Life is complex - and it's becoming more so. We have a populous world and lots
of folks scratching around to take care of themselves, willing to do what they need to
do for the sake of old number one: self, family, clan.
But that won't cut it. We have survived all these millennia by working together -
well, sort of, grudgingly - and will continue to do so, or we won't.
Governments complicate this picture because they attempt to organize their
populations in one way or another, and in so doing the nations they represent can be
viewed something like their populations, with personalities (cultures), interests and
objective (policies). But they change with events. In fact our world is in a state of
constant change, and therein lies the challenge.
To completely understand is difficult, perhaps impossible, because each nation is
full of different people with different ideas and different situations, all in a continual
state of change. But we must try - with open mind we must try.
The problem has to do with knowledge and understanding of it, but what
knowledge? Knowledge is also constantly changing. Such is the nature of man -
continual change. In such a world the pursuit of knowledge is critically important, but
the amount of ignorance is legion, and the amount of disinformation for selfish
purposes confuses the issue.
The Middle Ground, that which exists between the emotional extremes has to be
defended. It is where our future lies - else there is no future.
of folks scratching around to take care of themselves, willing to do what they need to
do for the sake of old number one: self, family, clan.
But that won't cut it. We have survived all these millennia by working together -
well, sort of, grudgingly - and will continue to do so, or we won't.
Governments complicate this picture because they attempt to organize their
populations in one way or another, and in so doing the nations they represent can be
viewed something like their populations, with personalities (cultures), interests and
objective (policies). But they change with events. In fact our world is in a state of
constant change, and therein lies the challenge.
To completely understand is difficult, perhaps impossible, because each nation is
full of different people with different ideas and different situations, all in a continual
state of change. But we must try - with open mind we must try.
The problem has to do with knowledge and understanding of it, but what
knowledge? Knowledge is also constantly changing. Such is the nature of man -
continual change. In such a world the pursuit of knowledge is critically important, but
the amount of ignorance is legion, and the amount of disinformation for selfish
purposes confuses the issue.
The Middle Ground, that which exists between the emotional extremes has to be
defended. It is where our future lies - else there is no future.
In that interest a particular objective of this
website is to highlight the need to search for and
pursue knowledge wherever it might be found - and
then think about it, not emotionally, but logically and
with an open mind. We must THINK about it, for that
is the way knowledge is gained. Knowledge for
what? To define and defend the Middle Ground.
Another purpose is to provide me a forum to
share my thoughts and interpretations, and in the
process, formulate them - a process that generates
thinking. There is no better way to think than to try to
express an idea or thought in written form.
I have published an attempt to do that and the link
to it is shown to the right. I am currently working on
another and can attest to the challenge it presents.
But the rewards are great - not monetary rewards,
but rewards of knowledge
And finally it's kind of fun.
website is to highlight the need to search for and
pursue knowledge wherever it might be found - and
then think about it, not emotionally, but logically and
with an open mind. We must THINK about it, for that
is the way knowledge is gained. Knowledge for
what? To define and defend the Middle Ground.
Another purpose is to provide me a forum to
share my thoughts and interpretations, and in the
process, formulate them - a process that generates
thinking. There is no better way to think than to try to
express an idea or thought in written form.
I have published an attempt to do that and the link
to it is shown to the right. I am currently working on
another and can attest to the challenge it presents.
But the rewards are great - not monetary rewards,
but rewards of knowledge
And finally it's kind of fun.
The subjects below I believe to be of concern to us all. We may have different opinions as to how they should be
addressed, but however that may be, they need to be of concern. Unfortunately we seem to have trouble on agreeing
with much these days, and perhaps that is understandable, since we each have our own perspective - and more
importantly, perhaps, our own vulnerability in how the outcome might be decided and pursued. In other words it depends
on how much skin we might have in the game and whether we have an ox to gore. Let's face it, that's the way it is.
But fighting over the differences is not the answer - finding Middle Ground is.
addressed, but however that may be, they need to be of concern. Unfortunately we seem to have trouble on agreeing
with much these days, and perhaps that is understandable, since we each have our own perspective - and more
importantly, perhaps, our own vulnerability in how the outcome might be decided and pursued. In other words it depends
on how much skin we might have in the game and whether we have an ox to gore. Let's face it, that's the way it is.
But fighting over the differences is not the answer - finding Middle Ground is.
