behind them. Americans
in particular tend not to be well versed in history, don’t give a great deal of time to understanding culture, and throw up their hands
when it comes to economics – except as it applies directly to them. The challenge might be offered that this is true elsewhere as
well, and I shan’t refute that, but the subject here is Americans, so perhaps I am comparing to something ephemeral? And does
that make me an intellectual elitist snob to refer to it? I worry about that. A little knowledge, after all, being compared to prideful or
indifferent ignorance can do that, and that is part of my motivation for addressing the subject in this essay
Let’s take “intellectualism.” Like it or not it entails education: I use the term in light of someone who has studied and read about
the issues and their backgrounds, has given thought to them and perhaps has some experience in dealing with them. The extreme
opposite is someone who is ignorant about them and doesn’t care. As in everything the vast bulk of our population lies somewhere
in between either with little knowledge or some knowledge, with varying degrees of interest and proclivities toward being
susceptible to propaganda. It would seem preferable that the leaders chosen were knowledgeable and experienced, if not expert.
On the other hand superior knowledge and experience can often lead to arrogance and has often enough in the past transformed
into increased lust for more. This is not always mere grabbing of power; it may be mere conceit or avarice: I am right; I am smarter; I
know how it needs to be; and so I shall make it happen; and because of that I deserve to profit from it.
I am sensitive to the danger of this kind of attitude and my distrust of and opposition to arrogance is manifestation of that. On
the other hand I also mistrust ignorance and selfishness. Therein lies the challenge to middle ground leadership; it tends to reside
within middle class society – people with education, knowledge and concern, the ability to think and have an open mind. Of course it
doesn’t exist in a pure form, but should be encouraged in the aggregate. I have little confidence in the wisdom of “the people” (the
mob, if your will) but I fear the conceited arrogance of the intellectual self appointed elite. Having stated that I have been challenged:
to lead must not one have a little arrogance? I suspect so. And to get elected must one not tell the people what they want to hear? I
am afraid so – but only to a point. I do have confidence in the bulk of the people to be able to spot a bald face lie. The bulk of the
people who embrace the American culture are not stupid, and realize when they are being offered something that is unrealistic; or I
certainly hope that is the case, for if that is not the case the game is over. But this is why effective democracy requires educated
voters with understanding of the concept and familiarity with the infrastructure and how it functions.
This is my middle ground between elite arrogance and ignorance of the masses. Elite arrogance must be tempered; mass
ignorance needs to be reduced to the extent possible – through knowledge. Unchecked elite arrogance leads to factionalism; mass
ignorance leads to subjugation; but a combination leads to socialistic (or statist if you prefer) dictatorship. Between the extremes
the terrain is dicey and the challenges daunting, and only through an amalgamation of the elite and the people, with respect for the
institution will it continue to function – and survive.
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the people” on the other, or one
might even say the masses. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest considerations shared by the founders of our republic, and it
was ultimately determined through difficult compromise that included: Federalism, population representation in the House of
Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and balances, and a strong constitution and Bill of Rights that
permitted the Constitution to be changed by state ratification. Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged
and deprecated by socialists at one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance, excessive self interest and
susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too susceptible to the lure of power and the existence of hubris.
The founders understood the former but feared the latter more, due to their experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the
rule “of the people” had really never been tried in the modern era, so that might have led to favoring the lure of the unknown to the
surety of the known. Of course it is evident that this struggle was a subset of the more general poles of order versus rights, order
ostensibly lying with elite leadership and rights with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist leaders are selected, and the power they are given, as well as
the power they are denied. And who are the elitists? We apparently have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both
Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic votes from the people as a mere screen for assuming
power, then either revert to form once they have secured it or are lulled by the temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and
discounts the possibility that such leaders actually believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or
expedient to do so. As personal motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the mind of a seeker of
power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the people everything they want,
find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without expending any effort – or responsibility – in the process.
So their challenge becomes how to share resources without destroying the engine that creates them, whether they want it or not.
