The Embattled Middle Ground
1. What is the political Middle Ground?
In American politics the poles have traditionally been conservative and
liberal, now referred to as right and left. The names are no longer
representative, but basically they represent individual responsibility, states
rights and limitations on government (right) and stronger central
government (left). The Middle accepts neither at face value, encourages
individual positions (as opposed to blind support of party platforms), and
seeks less polarized positions on most issues.
2. What other middle grounds are there?
There is middle ground in most things, requiring an open mind and
tolerance. Reasonable people support issues for a reason; the middle
ground demands listening to the reasoning. It does not mean acceptance
of the position, just an attempt to understand and willingness to give
consideration to it.
3. Why is it embattled?
Because we are intolerant and make no attempt to try and see the other
fellow's reasoning. Ignorance also contributes. It is difficult to apply reason
to that about which there is little or no understanding.
4. Why are there only two major political candidates.?
We have a two party system because it was supposed that it would be
better to work out positions at the party level than within government where
it would lead to minority governments. Voters tend to resist supporting
other parties because they are reluctant to "waste their votes" on minor
parties with little chance of gaining power.
5. Why is there no party of the Middle?
In business they talk of differentiating one's self from the competition. In
politics it has been deemed necessary to do the same. There are
candidates in the middle, but middle right and middle left can be difficult to
distinguish between, so parties tend to concentrated on that which
distinguishes them one from the other.
6. Why is compromise so difficult to effect?
In a word: power. Politicians actually compromise all the time. It is referred
to as back room dealing or horse trading and entails trading a vote on one
issue for a vote on another. We (the voters - and financial supporters) don't
like it because we see it as unprincipled; we want our politician to support
our positions. We also like to view our pols as combatants in the pit, and it
really bothers us (many of us) that they can get along with each other. So
they pursue many issues to satisfy voters so they can retain power.
7. Why do we resist compromise?
Because we also are subject to the lure of power. We have opinions and
most of us are ruled by them; we want what we want, and, in our minds,
always for good reason. Sometimes those opinions have to do with
power, other times for reasons more emotional. And once we have
decided on a matter we feed emotionally upon it until it firms in our minds.
Most of us don't spend much time reading about the other side of issues.
8. By giving in do we not risk losing something important?
We do, and that's why we don't want to give in. It can be important, in that it
affects our financial positions or ways of life. It can also be purely stubborn
- our opinion - and taking another angers us - or makes us afraid.
10. What is the solution?
The one available to us is the only one really viable: supporting candidates
of our choice and accepting compromise when they either win or lose. And
continue fighting for (through politicians) that in which we believe, and hope
next time around our candidate will win.
11. How responsive are politicians to individual voters?
Probably as responsive as human nature allows them to be, some more
than others. They cannot listen to everyone, so they listen either to
influential supporters, absorb the results of polls, or both. Politicians are
human and susceptible to human foibles, some more than others. We
should hope to vote out the bad ones next time around. That's why our
democratic republic has checks and balances, many that in fact work
against getting things done effectively so that things (power) won't get out of
hand. So far they have been reasonably effective, though certainly not
foolproof; clever people always find ways to circumvent. But we must
remember the alternative, and that is that when a really bad guy (or lady)
assumes power and changes the way our government functions, we might
never get rid of her/him and their successors.
12. Are things today not worse (more contentious) than they have ever
been?
They are not. If we knew more of our history we would realize the extent to
which disagreement has been extended. We would also realize how rights
have been abrogated and advantage taken by those that had the ability to
do so. Take any period in history and one will find situations worse than
those of the present. However, technology and population growth have
made present times more complex, and thus more difficult to deal with, and
that is what we face. Patience often does not suffice, so we must fall back
on controlled compromise. It is, after all, all we have.
In American politics the poles have traditionally been conservative and
liberal, now referred to as right and left. The names are no longer
representative, but basically they represent individual responsibility, states
rights and limitations on government (right) and stronger central
government (left). The Middle accepts neither at face value, encourages
individual positions (as opposed to blind support of party platforms), and
seeks less polarized positions on most issues.
2. What other middle grounds are there?
There is middle ground in most things, requiring an open mind and
tolerance. Reasonable people support issues for a reason; the middle
ground demands listening to the reasoning. It does not mean acceptance
of the position, just an attempt to understand and willingness to give
consideration to it.
3. Why is it embattled?
Because we are intolerant and make no attempt to try and see the other
fellow's reasoning. Ignorance also contributes. It is difficult to apply reason
to that about which there is little or no understanding.
4. Why are there only two major political candidates.?
We have a two party system because it was supposed that it would be
better to work out positions at the party level than within government where
it would lead to minority governments. Voters tend to resist supporting
other parties because they are reluctant to "waste their votes" on minor
parties with little chance of gaining power.
