Events of the last several weeks, or maybe months (I don't keep very good track of time) have lead me to a conclusion about a problem I've long had. I'm a firm believer of moderation in matters of a social/political nature. You cannot expect a person to be too moral, but you cannot allow them to be too immoral. A government should work with its entire population, rather than favoring one group, however large or small. Yet all I ever see is people standing on one side or the other. Everything seems to be right or wrong, black or white, Republican or Democrat, etc. And it always left me wondering, why? Why are there so few people that take a stand for moderation. Why do so few people strive for balance? Why are there so few people that see what I see. Oh, there's a few out there besides me, but finding them is very nearly impossible. And for that I have searched for the answer. Why?
Well, these events have taught me the answer. Whether in the case of the war on terror, pro-life vs. pro-choice, balance of wealth, or the current Penn State situation, taking the middle ground gets you attacked. Oh sure, people on both sides face personal attacks from their opposition. But we in the middle get hit from both sides. It doesn't help my personal case that people don't understand their terminology right. In politics, for instance Democrats and Republicans are no longer liberals and conservatives, even though the media still calls them that. The Patriot Act is the most liberal thing anyone in the government has done since the New Deal, and the repealing of Don't Ask/Tell in the military was a conservative action - i.e., get government interference out of the picture. People don't associate the terms with what they mean anymore, and while I can hardly blame them when the "experts" on TV don't get it right either, it really makes defending a position on one issue or another really more painful than it needs to be.
Anyway, the big problem is this two-side mentality. "You're either with us or against us" is no way to shape domestic or foreign policy. No way to shape morality either. The universe doesn't exist in black and white, or even shades of grey. More colors than the human eye can perceive exist in our world, so why would the same not apply to something as complex as ideas? Yet everyone is so convinced that their "side" is right, they often don't even consider the fact that they probably don't personally agree with every single little thing their party or group stands for.
Apparently, as a people, the majority of us have a need to fit in with others. I get that: We are social creatures, mostly surrounded by others our entire life. It makes sense to try to find one group or another that we sort of like and agree with and stick with them. But all we are really doing is accepting a lifestyle of perpetual conflict with those not in our "clique" and the mediocrity of conforming to other people's opinions. Followers rarely think for themselves. When they do, they generally find something that doesn't fully agree with their beliefs, and either dismiss it or keep in internalized, where it festers for the rest of their life.
The middle road is the loneliest. We have very few constant companions. Someone who we otherwise might agree and get along with eventually fixates on one disagreement, and holds it against us, attacks us, and eventually abandons us. We are doomed in our own way, doomed to see the better path and be unable to share it. But even as I feel helpless, even as I know that most people would ignore the middle ground in favor of supporting their own side, I urge you to consider, if you never have before, the idea that compromise is better than conflict. Absolutes may exist somewhere, but we humans have too short a time on this Earth to find it. Working together for even a day will accomplish more than all the name-calling we can manage for a thousand years.