There are many models. The European current model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation. The Asian model is more
paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US model is more geared to individual effort, a model
that is moving inexorably toward the European model. Unfortunately there is too much pressure from “the people” to do what they
think needs to be done – whatever that is – either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing for self
serving policies from their representatives. But has that not always been the case? And often there is a great deal of sincere
disagreement as to what really needs to be done, or where the line needs to be drawn between social services and strong
generation of incentives and responsibility.
And so we are back to motives again. What do the politicians really believe, and how far can they go in doing what really needs
to be done before they get voted out of office? And of course politicians are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest
of those that make up our complex elite structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed and self
interest, and how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why the either/or model is unrealistic, and balance
between what could be and what is, is far more realistic. This, of course, is the middle ground to which we must aspire. The people
don’t understand it; the politicians feel they have to champion whatever to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to
exploit. While in the meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position they support. Welcome to
the real world, and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be tempted to exploit it to the detriment of the rest of us, or
at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address the issue of elitism or intellectualism versus the common man. One, and I know this is
generalization, has been trained and educated to understand the issues and the history and economics that are behind them. The
other has at best a peripheral understanding and often less interest in the history and economics that are behind them. Americans
in particular tend not to be well versed in history, don’t give a great deal of time to understanding culture, and throw up their hands
when it comes to economics – except as it applies directly to them. The challenge might be offered that this is true elsewhere as
well, and I shan’t refute that, but the subject here is Americans, so perhaps I am comparing to something ephemeral? And does
that make me an intellectual elitist snob to refer to it? I worry about that. A little knowledge, after all, being compared to prideful or
indifferent ignorance can do that, and that is part of my motivation for addressing the subject in this essay
Let’s take “intellectualism.” Like it or not it entails education: I use the term in light of someone who has studied and read about
the issues and their backgrounds, has given thought to them and perhaps has some experience in dealing with them. The extreme
opposite is someone who is ignorant about them and doesn’t care. As in everything the vast bulk of our population lies somewhere
in between either with little knowledge or some knowledge, with varying degrees of interest and proclivities toward being
susceptible to propaganda. It would seem preferable that the leaders chosen were knowledgeable and experienced, if not expert.
On the other hand superior knowledge and experience can often lead to arrogance and has often enough in the past transformed
into increased lust for more. This is not always mere grabbing of power; it may be mere conceit or avarice: I am right; I am smarter; I
know how it needs to be; and so I shall make it happen; and because of that I deserve to profit from it.
I am sensitive to the danger of this kind of attitude and my distrust of and opposition to arrogance is manifestation of that. On
the other hand I also mistrust ignorance and selfishness. Therein lies the challenge to middle ground leadership; it tends to reside
within middle class society – people with education, knowledge and concern, the ability to think and have an open mind. Of course it
doesn’t exist in a pure form, but should be encouraged in the aggregate. I have little confidence in the wisdom of “the people” (the
mob, if your will) but I fear the conceited arrogance of the intellectual self appointed elite. Having stated that I have been challenged:
to lead must not one have a little arrogance? I suspect so. And to get elected must one not tell the people what they want to hear? I
am afraid so – but only to a point. I do have confidence in the bulk of the people to be able to spot a bald face lie. The bulk of the
people who embrace the American culture are not stupid, and realize when they are being offered something that is unrealistic; or I
certainly hope that is the case, for if that is not the case the game is over. But this is why effective democracy requires educated
voters with understanding of the concept and familiarity with the infrastructure and how it functions.
This is my middle ground between elite arrogance and ignorance of the masses. Elite arrogance must be tempered; mass
ignorance needs to be reduced to the extent possible – through knowledge. Unchecked elite arrogance leads to factionalism; mass
ignorance leads to subjugation; but a combination leads to socialistic (or statist if you prefer) dictatorship. Between the extremes
the terrain is dicey and the challenges daunting, and only through an amalgamation of the elite and the people, with respect for the
institution will it continue to function – and survive.
Third Way
From Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism:
“Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a
“middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and
socialism…The “middle way” sounds moderate and
un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological
and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is
not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and
authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in
its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-
offs…The Third Way holds that we can have
capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and
absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly
utopian because they…assume that with just the right
arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be
rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never
be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is
why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes
that the right man (or the right party) can resolve all of
these contradictions through sheer will. The populist
demagogue takes on the role of the parent telling the
childlike masses that he can make everything ‘all
better’ if they just trust him.”
