Our lives and our interactions with the people in our lives are inevitably full of disagreements, arguments and debates. In the political realm, those disagreements tend to be categorized, delineated, reduced in complexity down to sound-bite level, and placed on spectrums and graphs. Many envision the latter as a one-dimensional left-right axis, but the deficiencies of that axis have spawned two-dimensional charts.

A common outcome in our disagreements, arguments and debates is a compromise, where the two or more espoused positions are averaged out. Sometimes, we agree to disagree, which is a fancy way of saying neither of us thinks the other’s argument has merit but we’re tired of arguing, but oftentimes we want to achieve a resolution, so we agree to that compromise, even if we don’t agree that it’s correct. And, sometimes, we acknowledge that our position or our understanding of our position is imperfect, so we concede that those imperfections are addressed by the other person’s position, and accept that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Does it? Does one’s imperfect understanding of a topic, a situation or an occurrence confer credibility or veracity to another’s understanding of that same topic, situation or occurrence? Should we assume that the other side has valid points and move in that direction if we aren’t 100% certain of our position? Should we let the person on the other side assert that our imperfect knowledge means that he or she is partially correct? Or is the truth lies somewhere in the middle merely what Thomas Sowell calls a “vague piety?” Is it simply a way for someone to avoid losing an argument or being proven wrong?

The correct answer (with another hat tip to Dr. Sowell) is that the truth is wherever you find it. Your incomplete knowledge doesn’t mean conceding points or giving ground to someone who disagrees with you is the path to truth. If someone’s points hold up to rational scrutiny, they should be heeded. If they do not, you should not move yours in their direction merely because your position isn’t fully developed.

So it goes with politics. Oftentimes, politicians compromise out of expediency, or practicality, or prioritization. We should not presume that such compromise brings policy to a more valid point. Nor should we presume that someone who’s on the fringe of the spectrum is more likely wrong about things than the one in the middle. Moderate may carry a connotation of reasonableness and rationality while extreme carries one of hyperbole and irrationality, but there’s nothing to validate those connotations other than a presumption (itself baseless) that the truth lies in the middle. The truth is what it is. Seek it out, ignore those who demand without proof or justification that their beliefs deserve your acceptance, and fully embrace the possibility that the truth does NOT lie in the middle, but may very well be in the direction opposite from those who disagree with you.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.