Middle? Or, Consensus?

[longship]

We've seen and heard much about the Democratic Party's incredible victory this past Tuesday. However, there's one meme which I wish now to stamp out of existance forever. That's "The Democrats are going to have to govern from the middle." Not only is that wrong, it's entirely counter to how good governance has always worked. I would propose that we adopt "governance from consensus" as our battle cry. The distinction between consensus and middle may seem rhetorical, but it isn't. The difference lies wholly in the assumptions of whom is allowed to participate in such governance.

Governing from consensus recognizes that in order to do our best a vast menu of alternatives is needed. As a stauch liberal, who am I to claim to have the sole source of truth on my side? Do only liberals have the perfect solution to our country's or our world's problems? Or only conservatives? Or only moderates? Governing by consensus grants all ideologies an equal place at the table.

That's where those who call for governing from the middle have it completely wrong. That's because the middle can no more claim to have all the good ideas than liberals or conservatives, or any other ideological faction. Governing from the middle is no better than governing from any other particular ideology. And we now know without any doubt where that can lead us.

If there is one thing the past twelve years--especially the last six--should teach us it is that governing from one ideology results only in utter wreckage. A monolithic government is always worse than any other government. We've seen it in the world's history and now we've seen it in our own country's history. Tuesday, monolithic government was rejected in unprecedented numbers. In fact, it was a clean sweep for diversity. Many have called it, "this election became all about restoring checks and balances."

Our system has rather arbitrarily allowed a dichotomy of parties to share that power. It's been comfortable to view all things political as being divided into two alternatives. "You're either for us our you're against us." Republicans and Democrats. But that isn't anywhere near the reality, nor is it the way we should be governing.

Even though Republicans seem to have become more ideologically monolithic--it is likely this very attribute has caused the dramatic breakdown in governance we've now seen--that's not the way Republicans have been traditionally. Democrats like to promote their "big tent" which seems to be a counter to the monochromatic Republicans. However, I would like somebody to explain recent calls to "govern from the middle" by Democratic factions like the DLC. Are Democrats now to stamp
out all but the ideologically pure middle of the road? We should all know better than that. We should recognize that it is the nature of politics to break loose from ideological bonds. Just as attempts by the Republicans to purge the impure likely has swept the Democrats into power, any attempt to do the same with the Democratic Party will bring their downfall.

Just as the three branches of our government provide a check and balance on each other, and the two parties provide a check and balance on each other, so must a vast diversity of ideas from across the political spectrum prevent the power of any one ideology from achieving monolithic rule. We cannot govern without liberals any more than we can govern without conservatives, or without middle of the roaders, or evangelicals, or any other color of political ideology. We need all of us to make the best governance.

Democrats must now show the way so that the Republicans can follow along with us. Only by restoring governing by consensus and by rejecting utterly the ideological concept of governing from the middle will we restore our country to its previouse stature in the world. There's not a person to waste. We need all of us, standing together. If we do this, I know that all good liberal ideas will have equal standing with those of conservatives, and those of moderates. Then the voters will have real choices in the two current political parties.

Isn't this what our founders had in mind?