The Ideal World

Aristotle's Golden Mean philosophy touted that the middle ground was the place where the better good could be found in any disparate disagreement. He felt that in most cases, if a disagreement could be plotted on a line, the best compromise would be somewhere in the middle, rather than on either end of the extreme. This is a rather basic human reaction that avoids extremism and embraces unity, so no prize to Aristotle for being terribly innovative.

In the political world here in the U.S., our traditional two party system has often been at odds with each other, but rarely have the opposite ends of the spectrum been so far removed from one another. In a political field where both sides are hosting runners leaning unnervingly to the left, there is a voting public that is growing ever more polarized on issues that tend to encourage such. While blue and red candidates try to posture themselves as liberal or conservative, using hackneyed tools that long ago should have been abandoned, the American public is waging their own campaign for liberal and conservative positions in churches, schools, and city halls. It is almost as if the public, and the people hoping to represent them one day from the oval office, are at opposite ends of a spectrum too.

One only has to peruse the various right and left wing Internet news outlets to see that a ground level war is being fought for rights to speech, assembly, and expression. Every day, news blogs are pregnant with stories of Christian pastors and activists who have been arrested, imprisoned, fined, and harassed for sharing their faith, telling their story, or speaking their view on any social issue. A pastor in Wichita Kansas was arrested this past summer for walking on a side walk while a so-called "gay fest" was being held in a park bordered by this same side walk. He was not shouting, name calling, expressing lewd gestures, or intoxicated, unlike many of the participants in the "gay fest." A youth in a high school in Colorado was suspended because he ignored threats of punishment if he did not cease to wear T shirts with Christian logo's on them. When he cited the fact that students routinely wore T shirts with alcohol and drug logo's on them, he was told that the school made policy, and not him, and maybe he needed to find a school that accepted his "radical" beliefs. A Christian in North Carolina made a habit of speaking to patrons walking in to the local Abortion clinic on the sidewalk, encouraging them to consider another choice. He was breaking no laws, but when the boyfriend of one patron decided to assail this Christian, the assailant was not only allowed to get away by local police, but was never charged with a crime. Stories far worse than these are as common place in America today as hamburgers. Meanwhile, gay activist groups, ACLU junkies, and atheists are protected, encouraged, and forgiven cart Blanch by law enforcement, judges, and lawyers, while they rail on, sometimes physically, largely unchecked, as they attempt to beat into society their radical, liberal views and beliefs. There is no longer any "Bible thumping" going on in America; soon it may be considered a crime to carry one.

Are the politicians paying attention to this ever-widening chasm between those that are politically, socially, and morally liberal and conservative? Do they have any clue that America is losing its moral compass, while extreme liberal groups and individuals gain a huge voice in public forums, news outlets, and judicial institutions? Can it be that Clinton, Huckabee, and Obama (to name a few still in it) seek to find that Golden Mean, hoping that in the middle, they can secure success?
The obvious answer is that for at least the past 4 decades, politicians running for President have always tried to doctor up their actual position on the liberal/ conservative continuum so as to look centrist, when in fact, most have a permanent residence closer to the extremes. Hillary has never in her life stepped foot within a hundred miles of the middle of the political road. Obama touts himself as the change agent, and yet his true political stances (the few he has revealed in his dearth of political history) are overtly old school liberal. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani all would be considered liberal conservatives by the conservative base, and yet they speak often of Reagan as if they are following in his footsteps.

The problem with watering down the image and message is that as politicians seek that elusive Golden Mean, they are being both dishonest and cowardly. It used to be said in political circles that in order to be elected, a candidate from either party needed the flexibility to reach those in the middle of the political spectrum while maintaining a grip on those at the end. That exercise was almost always a losing proposition, as those in the middle weren't fooled, and the base wasn't humored. So, why do politicians, even in this current election epoch, refuse to come out and be forthright, honest, and proud of their true political address? Maybe they don't feel they can trust the American people to honor their honesty. And maybe that says something about the state of those who portend to represent us.

America, like a big slab of concrete, has already passed the cracking stage, and now has entered the separation phase, where opposing sides begin to move away from each other, allowing the chasm to widen and deepen. As politicians run polls to try to determine which side offers them more potential votes, they are losing sight of the bigger picture: someone, from one party or the other, is going to have to live up to their false advertising and seek to bring unity to this nation, using the basic tenets of the constitution as their foremost tool, rather than use the office of president to smear their private, political leanings upon the face of those they represent. America can stand fights among left and right wing political extremists, but it cannot stand a growing gap between extreme views in the public sector.

In an ideal world, a conservative (or liberal) politician would state openly their true views, without shame, and then promise to govern according to those views while they seek to work with everyone who does not share them.
Maybe that's the same ideal scenario every citizen needs to adopt.