Life in the Muddy Middle

I wouldn’t describe myself as a political person.  I love our country and care about the issues, but you will not find me with a sign in our yard or a bumper sticker on our car.  I try to stay engaged enough to understand how to vote on issues, but distant enough to keep my sanity.  I don’t know how people immerse themselves in politics – it seems like a self-inflicted form of torture to me.

As a kid, I remember hearing my parents discuss issues, but there wasn’t much political talk.  I didn’t even know what a Democrat or Republican was until I was in high school.

A boy that I was completely in love with (think “teenage infatuation love”) came up to me after school  . . .

Cute boy:  “Do you believe in abortion?”

Me:  “No.”

Cute boy:  “When you get a paycheck, do you want to keep all the money your earned?”

Me:  “Yes”

Cute boy:  “Do you want the government to run your life?”

Me:  “No.”

Cute boy:  “Then you are a Republican!  Come with me.”

Next thing I know, I’m sitting in a “Young Republicans Club” meeting.  As you can see, my early political affiliation was very thoughtful and meaningful – ha! (I don’t think that club ever got off the ground because I don’t recall going to another meeting)

In college I was already irritated by the political environment and went the way of Ross Perot – oh, yes I did!  I was a card-carrying member of “United We Stand America” and I loved that crazy-ass, bald-headed little rebel.

(Keith says he is glad he did not know this part of my history before he fell in love with me.  Before you get all judgey, think of all the smart and thoughtful decisions you made in college and then cast the first stone.)

I did go through a bit of an apathetic political phase after college and I’m ashamed of this.  I have traveled to other countries, including places like Cuba, where people cannot vote and have no voice in their government.  As maddening as democracy can be, there’s no excuse for apathy.  Ironically, we only have the luxury of apathy because we are free.

Once I became an adult and decided I had to deal with the real world, I became more thoughtful about my political affiliations, and I have been an Independent since then (although while living in Missouri, I had to pick a side so I registered as a Republican in order to vote in the primary elections).

I just finished reading a book called The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.  It was fascinating to read all the studies about moral psychology and to see what drives our behavior (turns out we rely on intuition far more than reason).  But the book also left me with a lot of questions.  I have a better understanding of how people become Republican, Libertarian or Democrat, and a better understanding of what’s important to them, but what about weird people, like me, who refuse an affiliation?

It would be easier to pick a side.  Not to complain, but being an Independent is a lonely place.  There are other Independents, but we are all there for various reasons, so the focus ends up being on what divides us from the other parties and not what unites us.  If Independents were just a bunch of reasonable moderates, then we would be pretty cool group, but that’s not the case.

I find myself in a dirty place in both politics and religion . . . a place Keith and I call the muddy middle.

(This old picture of Lela is a good representation of the middle place:  Muddy, exposed, a bit confused, and wondering if it’s time to get out)

In the political world it’s often referred to as the “mushy middle” but I prefer muddy middle because it’s a pretty nasty place to be.  For us, it’s the place we choose to be, but I wish it were a clean and shiny place.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the muddy middle people.   We live in a world that expects certainty and a strong opinion about everything (see my earlier post Truth vs Certainty).  If you refrain from asserting your opinion right away, or try to see issues from both sides, or empathize with “the enemy,” you are seen as “weak.”  When did an effort to be thoughtful become such a bad thing?

Independent voters are generally considered to be:  1) Apathetic – they don’t really care; 2) Lazy – do not want to deal with the issues; 3) Cowardly – avoid affiliating as a Democrat or Republican; 4) Mindless – do not want to expend the brain power required to understand the political landscape;  5)  Crazy – extremists who place emphasis on things that mainstream people find strange.

Or maybe Independents aren’t so much in the middle as they are extending the middle finger to the Dems and Repubs.  It’s a reasonable theory.  As demonstrated by Lela’s abstract artwork:

Keith and I don’t feel like we fit into any of these categories (but who knows, maybe we fit all of them!).  We are registered Independent and we vote both ways, depending on the candidate/issues/platform.  Massachusetts makes it a little easier to be an Independent because you are allowed to vote in the primary elections.

I like being an Independent because it forces me to consider both sides.  There are things about both sides that are reasonable, but the left and right extremists rarely make sense to me, and I guess that’s what I’m trying to avoid.

