Can we just agree to disagree, please?

There is a massive amount of space in the middle. The political middle, especially, is very big, very wide, very deep.

The extremes are rather narrow and crowded and very fragile.

And it creates a constant tug of war. Only one side can ever be happy at a time. And that side, all the while happy momentarily, knows that eventually the scale will tip in the other direction.

The end result is one of two direction. One side changes the rules of the game so it never tips back and the other side becomes increasingly reliant upon insurgent approaches to swing things back in their favor. They often then changes the rules so the other side can’t play any more. Then the other side becomes insurgents. It becomes a cycle of left and right wing revolutions and constant fighting, anxiety, and turmoil.

The other option is both sides accept that, if they’re willing to concede just a bit, we can all exist perfectly happy in the middle. We don’t have to agree to live next to each other.

We all just have to accept that we’ll never completely get our way. But that okay, neither will the other side. Everyone will get to live in a world that allows them to hold their values firm but also isn’t their perfect ideal utopia.

We all make concessions. We all contribute. We all co-exist.

One great historic and modern example. Our politics is at an impasse regarding abortion access. One side is staunchly opposed to any access to abortion being legal, irregardless of the context. The other side largely pushes a view that there should be no limits whatsoever on abortion. Democrats floundered during the presidential election partly due to the fact that, even though they supported Roe vs Wade, they projected a future in which, if abortion access would be returned, it would be much more available than it was through Roe vs Wade.

There is a lot of space in the middle there. And I think if you really speak to just about anyone, their perspective is going to fall well within the middle. Once they stop regurgitating party lines, I bet their generally of the perspective that women should have autonomy over their bodies, that abortion should be legal and accessible and safe in very important contexts, such as rape, incest, a threat to the life of the mother, but also in other contexts, when abortion would be a social good.

Sex education would limit unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, especially in youth and adolescents unprepared and unsupported in raising a child. We have a dismal child services landscape in this country.

I don’t think anyone thinks people with access to resources, education, a support system, financial privileges should just get to be completely irresponsible, careless, and selfish and use abortion access as an off ramp for a bad decision. We should all behave responsibly, both for ourselves and for our communities. No one person is above or more important than the broader community, than the people.

But all people deserve to make their own choices. That is what freedom is. We all get to make the choice that we want to make. We have to live with those choices. If my choice impacts the people around me, I should make that choice in respect to them, perhaps alongside them. But my personal choices do not threaten your ability to engage in a religious practice. And the fight against abortion is rooted in religious values and ideals.

At the founding of this nation, we agreed to not let religion and religious doctrine determine our governance.

Arguments against abortion, or limits to access, based solely on religious doctrine or interpretation should be disqualified in national policy debates.

Thats a bit of a tangent.

But does that not mean that our national approach to abortion access should be basically what it just was under Roe vs Wade?

What do you actually believe? Do you fall perfectly on either ideological side? Or somewhere in the middle? And if you do fall somewhere in the middle, is there a version of the middle that we can all find tolerable? That we can all live with?

None of us will be perfectly happy, but none of us will have to sacrifice our beliefs and ideals.

Can we have a disagreement and just live with it? We can just please, please, disagree and still be neighborly?

And maybe can we stop having our government get intimately involved in what should be our personal and cultural beliefs.

The price we would pay would be a minute degree of comfort and discipline over the urge to force our beliefs down others throats.

I’m pretty sure we can all afford that.

Anyway, that’s what I’m thinking. Snuck abortion in there, didn’t I?

It’s a conversation we should have. It’s something we need to solve.

What do you think? Talk to me.