The muddled middle: No, we can't all just get along

Why on earth, the Journal Sentinel wonders, can't we all just work things out?

Editorial writers, of course are the folks whose job it is to write, "One the one hand ... but on the other hand..."

They're the ones who come down from the hills after the battle and shoot the wounded, the late Murray Kempton said.

Sunday's JS editorial is a classic, making a case for what it calls the thoughtful middle."

What passes for political discourse these days is insult and invective. It is hard to argue with that. Things have gotten very shrill.

Even I, who once was called "the roving Ayatollah of Democratic politics," wouldn't mind a little milder tone sometimes.

Of course, I also would like to see a few more of those Republican attorney general debates, to tackle some of the unanswered questions from the last one, like what does Paul Bucher suck, exactly, and how does J.B. Van Hollen know?

Oops. There I go again.

Let me try to be serious for a moment, and feel free to slap me if I'm not.

It is one thing to say that the tone of the political debate has deteriorated and needs to be elevated. Who could argue against the idea that there should be more civility in politics? (Certainly not anyone who gets some of the comments and email I do.)

But is quite a stretch to go from that premise, as the JS does, to suggesting that Americans aren't really that far apart on most issues, and that if we all just came to some undefined common middle ground everything would work out just fine.

The evidence offered is less than compelling: A Pew Research survey showing that most people are not all liberal or all conservative on so-called social issues, but some combination. People may be liberal on some things, conservative on others, and in between the extremes sometimes.

That's not exactly a Eureka! moment. Then there's this:

The poll also found a clear majority - two out of three - who said they wanted a middle ground on the most divisive issue of all: abortion. Now, we don't know what that middle ground is, but the idea that Americans are tired of squabbling says something.

It's kind of a Rodney King moment. Can't we all just get along?

Not knowing what that middle ground is seems kind of important if you care about the abortion issue.

If you asked that question about a whole range of issues, you'd find that most people would, indeed, like to find a middle ground. Few people like conflict. Most would like to work it out. The devil, of course, is always in the details.

What would the middle ground be on the stem cell research issue? For Jim Doyle and Mark Green to agree that they support adult stem cell research, and will fund that, but won't allow any public money for embryonic stem cell research?

That's no compromise, although it sounds like one. It is Green's position, which would virtually wipe out the opportunity for Wisconsin researchers to do any meaningful stem cell research in this state. He would sign a bill to do that.

Yet the Pew poll cited tells us that 56% of respondents say it is more important to proceed with the research that might produce new cures, while 32% say it is more important to preserve the embryos.

There's a clear difference. And, as I say regularly -- stop me if you've heard this before -- campaigns are all about drawing distinctions.

That is how people decide who to vote for -- based on the differences between the candidates, not some "middle ground" where they agree.

That's why issues like stem cell research -- and abortion rights -- are issues in the governor's race. Green not only would sign the stem cell bill, but if he could, he would sign a bill to criminalize abortion in this state. That is hardly the middle ground.

It is the "thoughtful middle" that decides elections in Wisconsin. The Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, in most cases, each will get 40% or more of the vote from people who normally vote for their party. It's the remaining swing voters, perhaps 15% to 20% of the electorate at most, who decide the winner.

That's who the candidates are talking to.

Voters, like the editorial board, may wish the conversation were a little more genteel. But finely nuanced arguments are a bit difficult to convey in today's climate.

And the newspapers -- as you'll note from the coverage of the AG debate -- give their space and headlines to the most extreme statements. They don't devote a lot of column inches to candidate position papers; actually, they don't devote any. If a candidate wants to tell voters about an issue, his/her campaign is going to have to pay for it on TV, radio, print or mail.

The news media has given up its responsibility to dig into issues and present the facts. Their main function these days seems to be "He said, he said" reporting, where the back-and-forth is dutifully reported, but no effort is made to find out who's right. That kind of coverage, of course, encourages the inflammatory statements and news releases.

That, in turn, gives the editorial writers something to complain about.

I think this is where we came in.