Middle Ground Challenge
Middle Ground Challenge
The tussle between the “conservatives” and the “progressives” is so
boisterous these days it is difficult not to smile at them – or laugh out loud?
Or it would be were it not for the potential consequences. Thus the lure of
the Middle Ground – but middle ground between what and what? The
ideologues get so ridiculous about it, it is difficult to determine what they
are really championing - or attacking, since what they say and what they do
are so couched in ambiguity. And let’s face it, what their leaders are clearly
defending today are the power bases they have staked out. To preserve
them they must lure voters by hard spinning of propaganda rhetoric and
high blown charismatic obfuscation, designed to rally them to target
positions, no matter how unrealistic, . Too harsh? Perhaps, but without
rather extreme positions all would look somewhat alike, would they not?
But the ideological extremes are not what they used to be, and that poses a
problem in defining just what they are. So, the middle ground between
what and what? The Middle Ground I attempt to defend is between hard
line individualist capitalism and dewy eyed idealistic egalitarian social
theorists. Outdated, yes, but more easily understandable. Or another take
on it might be the degree to which we want government to run our lives; that
might be closer to today’s challenge. Unfortunately our middle ground is,
and has been, moving toward more and more government control and less
and less individual responsibility, thus the middle ground is already moving
“left,” and this process is tending to skew traditional meaning of middle
ground. I would prefer the more traditional definition; my caveat is that we
must choose the right middle ground to defend, for the right reasons.
The complexity of modernity clearly makes middle ground more
challenging to define – and probably even to find. Professional politicians
are one of those complexities: politics has become a career that must be
defended – by those who have chosen it as their profession, and politicians
must differentiate themselves – to attract votes. But there is more, and
most of the more lies with economics: simply stated, our investment based
and capital driven global economy and the incredible amounts of money it
creates (more often in the nature of credit), is so complex – and
independent – and moves so rapidly that its scope is breathtaking. What’s
more, it is invasive, in that what one greedy fool (or bunches of) does at one
end of the chain of events can have a powerful effect on an innocent
someone at the other end, without his having done anything to warrant it,
and against which he often has no defense.
Hard line individualist capitalism is basically winner take all; dewy eyed
idealistic egalitarian social theorists would have us all share and share
alike, with healthy doses of governmental control. The former is brutal: let
the devil take the hindmost; the latter is unrealistic. Jonah Goldberg quotes
FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address to explain the objective: "the state
must provide...a useful and remunerative job; a decent home; adequate
medical care and the opportunity to and enjoy good health; adequate
protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and
unemployment; and a good education." Not provide the opportunity for, but
to provide; this remains the center of progressive aspirations today.
Interestingly, both have the potential of destroying initiative, either of
individuals at the hindmost, or of everyone; and the potential rewards for
initiative is what makes our system work.
There is probably no need to discuss the problems of unregulated
individualistic hard-line capitalism; ample propaganda has been generated
to make them quite clear – and we have fought that war. He who can have
it all takes it all, leaving the rest behind, and exploited. But providing for all
equally, without the benefit of providing initiatives is also destructive. It has
been shown repeatedly within our complex modern economy that damping
individual initiative, and the skills it generates, is also destructive; and
doing the same to capital initiatives associated with investing does the
same. Here is my middle ground: that where both initiatives are supported
and neither stifled. Surprisingly, perhaps, it is not all that difficult to define –
theoretically – if approached realistically, and therein lies the problem:
some (voters) will always suffer, at least in the short run. One recalls
Lincoln’s comment about pleasing all of the people some of the time,
some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time.
Historical individualist capitalists were the all some of the time; the
dreamers are the all some of the time – or more appropriately, all
marginally. The theoretical middle ground is to accept compromise that
allows the fires of initiative to remain kindled to the extent possible at all
levels. The key is rewarding initiative at both ends of the social spectrum,
and that is an incredibly difficult balancing act.