“I’ve never found that a lot of wisdom comes through people who have planted themselves dogmatically somewhere or the other.  I have found a great deal of wisdom comes into the world through people who creatively hold the tension of opposites on difficult and complex issues.”  (Richard Rohr, Simplicity)

Maybe Independents are a group of strange combination freak-jobs, like the “religious left” (Keith uses this among his liberal friends and they get a kick out of it), the “bleeding heart conservative,” the “gun-toting tree hugger,” or the small business owner who is fiscally “right” but socially “left” — maybe he has a pot business OR a vegan strip club (no kidding, this is a real thing – a friend of Keith’s in the Portland area received a flyer in the mail advertising a new vegan strip club.  America is awesome, isn’t it?).

In our Western, dualistic (win/lose, us/them, good/bad) mindset, I can see why Independents are not seen in a positive light.  If you are a sports fan, you have to pick a team and root for that team.  If you are a Christian, you are supposed to pick a denomination and support that “team.”  We love brands, clubs, groups and all the intricate ways we divide up life into us vs. them.  It’s human nature, and in lots of ways our “groupishness” serves us well.

BUT the danger of “groupishness” is that we sometimes focus on protecting our boundaries, our group, our perfect world, and we stop considering anyone else.   Even as an Independent, I have to fight the urge to assume that being an Independent is the best place to be.  It’s supposed to be a non-position, a balancing act between all the rhetoric, but human nature is always calling for a line in the sand.  Just as there are nondenominational denominations, there are also dependent independents – they just don’t know it.

Maybe I would be better off calling myself a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat, but as soon as you use the R or the D word, there are all sorts of assumptions that come flooding in.  And I know there are assumptions about Independents too, but at least they are not as entrenched.

So where is all this rambling going?  Well, you’re getting a glimpse of the nonsense that goes on in my head, especially after I read a book and am still processing the information.

Beyond political affiliations, there’s a deeper question for me about why we feel the need to “pit” ourselves against each other.  Why are our brains wired to be in constant “defense” mode?

==========================

Keith’s Note

I have been thinking about the role of social media, opinionated news stations, and the internet in relation to this “muddy middle.”  Reactions now MUST be instant to be relevant.  One is not allowed to think about something for a while or gather facts or admit “I don’t know.”  To be relevant now, we must all have an opinion INSTANTLY.  Well, I suppose that might work okay some of the time but I know shallow thinking works poorly most of the time.  So, our need for “groupishness” combined with the dominance of the internet in our lives (I used Uber, Facebook, Twitter and Airbnb last week while checking in for my flight using just my phone) frankly make us a whole lot less interesting much of the time. We all retreat to our “go to’s.”  The “debate” feels shallow and frankly BORING to me when we know what people are going to say.  I have no answers for any of this and I am as guilty as anyone (my friends and I all instantly debate every 49er coaching move) but, upon reflection, it makes me feel kinda’ lonely to be in the middle — admitting that mostly “I don’t know” is often my answer. Maybe “muddy middle” should also be “lonely locale.”

===========================

I’m not trying to make a case for the muddy middle or convince you of who is wrong or right . . . just trying to understand myself and the world around me a little better.  Being aware of our natural inclination to defend our position helps me to realize that I have to work hard to consider both sides and try to avoid assumptions and generalizations and snap judgments.

I considered doing a “Muddy Middle, Part 2” about religion, but pretty much everything I’ve said about politics goes for religion as well, which can be just as divisive.   At least in politics, there are only a few parties that have to tolerate each other.  In contrast, there are hundreds of Christian denominations.  Maybe you could look at it and say that all those denominations represent the diversity of God and the innumerable ways there are to worship and honor Him.  OR, you could look at the multitude of denominations and assume that each one believes their way is the “right” way.  As with most things, the answer is probably not “either/or” but “both/and.”

Essentially, Keith and I stand in the muddy middle in religion as well.  My conservative friends consider me liberal; my liberal friends consider me conservative.  Frankly, I don’t know what I am.  But I can relate to this quote from Love Does by Bob Goff:  “The Bible says that right now we only know “in part” and that one day, after we’ve gone, we’ll know “in full.”  That makes more sense to me because it means our understanding will always have gaps and gaps are good because they leave room for God to fill the spaces.”

“Morality binds and blinds.  This is not just something that happens to people on the other side.  We all get sucked into tribal moral communities.  We circle around sacred values and then share post hoc arguments about why we are so right and they are so wrong.  We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science and common sense, but in fact everyone goes blind when talking about their sacred objects.”  (Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind)

Maybe being in the muddy middle just means I can admit I’m blind.  I’m trying to see what others claim to see with 20/20 vision.  I just don’t think it’s that simple.

John 9:39-41

Then Jesus told him, “I entered this world to render judgment – to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard him and asked, “Are you saying we’re blind?”

If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,” Jesus replied.  “But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.”