Meeting in the Middle

For many people, life is good. For many others, it's not. We all live in our own reality and understand life differently, thence hold different views as supporters or opponents, liberals or conservatives, reformers or traditionalists, etc. But the fact is, as Guy de Mauppassant wrote in his 1883 novel, A Women's Life, "Life is never as good or as bad as one thinks."

"I think, therefore I am." (Discourse on the Method, by Rene Descartes.) In order to think there must be a thinking entity, the self. Human cognition is conditioned by personal experiences, thus tends to be partial and rabid. Truth often lies somewhere between opposite views. For this reason, Confucius argues that a gentleman should hold the position of the mean, that is, moderate, impartial, balanced, not taking extreme positions, but meeting in the middle (see Understanding China: Geography, Confucianism, and Chinese-Style Modernization).

Meeting in the middle is not only a method of thinking or approach to life, it is also a civilized way to resolve conflicts. Opposing parties insisting on having their own ways can be stalled, unable to reach an agreement. But if they are willing to meet halfway, they become less divided. A compromised deal may not be as good as either party would like, but it is a common ground for them to move forward. In fact, that is how nature works. The black tulip does not come from the original parent plants overnight, but through a series of compromises or improvements over generations, as Alexandre Dumas wrote in his 1850 novel The Black Tulip. Politicians often fight for a one-time deal. In reality progress is a process. You move an inch through a compromise, then move another inch through another compromise. You probably will never get all you want. But everyone will be better off if they all agree to move forward by meeting in the middle.

The result is something much better - the black tulip. Aristotle said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." When individual parts are united, it creates a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual effects. You can easily break individual sticks, but you cannot break them when they are tied together. Logically, the whole is the sufficient condition of its part, but the reverse is not true. In other words, what is good for society benefits all, but what is good for an individual does not necessarily benefit society. Individualism is erroneous as a methodology. It is also antidemocratic as a political philosophy, because it acts in accordance with the law of the jungle (see Tango and Individualism). Those who insist on having their own way and refuse to take the concerns of others into account are dictators. A democracy formed by such individuals does not work, as evidenced by the growing polarization, obstinacy, extremism, hostility, aggression, uninhibitedness, uncooperativeness and lawlessness in American society.

If we still hold that "all men are created equal" to be a self-evident truth, if we still believe that a united and harmonious society is in the best interests of all citizens, if we still need each other, and if we do not want to be disregarded by others, then we must take others into account and not insist on having our own way. Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people, not strong individuals. It is based on the agreement and cooperation of its people, not on antagonism and sabotage. It aims at the balance, harmony and well-being of all, not the self-interest of a few. It follows the Golden Rule, not the law of the jungle. It requires us to resolve conflicts through compromise, not power and force. A democracy must educate its people on its principles. If we believe these to be true, then meeting in the middle is the sensible, practical, civil and democratic approach we must take, the approach of tango. I must say, right now we are not doing very well in our politics and in our dance.