Why? Because everyone is out to get everything he can (with high
expectations of what that is) and all tend to see things very narrowly from
their own perspective, including the politicians. This is particularly the case
the closer we get to a zero sum game: it’s one thing when everyone feels
they are doing well – when things are getting better; it is quite another when
things are getting worse and all are fighting for their piece of a shrinking
pie. Two things will destroy initiative: no hope and no need. The middle
ground that must be defended has to provide the hope that effort can bear
results, while results accrue due to making the effort. And instead of
preaching the old politics of envy – rich versus poor – we need to be
explaining that success only comes with intelligent cooperation of labor
and capital - and that is not a zero sum game. The overriding challenge
comes when things are not working right and people either across the
spectrum or in isolated sectors of the spectrum are losing ground, often as
a result of actions outside of their control. Such actions must first be
understood by those who lead, then they must be explained to the rest of us
- and not for their own political benefit.
Easy to say. But we all know that when pain is being inflicted rational
thought comes hard. He got a bonus and I got laid off. He made a killing
and my house was repossessed. The complexities of our modern
economy are both stultifying and frustrating. So what if for every job
shipped overseas is matched with more than one shipped from there to
here, if the job that went overseas is mine? The attention span of one in
pain is short, and to urge patience falls on deaf ears. Yet there will be
pain. In fact there is strong indication that well intentioned actions taken in
time of pain often, instead of making it go away, make it worse. Actions
during and after the depression of 1929 appear to be in that exact category.
So what can be done?
That is the challenge of government and those we elect to carry it our, and
the extremes will never meet it. Oh, they might seem to be meeting it in the
short run, but most often at the detriment of the long run, by helping one
sector by penalizing another - or, because the penalized is usually that
which drives the economic engine, penalizing all of us in the long run.
Government, with the short view of re-election, or ignorance, or both, is
famous for creating unintended circumstances that only make things
worse, which is why we should seek wisdom in those whom we elect to the
challenge of governing. Such wisdom is rarely found at the extremes, as
the lessons of history make very clear. When we choose our leaders for
their siren songs of extremism we are unlikely to choose wisely, and we
are unlikely to choose wisdom. But such wisdom, either of choosing or of
the chosen is often not in large supply. Those who are choosing don’t
recognize it for being blinded by charismatic rhetoric; those who are chosen
are likely to hide the lack of it by the same means. This might define the
real challenge of middle ground thinking: first recognize and define the
extremes; then understand what it takes to find and achieve middle ground,
and finally to find leaders with the wisdom, character and fortitude capable
of working together to command it, perhaps by selectively getting out of the
way. There are few enough today who are choosing wisely, and fewer still
who qualify to be chosen.
The tussle between the “conservatives” and the “progressives” is so
boisterous these days it is difficult not to smile at them – or laugh out loud?
Or it would be were it not for the potential consequences. Thus the lure of
the Middle Ground – but middle ground between what and what? The
ideologues get so ridiculous about it, it is difficult to determine what they
are really championing - or attacking, since what they say and what they do
are so couched in ambiguity. And let’s face it, what their leaders are clearly
defending today are the power bases they have staked out. To preserve
them they must lure voters by hard spinning of propaganda rhetoric and
high blown charismatic obfuscation, designed to rally them to target
positions, no matter how unrealistic, . Too harsh? Perhaps, but without
rather extreme positions all would look somewhat alike, would they not?
But the ideological extremes are not what they used to be, and that poses a
problem in defining just what they are. So, the middle ground between
what and what? The Middle Ground I attempt to defend is between hard
line individualist capitalism and dewy eyed idealistic egalitarian social
theorists. Outdated, yes, but more easily understandable. Or another take
on it might be the degree to which we want government to run our lives; that
might be closer to today’s challenge. Unfortunately our middle ground is,
and has been, moving toward more and more government control and less
and less individual responsibility, thus the middle ground is already moving
“left,” and this process is tending to skew traditional meaning of middle
ground. I would prefer the more traditional definition; my caveat is that we
must choose the right middle ground to defend, for the right reasons.
