Sports

History teaches us that moderation is in the best position

If you take the right position these days, it may get worse or not reported at all.

Moderation in everything is old and usually good advice, and less attention is paid to the times when we live where extreme perspectives grab heads and cyberspace. No wonder we are worried about the state of things.

Go ahead and call me a name, but I’m in a medium or middle position where most of us stand, which calls our nasty name, from an absurd argument. I would like to assert that it may be the way to go.

Eating moderately seems to be beneficial to our health, and excessive consumption of alcohol and sweets seems to be harmful. However, as columnist and former Texas Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower wrote, the recent political moderate seems to be unpopular.

Pete Banan — Daily Local News

John C. Morgan

I’m like a Pennsylvania groundhog or a British hedgehog. I know when to get out of the road to avoid traffic.

But in most cases, moderation is in the best position, with a great philosophical lineage.

More than 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle talked about what he called the golden mean. The basic principle was to pursue an extreme balance of excess and deficiency or something in between. Too many or too few may not be the easiest way to make his claim.

For example, thanks to courage. The extreme is a stupid heart, and the shortage is timid. The way to live is to be drawn to the center without making stupid decisions or making any decisions. Aristoteles argued that rational creatures choosing the centrist lead to a better life.

Today, at least in our political life, we deny moderation and seem to be extremely advanced on either the left or the right. No wonder our policy debate is full of conflict. We rarely look for compromises, and those who do so are criticized and cannot reach consensus.

Sometimes I would like to argue that finding consensus and compromises may be the best way to progress.

Take up the issue of voting, which seems to divide us into camps. One camp wants to secure voting, even if that means limiting voting and the other camp expanding and expanding it. One says the last presidential election was stolen, and another says no one showed a wide range of fraudulent votes that would change the outcome.

Perhaps you can use the midway model to find something in common. What is the middle road? Perhaps you want to allow as many people as you want to vote, while at the same time ensuring that your votes are accurately aggregated by a fair counter.

Most of us are where we look like when we listen to and see the media, but I don’t think they are on the extreme left or right. We will be what we hear and see and cultivate enthusiasm.

Most of us are somewhere in the middle when it comes to our views. We may be in the center left or right, but still in the center. I want to find something in common. It is to act in search of the consensus that most of us want, the consensus that can produce a common-sense solution.

It’s hard to find a way when people are screaming or turning fellow citizens into enemies. The democratic process can be tricky. No one can get everything they want. But finding common ground is essential. Without it, we would be split, frustrated, and less than we might have been.

John C. Morgan is a columnist writing about ethical issues.

History teaches us that moderation is in the best position

Source link History teaches us that moderation is in the best position

Related Articles

Back to top button