Meeting in the Middle

For many, life is good. For many others, it is not. We all live in our own reality, shaped by unique experiences and perceptions. These differing perspectives lead us to adopt opposing positions—supporters versus opponents, liberals versus conservatives, reformers versus traditionalists, and so on. Yet, as Guy de Maupassant wrote in his 1883 novel A Woman’s Life, “Life is never as good or as bad as one thinks.”

René Descartes famously declared, “I think, therefore I am” (Discourse on the Method). To think implies the existence of a thinking self. Human cognition is shaped by personal experiences and, as a result, tends to be partial and biased. Truth often lies somewhere between opposing views. This is why Confucius advocated for the doctrine of the mean—a principle of balance, moderation, and impartiality. Avoiding extremes and seeking common ground, he believed, is the mark of a true gentleman (see Understanding China: Geography, Confucianism, and Chinese-Style Modernization).

Meeting in the middle is not only a method of thinking or an approach to life; it is also a civilized way to resolve conflicts. When opposing parties insist on their own terms, they inevitably reach a stalemate. But if both are willing to meet halfway, division gives way to dialogue. Compromise may not fully satisfy either party, but it creates a shared foundation for progress. This is, in fact, how nature itself evolves. The black tulip, as described by Alexandre Dumas in his 1850 novel The Black Tulip, did not emerge from its parent plants overnight but through generations of adaptation and refinement—a process of compromise.

Politicians often seek sweeping, once-and-for-all solutions, but real progress is gradual. Every compromise, however small, is a step forward. While no one may get everything they want, everyone benefits when we move forward together—by meeting in the middle.

What results can be something far greater—like the black tulip. As Aristotle said, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” When individuals unite, they create outcomes far beyond their isolated contributions. A single stick breaks easily, but a bundle bound together is nearly unbreakable. In logical terms, the whole is a sufficient condition for its parts—but not the other way around. What benefits society as a whole benefits each individual; what benefits only the individual does not necessarily benefit society.

Individualism, when taken as an absolute principle, is fundamentally flawed. As a political ideology, it can be anti-democratic—it aligns with the law of the jungle rather than the ideals of democracy (see Tango and Individualism). Those who insist solely on their own way, ignoring the needs of others, act not as citizens of a democracy but as autocrats. A democracy made up of such individuals cannot endure, as evidenced by the growing polarization, obstinacy, extremism, hostility, aggression, lack of restraint, uncooperativeness, and lawlessness in American society.

If we still hold as self-evident the truth that “all men are created equal,” if we still believe that a united and harmonious society serves the best interest of all, if we recognize our interdependence and the need for each other, and if we wish not to be disregarded by others—then we must consider others and not insist on having our own way.

Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—not for the most forceful individuals. It relies on cooperation, not antagonism. It seeks balance, harmony, and the well-being of all, not the self-interest of a few. Democracy embodies the Golden Rule, not the law of the jungle. It requires that we resolve conflict through compromise, not through power or force. A democracy must educate its people on its principles. If we truly believe in these democratic ideals, then meeting in the middle is not only sensible and civil—it is essential. It is the path of democracy—and the spirit of tango. Sadly, at present, we seem to be struggling—both in our politics and in our dance.