The complexity of modernity clearly makes middle ground more
challenging to define – and probably even to find. Professional politicians
are one of those complexities: politics has become a career that must be
defended – by those who have chosen it as their profession, and politicians
must differentiate themselves – to attract votes. But there is more, and
most of the more lies with economics: simply stated, our investment based
and capital driven global economy and the incredible amounts of money it
creates (more often in the nature of credit), is so complex – and
independent – and moves so rapidly that its scope is breathtaking. What’s
more, it is invasive, in that what one greedy fool (or bunches of) does at one
end of the chain of events can have a powerful effect on an innocent
someone at the other end, without his having done anything to warrant it,
and against which he often has no defense.
Hard line individualist capitalism is basically winner take all; dewy eyed
idealistic egalitarian social theorists would have us all share and share
alike, with healthy doses of governmental control. The former is brutal: let
the devil take the hindmost; the latter is unrealistic. Jonah Goldberg quotes
FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address to explain the objective: "the state
must provide...a useful and remunerative job; a decent home; adequate
medical care and the opportunity to and enjoy good health; adequate
protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and
unemployment; and a good education." Not provide the opportunity for, but
to provide; this remains the center of progressive aspirations today.
Interestingly, both have the potential of destroying initiative, either of
individuals at the hindmost, or of everyone; and the potential rewards for
initiative is what makes our system work.
There is probably no need to discuss the problems of unregulated
individualistic hard-line capitalism; ample propaganda has been generated
to make them quite clear – and we have fought that war. He who can have
it all takes it all, leaving the rest behind, and exploited. But providing for all
equally, without the benefit of providing initiatives is also destructive. It has
been shown repeatedly within our complex modern economy that damping
individual initiative, and the skills it generates, is also destructive; and
doing the same to capital initiatives associated with investing does the
same. Here is my middle ground: that where both initiatives are supported
and neither stifled. Surprisingly, perhaps, it is not all that difficult to define –
theoretically – if approached realistically, and therein lies the problem:
some (voters) will always suffer, at least in the short run. One recalls
Lincoln’s comment about pleasing all of the people some of the time,
some of the people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time.
Historical individualist capitalists were the all some of the time; the
dreamers are the all some of the time – or more appropriately, all
marginally. The theoretical middle ground is to accept compromise that
allows the fires of initiative to remain kindled to the extent possible at all
levels. The key is rewarding initiative at both ends of the social spectrum,
and that is an incredibly difficult balancing act.
Why? Because everyone is out to get everything he can (with high
expectations of what that is) and all tend to see things very narrowly from
their own perspective, including the politicians. This is particularly the case
the closer we get to a zero sum game: it’s one thing when everyone feels
they are doing well – when things are getting better; it is quite another when
things are getting worse and all are fighting for their piece of a shrinking
pie. Two things will destroy initiative: no hope and no need. The middle
ground that must be defended has to provide the hope that effort can bear
results, while results accrue due to making the effort. And instead of
preaching the old politics of envy – rich versus poor – we need to be
explaining that success only comes with intelligent cooperation of labor
and capital - and that is not a zero sum game. The overriding challenge
comes when things are not working right and people either across the
spectrum or in isolated sectors of the spectrum are losing ground, often as
a result of actions outside of their control. Such actions must first be
understood by those who lead, then they must be explained to the rest of us
- and not for their own political benefit.
Easy to say. But we all know that when pain is being inflicted rational
thought comes hard. He got a bonus and I got laid off. He made a killing
and my house was repossessed. The complexities of our modern
economy are both stultifying and frustrating. So what if for every job
shipped overseas is matched with more than one shipped from there to
here, if the job that went overseas is mine? The attention span of one in
pain is short, and to urge patience falls on deaf ears. Yet there will be
pain. In fact there is strong indication that well intentioned actions taken in
time of pain often, instead of making it go away, make it worse. Actions
during and after the depression of 1929 appear to be in that exact category.