PHAEDO 2000
| The unique form of Democratic Republic that was fashioned for us, and has stood us in such good stead, is not well appreciated, and in fact not well understood. Such elements as separation of powers; checks and balances; federalism and even more critically, the Constitution; and what they entail, contribute to our continuing success as much as do our freedoms. Ignorance of them could result in killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Contrary to popular belief there is an American culture and it is embodied in that very same Democratic Republic, and the manner in which it has been fashioned. It goes much further than voting for representatives, and includes such mundane concepts as rule of law and free enterprise. Unfortunately most immigrants seek to join us for what we have and not for what we are; and some even eschew that very same culture that makes it possible for them to share what we have - to the detriment of all - them and us. Illegal immigration is a unique and very critical part of this problem. Another problem contributor has to do with diversity. The justified pride in our immigrant roots seems to have blinded us to the importance of preserving our American culture. Diversity in background is one thing, diversity in language and culture is quite another. Though we wish to avoid dictatorial controls at all costs, we should also be mindful of the other end of the spectrum - chaotic anarchy. Our strength has always been the balance that comes with compromise. If that is lost, all is lost. The watchword should be mutual respect and not unrestricted diversity. From the beginning and before there have always been concerns about democracy. The primary ones have been quality of representation and what is known as the tyranny of the majority. Both can be manifested in something called populism: give them what they want and they'll vote you into - and keep you in - public office. If representatives lack qualifications (or integrity) and gain office by promising voters whatever they want, without the fiscal responsibility to support it, chaos will ensue. A Democratic Republic assumes a knowledgeable electorate. In these times knowledge is necessarily challenged: there is just too much to know. But a knowledgeable electorate need not know all about everything; they merely need to know enough to weigh and question. The power of mass communication is building a serious challenge to that concept. Television, computers, advertising and entertainment, all tied together, present such a convincing bundle of slick sound bite logic as to be difficult to resist. Propaganda is selected information, and with the volume available there must be a process of selection. Many will try to select, the result will be myriad differences, and we will be constantly bombarded from all sides. We may listen to both propaganda and propagandists, but must understand the selectivity and motives behind what they say, then decide - rejecting both the propaganda and the propagandists we find wanting. Commerce, including world trade, is vastly complicated, and it is often difficult to be able to discern what is ultimately good and what is ultimately bad; often short term good can lead to long term bad. It is no longer possible for us to not be concerned about what is happening in the rest of the world, because, like it or not, it can and likely will impact us. We might rail against oil dependency, but our economy is oil dependent. We can rail against foreign trade, but we are foreign trade dependent. In fact we are currently being kept afloat by the purchase of American debt by foreign investors. Emotional and often uniformed self-serving rhetoric is unhelpful. In that light we need also understand the threat of terrorism. Terrorists are not capable of building anything; they only destroy and If they were able to take over anything it would be only to destroy it. Our vulnerability is not to being taken over, but to having world commerce, the life blood of our very existence, interdicted. On the other hand terrorists have learned to use the very freedoms that define us for their own destructive purposes, and would, if we allow them to, destroy our culture from the inside. Terrorism, Islamism, Salafism, et. al Our very success is our vulnerability. We have so much, but want more, and feel everyone is entitled to what they want, which is not necessarily what they earn or deserve. That success is based on insatiable demand, but since demand begets supply it all balances out - up to a point. This supplying of demand, and a system that both enables it and encourages it is the basis of American success. Hardly anywhere else in the world can businesses be conceived and launched as they are in this country, thanks to our liberal commercial laws and our system of financing. But the rest of the world is catching up - and challenging us. Will we meet the challenges? Or will we tear ourselves apart with legal and social in- fighting? Success need not be a zero sum game, but it can be. In the end, slipping morality: lying, cheating, intimidation are threatening our existence as never before. Ignorance, indifference, self absorption and unbridled expectations are aiding and abetting them. The foundation of the problem though, as the foundation of the solution, is family. Ours are deteriorating and if that trend is not reversed it is almost inevitable that our culture will follow. What are we doing about that? |
DEFENDING THE EMBATTLED MIDDLE GROUND
| jerry betts PHAEDO2000@SBCGLOBAL.NET |
Further Musings on the Subject
It is most discouraging, even depressing, for me to think about the above problems, and then some,
being aware of all the knowledgeable material that has been written about them - including suggested
solutions - and realize I am powerless not only to do something about them, but to even share what I have
read. Why?
By and large most Americans are not particularly interested in knowing more about the problems; some
don't even acknowledge them, and some refute that they exist. We seem, for the most part, just not interested
- we don't want to be bothered. We don't want interference with our personal lives, we don't want to think
about it, and besides, we are convinced (as I have just said I am) that there is nothing we can do about it.