5. Why is there no party of the Middle?
In business they talk of differentiating one's self from the competition. In
politics it has been deemed necessary to do the same. There are
candidates in the middle, but middle right and middle left can be difficult to
distinguish between, so parties tend to concentrated on that which
distinguishes them one from the other.
6. Why is compromise so difficult to effect?
In a word: power. Politicians actually compromise all the time. It is referred
to as back room dealing or horse trading and entails trading a vote on one
issue for a vote on another. We (the voters - and financial supporters) don't
like it because we see it as unprincipled; we want our politician to support
our positions. We also like to view our pols as combatants in the pit, and it
really bothers us (many of us) that they can get along with each other. So
they pursue many issues to satisfy voters so they can retain power.
7. Why do we resist compromise?
Because we also are subject to the lure of power. We have opinions and
most of us are ruled by them; we want what we want, and, in our minds,
always for good reason. Sometimes those opinions have to do with
power, other times for reasons more emotional. And once we have
decided on a matter we feed emotionally upon it until it firms in our minds.
Most of us don't spend much time reading about the other side of issues.
8. By giving in do we not risk losing something important?
We do, and that's why we don't want to give in. It can be important, in that it
affects our financial positions or ways of life. It can also be purely stubborn
- our opinion - and taking another angers us - or makes us afraid.
10. What is the solution?
The one available to us is the only one really viable: supporting candidates
of our choice and accepting compromise when they either win or lose. And
continue fighting for (through politicians) that in which we believe, and hope
next time around our candidate will win.
11. How responsive are politicians to individual voters?
Probably as responsive as human nature allows them to be, some more
than others. They cannot listen to everyone, so they listen either to
influential supporters, absorb the results of polls, or both. Politicians are
human and susceptible to human foibles, some more than others. We
should hope to vote out the bad ones next time around. That's why our
democratic republic has checks and balances, many that in fact work
against getting things done effectively so that things (power) won't get out of
hand. So far they have been reasonably effective, though certainly not
foolproof; clever people always find ways to circumvent. But we must
remember the alternative, and that is that when a really bad guy (or lady)
assumes power and changes the way our government functions, we might
never get rid of her/him and their successors.
12. Are things today not worse (more contentious) than they have ever
been?
They are not. If we knew more of our history we would realize the extent to
which disagreement has been extended. We would also realize how rights
have been abrogated and advantage taken by those that had the ability to
do so. Take any period in history and one will find situations worse than
those of the present. However, technology and population growth have
made present times more complex, and thus more difficult to deal with, and
that is what we face. Patience often does not suffice, so we must fall back
on controlled compromise. It is, after all, all we have.
Issues of Interest
1. Taxes. Who pays and how much - and for what will
they be used, and by whom, for whom?
2. Abortion: whose rights are paramount? The
mother's or the unborn child's?
3. Immigration: who do we admit, for what reasons,
and what do we do about those who have invited
themselves and now live among us?
4. Defense vs Rights: How should our government
defend and maintain the order upon which we depend
yet maintain the rights of individuals? What defense
and maintenance and which rights?
5. Foreign Affairs: What should be our position in
dealing with other countries? What should be our
policies?
6. Support: To what degree should the government
support its citizens at taxpayer expense? Retirement?
Health care? Unemployment? Disaster? Mistakes?
Inabilities? The list is endless.
7. Infrastructure: What should be supported and/or
protected? What should be constructed? What
should be controlled? How?
8. What is the role of courts and where is the line
between judicial interpretation and legislation?
9. What are reasonable punishments for crimes and
infractions? Should they include the death penalty?
10. To what extent should the government enforce
equality of opportunity and at what point does it
become invasive, unfair and counter productive?
11. What is the truth about global warming? How
much can we influence and how much must we
accept and prepare for?
12. Where should the line between states rights and
central government responsibilities be drawn?
13. Law and order enforcement: what needs to be
done and what will we accept?
14. Who do we trust, and why?
15. What is the roll of diversity in our culture? What
do we want it to be?
16. What roll does economics play ?
Virtually Everything!!!!!!
1. Taxes. Who pays and how much - and for what will
they be used, and by whom, for whom?
2. Abortion: whose rights are paramount? The
mother's or the unborn child's?
3. Immigration: who do we admit, for what reasons,
and what do we do about those who have invited
themselves and now live among us?
4. Defense vs Rights: How should our government
defend and maintain the order upon which we depend
yet maintain the rights of individuals? What defense
and maintenance and which rights?
5. Foreign Affairs: What should be our position in
dealing with other countries? What should be our
policies?
6. Support: To what degree should the government
support its citizens at taxpayer expense? Retirement?
Health care? Unemployment? Disaster? Mistakes?
Inabilities? The list is endless.
7. Infrastructure: What should be supported and/or
protected? What should be constructed? What
should be controlled? How?
8. What is the role of courts and where is the line
between judicial interpretation and legislation?
9. What are reasonable punishments for crimes and
infractions? Should they include the death penalty?