So what can be done?
That is the challenge of government and those we elect to carry it our, and
the extremes will never meet it. Oh, they might seem to be meeting it in the
short run, but most often at the detriment of the long run, by helping one
sector by penalizing another - or, because the penalized is usually that
which drives the economic engine, penalizing all of us in the long run.
Government, with the short view of re-election, or ignorance, or both, is
famous for creating unintended circumstances that only make things
worse, which is why we should seek wisdom in those whom we elect to the
challenge of governing. Such wisdom is rarely found at the extremes, as
the lessons of history make very clear. When we choose our leaders for
their siren songs of extremism we are unlikely to choose wisely, and we
are unlikely to choose wisdom. But such wisdom, either of choosing or of
the chosen is often not in large supply. Those who are choosing don’t
recognize it for being blinded by charismatic rhetoric; those who are chosen
are likely to hide the lack of it by the same means. This might define the
real challenge of middle ground thinking: first recognize and define the
extremes; then understand what it takes to find and achieve middle ground,
and finally to find leaders with the wisdom, character and fortitude capable
of working together to command it, perhaps by selectively getting out of the
way. There are few enough today who are choosing wisely, and fewer still
who qualify to be chosen.
Elitists Versus “The People” – A Dichotomy
Elitists Versus “The People” – A Dichotomy
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the
people” on the other, or one might even say the masses. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest
considerations shared by the founders of our republic, and it was ultimately determined through
difficult compromise that included: Federalism, population representation in the House of
Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and balances, and a strong
constitution and Bill of Rights that permitted the Constitution to be changed by state ratification.
Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged and deprecated by socialists at
one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance,
excessive self interest and susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too
susceptible to the lure of power and the existence of hubris. The founders understood the former but
feared the latter more, due to their experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the rule “of
the people” had really never been tried in the modern era, so that might have led to favoring the lure
of the unknown to the surety of the known. Of course it is evident that this struggle was a subset of
the more general poles of order versus rights, order ostensibly lying with elite leadership and rights
with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist leaders are selected, and the
power they are given, as well as the power they are denied. And who are the elitists? We apparently
have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists,
meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic votes from the people as
a mere screen for assuming power, then either revert to form once they have secured it or are lulled
by the temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and discounts the possibility that such
leaders actually believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or expedient
to do so. As personal motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the
mind of a seeker of power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the
people everything they want, find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without
expending any effort – or responsibility – in the process. So their challenge becomes how to share
resources without destroying the engine that creates them, whether they want it or not. There are
many models. The European current model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation. The Asian
model is more paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US
model is more geared to individual effort, a model that is moving inexorably toward the European
model. Unfortunately there is too much pressure from “the people” to do what they think needs to be
done – whatever that is – either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing
for self serving policies from their representatives. But has that not always been the case? And often
there is a great deal of sincere disagreement as to what really needs to be done, or where the line
needs to be drawn between social services and strong generation of incentives and responsibility.
And so we are back to motives again. What do the politicians really believe, and how far can they
go in doing what really needs to be done before they get voted out of office? And of course politicians
are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest of those that make up our complex elite
structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed and self interest, and
how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why the either/or model is
unrealistic, and balance between what could be and what is is far more realistic. This, of course, is
the middle ground to which we must aspire. The people don’t understand it; the politicians feel they
have to champion whatever to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to exploit. While
in the meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position they
support. Welcome to the real world, and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be
tempted to exploit it to the detriment of the rest of us, or at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address the issue of elitism or intellectualism versus the common
man. One, and I know this is generalization, has been trained and educated to understand the
issues and the history and economics that are behind them. The other has at best a peripheral
understanding and often less interest in the history and economics that are behind them. Americans
in particular tend not to be well versed in history, don’t give a great deal of time to understanding
culture, and throw up their hands when it comes to economics – except as it applies directly to them.
