Brought up in an often parochial atmosphere in the Midwest and educated about a larger world, I really felt the need to be stretched. It happened. Life has taken me round the world. I’ve lived on three continents and travelled on five. Still, I’m not what the Victorians called an accomplished woman, but my husband’s an accomplished man, so I’ve reaped the benefits of that, and am grateful for the travel I’ve needed.
I’ve retained the conservatism of my somewhat parochial upbringing, realizing its benefits. But have realized the need to have a broader view when it comes to the role our country plays
on the world scene. I’ve seen how some high profile Americans (John Kerry and Hilary Clinton particularly come to mind) have discarded the concept of American exceptionalism in preference for extreme liberalism preferring globalism.
On the other other hand I’ve seen the extreme parochial view that leaves the impression that isolationism is preferable. It’s easy to understand why some might feel that way, but it is neither practical nor possible.
Both extreme views, imo, fail to realistically consider what will work, and that means give and take. And like a good marriage (where reasonable people have agreed on necessary compromise and are each content vs merely settling and not being particularly
pleased), practical solutions must involve meeting some, if not all the felt needs of involved parties.
And back to my belief that difficult problems don’t have easy answers. But the habit of doing the hard work brings great results. That’s one reason we need principled leaders whose commitment to positive outcomes is solid, not shifting like wind blown sand.
I used to think of moderation as some kind of weakness. Now I see it as strength. Thanks to Aristotle for drawing the picture of moderation as the virtue somewhere on the continuum between vice and virtue- in this case between parochialism and globalism.
39 
Message Thread
« Back to index