The Middle Way

    If you have ever studied Buddhism to a significant degree, you would have most likely encountered the term "middle way" before. It is one of the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path, the path to enlightenment and the liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth and entering into Nirvana.  The concept of a middle way has been around for ages. It is the attempt to cut between the extremities of life.  The happy medium between over-indulgence and over-deprivation. The middle ground between the great opposites of existence. The "grey area" so to speak.

 

       "Everything in moderation," as the words of wisdom go. It's true. Life's a hell of a lot easier, and a hell of a lot more enjoyable, and a hell of a lot safer, if you can moderate you lifestyle in almost all ways possible. You don't make as much of a mess (or as much of a scene) when you go and indulge in much of life's pleasures and privileges while regulating yourself to a healthy level of moderation. Just look at drinking. Alcohol consumption is a lot more enjoyable and a lot less dangerous to your body and your life if moderated and regulated responsibly.  A moderate drinker doesn't get into nearly as much trouble as an alcoholic. 

 That is a social example, and one a little easier to relate to, but that is not the focus of this post.

I wanted to focus on moderation and the middle way as to how they are applied to politics and philosophy.

   To start, I want to tell a little story. Back in the summer of 2011, I was spending the second of two stints in a psych ward in Billings. Without going into the details of my stay there too much, there was a nurse there who took an interest in me. At one point, he came up to me and asked me "So, Josh, are you a liberal or a conservative?" I can't remember how I responded to him. I think I took a pretty neutral approach. After my response, he said, "Well, we've been trying to find the middle way for years." Kind of a cryptic and ambiguous response from a nurse, I guess, but it got me thinking.

      I do find myself a pretty middle of the road guy when it comes to American politics. I support things like a strong military and strong security, but I also have a strong empathy and compassion for marginalized, disadvantaged, and oppressed groups. I find myself having a healthy mix of liberal and conservative values. I am not a strict ideologue or party loyalist by any means.

  I can understand why people in some facets of society or government would be interested in finding a more moderate, "middle way" approach to politics. Extreme polarization of our government and society and combativeness and tribalism between the two parties and two ideologies, as we are witnessing ourselves, is kind of a national security threat. (not just kind of, it absolutely is one. The whole "a house divided against itself cannot stand" isn't just a catchy Abe Lincoln quote. It's absolutely true)

           Finding a true middle way is difficult in politics. Because of the dichotomy of choice, where every issue in politics can be reduced to a "for or against" "yes or no" dichotomy, every issue will almost always create two sides or two factions. This is inevitable. The dichotomy of choice is also why wars are almost always two-sided, and when they are not, they eventually become so. I believe this dichotomy is also why the political spectrum is very two sided.

     Even so bridge building can be possible between two competing sides and a peace and equilibrium can be created between them. It's been done before. Now walking the fence during a war or competition is often frowned upon, and doing so just takes you out of the game instead of being an active player in it a lot of the time, but being a bridge-builder or peacemaker becomes a lot easier when you are relatively middle of the road, with a mixture of views and positions that can lean both ways.  It not so much finding the middle way as preventing the natural dichotomy of politics and conflict from becoming destructive and destabilizing to the system or nation as a whole. 

        

      A true middle-way in politics is hard to achieve, but reducing the extremities of the respective sides is absolutely necessary for long term survival of a political system.  Extremism almost always loses the value of human life, almost always exascerbates "us-or-them" tribalism, and almost always leads to war or violent confrontation. 

        One of the most definitive traits of a middle-of-the road person or group is the ability and willingness to compromise. If compromise is no longer occurring or no longer possible, then the two sides have gone too far to their respective extremes and there is a high risk of conflict or war.  

       The best way to stabilize a system of hyperpolarization is to foster a sense of metacognition in people, prioritize the value of human life, and prioritize loyalty to country over loyalty to party or faction. If you can increase metacognition by getting people to think about how they think and have a meta-perspective on their own belief systems and others can help people understand and evaluate their beliefs and beliefs of others better. This would be very useful in the effort to stabilize a system that is too polarized as it would enable people to self-analyse and think more independently of factions or ideologies.. 

         The value of human life is essential for the stability of any nation or political system. You need to have the vast majority of people look at human life as something of value, maybe even sacred, something intrinsically valuable to human life. In doing so, violent conflict and war becomes greatly diminished in its risk and scope.  

       The last one is one of the most important things to do in any nation. It is the fostering of loyalty to a singular thing above all other loyalties. This loyalty should be to the country as a whole. The concept of the nation and what it stands for and its ideals and values. Loyalty to this should be placed in high regard and with absolute fealty between members of the whole nation, regardless of which party they belong to or which faction they represent. In regards to our own country we should see ourselves as Americans first and foremost, with all other loyalties coming in second to that in regards at least to our politics. Of course, God (if you believe in Him) transcends nations, but in regards to politics, loyalty to nation over party should be absolute.

          The middle way is a beautiful approach to life. You don't go to the extremes, life has a quality to it that isn't destructive but isn't stagnant, isn't boring but isn't reckless, not intense suffering but not extreme pleasure. I view the middle approach to things, if and when possible, as the best way to navigate and manage life. Sometimes though, you can't afford to be neutral on a moving train. Sometimes if you walk the fence too much you might cut yourself in half.

      However, in most situations I strongly agree with "everything in moderation." I strongly agree with the middle way. It can be a beautiful and liberating thing if successfully practiced.