finding a middle path and muddling through

I never put Jon Meacham on my list of thought leaders, and this morning I am questioning why I never thought of him this way.  I always respect the modest wisdom and sharp insight of his editorials.  His commentary in the July 30 issue of Time is no different; if anything even more so because it focused on a very challenging subject. 

The explicit topic is the Episcopal Church’s decision to allow each priest and parish to decide for itself whether to bless same sex unions.  He does a great job talking about why this middle path is a brilliant policy for the current political and social environment.  He recommends at the conclusion that the country can use this same approach to deal with some of the complex issues we are facing. 

Before I go further, let me preface with a few thoughts to frame my take on his article and the topic in general.  He is talking specifically about a situation where different people hold different values and have the right to do so.  When the government is dealing with same sex issues, this is not necessarily the case.  Protecting minority rights is one of the most important values of a modern government.  Full disclosure – I am a strong proponent of full equal rights (or rather full government blindness) for same sex versus opposite sex committed relationships.  But for a religious denomination, this is not the case.  And even for government there are some areas where a minority view does not necessarily warrant full protection – take for example an economic or environmental viewpoint. 

So in these cases, Meacham talks about the need for finding a middle path.  He quotes Bagehot’s quote about the British need for an “enduring effort to muddle through” when navigating the too-much-autocracy of a strong king and the too-much-anarchy of a strong Parliament.  In the case of the Episcopal Church, there are many members who belief in the faith and are against the Church blessing same sex unions.  There are also many who are equally strong believers and who are for blessing these unions.  Any absolute edict would alienate a large proportion of members in a church that has shrunk from 3.3 members to 1.9 million members in the past 40 years as it is. 

This kind of solutions works in this case because the passion of religion is mostly local.  If your parish is aligned with your own beliefs, then what the national organization is doing is largely irrelevant.  It would be about the same thing as if your parish broke away and started its own denomination.  Still, there would be this national organization doing something else. 

But this solution wouldn’t work with health care for example because it is a national market.  It is too easy to drive across state lines to visit a hospital.  Or buy an automatic weapon.  These are one-time events rather than every Sunday morning.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t find a middle path solution.

Can the US as a whole learn to compromise?  Do we have policy wonks smart enough to develop the middle path solutions, politicians brave enough to vote for them, and a populace open-minded enough to vote the politicians into office?