Missing the Middle Ground - Finding answers the hard way.

I know everyone who reads this won't agree with this, but I write in good faith and with good intentions. I don't claim to know everything and I don't claim to be right on everything.  Also, some things I write about, I realize my perception isn't complete.  In other words, maybe I am only seeing part of the story or don't quite 'have it down yet'.   So, where am I going with this?  This is a follow-up to Stereotypes are often not Stereo, but instead Mono.  It was a reflection on the Michael Brown case initially, but ended up being largely about my father.  I guess I just need to reiterate the general concept.

Kids bicker among each other and to their parents and at their parents.  Yes, much of it "I shouldn't have to do this" or "life's difficult" or "Joey hit me" or "Sally made fun of me" or "You don't care about me" or similar.   Frankly, adults do this too, but it doesn't necessarily take the same form, but  I digress.   This can be tiresome for a parent and even grating.  As such, it can easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater.   Lodged inside the bickering and gripping often are points or legitimate concerns.   Now, as a parent you can't just let a kid bully or shame you until you get their point.  However, at the proper time--maybe when the dust settles--it is important to acknowledge their underlying point.  It is also best if you can direct them to do their best to get to the underlying point sooner, make it more clear if possible or not to add dramatics to it.  However, some parents will never get it.  Additionally, some parents don't seem to care if they ever get it as they have in their mind THEIR idea of how kids should think, behave, etc.  Anyway lodged in this process of theatrics is a middle ground.

As a country, we seem to miss the middle ground.  We have a problem, an issue, we overcorrect.   We elect a politician who is significantly on one side of the political spectrum and that person drags the country or state heavily in one direction, sometimes too much.  So, what do we do after we realize that?  We elect someone who is far on the opposite side of the spectrum.  In other words, we overcorrect.  What seems to get lost is the middle ground.   We have a tragedy unfold before our eyes in Minneapolis as caught on video.   That was a good moment for raising our voices to be heard and reflecting on where we are as a nation and where we should be without steamrolling everything in the process.  Unfortunately, for many that wise middle ground has been lost.   In a number of cases, what are legitimate and righteous protests have been overshadowed by clashes, rioting and looting with many injuries and death along the way.  I realize that some say that that's the only way that they'll be heard, but really is that what we are shooting for?  I feel the message is getting lost in the optics of the situation.  What I see is many people are largely taking two camps again.

• You need to literally tear everything down to make your point.
• If you don't take the stand that I think you should, you are okay with the status quo.

OR

• Protesters are just trouble-makers,
• Why should we listen to the message when some take it too far?

In the moment, we have lost much of the middle ground.  Instead of constructive dialog and a serious push for necessary change, it seems like we are just retreating into camps.  To me, it's sad it has to come down to this.  There has to be a good middle ground where concerns are heard and acted on rather than letting them fester and build up.  There has to be a good middle ground where we can push for justice without destroying everything in the process.  

Whether it is in our families, our schools or in our society, we have to find a way to break through.  We have to find a way where we can hold people accountable where necessary, but also not go in assuming that others who aren't fully with us, are acting in bad faith.  Often times unnecessary fights flare between those who could get along.  I think this happens because there is an underlying assumption that the other party doesn't have our interests in mind.  In other words, the other party has their own interests in mind and will not yield for my interests at all.  That is, they are only interested in themselves and their interests and at best could care less about how their stance affects my interests.

Yes, we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  However, when we start slamming cartons of eggs on the table, we are left with more of a mess than an omelet.   We have to be know about how many and which eggs to break and how to break them to effectively make an omelet.  If we just recklessly break eggs just because we are impatient for an omelet (change), even if we end up making an omelet, it will be a poor quality one and will probably have a lot of egg shells in it.   In other words, if we push recklessly for change, we may get change, just not the change we need.

I'm always for self-improvement as an individual and a society, but we have to be wise about it and avoid going to extremes when there is a good solution that can be had in the middle.  In other words, pick out the eggs that we need to break (the old ways that need to be broken), break them in a constructive way (in a way that doesn't destroy everything else in the process) , add the proper and proven 'change' ingredients from recipes (good replacements for the bad ways) and have a seasoned chef guiding the making of the omelet (trusted leadership overseeing change).  It may feel good to just start cracking the eggs, winging it and saying we don't have time to make it properly.  But, when it is time to serve the omelet, if it is not made properly, their will be additional cost (more pain) to remake it.