10. To what extent should the government enforce
equality of opportunity and at what point does it
become invasive, unfair and counter productive?
11. What is the truth about global warming? How
much can we influence and how much must we
accept and prepare for?
12. Where should the line between states rights and
central government responsibilities be drawn?
13. Law and order enforcement: what needs to be
done and what will we accept?
14. Who do we trust, and why?
15. What is the roll of diversity in our culture? What
do we want it to be?
16. What roll does economics play ?
Virtually Everything!!!!!!
What is the Middle Ground?
Defining it sounds easy, until you try to do it. Defining the radical extremes
is easier: order/anarchy, save the world/let 'em sink, never/always,
capitalism/communism, fundamentalism/atheism, and so forth.
The issue is less where one stands on extremes than how one can
navigate between those extremes. In other words, the importance is how
one deals with a world of emotional opinion. Some traits (principles?) that
suggested themselves to me are, being: informed/knowledgable, open
minded, respectful and patient. But more fundamental ones such as
sincerity and honesty must necessarily precede them.
One thing particularly interesting about the Middle Ground is that it can be
lonely because one must offer individual defense of positions instead of
relying on canned propaganda. In the Middle Ground it is necessary to be
able to answer the question why, even if only to self. Why do you believe
as you do? And why do you oppose the views that others espouse?
Defending Middle Ground must first occur on a very personal level, and
that is the basis of this website. As I have said elsewhere, it was
designed for me to do just that: understand what I believe, why I believe it
and to defend the position taken to myself. Beyond the simple sound
bites of emotional opinion that can be a challenging task; simple
solutions abound, but most often do not fit this criterion.
Defining it sounds easy, until you try to do it. Defining the radical extremes
is easier: order/anarchy, save the world/let 'em sink, never/always,
capitalism/communism, fundamentalism/atheism, and so forth.
The issue is less where one stands on extremes than how one can
navigate between those extremes. In other words, the importance is how
one deals with a world of emotional opinion. Some traits (principles?) that
suggested themselves to me are, being: informed/knowledgable, open
minded, respectful and patient. But more fundamental ones such as
sincerity and honesty must necessarily precede them.
One thing particularly interesting about the Middle Ground is that it can be
lonely because one must offer individual defense of positions instead of
relying on canned propaganda. In the Middle Ground it is necessary to be
able to answer the question why, even if only to self. Why do you believe
as you do? And why do you oppose the views that others espouse?
Defending Middle Ground must first occur on a very personal level, and
that is the basis of this website. As I have said elsewhere, it was
designed for me to do just that: understand what I believe, why I believe it
and to defend the position taken to myself. Beyond the simple sound
bites of emotional opinion that can be a challenging task; simple
solutions abound, but most often do not fit this criterion.
Different Kinds of Issues
1. These are not matters that lend themselves to
legislation, and it can be argued they lay outside the
ability of government to influence, but they are our
culture and so are critical to our future. Government
might be unable to edict them, but they can influence
them. How should it be done?
2. What are our cultural expectations? How much do
we value families and to what extent can we go to
preserve them?
3. What do we expect of our children? How do we
reinforce those expectations, and encourage others
to do so?
4. What of morality? Is there a middle ground on
morality?
5. What can be done to encourage motivation? What
is done that reduces motivation? What can be done,
and should be done, to enhance it?
6. What should be considered decadence? And
what can be done to combat it?
7. What should be the expectations of education, and
what must we do to ensure it is balanced, serves our
economy, yet serves our population's needs?
8. How can we generate a better spirit of cooperation,
belonging, sharing and compromise, without
destroying the engine that produces growth,
productivity and security?
1. These are not matters that lend themselves to
legislation, and it can be argued they lay outside the
ability of government to influence, but they are our
culture and so are critical to our future. Government
might be unable to edict them, but they can influence
them. How should it be done?
2. What are our cultural expectations? How much do
we value families and to what extent can we go to
preserve them?
3. What do we expect of our children? How do we
reinforce those expectations, and encourage others
to do so?
4. What of morality? Is there a middle ground on
morality?
5. What can be done to encourage motivation? What
is done that reduces motivation? What can be done,
and should be done, to enhance it?
6. What should be considered decadence? And
what can be done to combat it?
7. What should be the expectations of education, and
what must we do to ensure it is balanced, serves our
economy, yet serves our population's needs?
