Bipartisan politics: 'Flexibility is patriotic.'

Most of the time moving forward is the ideal scenario - except for those times when we need to preserve tradition and regroup, Brown writes.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
This photo shows the Capital building in Washington Tuesday. It is only when conservatives and progressives combat each other within a shared leadership framework that a group of people can survive and thrive, Brown writes.

"Dear Josh, I've been reading you for years and I still have no idea what your politics truly are. It seems as though you don't believe in anything."

I'll make this really simple - imagine a village. And in this village, the elders are in charge of reminding everyone about their core principles and values - the things that have preserved them for generations. But then imagine that four out of every five villagers were not elders - rather they were everyday people who were constantly changing and pushing progress further, constantly attempting to improve things rather than allow them to remain the same. Using logic and reason and discovery to make life better, one hard-won improvement at a time, dispelling superstition and rewriting the rules because modernism and changing attitudes demanded it.

This would be a successful village or society in my view.

Now every once in a while, the 80% would become too progressive - would overstep their bounds in the name of progress. Or perhaps the village would become susceptible to outside forces or invaders. It is at this point that the 20-percenter villagers, the traditionalists, would be called forward to right the ship or defend the town. Progressives and liberals could never do it, they'd be paralyzed with questions, hamstrung with doubt. It is at this moment when you'd need the wisdom of the ages, the resolve of the experienced to take over to save everyone's lives. 

And then, with the crisis averted and our way of life preserved, it would make sense for these same traditionalists to step aside and let progress take the reins once again so that we could resume moving forward.

And so it is not whether conservatives or progressives ought to rule - it is the combination of the two that would keep this society together and moving on course.  Rule by the conservatives alone would mean regression and a lack of social evolution, rule by the progressives alone with no checks and balances would mean anarchy, evolution with no respect for the traditions that kept everyone on the same page.

It is only when conservatives and progressives combat each other within a shared leadership framework that a group of people can survive and thrive. Untethered rule by one extreme or the other must surely lead to ruin.

Only with both forces pressing against each other can we have a successful civilization. Prolonged hegemony of one faction over the other leads to disaster.

And so the only choice a rational citizen can make is to say that most of the time moving forward is the ideal scenario - except for those times when we need to preserve tradition and regroup. The only rational choice, then, is to be centrist with the ability to lean toward whichever side is most needed for each given era or issue.

Partisan permanence, in this scenario, makes no sense in the grand scheme. Flexibility is patriotic.

The post my politics appeared first on The Reformed Broker.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Bipartisan politics: 'Flexibility is patriotic.'
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today