We often think of "the middle" as a small, almost invisible place between two larger, but equal sides. Perhaps we need to change the picture. If we don't, when we ask people to meet us in the middle, it becomes more like a line in the sand that we dare someone to cross. It becomes "my way or your way."
What if the middle looked more like a 9 by 13 chocolate cake divided into thirds--thus making the middle not quite so threatening? If you'll pardon my pun, it leaves some "fudge room." We can listen to one another's ideas, and even "consider" them without losing our party status and without shamefully surrendering our convictions.
I'm listening to Senator Elizabeth Warren's book, A Fighting Chance. I'm reading D'Sousa's book, America. I'm also reading, Tip and the Gipper. Trust me when I tell you, no one in my family or school class would peg me for reading anything of consequence, but . . . I hate being totally predictable, so that's okay.
As I experiment with stretching the middle, I'm finding one rather refreshing thing. Politicians aren't all monsters. They are passionate. Elizabeth Warren, having done extensive research on bankruptcy, found desperate families--not deadbeats. She has fought with all her power to bring them some relief. The bale-outs of big banks infuriated her, especially when help for multitudes of families facing foreclosures was needed and expected. Here's some middle ground I can step into.
Tip O'Neill would probably be your poster boy for big government; Ronald Reagan, just the opposite. Ben Carson and D'Sousa stand in a conservative camp, rather than in a liberal one or, what we now call, progressive. (Progressive definitely conjures up a different and more positive picture, but wears the same clothes as former liberals.) I don't deny that I "lean" toward conservative.
Our family experienced welfare: the help and the humiliation. I'm grateful for government's intervention. BUT . . . I see more and more that the government doesn't give without a cost. What they "give," they control. The more people/institutions receiving government assistance, the greater the threat of government takeover. I know that sounds radical--not like middle ground, but if we look at freedoms and privacies that we have already lost, we can't help but consider that possibility. I repeat, "All politicians aren't monsters." Some, however, do not have your best interest in mind. We need to educate ourselves on issues and people from both sides. And we need to vote accordingly. Pardon my repetition again: We Need To Vote!
One thing that sort of baffles me. We get so ticked at Congress because they won't cooperate with one another. No one will cross party lines! But what about us? Are we willing to see that both camps have their amenities, if you will? Can we vote a split ticket? Can we communicate with our congressmen and women and with our senators places where we think the other camp has some reasonable ideas? If we threaten to withdraw our votes when they "cross the line," how can we Expect Cooperation and Progress?
Really. Think about it.
EverGrowing,
Lonnie