8. How can we generate a better spirit of cooperation,
belonging, sharing and compromise, without
destroying the engine that produces growth,
productivity and security?
| Summarizing the Middle Ground The extremes - or poles, if that is preferred - are some form of elitist autocracy and populism; either, in my opinion, would seriously impact the United States that we know, and despite its warts, love and revere - at least those of us in the Middle revere it. The Middle Ground has to do with the role of government between those extremes. The founders understood this probably better than most of us do, and wrote a remarkable constitution that attempted to keep us in a Middle Ground position; it has accomplished that remarkably well, despite attempts to undo it - or at least water it down. The question comes down to, as it always must, the role of the government. Centralization of authority or federalism? Greater authority for the executive or continuation of strong checks and balances? Nanny state or individual responsibility? And to what extent must wealth be redistributed in the name of humanitarianism? (i.e. definition of taxation - how much and for what?) We must have taxation, and some level of humanitarian support has to be provided; what is it to be? To that must be added the role of the United States in the world. What should it be? All of these are continuing challenges for which no final solution will ever be found. Or, as we like to say, much will depend on the situation. Once the Middle Ground has been surrendered, however, that could change, and our solution to moving challenges will almost surely become far more rigid. The Middle Ground is flexibility, ability to keep an open mind, and compromise; it falters when ignorance dominates. |
Reasons For Discord
First it must be said that the reasons we
have trouble getting along, and reaching
amicable agreement through compromise
do not include discrimination.
Discrimination is a positive attribute of
humans: we must be able to discriminate to
do what we have to do. It is the next step
after discrimination that causes the
problems and that next step is the result of:
Bigotry
Prejudice
Fanaticism
Intolerance
Closed mindedness
Ignorance
Stupidity
Superstition
Arrogance
Take your pick.
First it must be said that the reasons we
have trouble getting along, and reaching
amicable agreement through compromise
do not include discrimination.
Discrimination is a positive attribute of
humans: we must be able to discriminate to
do what we have to do. It is the next step
after discrimination that causes the
problems and that next step is the result of:
Bigotry
Prejudice
Fanaticism
Intolerance
Closed mindedness
Ignorance
Stupidity
Superstition
Arrogance
Take your pick.
More Thoughts About Middle Ground
One cannot hope to defend positions that one does not understand. Unfortunately that's not reality.
People are continually defending - vociferously, erratically, obnoxiously positions they do not
understand - but do not know (or admit) they do not understand. Many of those issues are in the field
of economics, a field not easy to understand. So what should they do? Not take a position? How
about expressing a tentative opinion based on existing knowledge (the taker's) and listening to
dissenting opinions while seeking more information? Part of Middle Ground is admitting knowledge
dearth and seeking to do something to limit it - with an open mind.
Reality; I said that's not reality. Much Middle Ground is effected by reality. Illegal immigration, for
example: just open the borders or round 'em up and send 'em home. Neither are any where near
close to reality. So, what is? If the answer were easy it would already have been implemented.
Clearly, laws concerning immigration must be enforced and that must be the starting point. To do
so requires some attempt to interdict illegal border crossings and to ferret out those who have
already successfully crossed probably beginning with dealing with those caught breaking other laws.
Some amnesty of some variety is inevitable as are some restrictions concerning employment, but
the devil is in the details. That is Middle Ground.
A lamentable fact about running for public office at the state or national level is penalization of frank
talk about dealing with reality. Politicians are encouraged - forced - to take firm stances, however
ignorant or unrealistic. The emotionals, almost always suffering from varying degrees of ignorance,
don't want to hear reality, perhaps because they can not understand it. Middle Ground is telling it the
way it is, whether people want to hear it or not. (Which is why we have no candidates)
Positions on taxes are seldom Middle Ground. We cannot do without them, but we must attempt to
ensure they do not stifle economic progress or encourage dependence. This is another emotional
issue about which those already elected have to take unrealistic stances to satisfy constituents.
Constituents also tend toward degrees of ignorance and must be educated. Unfortunately they don't
really want to be educated, preferring more entertaining fare. (Which is why we have few
representatives)
Abortion and Same Sex marriage are similar issues. Why do people get so het up about them? Why
do people of the same sex living together insist on calling it marriage? Allow sharing of benefits and
leave it alone. But they can't, and they vote, or merely get emotional about it just because it's there.
The Middle Ground suggests telling them to forget it. But that does not attract voters.
Education? We can not make everyone truly educated, but we can provide basic education for all.
Reality. Education needs to be provided commensurate with ability and those unable or unwilling to
make the effort need to pursue less rigorous academic paths. Dual paths (at least dual paths,
probably more) must be provided. Again the devil is in the details, but ultimately free enterprise will
adjudicate - if we don't kill it.
I have always wished the hear a politician answer a question by providing both sides of the issue,
but i have tried it in conversation and in our emotional charged environment of prideful ignorance it
doesn't work. One response I got when I suggested the issue was complex and attempted to
demonstrate why, was anger - I always fell back on the issue is complex. My listener did not want to
hear that.
We have created and nurture the environment of ignorant emotion. Probably at the level of governing
there is more tolerance (although not admitted) for dealing with reality than there is among
constituents, and that is precisely why we have representative democracy. So how much of the
rhetoric is real and how much is bluster? The Middle Ground is less bluster and more realism.
Can it attract votes? Perhaps it can, if presented intelligently. Is that too much to expect? Perhaps it
is.
