The Extreme Middle?

I’m sitting in the extreme middle.  That’s at least how I like to describe myself, but all it really means is that I do not completely hold to one side of the political spectrum or the other.  I don’t like to describe myself as an independent, but I like the thought of being and independent when it comes to thinking.   The reason I use the term “extreme” in my description of myself is that while an extreme right or extreme left thinking person would take a very hard stance and rigid response to their beliefs and reject anything that is not.  I am an extreme middle thinking person which means I reject any hard stance on nearly anything.  Any rigid and hard stance in my opinion means you have decided not to think anymore.  You are going to use that stance to make your decision for you. 

What’s funny is that I know very few people who when push comes to shove would actually hold this hard rigid stance in real life.  Many people in my area when talking about immigration will vocally reject any kind of mercy in regards to someone crossing the border illegally, for any reason.  But when presented with an individual case when they see a good person doing the best for his or her family, even if seeing this person does not change their point of view, would not at least desire to show mercy on this individual.  Most rigid extremists are rigid within their group but can really be human outside of their group. 

What spawned this type of post, when all my other posts on this blog seem to be spiritual in nature?  What causes this post was a conversation I had with someone who I think a lot of, who has strong opinions and even though I differ from him in so many ways I find we have a lot of common ground, and I also had a confrontation with a family member that also is someone I care for deeply but because I was using divisive and hurtful humor I hurt her feelings and drove a wedge between us hopefully not forever.  And I do think this topic is spiritual in nature.  I believe this is the core of what makes us human, and in concept was part of what made the constitution and other founding documents of this country so great.  But even more important I believe it what makes the laws and plan of our Heavenly Father so wise and wonderful. 

We live in a society of our own making.  We make that society by what we do, what we pay for and what we support.  Which means this is our fault.  It is not only the fault of the government, even though they are definitely also culpable.  It is not only the fault of the media even though I believe they are even more culpable than the individual member of the government.  But it is our fault.  Mine and yours, by supporting and paying for the corruption and mistrust of the media and the government, we have created a society based upon, not even justice, but on hard unyielding opinions and divisive language and actions.  And even though I am writing this from a critic point of view I am not immune.   And I don’t care if what I talk about seems or is perceived utopian, or idealistic.  If we did not shoot for a more perfect union, or a higher standard of human interaction, we have nothing to work for. 

In my opinion one of the most invasive methods we are subjected to and in which we ourselves perpetuate this “uncivil union” is through the media.  This is the topic which partly drove the writing of this post, specifically Glen Beck and other individuals of similar tactics.  And I  use the word tactics because this has nothing to do with political persuasion.  And I will use cohorts referencing others who use his tactics.    This does not only mean Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who are directly related in form and conduct to Beck.  But it also means Keith Olberman, and Bill O’Reilly, Chris Mathews, Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Ann Coulter, and any so called news program or commentator that uses propaganda, sleight of hand, and who portrays anyone with another point of view as evil, lying or criminal simply for having another point of view.  And this covers most of the main stream media.  And even though I will sometimes indulge in the Colbert Report, and The Daily Show, they themselves play a hand in this polarized nation by perpetuating it, even though in their mind all they are doing is making fun of it. There are some small pockets of good journalist out there, but for the most part they have died out at least on a national level. 

Beck and his Cohorts ( I only use Beck because he was part of why I’m writing this) have created an environment where the word compromise is a dirty word.  And a perception that someone who changes one’s mind is either weak or manipulative.  That when you decide on a point of view every other point of view must inherently be evil and based upon stupidity, cowardice, or pure evil.  They say they fight against misinformation and spin, by giving misinformation and using spin.  They “fight fire with fire”, but not in the way a fire fighter does.  A firefighter uses fire to control fire through controlled burns.  These types of individuals use fuel and a flame thrower to try to supposedly put out a forest fire.  If I saw someone doing this in the real life I would not believe that the person using this tactic to dowse a fire was truly intending to stop the fire but stoke it.  And we fall for it.  We support them.  We basically buy them the flame thrower by watching and patronizing them. 

I do blame the invention of the 24 hour news cycle as to the explosion and pervasiveness of this type of “news”, even though these types did exist since the founding of our nation and well before.  But the 24 hour news cycle became the catalyst.  The programmers and executives knew that they need to keep people watching them.  And they do it be appealing to our fears and anxieties.  And we bought it hook line and sinker.  As one of the rural Americans at the turn of the century shelling out a lot of hard earned cash to give to a medicine man selling snake oil.  We buy their portrayal of themselves as a lone wanderer crying in the wilderness, and not only watch but adjust our point of view to theirs, actually giving up our well fought for freedom to think, and letting them do it for us.  We (including I) think to ourselves, “not me, I can see through it all” and if you think this maybe it’s true, but more times than not these are the most duped.  I find myself often buying something because I think I am immune, and I am constantly realizing that me feeling like that is part of their shtick. 

