No Middle Ground
September 1, 2004
by Brendon McCullin

Remember when everyone was entitled to his or her opinion? Well, a person might still be entitled to one, but in today’s political climate sharing those opinions could lead to a bigger headache than even a ton of Excedrin could handle.

Simply put – there is now a preponderance of people out there that have no tolerance for any opinions that disagree with their own. Conservative, rightwing commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanitty routinely belittle and shout down anyone whose views conflict with theirs. Likewise, liberal pole bearers like Al Franken and Michael Moore refuse to acknowledge merit in any ideas that differ from theirs. In all cases, whether it’s through sneering diatribes or biting humor, the message is the same: anyone that thinks differently than they do must be a complete moron.

With the daily media barrage making these messages a part of our public consciousness, this attitude quickly makes it’s way down to the masses. I was at a Hollywood party where someone speaking up in support of President George Bush’s policies caused so much anger that people had to leave. I’ve also been at gatherings in the Midwest where the recitation of Limbaugh’s doctrine would cause even the most middle-of-the-road liberal to come away afraid for the future of the country.

The problem in all of this is that thanks to the rigidity that marks the extremes of both sides, everyone involved seems incapable or unwilling to seek out and acknowledge any common ground. There’s a scene in the musical “1776” where Lewis Morris describes a session of the New York legislature, saying that everyone talks very loudly and very fast all at the same time with the end result being that nothing ever gets done. Nearly 230 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence the same could be said for our entire political system. There doesn’t have to be any substance to what a politician or commentator says they just have to say it emphatically and within a 10 second window for editing purposes.

In a country that was founded on the principles of a person’s right to freely express him or herself, there are now whole contingents willing to condemn people for doing so. Not only shouldn’t the President be criticized, doing so brands you as a traitor in the eyes of some. Being supportive of military personnel without blindly committing to the policies of the administration makes you a hypocrite and earns a taste of the bile normally reserved for the aforementioned Moore or Jane Fonda. If requiring unquestioned loyalty to leaders or political and military ideas sounds familiar, that’s probably because history is littered with dictators and political parties that have demanded the same from their country’s citizens. For those that don’t spend a lot of time watching the History Channel, there’s yet to be an example where that has had a good ending.

Instead of seeking the common sense needed for making decisions for our country both in the present and in the future, any disagreement quickly dissolves into name-calling. The person who disagrees is immediately labeled a conservative or liberal and summarily dismissed as being unworthy of even a second thought. Talk to enough people throughout the day and there’s a chance you could be cast under both labels by different people on different issues.

In the inescapable white noise emitting from the current presidential campaigns, voters are being asked by one group or another to hate both candidates. Not dislike, not disagree with, but hate. If you’re a supporter of George Bush then it’s expected that you’ll believe that John Kerry is a free spending liberal who’s weak on defense and isn’t any sort of hero for his service in Vietnam. You’re also expected to put aside any concerns about the exclusionary nature of the White House’s foreign policy as well as wondering how a party who’s candidate didn’t serve in Vietnam can get away with criticizing someone who did.

If you support John Kerry, then George Bush is a liar who has done nothing of merit during his time in office. He’s slow-witted and unfit to park cars, let alone run the country. You’re expected to make no allowances for his having faced an event – the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 – almost incomparable to any that his predessors had faced. You’re told not to acknowledge any potentially positive policy initiatives such as an increase in funding for NASA. Basically, as voters we’re told at various times that neither man has even a smidgen of integrity or intelligence and to disagree is to show you to be either naïve or stupid or both. And yet political commentators are at a loss to explain why the political process doesn’t excite more people.

It’s not just voters who are told that they must completely buy the rhetoric of one side or the other. Political figures can’t always win even within their own party. Vice President Dick Cheney recently came under fire from conservative groups for having the audacity to say he believes the issue of gay marriage is best left to the states to decide. Cheney has a daughter who is gay but is also a member of a Republican Party that will do most anything to court votes from the religious right. As it happens, that group largely opposes gay marriages and wants a Constitutional amendment on the issue. Even though Cheney is adept at drawing the ire of his political opponents, it quickly rose to a level that made it hard for even Democrats not to feel a small twinge of sorrow for someone being put between the ultimate political rock and hard place: family against party.

As a country we’ve become shortsighted and susceptible to rabble-rousing. Despite the shouting, in reality there is common ground available to resolve most of the problems facing the country. Even where there isn’t there are ways to discuss issues so that both sides feel as though they have been heard. During the time immediately following President Reagan’s death, numerous long serving senators from both parties, like Bob Dole and George Mitchell, fondly recalled a time when opposing members of Congress could eventually agree to disagree and try to move forward on a solution to a given issue. Now, compromise is equated with weakness and immediately becomes the fodder for opponents’ TV ads.

In the end, it’s probably too much to expect that the huge segment of the American public that finds itself in the middle between the two extremes will ever be willing to speak up enough to affect any change. After all, if Thomas Paine wrote a tract like “Common Sense” now most people would only hear about it during his interview with Katie Couric on “Today.” Just like on the playground, the bullies on both sides will win too often because it’s easier to let them have their way than to get into a fight.

As for where I stand on the various issues facing our nation, I think it’s best I keep that to myself. Otherwise, I might end up on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews yelling at me.

(Brendon McCullin is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)

Response from: Craig Rainey
September 2, 2004

This article was well meaning. Brendon's arduous efforts to stay balanced were painfully apparent. Unfortunately, he railed against that which we all try so hard to work towards. Conviction. A middle of the road, mamby pamby, politically-correct, get-along-with-everyone edict is unhealthy personally, not to mention politically.

My father said it best when I was a kid: If you don't believe in something you'll fall for anything. Political backbiting and strong political beliefs are not one in the same. However, both are related as emotional fervor because of the intense belief systems, which affect the individual's thoughts and opinions.

Centrist politics is a death sentence to this country. We are witnessing a political renaissance in this country. The reawakening of patriotism after 9-11 was short-lived by the liberals and centrists. Rodney King's 'Can't we just get along' attitude is the easiest to support. Unfortunately, conviction and commitment are difficult to maintain. Choosing a middle ground means compromise with the wrong, the bad, the unwise, or the unhealthy. Do we choose to accept the cancer because the treatment is too unpleasant to undertake?

I support our President in spite of my disagreement with certain specific policies he promotes. As followers, it is our place to take the bad with the good – providing the good outweighs the bad. That does not mean that one should compromise his convictions. Rather, commit to those convictions even if it is not the popular path. There in lies strength of character and will.