It’s Not Easy Being Between: Confessions of a Radical Moderate

I am a middle child.  I wasn’t that when I was born, of course, but I was destined to become one some years later when my younger sibling came along.  At any rate, winding up as a middle child carries with it a host of issues.  On the plus side, you may not have the responsibilities (or expectations) of the oldest, and your parents may have made fewer parenting mistakes.  On the other hand, you don’t get the same treatment as the baby of the family.  In a lot of ways, being in the middle means you are the “other child.”  I’m not the only one to think that:  probably every middle child from time immemorial has felt at least a little of that sort of thing.  In fact, my third grade teacher, who was also a middle child, knew how things worked: she always found out who the middle children were in her class and picked them to do special things.  For those short months in third grade, I felt like a king.  But then fourth grade came and all bets were off.

A lot has been written about birth order.  Middle children have been characterized as lower achievers than first-borns, lacking competitive drive.  They have never been the complete focus of their parents, so they learn about sharing pretty fast.  They tend to be more flexible. They can see different points of view and tend to be peacemakers.

The youngest are frequently characterized as rebels, and often avoid responsibility, since they have been the object of more care in childhood.  They dislike competition and may choose different career paths, perhaps to avoid comparisons with older siblings.  However, that often backfires, especially if there is a measurable variance in comparative success.

At any rate, other middles will understand if I say that it’s hard being in the middle.  As I’ve moved through the ages and stages of life, I believe that more and more all the time.  Whether in religion or politics, the extremes are increasingly unappealing to me, and yet being in the middle seems to be a limbo disdained by the most vocal among us.  To seek the middle ground is to sit on the fence, to lack conviction.  From either extreme, the us/them mentality says there is a great gulf that divides the powerful ideologies, and no one of consequence can exist in that no man’s land of mediocrity.

But if we were to plot this on a graph, it might actually look more like a bell-shaped curve, where the middle is the pinnacle, where common ground becomes the high ground.  For years, that is where I have found myself.

Whether in religion or politics, I am neither liberal nor conservative.  Well, I’m as much both as neither, I suppose.  I have come to believe that in order to be true to anything, we must think for ourselves.  The most vocal ideologues in politics or religion have the least ability to see things from different perspectives.  They believe what they have received, and repeat that frequently and loudly, never giving the light, almost whispering voice of reason a moment let alone a full audience to be able to judge and balance what fits the evidence and supports a position.

I lived much of the first five decades of my life as staunchly conservative in politics.  Perhaps I should have known I was destined for something different when I found it so hard to accept any sort of religion for a very long time.  When I finally accepted faith, it was not based on the “fire insurance” peddled by so many who preach and teach in my faith tradition.  I would not, no, I could not stake a thing of such importance solely on fear.  It was not until I heard and saw love and selflessness as the true foundation of Jesus’ teachings that I wanted to be his follower and friend.   As I have said before, I have never looked back.

Politically, I was as right wing as any good Republican could have been without being Libertarian.  I had little use for liberals of any stripe.  Until I opened my eyes to what too many GOP leaders were touting as conservative values: in my estimation, these amounted to little more than strategies and plans to make the rich richer and keep the poor in a state of economic slavery.  The government can’t give handouts to the poor, and yet the government will not support raising the minimum wage to a livable level of income so that people don’t need handouts.  The action has come down to the states, where conservative lawmakers just pushed through a bill in Alabama to prohibit local governments from raising the minimum wage, all under the guise of sparking economic growth.  They seem to forget that workers are potential consumers of goods and services, and a better paid worker will have more to spend.  Conservatives must be pro-life, but after a baby is rescued from abortion, there appears to be no public responsibility to care for that child, feed it, provide health care and a good education: those must be the parents’ responsibility.

