What the heck is “middle of the road”?

I no longer know what “middle of the road” means.

What is the “middle” between fascism and democracy?

Or between “feeding the hungry” and “letting them starve”? Would it be to give them bread and water?

How about between war and peace?

Or between having free and fair elections, and not having them?

Nuance is real

I understand that nuance is important; that there are many possible policies and many ways to implement them, and that some of these are more generous than others. But there is no coherent “middle.” 

I also understand that there is a broad spectrum of our choices in most real situations. While my own policy preferences generally align very well with what is usually called “progressive”, I try to weight all the factors in a decision carefully, and have no problem being pleasant to those with very different world views – at least I hope to interact in this way.

But middle of the road? If we try to disguise our views to win votes, I think we court disaster. Voters prefer authenticity in our candidates, sometimes more than having exactly the same policy ideas as the one we are asked to vote for.

Which side are we on?

When I was a college student (oh so many, many years ago), I heard that there was a protest going on downtown in the city where I was. It was focused on the War in Vietnam, then raging. I too opposed the War, but I wasn’t sure that I wanted to be part of the demonstration – I thought I just wanted to watch.

But when I got there, the protestors were on one side of the street, and an opposing pro-war group was on the other side. In between was busy traffic. 

I had to choose which side I was on! 

You can guess where I went. And it was not in the middle of the road.