The challenge might be offered that this is true elsewhere as well, and I shan’t refute that, but the
subject here is Americans, so perhaps I am comparing to something ephemeral? And does that
make me an intellectual elitist snob to refer to it? I worry about that. A little knowledge, after all, being
compared to prideful or indifferent ignorance can do that, and that is part of my motivation for
addressing the subject in this essay
Let’s take “intellectualism.” Like it or not it entails education: I use the term in light of someone
who has studied and read about the issues and their backgrounds, has given thought to them and
perhaps has some experience in dealing with them. The extreme opposite is someone who is
ignorant about them and doesn’t care. As in everything the vast bulk of our population lies
somewhere in between either with little knowledge or some knowledge, with varying degrees of
interest and proclivities toward being susceptible to propaganda. It would seem preferable that the
leaders chosen were knowledgeable and experienced, if not expert. On the other hand superior
knowledge and experience can often lead to arrogance and has often enough in the past
transformed into increased lust for more. This is not always mere grabbing of power; it may be mere
conceit or avarice: I am right; I am smarter; I know how it needs to be; and so I shall make it happen;
and because of that I deserve to profit from it.
I am sensitive to the danger of this kind of attitude and my distrust of and opposition to arrogance
is manifestation of that. On the other hand I also mistrust ignorance and selfishness. Therein lies
the challenge to middle ground leadership; it tends to reside within middle class society – people
with education, knowledge and concern, the ability to think and have an open mind. Of course it
doesn’t exist in a pure form, but should be encouraged in the aggregate. I have little confidence in
the wisdom of “the people” (the mob, if your will) but I fear the conceited arrogance of the intellectual
self appointed elite. Having stated that I have been challenged: to lead must not one have a little
arrogance? I suspect so. And to get elected must one not tell the people what they want to hear? I
am afraid so – but only to a point. I do have confidence in the bulk of the people to be able to spot a
bald face lie. The bulk of the people who embrace the American culture are not stupid, and realize
when they are being offered something that is unrealistic; or I certainly hope that is the case, for if that
is not the case the game is over. But this is why effective democracy requires educated voters with
understanding of the concept and familiarity with the infrastructure and how it functions.
This is my middle ground between elite arrogance and ignorance of the masses. Elite arrogance
must be tempered; mass ignorance needs to be eliminated – through knowledge. Unchecked elite
arrogance leads to factionalism; mass ignorance leads to subjugation; but a combination leads to
socialistic dictatorship. Between the extremes the terrain is dicey and the challenges daunting, and
only through an amalgamation of the elite and the people, with respect for the institution will it
continue to function – and survive.
Elitists Versus “The People” – A Dichotomy
The most difficult middle ground defense is against attacks from the elitists on one side and “the
people” on the other, or one might even say the masses. This, incidentally, was one of the heaviest
considerations shared by the founders of our republic, and it was ultimately determined through
difficult compromise that included: Federalism, population representation in the House of
Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate, checks and balances, and a strong
constitution and Bill of Rights that permitted the Constitution to be changed by state ratification.
Compromises and lack thereof are, as one would expect, both urged and deprecated by socialists at
one end of the spectrum and democrats on the other.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the people lack the ability to rule themselves due to ignorance,
excessive self interest and susceptibility to propaganda. The elites, on the other hand, are far too
susceptible to the lure of power and the existence of hubris. The founders understood the former but
feared the latter more, due to their experience with European aristocratic tyranny. In fact the rule “of
the people” had really never been tried in the modern era, so that might have led to favoring the lure
of the unknown to the surety of the known. Of course it is evident that this struggle was a subset of
the more general poles of order versus rights, order ostensibly lying with elite leadership and rights
with people’s desires.