In so many ways, the conservative call has come down to money, more money, and don’t stand in the way of some people making as much money as they can.  The shameful Supreme Court decision referred to as “Citizens United” may well go down as one of the worst things ever in the history of jurisprudence.  The idea that corporations are in fact “people” with constitutionally secured and guaranteed rights of speech through an inexhaustible flow of money into the political arena was nothing more than the Court handing over the keys to the Capitol.  I stand among liberals when I express my disdain for this travesty of justice that left the door open for billionaires to legally buy elections.  Money may buy power, but wealth and power are not necessarily coexistent with morality and ethics—at least not in the positive sense.

I have seen people whom I respect and admire discuss a lost vision of prosperity by failing to elect a “good businessman” with government experience.  They seem to forget, however, that that very businessman had at one time espoused principles and practices that made him a successful governor that were contrary to what he would later tout as a presidential candidate.  They seem to discount the fact that much of his business success was based largely on vulture capitalism, buying struggling companies for pennies on the dollar and picking their bones, selling off viable bits and putting thousands of real people out of jobs.  That’s okay, I suppose because it was only business.  And, they failed to consider that his choice of running mate was a man who was a professed and devoted disciple of Ayn Rand, one of the most despicable characters in 20th century economic philosophy who was vehemently opposed to Christian principles, choosing rather to rewrite a code of morality to elevate selfishness as the crowning virtue.

The misplaced admiration they exhibit for these captains of industry who set their sights first on profit and then on politics to make more profit is far removed from the teachings of Jesus, who warned that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven, and who looked with love at a wealthy young man who was very good at law-keeping and told him to sell all of his possessions, effectively whatever would stand in his way to a life of service, and give it to the poor.  A man’s income does not reflect his virtue, but rather what he does with it.

Others enumerate what we must do in order to return to greatness, including things like eliminate all environmental regulations, eliminate social programs, and let the failed theory of trickle-down economics run its course.  The free market must be allowed to be completely free for there to be prosperity.  But by eliminating social programs, we will only punish those who truly need them: children born into a cycle of poverty, the disabled, the elderly, those displaced by corporate actions motivated solely by maximizing profit.  They may point to their interpretation of scripture and note that Christians should take care of other Christians in need.  But the need is so incredibly great that it cannot be carried by the few that try to shoulder the burden.  And many who are so vocal about such Christian responsibility do little or nothing to individually meet those needs.

According to many staunch conservatives, the God-given environment is full of resources to use, and anything that stands in the way of the money that can be made from the exploitation of those resources must be rejected.  Never mind that without regulation, we tend to exploit things into oblivion, resulting in unstable ecological communities.  And when we destabilize communities, we run the risk of ecological collapse.  We cannot escape Muir’s observation, that when we pull on any thread in nature, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.  Neither can we escape God’s instruction to Adam when he was placed in the Garden of Eden, that his responsibility was to take care of it.  It is interesting that such an instruction was never rescinded after the Fall.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the human side of an environmental equation.  We cannot deprive anyone of a livelihood without providing an alternative.  If we close a coal mine, we need to make sure that every former miner is trained to do something else and can make a comparable living.  I am sensitive to this, I suppose, because I remember how tobacco used to be a huge cash crop back where I am from.  But when tobacco was finally acknowledged to be the threat to public health that it is, government price supports and later subsidies for production went away, and people lost income.

I suppose I am on the moderate side of conservative when it comes to issues such as abortion.  I make no apologies for my unwavering opposition to abortion as merely elective birth control or a way to deal with an “inconvenience.”  If a woman claims to have a right to determine what she does with her body, she first has a responsibility—along with her partner, to be sure—to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Contrary to what many may think, sex is not the defining feature of a genuine, loving relationship, and if it is, the relationship has little to commend it.  Birth control is inexpensive, effective, and available.

I cannot support, however, the complete legal prohibition of a medical procedure that may be necessary to save a life in those admittedly rare instances. Nor could I remove such a procedure from the options when dealing with a pregnancy violently initiated by rape or incest.  I could not imagine being an innocent victim and being sentenced to relive daily a life’s most traumatic event.  The “contragestive” drugs applied within hours of a rape would prevent implantation of an embryo of only a few cells if fertilization has taken place.  This would be far less costly, harmful and cruel than forcing a woman to carry a rapist’s offspring.  (And yes, I have seen the stories of those whose lives were owed to rape, and how wonderful the contributions they have made because they were not terminated.  We may never know how many lives of women and girls have been destroyed, however.  But that is not important, I suppose.)