What’s funny to me is that I also perceive some of what they do to be sincere.  I think that in their mind often they believe they are doing good things.  They have justified this bad behavior as beneficial, and patriotic.  (I do think there are some instances where there is no sincerity at all.)  And they have fallen victim to the age old problem of justification.   The Machiavellian concept of the “end justifies the means” pervades the media, but often is a reflection of what is going on in the government itself.  The issue of corruption in the media and corruption in the government is kind of a chicken and egg issue.  But what is clear to me is that they support and strengthen each other. 

It’s interesting to see the revolving door between the government, the media and the private lobby.  The aristocracy seems to be rivaling pre-revolutionary France, but is a surprisingly different turn of events they are being held up by the people, albeit a polarized contentious people.  We have an interestingly prideful stance in which we look at the system and see a corrupt and unproductive government, but we somehow delude ourselves to think that, ‘the candidate or party I support is different”, which is the equivalent of the biblical analogy of the mote and the beam.  From everything that I have noticed, even if a good man with good ideas gets started, they are often drummed out quickly or one of two things happens.  They become so entrenched in their own point of view, by necessity, to keep from being corrupt that they become so rigid and uncompromising that they are more obstructionist than productive.  Or, they ‘sell their soul to the devil’ so to speak to get their party’s support and nomination.  This is exasperated by the media, who is more interested in slander and spin to create a provocative story that can be blasted at us incessantly, than finding truth.  And since corruption is rampant through a self-serving society we call the Federal Government, there are lots of stories to tell, but even the honest are not immune from purposely misinterpreted and exploitive reporting.  Such that most individuals who would in any other era been excellent congressmen, senators and/or the President, steer clear of even the thought of public service.  Or fall into the category above. 

This post is very doomsday and I’m sorry for that, but there is a silver lining here, at least in my opinion.  First of all, we can remember that hold a high standard of what is good for our country and bad for our country is not the issue.  If no one did that where would we be?   What is wrong is the thought that your point of view is the only point of view.  Or that anyone who has a differing point of view is wrong; not only wrong but they built that point of view off of lies and deceit, or they are ignorant or unintelligent, or they themselves are evil.  Holding up the standard does not need to be this way.

Secondly, remember where your biggest influence lies.  You vote counts more when that vote is cast in a venue closer to you.  Places like your local school board, or your city council, and especially your party’s caucus meetings.  Choosing people with high standards but with compassion and mercy, and a good brain, is imperative.  Choosing people who have obvious agendas that seem extreme or unyielding in their point of view are trouble.  In contrast principled, strong and intelligent people are often willing to serve but are not necessarily the most out spoken, except when it’s important.  Look for these people; they usually hold a strong influence without being overly boisterous or persuasive.  These are the type of person you want to send to a convention. 

Choose good people at a local level and eventually it will expand out to larger levels of government.  Participate in these local elections, have you ever noticed how poor of turn-outs local elections get when not tied to a national election?  Yet these elections are where the majority of your influence resides.  Federal elections are important and need to have appropriate consideration, but the grass-roots of our parties do drive the whole.  If you think that that is wrong, look at what the tea party did within only one election cycle.  They were able to hijack many elections that were considered to be locks for the incumbent candidate.  It happened here in Utah.  They took over the caucuses and thus had more of their people at the convention and ousted Bob Bennett before he could even run his public campaign.  Yet the polls showed him well above his counterparts in the public arena.  But in the delegate arena he was dead in the water. 

I don’t particularly agree with most of the politics and obstructionist tactics of the tea party, but have to commend them for utilizing the system.  Making sure you attend these meetings whichever side you land on is critical. 

And lastly, and it may seem simplistic, but follow the golden rule.  Now I have been as guilty of not doing this as anyone.  Treat others ideas and beliefs the way you would want yours treated.  I have been reactive and argumentative lately.  To debate and argue is part of the process, but being argumentative is unproductive.  Arguing is the act of arguing or debate.  Being argumentative is a state of mind, and an attitude.  When I am argumentative, I only believe I am right and I have a hard time seeing someone else opinion, or point of view.  When I can discuss the issue with an open mind, even when I have strong principles and opinions behind it, I can see more about the situation than my point of view and even if I do not change my mind there may be ideas and understanding I can have to be able to explain my point of view in a more clear and understandable way. 

Too bad my friend I spoke of earlier hit on the media topic, and got a rambling unintelligible rant that came off as more bitter than informative.  I actually thought of it as fun to get out my feelings to him, but it came off as argumentative bitter and I believe he took it more as a slight against one political philosophy over another.  Which was not my intention at all, so I decided to try to explain myself in a clearer and less argumentative way. 

So I am extreme in my point of view, in the context of I extremely dislike hard line uncompromising positions, that give no room for ideas or differing opinions.  I am a member of the “extreme” middle.  I may be currently registered as a Democrat, but have many ideas and beliefs that would make the extremists on the left cringe, I have been a republican and had the same issue there.  For now I will remain where I am.  Stuck right in the “Extreme Middle” .