These excerpts, Mr. Goldberg would probably
contend, are taken out of context, and he would be
correct, as he is talking about ideology and not a
means of merging different principles within a single,
but flexible ideology. But the italicized (mine)
sentences above points to the difference between a
Third Way and a middle ground, with probably the key
words being: with absolute unity; and Its utopian
aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the
idea that politics is about trade-off. The Middle
Ground to which I attempt to allude is a political
middle ground that is about trade-offs. Absolute unity
is the important stumper; there is no possibility of
accepting, even encouraging, trade-offs at the same
time insisting upon absolute unity.
The differences between middle ground and a
Middle Way, as described above, are such that they
cannot be seen as the same thing at all, and perhaps
we will see the dichotomy again as China attempts its
tight rope act of implementing capitalism within a
matrix of socialism. Hobbes saw democracy as
disorderly, unstable and intensely dangerous, and so
it is. Madison (Federalist Number 10) said that faction
can not be eliminated except by eliminating liberty
itself. Absolute unity and representative democracy
are incompatible. John Dunn, A History of
Democracy: “representative democracy is a
compromise between the ‘order of egoism’ (roughly
in our case forced absolute unity) and partisans of
equality. Authority comes from the equality of the
people, but leadership comes from the order of
egoism.” This is that same chaotic compromise
between order and liberty.
In my defense of Middle Ground I first felt I had to
argue against Goldberg’s observations. I really
should have known better; I end up explaining the
differences, using Goldberg’s own words. I might
point out in passing, however, Goldberg’s words
about demagogue populism, and emphasize their
threat to an informed Middle Ground. This subject can
be seen throughout this website: populism and
propaganda and is being exacerbated by the current
simplistic propaganda of envy so powerfully
propagated by television and computer bloggers.
This is off this particular subject, but I could not pass
up the opportunity to point it out.
From Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism:
“Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a
“middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and
socialism…The “middle way” sounds moderate and
un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological
and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is
not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and
authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in
its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-
offs…The Third Way holds that we can have
capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and
absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly
utopian because they…assume that with just the right
arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be
rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never
be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is
why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes
that the right man (or the right party) can resolve all of
these contradictions through sheer will. The populist
demagogue takes on the role of the parent telling the
childlike masses that he can make everything ‘all
better’ if they just trust him.”
These excerpts, Mr. Goldberg would probably
contend, are taken out of context, and he would be
correct, as he is talking about ideology and not a
means of merging different principles within a single,
but flexible ideology. But the italicized (mine)
sentences above points to the difference between a
Third Way and a middle ground, with probably the key
words being: with absolute unity; and Its utopian
aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the
idea that politics is about trade-off. The Middle
Ground to which I attempt to allude is a political
middle ground that is about trade-offs. Absolute unity
is the important stumper; there is no possibility of
accepting, even encouraging, trade-offs at the same
time insisting upon absolute unity.
The differences between middle ground and a
Middle Way, as described above, are such that they
cannot be seen as the same thing at all, and perhaps
we will see the dichotomy again as China attempts its
tight rope act of implementing capitalism within a
matrix of socialism. Hobbes saw democracy as
disorderly, unstable and intensely dangerous, and so
it is. Madison (Federalist Number 10) said that faction
can not be eliminated except by eliminating liberty
itself. Absolute unity and representative democracy
are incompatible. John Dunn, A History of
Democracy: “representative democracy is a
compromise between the ‘order of egoism’ (roughly
in our case forced absolute unity) and partisans of
equality. Authority comes from the equality of the
people, but leadership comes from the order of
egoism.” This is that same chaotic compromise
between order and liberty.
In my defense of Middle Ground I first felt I had to
argue against Goldberg’s observations. I really
should have known better; I end up explaining the
differences, using Goldberg’s own words. I might
point out in passing, however, Goldberg’s words
about demagogue populism, and emphasize their
threat to an informed Middle Ground. This subject can
be seen throughout this website: populism and
propaganda and is being exacerbated by the current
simplistic propaganda of envy so powerfully
propagated by television and computer bloggers.