Interestingly, elitism is a sticky wicket and depends on how elitist leaders are selected, and the
power they are given, as well as the power they are denied. And who are the elitists? We apparently
have two criteria: education and money. And the people? Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists,
meaning adherents of “the people,” who became dictatorial tyrants. Mugabe, Lenin, Stalin and
Chavez are of the same ilk. This would suggest that many use democratic votes from the people as
a mere screen for assuming power, then either revert to form once they have secured it or are lulled
by the temptation of power. That’s probably too simple and discounts the possibility that such
leaders actually believe in their message, but then revert because they find it necessary or expedient
to do so. As personal motives are often difficult to assess, one really never knows what is in the
mind of a seeker of power.
I think the bottom line of it all is that, regardless of motivation, populists who want to promise the
people everything they want, find they can’t deliver. The people want too much – and too often without
expending any effort – or responsibility – in the process. So their challenge becomes how to share
resources without destroying the engine that creates them, whether they want it or not. There are
many models. The European current model is socialistic leaning, with high taxation. The Asian
model is more paternalistic. The Latin American model is somewhere in between, and the US
model is more geared to individual effort, a model that is moving inexorably toward the European
model. Unfortunately there is too much pressure from “the people” to do what they think needs to be
done – whatever that is – either in electing incompetents that don’t know how to govern, or in pushing
for self serving policies from their representatives. But has that not always been the case? And often
there is a great deal of sincere disagreement as to what really needs to be done, or where the line
needs to be drawn between social services and strong generation of incentives and responsibility.
And so we are back to motives again. What do the politicians really believe, and how far can they
go in doing what really needs to be done before they get voted out of office? And of course politicians
are human and susceptible to temptation, as are all the rest of those that make up our complex elite
structure. So let’s face it, the system – whatever system – is loaded with greed and self interest, and
how could it be otherwise, considering the nature of man? Which is why the either/or model is
unrealistic, and balance between what could be and what is is far more realistic. This, of course, is
the middle ground to which we must aspire. The people don’t understand it; the politicians feel they
have to champion whatever to get elected; and the media exploits whatever they find to exploit. While
in the meantime everyone out there is doing his or her best for themselves and the position they
support. Welcome to the real world, and beware, whoever achieves too much power is going to be
tempted to exploit it to the detriment of the rest of us, or at least those that don’t agree with them.
That, however, doesn’t really address the issue of elitism or intellectualism versus the common
man. One, and I know this is generalization, has been trained and educated to understand the
issues and the history and economics that are behind them. The other has at best a peripheral
understanding and often less interest in the history and economics that are behind them. Americans
in particular tend not to be well versed in history, don’t give a great deal of time to understanding
culture, and throw up their hands when it comes to economics – except as it applies directly to them.
The challenge might be offered that this is true elsewhere as well, and I shan’t refute that, but the
subject here is Americans, so perhaps I am comparing to something ephemeral? And does that
make me an intellectual elitist snob to refer to it? I worry about that. A little knowledge, after all, being
compared to prideful or indifferent ignorance can do that, and that is part of my motivation for
addressing the subject in this essay
Let’s take “intellectualism.” Like it or not it entails education: I use the term in light of someone
who has studied and read about the issues and their backgrounds, has given thought to them and
perhaps has some experience in dealing with them. The extreme opposite is someone who is
ignorant about them and doesn’t care. As in everything the vast bulk of our population lies
somewhere in between either with little knowledge or some knowledge, with varying degrees of
interest and proclivities toward being susceptible to propaganda. It would seem preferable that the
leaders chosen were knowledgeable and experienced, if not expert. On the other hand superior
knowledge and experience can often lead to arrogance and has often enough in the past
transformed into increased lust for more. This is not always mere grabbing of power; it may be mere
conceit or avarice: I am right; I am smarter; I know how it needs to be; and so I shall make it happen;
and because of that I deserve to profit from it.