The primary result of eschewing Middle Ground and pursuing emotion is demonstrated time after
time by the law of unintended circumstances. The Middle Ground attempts - needs to attempt - to
explore possible circumstances before they fall victim to the law. Unfortunately that attracts endless
discussion as potential circumstances are generated as defenses and protection for special
interests; that's the down-side to Middle Ground open minded discussion: special interests.
Intelligent Middle Ground deals with that. But perhaps much of the reason Middle Ground is difficult
to find is precisely the pandering to special interests - a whole new subject that opens up the entire
gamut of the impact of financing and media propaganda on the representative democratic process.
But then there are no deep pockets out there chomping at the bit to pay for the Middle Ground. I
wonder why.
One cannot hope to defend positions that one does not understand. Unfortunately that's not reality.
People are continually defending - vociferously, erratically, obnoxiously positions they do not
understand - but do not know (or admit) they do not understand. Many of those issues are in the field
of economics, a field not easy to understand. So what should they do? Not take a position? How
about expressing a tentative opinion based on existing knowledge (the taker's) and listening to
dissenting opinions while seeking more information? Part of Middle Ground is admitting knowledge
dearth and seeking to do something to limit it - with an open mind.
Reality; I said that's not reality. Much Middle Ground is effected by reality. Illegal immigration, for
example: just open the borders or round 'em up and send 'em home. Neither are any where near
close to reality. So, what is? If the answer were easy it would already have been implemented.
Clearly, laws concerning immigration must be enforced and that must be the starting point. To do
so requires some attempt to interdict illegal border crossings and to ferret out those who have
already successfully crossed probably beginning with dealing with those caught breaking other laws.
Some amnesty of some variety is inevitable as are some restrictions concerning employment, but
the devil is in the details. That is Middle Ground.
A lamentable fact about running for public office at the state or national level is penalization of frank
talk about dealing with reality. Politicians are encouraged - forced - to take firm stances, however
ignorant or unrealistic. The emotionals, almost always suffering from varying degrees of ignorance,
don't want to hear reality, perhaps because they can not understand it. Middle Ground is telling it the
way it is, whether people want to hear it or not. (Which is why we have no candidates)
Positions on taxes are seldom Middle Ground. We cannot do without them, but we must attempt to
ensure they do not stifle economic progress or encourage dependence. This is another emotional
issue about which those already elected have to take unrealistic stances to satisfy constituents.
Constituents also tend toward degrees of ignorance and must be educated. Unfortunately they don't
really want to be educated, preferring more entertaining fare. (Which is why we have few
representatives)
Abortion and Same Sex marriage are similar issues. Why do people get so het up about them? Why
do people of the same sex living together insist on calling it marriage? Allow sharing of benefits and
leave it alone. But they can't, and they vote, or merely get emotional about it just because it's there.
The Middle Ground suggests telling them to forget it. But that does not attract voters.
Education? We can not make everyone truly educated, but we can provide basic education for all.
Reality. Education needs to be provided commensurate with ability and those unable or unwilling to
make the effort need to pursue less rigorous academic paths. Dual paths (at least dual paths,
probably more) must be provided. Again the devil is in the details, but ultimately free enterprise will
adjudicate - if we don't kill it.
I have always wished the hear a politician answer a question by providing both sides of the issue,
but i have tried it in conversation and in our emotional charged environment of prideful ignorance it
doesn't work. One response I got when I suggested the issue was complex and attempted to
demonstrate why, was anger - I always fell back on the issue is complex. My listener did not want to
hear that.
We have created and nurture the environment of ignorant emotion. Probably at the level of governing
there is more tolerance (although not admitted) for dealing with reality than there is among
constituents, and that is precisely why we have representative democracy. So how much of the
rhetoric is real and how much is bluster? The Middle Ground is less bluster and more realism.
Can it attract votes? Perhaps it can, if presented intelligently. Is that too much to expect? Perhaps it
is.
The primary result of eschewing Middle Ground and pursuing emotion is demonstrated time after
time by the law of unintended circumstances. The Middle Ground attempts - needs to attempt - to
explore possible circumstances before they fall victim to the law. Unfortunately that attracts endless
discussion as potential circumstances are generated as defenses and protection for special
interests; that's the down-side to Middle Ground open minded discussion: special interests.
Intelligent Middle Ground deals with that. But perhaps much of the reason Middle Ground is difficult
to find is precisely the pandering to special interests - a whole new subject that opens up the entire
gamut of the impact of financing and media propaganda on the representative democratic process.
But then there are no deep pockets out there chomping at the bit to pay for the Middle Ground. I
wonder why.