There will be those who say that rape or incest are not valid reasons to allow the medical termination of a pregnancy, and such may only account for less than 1% of all abortions.  Well, if you were one of that 1% it’s likely that it’s enough to allow for those rare exceptions.  Consider that in one study, 33% of rape victims had seriously considered suicide vs. 8% who had not been crime victims; 13% of rape victims had attempted suicide vs. 1% of non-victims. Add to that a higher rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and substance abuse and the effects of rape are far more than the physical assault and injury occurring at the moment the crime was committed: the issue of saving a life may indeed be a valid one.

Contrary to the conservative position that abhors big government, I believe in a government big enough to protect a nation’s people.  “Protection” to some is only equated with national defense, but I assert that it must be more.  The people must be protected from industries that would endanger them and put them at risk as those corporations pursue only economic prizes.  Some of the leading captains of 21st century industry seem to be nostalgic for the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, when labor was populated by ignorant, compliant sheep, life was cheap, and money flowed freely into their banks, largely because environmental regulations did not exist and worker safety was little more than a passing benediction on the way to the shops and mines.  Consumer safety would be far less comprehensive if industries were charged with policing themselves as some of the most Libertarian leaning leaders would like to see.

I am firmly entrenched in the more liberal call for tighter gun control, but certainly not the surrender of all firearms…which puts me somewhere back in the middle.  I have no problem with sporting weapons.  I don’t even mind if trained, qualified, mentally stable people have a weapon for personal protection.  But I am firmly opposed to unfettered commerce in assault weapons, large capacity magazines and ammunition designed only to kill humans.  I have been vilified by my friends who like guns, and considered wishy-washy by those who would like to see complete disarmament.  Both groups have put words in my mouth that I have never said and motives in my mind that I have never proposed let alone allowed to direct my activities.

Sometimes I sit and think about the words of Jesus when he talked about entering in at the narrow gate.  The broad way, the easy path leads to destruction.  But what if that broad way simply involves going with the flow, any flow, whatever that flow may be?  What if Jesus wanted people to get things right, but do so by doing some of the hard work themselves?  If we never strive, if we never wrestle with questions of temporal or eternal importance but accept without questioning any particular view, have we not merely followed the broad way?

I have a desire, no, a need to know things.  I must examine and explore and understand.  If I fail to do that and accept without thought or reflection any view or idea, whether religious or political, I have taken the easy path.  That portrays not conviction, but the lack of it.  Blind acceptance is not faith.  It requires no effort to simply comply without testing.  Faith is hard to attain, at least for many of us, and it is harder to maintain in the constant flow of ideas and arguments that surround us.

But it is worth it.  There is fulfillment in knowing what you believe and why.  I cannot be like one of my staunchly Republican ancestors, who believed that a Democrat had as much of a chance of going to Heaven as a member of an unnamed denomination of which she was not a part.  She likely couldn’t say why she thought Democrats were damned: she just knew they were, perhaps because that’s what she had heard.  I cannot, nor would I ever condemn her for her view, since I recognize that she was a product of her environment as much as anything.  She worked with what she had, the light available to her.

And so, I wind up in the middle.  Pendulums swing and slowly move away from the extremes, and eventually they rest in between, at least without further disturbance.  But life is not without disturbance, and soon, the pendulum is pulled to one extreme, or pushed to the other, and the loud proponents of diametrically opposed ideologies again fan the flames of conflict.  And those who seek the sanity of the middle are again in the crosshairs of either side, or dismissed as collateral damage in the on-going war of extremes.  Perhaps we will always be there in that no man’s land, those of us who seek peace and reason and sanity.  Maybe it’s time to plant our flag and claim that ground for the radical moderates.  There’s plenty of room for company.