I'll Take the Middle Road

Generally speaking, there is a very real human tendency to seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore or discount information that contradicts our current beliefs.  Humans usually seek out literature and TV programs that support their current view; however, they also seek out people that support their current views. Thus, an extreme conservative is more likely to hang out with fellow conservatives. An extreme environmentalist is more likely to seek out fellow environmentalists. This causes two problems: first, it reinforces the information-seeking bias. In other words, friends may point out information that further supports your views and ridicules the other side. The second problem is what I call the "everybody thinks the way I do" phenomena. When you only hang out with people that believe what you do and don't hang out with people that have contradictory beliefs, you tend to believe that everyone shares the same opinions.  It's just human nature and we all do it, but being conscious of and realizing that the biased seeking out of information just leads us to become more and more extreme in our thinking, seeking out more information that supports our views while discounting contradictory viewpoints, can aid in trying to really see the whole picture.

The thing that concerns me most about politics today is the systematic polarization I see in America perpetrated by cunning politicians, the media, and now each other.  I'm talking about more than just the kind of extremism that leads to someone piloting planes into buildings; I'm talking about extremes in ideology and opinions. Americans have divided themselves into rigid camps: Democrat vs. Republican, Anti-War vs. Pro-War, Liberal vs. Conservative, Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life, Black vs. White, Right vs. Wrong.  More and more, people continue to throw their support on one side of an issue, ignoring the fact that both sides often have good arguments.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter,  and others are convinced the conservative side of issues is completely correct and the Democratic side has no redeeming qualities or points of merit. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Alan Colmes, and many Hollywood stars are convinced that everything President Bush did was wrong as well as Republicans in general. It's become almost a reflex action nowadays: whenever Romney or another prominent Republican states a policy, no matter what the position, liberals attack it. And the same is true of conservative attacks on President Obama.  And while I plainly see that the economy has not been helped by President Obama, I am astonished at the amount of pure hatred I see directed at him because, as always, the circumstances are complex that have contributed to his inability to succeed during his term.  During the 2011 debt limit crisis, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he refused to do any cooperating in coming to a consensus with Obama on the budget, not because he disagreed with the policies to be implemented, but because he did not want to put the Republicans into a position of co-ownership of a bad economy.  The clear implication was that if default brought economic hardship, the president and Democrats would get blamed, and that would be a win for the Republican party, even at the expense of the country.  That kind of calculus--putting partisan advantage ahead of problem-solving, with the stakes for the country being sky-high, used to not be "politics as usual".  But now it seems it is.  Even when Obama has tried to pass measures that would attempt to pay down the national debt, Republicans thwart him at every turn in favor of tribalism over country.  By tribalism, I mean a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe (political party) than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.  It is when one group of people start to think people from another group are “wrong by default”, simply because they exist.  And make no mistake, if Romney is elected President, the same treatment will be doled out to him by the Democratic side, and they won't like it one bit but will probably feel justified in their anger of what is being perpetrated upon them, as if they have been innocent of doing the same thing.  All of this scares me immensely, and I ask myself, where is reason?  Were is the middle road?

I inherently, at my core, am drawn to hearing and understanding both sides of any important issue.  I try to be aware of my own biases and approach a person or issue counting on finding good intentions at the heart of a person's convictions, and most of the time I find that even if I ultimately disagree with a person, I can still see the good in them.  I do the same thing with politics.  I can see both the merits and pitfalls of both the Democrat and Republican lens of seeing the world.  I try and seek out sources of information on both sides of every issue and usually find what I believe the truth to be somewhere in the middle.  If someone feels passionately about an issue or topic, I want to know why and how they feel this way and the factors that were involved in leading them to their conclusions.  So it's hard for me to understand people who not only completely identify with one political party over another, concluding that there is only one "right" way to govern a country, an economy, and a people, but also allow themselves to only be exposed to people and media that pound it into their heads that they are indeed the only ones who truly love their country and everyone else is severely misled or listening to the devil. To me, it feels restrictive to have to lump myself in with either group because neither Democrats nor Republicans represent the totality of my convictions; therefore, I consider myself an Independent--a swing voter who votes for the person, not the party.

My next point is that not only are people dividing themselves into ideological extremes, they are often supporting a platform of ideas rather than debating each one individually. To illustrate, liberals generally are pro-choice, are anti-war, advocate more government, support more social spending, and oppose tax cuts. Conservatives generally are pro-life, support increased defense spending, oppose an increase in social spending, and advocate tax cuts. On virtually every issue, there is a Democrat position and an opposite Republican position. The damage comes in when you consider that extreme liberals or conservatives start to support everything on the agenda of "their side" rather than debate each issue individually. Politicians must often change their public stance rather than take the one they truly believe in their hearts. This is perhaps why Romney was initially seen as a flip-flopper; maybe he was forced to change his stance from pro-choice to pro-life in order to more widely appeal to his base.  Virtually all politicians can find an issue in which they disagree with the stance of their party but are unable to advocate publicly.  It seems that more and more, those who would consider themselves mainstream in their political party are much more conservative or liberal than they used to be.

Clearly, there's a problem here. Rather than engage in intelligent discussion of both sides of an issue, political debate has turned into an "us vs. them" mentality and I really believe it is escalating in its pervasiveness. This mentality has led to a breeding ground of extremism; not only are you wrong about your differing view, but I loathe you and you are going to hell, is what it seems people are portraying.  Rigidly arguing or attacking the other side rarely changes the mind of people who have opposite views. In fact, it usually causes them to become even more firm in their beliefs. If I say to you "You're an idiot, and I'm going to tell you why....", does this cause you to open up your mind to my ideas? If you're like most humans, a statement like that will put you on the defensive and you will strive to justify or explain your views. And in the process, you're likely to hold onto your views even tighter. Unfortunately, a verbal attack by one side often leads to a verbal attack from the other side. Then, a vicious cycle begins. The end result is two sides firmly entrenched in their beliefs and loaded with negative feelings toward the other side.  And the cycle continues, but with much more strength behind it.

In my mind, the solution is that more people should choose the middle of the road approach.  If you should happen to hear something that at first seems outrageous about one of the candidates, then fact check it.  I frequently use:  (factcheck.org and politifact.org).  Realize that the media desperately wants you to believe whatever fodder they choose to put out there--they are not on your side, they are on the side of making as much money as they possible can using whatever means they can.  I find that when I fact check things, often times the conversation or event has been taken completely out of context or is baseless and only being employed by the other side in order to advance their agenda.  Also, be clear that news channels have built in biases, so choose to listen to both biases.  Another thing that I think might be advantageous if you are really wanting to weigh the balance of both sides equally, is to pretend you are a lawyer preparing to debate the merits of the other side of the issue.  For example, if you firmly believe in capital punishment, invest some time to find all the information you can on why the death penalty should be banned.  Most likely, you will not change your opinion, but you may gain some knowledge and respect for where other people are coming from.  I'm not saying you should give up your principles or values. I'm simply saying it pays to get all the facts and reasoning before you come to a conclusion, and it pays to stay open to new evidence that becomes available. If after analyzing both sides of an issue, you believe one side is stronger than the other, by all means, become a vocal advocate of your position, but keeping in mind the good points of the other side.  “People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower)

A society that takes an independent, open-minded view of politics means we can finally begin to solve the problems that continue to plague us. As Albert Einstein said, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."  And that's why I choose the middle road.