This is not an unusual predicament; most people are fully occupied in trying to deal with their own
individual problems, and our nation has become so huge that we feel, even if we thought we could, we don't
know how. Letters to editors? Letters to Congressmen? The result is discouraging; I have tried. In fact I
have heard many, many people decry the lack of interest they have gotten from their Congressmen - unless,
of course, they are influential contributors to their campaigns. We can add to that, particularly among the
young, the overwhelming preference for entertainment - almost to the exclusion or all else.
The solution is leadership, and we all hunger for leadership - to lead in the direction WE feel it should lead.
But alas, what the "leaders" hear is the cacophony of voices all shouting different recommendations -
most of which are self serving. That, after all, is one of the problems of democracy: it is not known for quick
and focused solutions. But in the meantime it is my opinion, and I think the opinion of many more concerned
citizens, that the problems are mounting and not confronting them will pose serious problems to our nation
and to our culture - and therefore to us. This is not intended as sensational armageddon ramblings; the end
is not immanent. It is honest concern for the future which I believe we need to address - or at least think
seriously about.
That, in my simple, limited way is what I am trying to do, though I suspect I shall reach as limited an
audience in this media as I did in my last (book publishing) media. So be it. Why do I feel like don Quijote?
Onward Sancho Panza!
It is most discouraging, even depressing, for me to think about the above problems, and then some,
being aware of all the knowledgeable material that has been written about them - including suggested
solutions - and realize I am powerless not only to do something about them, but to even share what I have
read. Why?
By and large most Americans are not particularly interested in knowing more about the problems; some
don't even acknowledge them, and some refute that they exist. We seem, for the most part, just not interested
- we don't want to be bothered. We don't want interference with our personal lives, we don't want to think
about it, and besides, we are convinced (as I have just said I am) that there is nothing we can do about it.
This is not an unusual predicament; most people are fully occupied in trying to deal with their own
individual problems, and our nation has become so huge that we feel, even if we thought we could, we don't
know how. Letters to editors? Letters to Congressmen? The result is discouraging; I have tried. In fact I
have heard many, many people decry the lack of interest they have gotten from their Congressmen - unless,
of course, they are influential contributors to their campaigns. We can add to that, particularly among the
young, the overwhelming preference for entertainment - almost to the exclusion or all else.
The solution is leadership, and we all hunger for leadership - to lead in the direction WE feel it should lead.
But alas, what the "leaders" hear is the cacophony of voices all shouting different recommendations -
most of which are self serving. That, after all, is one of the problems of democracy: it is not known for quick
and focused solutions. But in the meantime it is my opinion, and I think the opinion of many more concerned
citizens, that the problems are mounting and not confronting them will pose serious problems to our nation
and to our culture - and therefore to us. This is not intended as sensational armageddon ramblings; the end
is not immanent. It is honest concern for the future which I believe we need to address - or at least think
seriously about.
That, in my simple, limited way is what I am trying to do, though I suspect I shall reach as limited an
audience in this media as I did in my last (book publishing) media. So be it. Why do I feel like don Quijote?
Onward Sancho Panza!
Some Reading Favorites
A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman
Classical Civilization edited by Simon
Hornblower & Antony Spawforth
Ancient History by J.M. Roberts
The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel
Huntington
The Age of Jackson by Arthur Schlesinger
Oxford History of the American People by
Samuel Morrison
Modern Times by Paul Johnson
Classical Civilization edited by Simon
Hornblower & Antony Spawforth
Ancient History by J.M. Roberts
The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel
Huntington
The Age of Jackson by Arthur Schlesinger
Oxford History of the American People by
Samuel Morrison
Modern Times by Paul Johnson
Culture, Identity and Politics by Ernest
Gellner
Nations and Nationalism by Ernest Gellner
Culture Matters edited by Lawrence
Harrison and Samuel Huntington
Asian Power and Politics by Lucian W. Pye
The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zacharia
Forgotten Continent by Michael Reid
Gellner
Nations and Nationalism by Ernest Gellner
Culture Matters edited by Lawrence
Harrison and Samuel Huntington
Asian Power and Politics by Lucian W. Pye
The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zacharia
Forgotten Continent by Michael Reid
To understand the present and to have some concept of what the future might be requires an
understanding of the past - history - and the more widely we read the greater the focus. History after
all is written in chunks both in terms of time and in terms of place. World histories are useful, but
very broad. Histories of specific countries at specific times are far narrower and more detailed. We
need both, and as much of both as we can tolerate, putting them together like pieces of a puzzle.
Below is a short list of some of the books - scholarly books, I might add, that have had the
greatest impact upon whatever knowledge I might have gained. I recommend them, one and all.
understanding of the past - history - and the more widely we read the greater the focus. History after
all is written in chunks both in terms of time and in terms of place. World histories are useful, but
very broad. Histories of specific countries at specific times are far narrower and more detailed. We
need both, and as much of both as we can tolerate, putting them together like pieces of a puzzle.