I am sensitive to the danger of this kind of attitude and my distrust of and opposition to arrogance
is manifestation of that. On the other hand I also mistrust ignorance and selfishness. Therein lies
the challenge to middle ground leadership; it tends to reside within middle class society – people
with education, knowledge and concern, the ability to think and have an open mind. Of course it
doesn’t exist in a pure form, but should be encouraged in the aggregate. I have little confidence in
the wisdom of “the people” (the mob, if your will) but I fear the conceited arrogance of the intellectual
self appointed elite. Having stated that I have been challenged: to lead must not one have a little
arrogance? I suspect so. And to get elected must one not tell the people what they want to hear? I
am afraid so – but only to a point. I do have confidence in the bulk of the people to be able to spot a
bald face lie. The bulk of the people who embrace the American culture are not stupid, and realize
when they are being offered something that is unrealistic; or I certainly hope that is the case, for if that
is not the case the game is over. But this is why effective democracy requires educated voters with
understanding of the concept and familiarity with the infrastructure and how it functions.
This is my middle ground between elite arrogance and ignorance of the masses. Elite arrogance
must be tempered; mass ignorance needs to be eliminated – through knowledge. Unchecked elite
arrogance leads to factionalism; mass ignorance leads to subjugation; but a combination leads to
socialistic dictatorship. Between the extremes the terrain is dicey and the challenges daunting, and
only through an amalgamation of the elite and the people, with respect for the institution will it
continue to function – and survive.
Third Way
From Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism:
“Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a
“middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and
socialism…The “middle way” sounds moderate and
un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological
and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is
not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and
authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in
its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-
offs…The Third Way holds that we can have
capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and
absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly
utopian because they…assume that with just the right
arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be
rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never
be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is
why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes
that the right man (or the right party) can resolve all of
these contradictions through sheer will. The populist
demagogue takes on the role of the parent telling the
childlike masses that he can make everything ‘all
better’ if they just trust him.”
These excerpts, Mr. Goldberg would probably
contend, are taken out of context, and he would be
correct, as he is talking about ideology and not a
means of merging different principles within a single,
but flexible ideology. But the italicized (mine)
sentences above points to the difference between a
Third Way and a middle ground, with probably the key
words being: with absolute unity; and Its utopian
aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the
idea that politics is about trade-off. The Middle
Ground to which I attempt to allude is a political
middle ground that is about trade-offs. Absolute unity
is the important stumper; there is no possibility of
accepting, even encouraging, trade-offs at the same
time insisting upon absolute unity.
The differences between middle ground and a Middle
Way, as described above, are such that they cannot
be seen as the same thing at all, and perhaps we will
see the dichotomy again as China attempts its tight
rope act of implementing capitalism within a matrix of
socialism. Hobbes saw democracy as disorderly,
unstable and intensely dangerous, and so it is.
Madison (Federalist Number 10) said that faction can
not be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself.
Absolute unity and representative democracy are
incompatible. John Dunn, A History of Democracy:
“representative democracy is a compromise between
the ‘order of egoism’ (roughly in our case forced
absolute unity) and partisans of equality. Authority
comes from the equality of the people, but leadership
comes from the order of egoism.” This is that same
chaotic compromise between order and liberty.
In my defense of Middle Ground I first felt I had to
argue against Goldberg’s observations. I really
should have known better; I end up explaining the
differences, using Goldberg’s own words. I might
point out in passing, however, Goldberg’s words
about demagogue populism, and emphasize their
threat to an informed Middle Ground. This subject can
be seen throughout this website: populism and
propaganda and is being exacerbated by the current
simplistic propaganda of envy so powerfully
propagated by television and computer bloggers.
This is off this particular subject, but I could not pass
up the opportunity to point it out.
From Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism:
“Fascist and Nazi intellectuals constantly touted a
“middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and
socialism…The “middle way” sounds moderate and
un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological
and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is
not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and
authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in
its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-
offs…The Third Way holds that we can have
capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and
absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly
utopian because they…assume that with just the right
arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be
rectified. This is a political siren song; life can never
be made perfect, because man is imperfect. This is
why the Third Way is also authoritarian. It assumes
that the right man (or the right party) can resolve all of
these contradictions through sheer will. The populist
demagogue takes on the role of the parent telling the
childlike masses that he can make everything ‘all
better’ if they just trust him.”
These excerpts, Mr. Goldberg would probably
contend, are taken out of context, and he would be
correct, as he is talking about ideology and not a
means of merging different principles within a single,
but flexible ideology. But the italicized (mine)
sentences above points to the difference between a
Third Way and a middle ground, with probably the key
words being: with absolute unity; and Its utopian
aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the
idea that politics is about trade-off. The Middle
Ground to which I attempt to allude is a political
middle ground that is about trade-offs. Absolute unity
is the important stumper; there is no possibility of
accepting, even encouraging, trade-offs at the same
time insisting upon absolute unity.
The differences between middle ground and a Middle
Way, as described above, are such that they cannot
be seen as the same thing at all, and perhaps we will
see the dichotomy again as China attempts its tight
rope act of implementing capitalism within a matrix of
socialism. Hobbes saw democracy as disorderly,
unstable and intensely dangerous, and so it is.
Madison (Federalist Number 10) said that faction can
not be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself.
Absolute unity and representative democracy are
incompatible. John Dunn, A History of Democracy:
“representative democracy is a compromise between
the ‘order of egoism’ (roughly in our case forced
absolute unity) and partisans of equality. Authority
comes from the equality of the people, but leadership
comes from the order of egoism.” This is that same
chaotic compromise between order and liberty.
In my defense of Middle Ground I first felt I had to
argue against Goldberg’s observations. I really
should have known better; I end up explaining the
differences, using Goldberg’s own words. I might
point out in passing, however, Goldberg’s words
about demagogue populism, and emphasize their
threat to an informed Middle Ground. This subject can
be seen throughout this website: populism and
propaganda and is being exacerbated by the current
simplistic propaganda of envy so powerfully
propagated by television and computer bloggers.
This is off this particular subject, but I could not pass
up the opportunity to point it out.
From above:
John Dunn, A History of
Democracy: “representative
democracy is a compromise
between the ‘order of
egoism’ (the elite?) and
partisans of equality (he
people). Authority comes
from the equality of the
people, but leadership
comes from the order of
egoism.”
John Dunn, A History of
Democracy: “representative
democracy is a compromise
between the ‘order of
egoism’ (the elite?) and
partisans of equality (he
people). Authority comes
from the equality of the
people, but leadership
comes from the order of
egoism.”
After a great deal of pondering and gnashing it has occurred to me
(I know, DUH!) That the Middle Ground is, in actuality, a scuffle
over economics - who gets what, who pays for it, and how. But
also how much the government is allowed to determine the how
through regulation.
The problem is that most people don't understand economics,
don't really want to make the effort to, and would prefer an
emotionally satisfying position that assumes what they want it to
be - emotionally.
What matters what has happened prior (historically)? We are
smarter (Secretary Robert Reich told us so) and whatever we want
to happen we can make happen.
So why do I feel, depressingly, like I am fighting a losing battle?
(I know, DUH!) That the Middle Ground is, in actuality, a scuffle
over economics - who gets what, who pays for it, and how. But
also how much the government is allowed to determine the how
through regulation.
The problem is that most people don't understand economics,
don't really want to make the effort to, and would prefer an
emotionally satisfying position that assumes what they want it to
be - emotionally.
What matters what has happened prior (historically)? We are
smarter (Secretary Robert Reich told us so) and whatever we want
to happen we can make happen.
So why do I feel, depressingly, like I am fighting a losing battle?
Ok, yes, regulation of lots of things - but as
Rousseau said about politics, everything is
economics - well, almost everything.
Rousseau said about politics, everything is
economics - well, almost everything.