The Tone of Opposition
Let's face it, the Media has a great deal of influence over what "the people" think, particularly about politics
and candidates for office. This is not wrong; where else will most learn about what politicians stand for,
oppose and propose for us? We have become a country of over 300 million people, and most will get their
information from one or another form of media, including, of course, advertising. The alternative presumably
is to attend a rally; ok, let's call that another form of media. It is just as canned, just as ephemeral, just as
tentative. But the commentators, analysts and reporters only sum up what candidates say in speeches,
rallies, ads and interviews; adding their views, of course, but to be informed one must read more than one
view anyway, and that's how voter opinion should be formed. If voters only listen to or read one opinion, or are
influenced by an emotional surge, that's a poor choice, in my opinion. I'll not argue about what voters do or
don't do to be well informed; that's their choice, even though their ignorance ultimately may become our
problem. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
What has struck me recently is the tone of opposition, based on issues, and I guess I am bothered by the
way issues are being formed, presented and discussed. That is precisely what is tenuous about the Middle
Ground: people want a firm stand, black or white, conservative or liberal, yes or no - not only on one issue but
packages of issues. The fact that life is not like that is immaterial; voters want sound bite clarity - simplicity.
This is not the stuff of informed thinking voters, informed thinking pundits, or informed thinking politicians, but
it is the way our electoral environment has developed. It is also the way our culture is developing; I call it
ignorance because it strongly favors not thinking too deeply: don't bother me with the details, but I suspect
most would view that as harsh.
Two interesting black and white issues are immigration and taxation. Candidate, are you for immigration or
against it? Candidate, do you favor taxing the rich or taxing the poor? Most of the issues in the boxes above
are expected to be addressed as simply: do you or don't you? So where does the contention come from?
Are you for me or against me? The essay that prompted me to think about this was one in which the
commentator was discussing why he was having trouble with a particular candidate: he did not embrace the
full slate of opinions as embraced by the essayist, who picked those issues on which he differed to highlight
to question his support. So how can a candidate address an issue that is complex?
Simply stated, he can't. In my own small way I have experienced the frustration in doing so, trying to discuss
issues that are complex. My conversation partners usually don't want to hear that something is complex.
Either they are not prepared to discuss complexity due to ignorance of the subject in general, or they lack the
patience to want to talk about such details. We have truly become a sound bite culture with little depth to our
knowledge and short attention spans. Which is why, I suppose, the two party system has grown as it has -
take the platform and stick to it; if you deviate on any issue from the dogma you are not one of us. We have
little tolerance for candidates who think independently "out of the box" which is what a Middle Ground
candidate would have to do. Middle Ground is wishy washy; Middle Ground is inconsistent; Middle Ground is
disloyal to the issues - issues that have been crafted by one or the other of the two major parties - essentially
conservative or liberal (in current usage, whatever that really is).
This is not reality. But our culture has lost touch with reality through emotional devotion to fantasy
entertainment. We have lost respect for thinkers; they are out of vogue. We prefer charismatic demagogues
who energize us through simplistic emotion. The similarity between that and the rock bands that similarly
energize is unmistakable. Fidel Castro, Cesare Cha´vez, Hitler and Mussolini come quickly to mind.
Defending the Middle Ground is not a simple task - even trying to explain Middle Ground is not a simple task.
It requires thinking, understanding the background and consequences of issues, developing one's own
positions and defending them. It also requires tolerance and respect, and ability to see room for
compromise. That is a really tough charge.
Let's face it, the Media has a great deal of influence over what "the people" think, particularly about politics
and candidates for office. This is not wrong; where else will most learn about what politicians stand for,
oppose and propose for us? We have become a country of over 300 million people, and most will get their
information from one or another form of media, including, of course, advertising. The alternative presumably
is to attend a rally; ok, let's call that another form of media. It is just as canned, just as ephemeral, just as
tentative. But the commentators, analysts and reporters only sum up what candidates say in speeches,
rallies, ads and interviews; adding their views, of course, but to be informed one must read more than one
view anyway, and that's how voter opinion should be formed. If voters only listen to or read one opinion, or are
influenced by an emotional surge, that's a poor choice, in my opinion. I'll not argue about what voters do or
don't do to be well informed; that's their choice, even though their ignorance ultimately may become our
problem. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
What has struck me recently is the tone of opposition, based on issues, and I guess I am bothered by the
way issues are being formed, presented and discussed. That is precisely what is tenuous about the Middle
Ground: people want a firm stand, black or white, conservative or liberal, yes or no - not only on one issue but
packages of issues. The fact that life is not like that is immaterial; voters want sound bite clarity - simplicity.
This is not the stuff of informed thinking voters, informed thinking pundits, or informed thinking politicians, but
it is the way our electoral environment has developed. It is also the way our culture is developing; I call it
ignorance because it strongly favors not thinking too deeply: don't bother me with the details, but I suspect
most would view that as harsh.
Two interesting black and white issues are immigration and taxation. Candidate, are you for immigration or
against it? Candidate, do you favor taxing the rich or taxing the poor? Most of the issues in the boxes above
are expected to be addressed as simply: do you or don't you? So where does the contention come from?
