There's four sides to every debate

I didn't read this column for the New York Times beyond its lead, but what I did read reminded me that most issues we debate today are not one side against the other, no matter who wants to pitch them as such.

Today's news media, and the piles of bloggers and pundits surrounding it, loves to act as if the way of Congress is the same way the nation is: red vs. blue, Republicans vs. Democrats, partisanship.

But I think there's a lot more variety of views out there, and something needs to be done to recognize them rather than having two very different sides alternate declaring victory over each other, even as the actual people they serve (who have mixed views) don't necessarily get what they want.

Here's an example of how a variety of different views can be approached not for their two poles but rather for the many different views within them.

In Christian realms, one of the hottest debates is that of determinism: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, predestination vs. free will. It's as high-powered a debate as, say, abortion or health care is to the American political divide.

The interesting thing about the determinism debate, however, is that it's usually not one side against the other. Yes, you have your extreme Calvinists and Arminianists, but most people draw a position somewhere in the middle. Going in line with the helpful acronymn that strict Calvinists hold to, "TULIP" (each letter standing for one of the five main tenets of Calvinism), people declare themselves four-point Calvinists, two-pointers, ULIPs, LITs, or TULPs...whichever fits the points with which they agree.

I have a feeling that many of the harsh debates filling American politics are the same. As the Times column suggests, climate change is not one side against the other. Most involved see right and wrong in both sides. (And many are sick of seeing the issue covered by media sources who act as if one side is right, ignoring that there are financial movers behind the two main views.)

Abortion is another tricky issue, where people say you have to be one or the other. But with the variety of people out there in different situations, and 50 different states and all kinds of health care plans, can you really say one way is right all the time without providing concessions for people coming from a different place than you? (I'm ignoring the morality of the issue here, which I believe is conclusive, and instead talking about the practicality of getting a nation of 300 million people to get somewhere on a topic.)

It's easiest to divide the country into red and blue, to polarize people and options through hyperbole and limited portrayal of views, but I think it may be best to apply a TULIP approach to the weightiest issues of our times.

I'd like to see the news media find a way to flesh out the varying shades of the many debates, rather than following the political leaders that try to create a me-versus-them divide. Chances are, there are a lot of people trapped in the middle with a combination of views whose voices aren't being heard.

Discussing large issues may be a hard place to start doing this, but an easy place to start would be the idea of "mandates." For example, when George W. Bush became President in 2000, Karl Rove declared that the nation had a conservative mandate. He used Bush's narrow election (in which he actually lost the popular vote) to say conservative issues should be railroaded through. Eight years later, Barack Obama's election had liberals declaring he had a mandate of his own (although his win was still by a relatively slim margin).

In fact, a little flare-up occurred when conservative (psycho) Ann Coulter dared to say this year that America was a mostly conservative nation. Democrats pointed to election results to say the country was mostly liberal. But with the vote so close, why is either side declaring ownership? A mandate comes from a wide majority, and too many factors went into this election to be able to declare much of a mandate for anything. This is especially true when you look at public opinion now toward a lot of Obama's principles; people like some of what he supports, but that doesn't mean they want him to do whatever he likes.

Throughout the election season, it was revealed again and again that there are a heck of a lot of independents out there, and it's less about political divides than individual principles. Hence, TULIP.

Mandates? No. A definite answer what to do about climate change? No. Health care? Well, that one you can label a win for the Dems, since they had to basically use their party majority to override since they didn't want to be the group that didn't close the deal on such a controversial domestic issue once they got the numeric advantage.

Let's challenge those discussing our nation and its issues to get rid of red and blue, instead finding out a way to figure out what all this purple is saying.