I hope as a nation we can find a way to listen to each other and not just talk past each other.   I hope as a nation we can come to a good consensus for necessary change.  I hope as a nation, we can find the moment and seize it, and not use the moment to push without compromise or discussion our position as the only right, complete and proper way.   We don't need to sellout and capitulate just to get a few crumbs, but we can seize the moment and seize the common ground, realizing a win means taking what is there.  The battle for self-improvement as a society will not be fought and won in one day.  We can't tear each other apart if we aren't in complete consensus.  We can't have it be all my demands be met everything gets 'blown up'.   We can't take that extreme position.  If we do, we risk blowing up the message in the process. 

IMHO, MLK was effective because he understood that that unfortunately as a nation that we weren't completely ready, but that we could be moved dramatically in the right direction.   He knew that it was a process.  He could have got frustrated at the pace of progress and pushed more forcefully for change, but he knew it would be best that he find a middle ground, both in tactics and in outcome.  The country wasn't going to change overnight.  So, he took victories when and where he could and continued to peacefully push the envelope.  He knew the path to success wasleaving the agents of status quo no option except to risk looking like extremists while his movement showed peaceful resolve.  

As a nation we still have work to do and I believe in light of the case of George Floyd the moment is available.  I believe however, ugliness of some to tear everything down potentially sets back that moment.   The ever growing list of demands OR ELSE are not conductive to a healthy path forward.  We are losing the middle ground IMHO.   Unfortunately, just like parents who get bullied by their kids the moment is at risk.  I fear that instead of coming to a healthy understanding and path forward, we risk further dividing.  Unfortunately, that means we risk only coming to the answers that hard way..

Just some thoughts,
Rich

 

 

Evil has always existed

I have long been fascinated by the subject and history of WWII and the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Since I am far removed from the time period involved and especially since I did not have any direct connections in my family tree that I know of offhand, it is easy for me to study it in a detached way. This doesn't quite capture it, but consider when we drive by accident scene, we can't help but look, stare and gawk for a moment in morbid curiosity and try to discern what happened. If we figure out how it--the accident--happened. it may help to reinforce to us how not to drive. In any case, what makes Germany of post WWI to end of WWII intriguing is how a 'modern' society in human history allows itself to be the instrument of evil to the extent it did. While I believe that it is possible for evil to fully overtake a society in short order, I believe it is typically a gradual process.


The reason I named this blog as I did is that I believe evil has always existed in all of humankind or the potential or tendency to drift towards it as a society given the right circumstance. Think about it;

• We see a small wad of cash on the ground, say maybe $100, $200 or more.  Even if we are honest, I believe that most people think for a moment about what they would do with it.  We may even do the honest thing and turn it in to the police or customer service.  But, I believe most people will hope that no one comes by to claim it and they get it to keep it.  I guess the point here is we fight the desire to have what we know is not ours.
• We see a conflict off in the distance and it is clear someone is being beaten or otherwise wronged in a bad way.  Do we get involved to defend the target of it, do we reach out to the police or some other governing authority or do we just walk or drive away from it?  In question here is our willingness to put ourselves at risk or at least have to deal with the inconvenience of a situation which doesn't immediately involve us.
• We ignore a law or rule because we think it is silly or isn't that big a deal.  Heck I speed everyday so there's that.
• As a child we've gotten into or done something that we shouldn't have.  We know if we tell the truth to our parent or caregiver, there will be negative consequences for us.  But, we also know that if we are dishonest about it, there may be a chance that we are able to avoid any consequences especially if they believe our dishonesty.  