Are you for me or against me? The essay that prompted me to think about this was one in which the
commentator was discussing why he was having trouble with a particular candidate: he did not embrace the
full slate of opinions as embraced by the essayist, who picked those issues on which he differed to highlight
to question his support. So how can a candidate address an issue that is complex?
Simply stated, he can't. In my own small way I have experienced the frustration in doing so, trying to discuss
issues that are complex. My conversation partners usually don't want to hear that something is complex.
Either they are not prepared to discuss complexity due to ignorance of the subject in general, or they lack the
patience to want to talk about such details. We have truly become a sound bite culture with little depth to our
knowledge and short attention spans. Which is why, I suppose, the two party system has grown as it has -
take the platform and stick to it; if you deviate on any issue from the dogma you are not one of us. We have
little tolerance for candidates who think independently "out of the box" which is what a Middle Ground
candidate would have to do. Middle Ground is wishy washy; Middle Ground is inconsistent; Middle Ground is
disloyal to the issues - issues that have been crafted by one or the other of the two major parties - essentially
conservative or liberal (in current usage, whatever that really is).
This is not reality. But our culture has lost touch with reality through emotional devotion to fantasy
entertainment. We have lost respect for thinkers; they are out of vogue. We prefer charismatic demagogues
who energize us through simplistic emotion. The similarity between that and the rock bands that similarly
energize is unmistakable. Fidel Castro, Cesare Cha´vez, Hitler and Mussolini come quickly to mind.
Defending the Middle Ground is not a simple task - even trying to explain Middle Ground is not a simple task.
It requires thinking, understanding the background and consequences of issues, developing one's own
positions and defending them. It also requires tolerance and respect, and ability to see room for
compromise. That is a really tough charge.
A Guide to Finding the Middle Ground
1. Avoid extremism and the extremes
2. Be ever suspicious of charged emotion - especially
when it is not supported by facts.
3. Don't believe anything at face value, but listen to
everything. Then check it out - and THINK on it.
4. Study background
5. Search for personal or special interests that influence
positions
6. Follow the money trail, if it is not too carefully hidden
7. If it sounds too good it probably is; don't believe it
8. Beware of simple solutions
9. Suspect all slick propaganda
10. Realize the media is in business to sell
programming, and will always slide toward
sensationalism
11. Remember that all "experts" are human, and have
their own frames of references, prejudices and ambitions;
some are more knowledgeable than others - check them
out.
12. Look beyond the immediate. Both media and
politicians are mired in the here and now and usually do
not see beyond the nearest hill.
13. Be especially aware of the danger of unintended
circumstances. Things are not necessarily as they seem.
1. Avoid extremism and the extremes
2. Be ever suspicious of charged emotion - especially
when it is not supported by facts.
3. Don't believe anything at face value, but listen to
everything. Then check it out - and THINK on it.
4. Study background
5. Search for personal or special interests that influence
positions
6. Follow the money trail, if it is not too carefully hidden
7. If it sounds too good it probably is; don't believe it
8. Beware of simple solutions
9. Suspect all slick propaganda
10. Realize the media is in business to sell
programming, and will always slide toward
sensationalism
11. Remember that all "experts" are human, and have
their own frames of references, prejudices and ambitions;
some are more knowledgeable than others - check them
out.
12. Look beyond the immediate. Both media and
politicians are mired in the here and now and usually do
not see beyond the nearest hill.
13. Be especially aware of the danger of unintended
circumstances. Things are not necessarily as they seem.
From an article in Commentary Magazine
(Feb 2008) by Wilfred M. McClary entitled
"Nixon's Fate, and Ours."
"Chances are that, for the foreseeable future,
our Presidents will have to operate within a
nearly evenly divided electorate, with political
debate driven by hard and vocal (and
disproportionately influential) ideological
minorities, soft silent majorities, weak and
fractious parties, and hostile, irresponsible
mass media...democratic politics is never a
pristine thing, and demagoguery is hardly a
new invention."
(Feb 2008) by Wilfred M. McClary entitled
"Nixon's Fate, and Ours."
"Chances are that, for the foreseeable future,
our Presidents will have to operate within a
nearly evenly divided electorate, with political
debate driven by hard and vocal (and
disproportionately influential) ideological
minorities, soft silent majorities, weak and
fractious parties, and hostile, irresponsible
mass media...democratic politics is never a
pristine thing, and demagoguery is hardly a
new invention."
From an article by George Friedman
(Strategic Forecasting, Feb, 2008) entitled
"Foreign Policy and the President's
Irrelevance."
"The issue of policies versus character has
been discussed many times. One school of
thought holds that the foreign policies
advocated by a presidential candidate are the
things to look at. In fact, the candidate can
advocate whatever he or she wants, but
foreign policy is frequently defined by the
world and not by the president. In many
cases, it is impossible to know what the
issue is going to be, meaning the
candidates’ positions on various topics are
irrelevant. The decisions that are going to
matter are going to force the president’s
hand, not the other way around."