This is off this particular subject, but I could not pass
up the opportunity to point it out.
From above:
John Dunn, A History of
Democracy:
“Representative democracy
is a compromise between
the ‘order of egoism’ (the
elite?) and partisans of
equality (he people).
Authority comes from the
equality of the people, but
leadership comes from the
order of egoism.”
John Dunn, A History of
Democracy:
“Representative democracy
is a compromise between
the ‘order of egoism’ (the
elite?) and partisans of
equality (he people).
Authority comes from the
equality of the people, but
leadership comes from the
order of egoism.”
After a great deal of pondering and gnashing it has occurred to
me (I know, DUH!) That the Middle Ground is, in actuality, a scuffle
over economics - who gets what, who pays for it, and how. But
also how much the government is allowed to determine the how
through regulation.
The problem is that most people don't understand economics,
don't really want to make the effort to, and would prefer an
emotionally satisfying position that assumes what they want it to
be - emotionally.
What matters what has happened prior (historically)? We are
smarter (Secretary Robert Reich told us so) and whatever we want
to happen we can make happen.
So why do I feel, depressingly, like I am fighting a losing battle?
me (I know, DUH!) That the Middle Ground is, in actuality, a scuffle
over economics - who gets what, who pays for it, and how. But
also how much the government is allowed to determine the how
through regulation.
The problem is that most people don't understand economics,
don't really want to make the effort to, and would prefer an
emotionally satisfying position that assumes what they want it to
be - emotionally.
What matters what has happened prior (historically)? We are
smarter (Secretary Robert Reich told us so) and whatever we want
to happen we can make happen.
So why do I feel, depressingly, like I am fighting a losing battle?
Ok, yes, regulation of lots of things - but as
has been said about politics, everything is
economics - well, almost everything.
has been said about politics, everything is
economics - well, almost everything.
Another book - one specifically on the subject
of Middle Ground, or Common Ground as
discussed by Cal Thomas (conservatve) and
Bob Beckel (liberal): "how to stop the
partisan war that is destroying America."
of Middle Ground, or Common Ground as
discussed by Cal Thomas (conservatve) and
Bob Beckel (liberal): "how to stop the
partisan war that is destroying America."
From an article (October 2009) by Mark Bowden,
Atlantic Magazine national correspondent , who
was a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer for
25 years.
The Post Journalistic World
"Post journalistic. It sees democracy, by
definition, as perpetual political battle. The
blogger's role is to help his side. Distortions and
inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of
context, all of these things matter only a little,
because they are committed by both sides, and
tend to come out as a wash. Nobody is actually
right bout anything, no matter how certain they
pretend to be. No, not the truth: victory, because
winning is way more important than being right.
Power is the highest achievement. There is
nothing new about this. But we never used to
mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly
replacing journalism, leading us toward a world
where all information is spun, and where all 'news'
is unapologetically propagandistic...
Isn't there, in fact, middle ground in most public
disputes? Isn't the art of politics finding that middle
ground, weighing the public good against factional
priorities? Without journalism, the public good is
viewed only through a partisan lens, and politics
becomes a blood sport."
Atlantic Magazine national correspondent , who
was a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer for
25 years.
The Post Journalistic World
"Post journalistic. It sees democracy, by
definition, as perpetual political battle. The
blogger's role is to help his side. Distortions and
inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of
context, all of these things matter only a little,
because they are committed by both sides, and
tend to come out as a wash. Nobody is actually
right bout anything, no matter how certain they
pretend to be. No, not the truth: victory, because
winning is way more important than being right.
Power is the highest achievement. There is
nothing new about this. But we never used to
mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly
replacing journalism, leading us toward a world
where all information is spun, and where all 'news'
is unapologetically propagandistic...
Isn't there, in fact, middle ground in most public
disputes? Isn't the art of politics finding that middle
ground, weighing the public good against factional
priorities? Without journalism, the public good is
viewed only through a partisan lens, and politics
becomes a blood sport."