In these cases and many others there is the most proper way to act or be and there are less noble ways to act or be.  Think about it, even in an 'upright society' which strongly suggest golden rule values, people fight the right vs. wrong fight every day.  Now consider if a society has leadership whose priorities are out of whack.  As individuals, we face a challenge to exercise our better nature, with some more successful than other in that regard.   We sometimes face the challenge too of recognizing our better nature. Meaning, not just thinking we are doing right, but also recognizing what is right.  Imagine if you have leadership with very corrupt, if not downright evil priorities.  Imagine too that the leadership is good at masking their intentions too at least until it is too late to effective combat it (as in Nazi Germany).

Anyway, given our split nature.  The right vs. wrong and in a more extreme view, good vs. evil, why don't we just serve our 'wrong' nature more when it often seems to be more beneficial.  In other words, what keeps our 'wrong' or 'evil' behavior at bay?  Some of  the things I believe that keep us in check are as follows:

• Laws/rules that strictly lay out what is poor behavior and likely punishment for it.  In other words, in the short term, poor behavior may seem benefit us, but with rules and laws that are enforced, we realize that poor behavior may not pay.
• Faith that gives us a code of proper behavior and that indicates that we will be rewarded or punished for good or bad behavior in this life (or sometime beyond).  In other words, a spiritual ledger.
• People's desire for approval and a society with leaders/influencers approve the good behavior. I believe people are social creatures and as such seek to approval from others.   If those who influence or lead us reward us with approval or acceptance for upright behavior, we are more likely to engage in such.  Inversely, if they seem to approve poor behavior, members of society will likely engage in poor behavior.

In Nazi Germany, over a period each of these 'obstacles' was overcome.  Hitler participated in a putsch designed start an insurrection.  It failed miserably and he was arrested.   After appealing to the patriotism and resentments of those who judge him, he was able to get a light sentence.  Instead of recognizing Hitler for the threat he was or could become, they convinced themselves it was okay to bend the rules and limit the punishment.   Instead of punishing poor behavior, they effectively rewarded it by giving him a light sentence for his crime.  When he rose to power, Hitler continued a pattern of rewarding poor behavior that he approved of, instead of punishing it.   Hitler, through effective propaganda wash able overcome the spiritual ledger by co-opting elements of existing religious structure in Germany and by creating a sort of quasi-religion of his own.  In Hitler's Germany, his leadership sought the approval of the Fuhrer and as such they engaged in behavior which they felt that he would approve us.  Unfortunately, for all involved instead of rewarding morally good behavior, Hitler tended to reward evil behavior.   Similarly, in part fearful and impart wanting to gain approval, citizens would ignore or even justify the poor behavior of leadership in Nazi Germany or even in some cases condoned if not participate in it themselves.

People look back on Nazi Germany and think evil like that couldn't happen in a modern society these days.  But, with our individual battles to always do the right thing, to resentments or prejudices many have, to our desire to gain approval which can be flipped and our desire to the do morally right thing which also if we are not careful can be flipped as well, I do believe great evil is a risk even in our more modern society.   Jim Jones, David Koresh and many others have shown that even 'good' people can be corrupted, all the while they think they are doing right thing.

I believe we always need to be on guard individual, as groups and as a society and examine:

• Are we willing to or honest enough to properly recognize upright behavior?  If so, are we willing to reward it when it occurs--recognizing good deeds and honesty?  
• Are we willing to or honest enough to properly recognize poor behavior?  If so, do we have the stomach to punish poor behavior appropriately or do we ignore it because punishing it might have a cost? 
• Are we tailoring our beliefs of what is upright behavior to fit our lives OR are we willing to admit when we fall short and not change the definition of what is upright behavior to rationalizing our falling short?  In other words, are we adjusting our 'faith' to fit the circumstances?
•  Are we putting the need for approval over the need to always do the right thing?
•  Our motivations for our  decisions, choices and our behavior.

I believe evil has existed since the dawn of man and will exist as long as humankind, as it is, exists but we don't have to give into it.   However, we must be mindful of the tendency for good and bad in all.  We must also be determined to self-examine and be willing to do the right thing or behave in way that we know in our heart is the right way.

Just my thoughts. I don't claim to have anywhere near all the answers, but I enjoy being part of the conversation and hope my posts spur others to think about the things which I write on.   Take what you need and leave the rest.

- Rich