(Strategic Forecasting, Feb, 2008) entitled
"Foreign Policy and the President's
Irrelevance."
"The issue of policies versus character has
been discussed many times. One school of
thought holds that the foreign policies
advocated by a presidential candidate are the
things to look at. In fact, the candidate can
advocate whatever he or she wants, but
foreign policy is frequently defined by the
world and not by the president. In many
cases, it is impossible to know what the
issue is going to be, meaning the
candidates’ positions on various topics are
irrelevant. The decisions that are going to
matter are going to force the president’s
hand, not the other way around."
There is far more to politics than emotion - or
should be; but you wouldn't know it.
should be; but you wouldn't know it.
Associated With Middle Ground
Responsibility
Respect
Appreciation
Interest and Knowledge
Questioning
Suspicion
Cautious Confidence
Compromise
Realism
Resistance to Gullibility, Naiveté,
Emotionalism
Responsibility
Respect
Appreciation
Interest and Knowledge
Questioning
Suspicion
Cautious Confidence
Compromise
Realism
Resistance to Gullibility, Naiveté,
Emotionalism
Think about this as you continue on:
Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore to independence and served as prime
minister from 1959 until 1990 when he stepped down. Under his
leadership Singapore became an economic powerhouse and global
financial center. In maintaining an authoritarian system Mr. Lee argued that
Western-style democracy was unsuitable for many non-Western nations.
"Singaporean Leader Warns of Iraq Crisis", Washington Times.com,
2/15/08
"Unbridled capitalism, winner takes all like in American, does not work
unless you can cope with an underclass. So here (Singapore) we also stay
with the losers, make sure they have enough to live on, with health care,
equal education opportunities for their children whose parents can no
longer afford it. It's very important they not feel abandoned. So we have
workfare and ingenuous ways to keep them working as we don't want
layabouts doing nothing. We also subsidize homes which they would not
be able to buy. A society can only survive if there is a sense of equity and
fair play."
Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore to independence and served as prime
minister from 1959 until 1990 when he stepped down. Under his
leadership Singapore became an economic powerhouse and global
financial center. In maintaining an authoritarian system Mr. Lee argued that
Western-style democracy was unsuitable for many non-Western nations.
"Singaporean Leader Warns of Iraq Crisis", Washington Times.com,
2/15/08
"Unbridled capitalism, winner takes all like in American, does not work
unless you can cope with an underclass. So here (Singapore) we also stay
with the losers, make sure they have enough to live on, with health care,
equal education opportunities for their children whose parents can no
longer afford it. It's very important they not feel abandoned. So we have
workfare and ingenuous ways to keep them working as we don't want
layabouts doing nothing. We also subsidize homes which they would not
be able to buy. A society can only survive if there is a sense of equity and
fair play."
OH, OH, I am a Wobbling Woosie?
WOBBLING
WUSSIES ?
WUSSIES ?
What it is Not
Madison, in Federalist number ten (John Dunn) wrote
that faction can not be eliminated, except by eliminating
liberty itself, as its latent causes are sown in the nature
of man - in the variations of human faculties (frailties?).
There are too many basic differences: property, social
background, society divisions, basic outlooks on life
(and power, or lust therefore). And majority parties are
given every opportunity to sacrifice both rights of
minorities and the public good - to their own passions
and interests.
Middle Ground is not and never will be the gaining of
total congruence of societal viewpoint, but only basic
agreement on a point by point basis, one point at a time -
nor can it be achieved on all points, or perhaps even
most. The republican alternative, to which many
politicians continually strive, is permanent majority party
status whereby its views can be pushed and mandated;
such a party can rapidly approach fascism at worst, but
paternalism at least worst - something politicians
accuse their opposition factions of trying to attain -
probably as a cover for their own aspirations.
In any event if faction is eliminated we will have found
how republicanism is changed to facism and we will cry
and cry - but too late.
Madison, in Federalist number ten (John Dunn) wrote
that faction can not be eliminated, except by eliminating
liberty itself, as its latent causes are sown in the nature
of man - in the variations of human faculties (frailties?).
There are too many basic differences: property, social
background, society divisions, basic outlooks on life
(and power, or lust therefore). And majority parties are
given every opportunity to sacrifice both rights of
minorities and the public good - to their own passions
and interests.
Middle Ground is not and never will be the gaining of
total congruence of societal viewpoint, but only basic
agreement on a point by point basis, one point at a time -
nor can it be achieved on all points, or perhaps even
most. The republican alternative, to which many
politicians continually strive, is permanent majority party
status whereby its views can be pushed and mandated;
such a party can rapidly approach fascism at worst, but
paternalism at least worst - something politicians
accuse their opposition factions of trying to attain -
probably as a cover for their own aspirations.
In any event if faction is eliminated we will have found
how republicanism is changed to facism and we will cry
and cry - but too late.