Mixing Issues

The “liberal” “conservative” dichotomy is simplistic and unrealistic

Conflating multitudes of issues into a binary “reality” has become a truly serious threat to democracy and governance in our society. Every issue is now batched into combinations with others, so that, for example, climate change, abortion rights and government regulation would either all represent a “liberal” viewpoint or a “conservative” one. There’s an assumption of uniformity, in that opinions for bundled issues are consistent with either being liberal or conservative. Indeed, those two terms are generalizations that are used as if there is no other choice and it’s simply one or the other.

We know that at least 60 percent of citizens are moderate — somewhere between center-left and center-right. And because humans are often complex, the opinions of centrists on issues defy easy categorization. At the same time, they also defy the concept of ideological purity, a truly nonsensical approach to complex issues on completely unrelated topics. The purity linkage accounts for the willingness to impose a government-size litmus test that is unrelated to the details and data of each issue — thus reducing each issue to small government versus effective government.

The “liberal” “conservative” dichotomy is simplistic and unrealistic. In the current political climate, the Democratic party is, by default, the centrist party, although with a liberal-leaning agenda. The Republican party is way off in the far-right weeds. But there are party supporters who remain independently minded when it comes to their opinions, much in the way those who register to vote as Independents do. Centrists may have preferences, but the merits of issues remain a priority

What seems lost on too many who aren’t in the political center is that Democracy functions by compromise and consensus, with majority rule. This is the reality, and those who have agendas well left or right of center are trying to justify what they are sure the majority would support if they simply understood. But extremism is failure in a democracy. It’s antithetical to how a range of moderate opinions can still result in progress and effective solutions through compromise and agreement.

Those outside the political middle have their doubts about democracy because it appears to prevent voters with non-mainstream “answers” from imposing their “solutions.” They find the process of democracy inconvenient and frustrating. This is an ongoing issue in corporate management as well, with decisions meant to be the results of carefully crafted processes. There are invariably some who want to ignore and avoid these processes, and sometimes simply manipulate them, to achieve what they believe are justifiable ends. Be it governance or management, there’s push and pull between process and politics.

Public policy tends to have far more, and far more diverse, stakeholders than found in business. That’s the nature of governance and citizens. The increased divisiveness that has resulted in the “liberal” or “conservative” labeling of seemingly everything has undermined the focus on country over party that used to make compromise and consensus possible. Shutting down the government was not even a consideration back then. Now, with the more extreme being willing to impose such threats to get their way, the moderates in political parties and in society are the only voices of reason.

Being reasonable, rational, responsible are fundamental pragmatic qualities. Pragmatism is scorned by those outside the middle. Where are the values, the principles, the moral certainties in being moderate? Beliefs have little meaning if they are easily compromised. Pragmatists know better. The greatest danger to society is true believers — a point I repeat regularly. The myth that moderates don’t have strong values is the propaganda of those who mistake passion for wisdom. True believers worship their ideology whereas moderates treasure functioning democracy as a way of life.

Issues not being solved are not because they can’t be but because some refuse solutions that conflict with arbitrary beliefs. There’s no evidence that far-right conservative or far-left liberal ideologies are better or more successful in the real world, whereas there’s vast evidence that moderation allows societies to be more successful for more citizens more of the time. The quality of life, as measured by a variety of criteria, is actually better when the greater good is the focus, making centrism the pragmatic choice. Vote for it.