Why do voters stubbornly shun the middle ground?

Over the past five years, our politics have become crippled by the glaring disconnect between voters fed up with inaction in Washington and those same voters actively shunning the middle ground on any issues of consequence.
The irrational refusal to consider common ground is explored in a new piece by nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, who notes that too many public debates about complicated political problems are sabotaged by simplistic answers and “intellectual shortcuts.” He logically points out compromise positions on two hot topics – Planned Parenthood and immigration – that are ignored by the left and the right.


Abortion and immigration
During the debate about Planned Parenthood funding, Navarrette points out, it was rare to find someone who was pro-choice willing to acknowledge being disgusted by the clandestine videos showing PP staff cavalierly talking about harvesting a baby’s organs. Just as it was hard to find anyone who was pro-life who found any value to PP’s overall mission.
Navarrette describes a recent conversation he had with a cable TV news producer who asked where the commentator stood on the divide between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz over a Cruz amendment to the 2013 Senate immigration bill, which would have granted legal status to illegal immigrants but stopped short of bestowing citizenship.

Navarrette said he’d support Rubio’s prior comprehensive immigration reform bill but with Cruz’s amendment attached, changing citizenship to legal status.
The producer was surprised to hear the columnist stake out a middle ground, calling it a unique perspective.

Avoiding different points of view

Here’s Navarrette’s overall perspective:

“We’d be a stronger country, and better people, if we could agree to disagree on the important issues without always challenging one another’s motives or character before retreating to our individual silos with the likeminded. And if we listened more and didn’t just seek out those opinions with which we agree, and actively avoid different points of view.

“And if we put a premium on truth and weren’t so quick to excuse lies told by candidates we support while condemning those told by candidates we oppose. And if we didn’t accept words as a permissible substitute for actions, and consistently held candidates and elected officials accountable when they do something wrong or say something offensive.

“And if we weren’t at each other’s throats over even minor differences of opinion, insisting that everyone agree with us 100 percent of the time. And if we demanded — from elected officials and from one another — that we all put more thought, honesty and nuance into our discussion of policy issues, instead of drawing out our perspectives in stark black-and-white terms when the world comes in shades of gray.”