Below is a short list of some of the books - scholarly books, I might add, that have had the
greatest impact upon whatever knowledge I might have gained. I recommend them, one and all.
The story of man is the story of struggle for power: power to survive, power to accomplish, power
to keep others from accomplishing, and power just for the sake of power. Power exists in both
macro and micro forms, on the world stage, between nations, within nations and between men at
every level of life. It is in man's nature to struggle for power, though many might not even know, or
admit, that is what they are doing.
The current model of power - leadership - government - in the world is the nation state and within
all nations there are differences of opinion. Some allow greater expression of it than others, but it is
always there, even in the least of us. Some opinion is backed by knowledge and fact, some is
merely the expression of uninformed emotion. And of course there is much in between. Every nation
is led by an elite - its government, and elites may assume leadership in many ways. But no matter
how elite is determined, it is ultimately influenced by "the will of the people," sometimes radically,
sometimes not. But when things get bad enough, people in any nation will let their opinions be
known. In the variety of nations espousing some form of representative leadership there is a
mechanism to focus the opinions of those who vote to select their leaders and those who wish to be
of the elite leadership strive to dominate that focus, toward themselves. This striving is included in
the definition of the word propaganda - selected information. In the United States and many other
places in the world today the art of propaganda, supported by powerful communications capability
(particularly television), is amazingly effective.
The elite gains that position in many ways. Preferably they get there because of knowledge and
ability. All want to be led by those who have the capability to lead effectively. But in current day
communications environments candidates, trained and "spun" by propaganda specialists can
assume personalities and positions for the purpose of being elected to the elite that are effected,
and it can be very difficult for voters to know who they really are and what they really believe. But that
is the voter challenge.
And voters, "the people," with their myriad opinions, are predictable - not each but all taken
together. They will fall on a normal distribution with the radical opinions falling on the far right and
the far left of a plotted graph. Traditionally the far right has been conservative - that is, resistant to
change. The far left has been liberal, or in favor of change. Those definitions are not very helpful
today and many substitutes have been suggested: more or less government, more or less
populism, business orientation for and against. None are particularly satisfactory because people
can be on one end of the graph on one issue and the other end of the graph on another issue and
they can be passionately or only mildly in favor on any of them.
It is safe to say, because this is the nature of all normal distributions, and opinions tend toward a
normal distribution, that a small minority of voters will fall at the radical extremes and the bulk will fall
somewhere nearer the middle. A normal distribution, after its shape, is called a bell curve.
But as anyone familiar with business and advertising knows, to be noticed one must differentiate
from competitors. That differentiation in politics, at least in today's politics, tends to focus on the
extremes in defining their position on issues (because the differentiation is more pronounced) and
then try to pull the mass in the middle toward them - their positions. Primarily for that reason political
party platforms are differentiated one from the other by their positions left and right of center, and
apparently differentiation's needs today tend to drive them farther and farther either left or right.
So, and I have been round about getting here, who speaks for the middle? Who is it that takes a
conservative position on one issue and a liberal position on another, unapologetically? The answer
within the American two-party system is no one. For good enough reason, considering the
propaganda of politics: if everyone is right in the middle how can one differentiate among them? The
answer, by learning and understanding each's position on all the important (to the voter) issues,
sitting down and studying them, along with the ultimate character and confidence picture that evolves
in the process. Of course even this information may be slanted based on who is providing it.
Current American culture, however, doesn't support even that very well. Voters by and large are
not willing to make that time or effort commitment. We live in a very busy, short horizon, sound bite
culture that shapes and is shaped by glitzy, emotional, aggressive propaganda - high power
advertising. Which drives the two parties to extremes to differentiate themselves, or perhaps more
accurately, to flock around those who are more comfortable moving toward those extremes.
I am a centrist, though a conservative centrist. I don't care for either extreme and I am highly in
favor of working out a position that is constructed upon good common sense and compromise, and
not on short sighted emotion. Is this any longer possible? I don't know. But that's where I am and I
am not moving. My Thermopylae is
DEFENDING THE MIDDLE GROUND
and the
PRINCIPLES
that support it.
to keep others from accomplishing, and power just for the sake of power. Power exists in both
macro and micro forms, on the world stage, between nations, within nations and between men at
every level of life. It is in man's nature to struggle for power, though many might not even know, or
admit, that is what they are doing.
