Every election season, we hear a lot about how this is the nastiest election ever, how the “extremists” on the left and the right are making life miserable for everybody and how nearly everybody hates the Rush Limbaughs and Chris Matthews of the world.
BlogHer recently featured a post titled, “The Enlightened Middle Majority, why the sides are alienating us”. The author holds that she represents thoughtful women and the infamous “moderates” of the world, those mythical beings who can see both sides of any debate, have friends on both sides of the political aisle and most importantly, never, ever, see anything in black and white, because that would be old-fashioned and mean. Of course, I am immediately excluded from this club, because I have a website with a political point of view.
Now, please understand. This post doesn’t come from a desire to be mean or slam someone for having a personal opinion. In fact, Kim (the author) is a gifted writer and did a gracious job of expressing herself, and my hat is off to her for doing so. I just wonder why, in a post about dialing down the extremes, where she purports to speak for the Enlightened Middle Majority, she would assume the black and white stance that all women are pro-choice, anti-drilling for oil and pro-complexity (meaning, I assume, that no one can get it right and that everybody’s version of truth is good for them).
She finishes the blog-post by saying: “Extremism will get no one elected. Listening and debating RESPECTFULLY, tolerance, being open to compromise and ideology that sees beyond black and white, those are qualities of the candidate who will get my vote, and the votes of many who count themselves in the Enlightened Middle Majority.”
I actually agree with her here, assuming that the position of seeing beyond black and white means that we can admit our own flaws and foibles, and not that truth itself doesn’t exist. But I get it. Let’s all be friendly, I can be friends with you even if you love Barry and think Rush Limbaugh has a pitchfork and horns. I’m behind that, I love friends!
Oh, but wait. I’m not sure if I’m allowed in to this fair-minded club, because I don’t believe that abortion is right, not because I don’t honor my fellow members of the Fair Sex, but because I think it’s immoral to take the life of an innocent human being, and that’s what I believe an unborn child is. That’s an issue that I see in black and white, not because I don’t honor other’s opinions, but because I have religious and moral convictions that govern me, above what others may think. Also, I’m not opposed to drilling for new oil – although, after re-reading Kim’s post, I’m not sure if she is either.
Which kind of proves my point. Without the courage to say that we have opinions because we believe that they are correct opinions – as in, we see the world in black and white and are not willfully believing a falsehood – even respectful, tolerant, kum-bah-yah-style debate isn’t going to get us anywhere. We have to believe in something to have meaningful conversations, important policy changes or an election that matters. But again, despite the rhetoric about shades of grey and moderate opinions, Kim isn’t saying she doesn’t believe in anything, or that her personal convictions are swathed in friendly shades of grey – no, indeed, she appears to be the kind of strong, opinionated, lovely person who I would very much appreciate sharing a happy hour barstool and a couple of hours of lively debate with.
But despite her own strong opinions, it seems that no one else should have strong opinions, and that everyone who disagrees with Kim should live in a tolerant bubble of Offending Nobody with Our Pesky Beliefs. I fear that this Enlightened Middle Majority isn’t in the middle at all, and doesn’t actually want to hear a conservative point of view, no matter how tenderly it’s put forth. The real, honest courage comes not from demanding that everyone (except ourselves, of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) see the world in shades of grey, but that even those of us with strong opinions deliver them in a well-reasoned way, with respect for our readers and friends.
I want you to know, Enlightened Middle Majority, that I respect what you are attempting to say, but I think your approach is flawed, and maybe a titch dishonest. No amount of preaching can turn an opinion into a cozy sentiment, and just because you define your views as moderate or tolerant doesn’t mean they actually are.
Now, I know that you probably are mad, and you maybe think I’m judgmental, and I might get kicked out of the BlogHer network for saying that I don’t agree with a featured post that pretty much everybody seems to love. And I’ll admit it – my reasoning here is not perfect – I’m sure as soon as I hit “publish” I will think of a thousand other ways to say what I mean – but here’s the gist:
I wouldn’t call myself enlightened – I am definitely the flag-waving, Bible-thumping kind of American that so frequently is scoffed at in these kinds of high-minded debates – but I do care deeply about this country, about my fellow citizens, about the moral values I hold dear and the religious freedoms we all cling to. I’m also not a moderate – my political persuasion is heretically right-sided for a bona-fide journalist and proud owner of my very own vajayjay – but I think that I am worth listening to, not despite my opinions, but because of them. I am a person who is happy to debate at any time, one who doesn’t want to be ignored just because I’m not willing to back down from my convictions and one who has mastered the art of respectful disagreement – a worthier goal, in my black and white opinion, than mere tolerance.