The current model of power - leadership - government - in the world is the nation state and within
all nations there are differences of opinion. Some allow greater expression of it than others, but it is
always there, even in the least of us. Some opinion is backed by knowledge and fact, some is
merely the expression of uninformed emotion. And of course there is much in between. Every nation
is led by an elite - its government, and elites may assume leadership in many ways. But no matter
how elite is determined, it is ultimately influenced by "the will of the people," sometimes radically,
sometimes not. But when things get bad enough, people in any nation will let their opinions be
known. In the variety of nations espousing some form of representative leadership there is a
mechanism to focus the opinions of those who vote to select their leaders and those who wish to be
of the elite leadership strive to dominate that focus, toward themselves. This striving is included in
the definition of the word propaganda - selected information. In the United States and many other
places in the world today the art of propaganda, supported by powerful communications capability
(particularly television), is amazingly effective.
The elite gains that position in many ways. Preferably they get there because of knowledge and
ability. All want to be led by those who have the capability to lead effectively. But in current day
communications environments candidates, trained and "spun" by propaganda specialists can
assume personalities and positions for the purpose of being elected to the elite that are effected,
and it can be very difficult for voters to know who they really are and what they really believe. But that
is the voter challenge.
And voters, "the people," with their myriad opinions, are predictable - not each but all taken
together. They will fall on a normal distribution with the radical opinions falling on the far right and
the far left of a plotted graph. Traditionally the far right has been conservative - that is, resistant to
change. The far left has been liberal, or in favor of change. Those definitions are not very helpful
today and many substitutes have been suggested: more or less government, more or less
populism, business orientation for and against. None are particularly satisfactory because people
can be on one end of the graph on one issue and the other end of the graph on another issue and
they can be passionately or only mildly in favor on any of them.
It is safe to say, because this is the nature of all normal distributions, and opinions tend toward a
normal distribution, that a small minority of voters will fall at the radical extremes and the bulk will fall
somewhere nearer the middle. A normal distribution, after its shape, is called a bell curve.
But as anyone familiar with business and advertising knows, to be noticed one must differentiate
from competitors. That differentiation in politics, at least in today's politics, tends to focus on the
extremes in defining their position on issues (because the differentiation is more pronounced) and
then try to pull the mass in the middle toward them - their positions. Primarily for that reason political
party platforms are differentiated one from the other by their positions left and right of center, and
apparently differentiation's needs today tend to drive them farther and farther either left or right.
So, and I have been round about getting here, who speaks for the middle? Who is it that takes a
conservative position on one issue and a liberal position on another, unapologetically? The answer
within the American two-party system is no one. For good enough reason, considering the
propaganda of politics: if everyone is right in the middle how can one differentiate among them? The
answer, by learning and understanding each's position on all the important (to the voter) issues,
sitting down and studying them, along with the ultimate character and confidence picture that evolves
in the process. Of course even this information may be slanted based on who is providing it.
Current American culture, however, doesn't support even that very well. Voters by and large are
not willing to make that time or effort commitment. We live in a very busy, short horizon, sound bite
culture that shapes and is shaped by glitzy, emotional, aggressive propaganda - high power
advertising. Which drives the two parties to extremes to differentiate themselves, or perhaps more
accurately, to flock around those who are more comfortable moving toward those extremes.
I am a centrist, though a conservative centrist. I don't care for either extreme and I am highly in
favor of working out a position that is constructed upon good common sense and compromise, and
not on short sighted emotion. Is this any longer possible? I don't know. But that's where I am and I
am not moving. My Thermopylae is
DEFENDING THE MIDDLE GROUND
and the
PRINCIPLES
that support it.
The Power Broker, by Robert A. Caro
A totally different kind of book. Though a
biography, it is also a primer of politics, a
chronicle of power - how it is achieved, how it
corrupts , how it destroys. Comforting it is
not, nor pleasant; but so revealing of the
nature of man, his arrogance and the face of
power.
A totally different kind of book. Though a
biography, it is also a primer of politics, a
chronicle of power - how it is achieved, how it
corrupts , how it destroys. Comforting it is
not, nor pleasant; but so revealing of the
nature of man, his arrogance and the face of
power.
Come On In
Essays, poetry about
things that come to mind
- my mind - and upon
which I ponder.
things that come to mind
- my mind - and upon
which I ponder.
| Caution!! All of what you find here is work in process - continually. That is its purpose. If you find it contradictory it is likely I either learned something I had not known, got a new slant I could not ignore, changed my mind, or thought of something I hadn't considered. Webpages are almost always built haphazardly through continual add on as ideas strike. If you disagree, good for you. That's what it's all about. But you must be prepared to defend the points of your disagreement. |